Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25
Rick Rosner: So, as with the first time Trump became president, it took a lot of unusual circumstances. The first time around, he had about 40% approval. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million but won the Electoral College. There was confirmed Russian interference in the election, though the extent to which it influenced the outcome remains debated.
This time around, he barely lost the popular vote, but a dramatic event—the attempted assassination that grazed his ear—helped solidify his image. He popped up after being tackled to the ground, raising his fist in the air and yelling, “Fight, fight, fight!”—even though he’s the same person who avoided the Vietnam draft with medical deferments, specifically for bone spurs.
And they barely secured the trifecta: the presidency, the House, and the Senate. Plus, they still have a conservative Supreme Court majority, even though most Americans voted against them across those branches in total votes. The exact numbers, but I haven’t checked whether more Americans voted for Democrats in the House overall than for Republicans, and the same goes for the Senate.
So, anyway, there’s some unlikelihood there. They are governing as if—I don’t have anything particularly original to say—this is what everybody wants, even though they know it’s not what most Americans want. So, they are pushing as much policy as possible, as quickly as possible, before the opposition, which is still disorganized, can mount an effective response.
Trump has been a bullshitter his entire life. He doesn’t have strategies so much as he has behaviours that have been reinforced over decades of getting away with things—saying whatever he wants at the moment, making things up, acting as if they are true, and not even seeming to care whether they are or not.
I don’t have anything super insightful to add. I’ve worked with pathological liars before, and they operate by skating from moment to moment, thinking, “What do I say right now to keep this going?” And since most people don’t regularly encounter such individuals, they don’t have built-in defences against them. That’s why these people get away with it.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are you saying we don’t have an immune system against bullshit?
Rosner: Yes. Because most people—including, probably, many who have psychopathic tendencies but don’t act on them—tend to tell the truth because it’s simply easier. Normal people mostly say to the truth because it simplifies life, and they have some moral framework that guides them. It all works together.
It all pushes in the same direction: don’t constantly calculate some manipulative angle; figuring out what lie will give you a short-term advantage. Live your life, do your work, and be straightforward with people—except for small white lies: “Does this dress make me look fat?” “No, you look great in everything.”
Except for those small, harmless white lies, people are primarily truthful. They might lie about their weight or estimate numbers on their tax return where they don’t know the exact amount, but the IRS is stretched thin and can’t scrutinize every discrepancy. Still, people are generally honest because it’s easier to keep track of and feels like the right thing to do.
And even people who don’t have a moral underpinning are usually truthful because, even for someone who’s a psychopath, it’s often easier to tell the truth at the moment than to figure out what bullshit might be beneficial. It’s a hassle to lie, even if you have no qualms about lying.
For example, I was at the gym and walked up to a machine at the same time as another guy. He said, “Yes, I’m gonna use this.” Then he asked, “Were you on this?”
For a second, I thought, “Fuck him. He’s going to take a long time.” It’s bullshit because I could be on it and done quickly. But I wasn’t going to ask, “Can you work in?” Then I thought, “Should I lie and say I was on it?”
No, because that would make things more awkward. He might say, “No, you weren’t.” Or he might believe me but think I’m an asshole. Then I’d have to do my sets while he stood there, giving me a dirty look. I didn’t want to deal with that.
I didn’t have moral qualms about lying at that moment—because the guy was a whiny bitch—but it didn’t seem worth it. Lying wouldn’t have a clear benefit. It would be a hassle. It would be awkward.
So, I didn’t fucking lie.
Also, maybe there was a little moral push that I shouldn’t lie. Especially since I have three other gyms, I could go to and do the same workout somewhere else. But anyway, most people—even most psychopaths—don’t lie all the time.
So, yes, most people don’t run into someone who’s now allied with another psychopath, Musk. Musk is a different kind of bullshitter.
He presents himself differently, but together, they create a powerful combination that nobody resists. Musk is walking into federal agencies, trailed by three teenage hacker fanboys—one is 19, and some are in their twenties. They tell people what to do, and nobody pushes back.
Nobody locks the door on them. They tell security they’re entitled to be there, and security stands back and lets them walk in. Nobody resists. These people figure they will lose their jobs anyway. I wouldn’t recommend this, but imagine if someone punched one of those kids in the stomach. That would be if everybody pushed them back out the door and locked it.
They’re not more authorized to do what they’re doing than the people they’re displacing. Sure, they’re authorized by the president—but not by any formal directive. Meanwhile, the people getting their access revoked are authorized to be there federally.
But they fucking back down. That in itself will be seen by history as a weirdly easy surrender.
It’s fucked.
Finally, people are starting to mount some opposition, but none of the pushback you’d expect. If this were a sitcom—like The Office—you’d see these assholes walk in within the first ten minutes, messing with everything, saying, “I need to see these files. I’m from headquarters.”
And in the sitcom, they’d be exposed as frauds by the end of the episode. But here? They’re walking in and getting away with it.
And in the second half of the sitcom, the office staff would start huddling together, saying, “How do we know these guys are from headquarters?” Then they’d start asking for ID and mounting some resistance that would probably be effective.
Dwight Schrute has been training for this his whole life.
It’s weird—the way everyone is lying down and taking it. Late-night shows have been mocking Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, for trying to rally the Democrats with pep talks and cheers.
He sounds lame and old.
The wimpiness of the Democrats is ridiculous.
What would happen if—like today or yesterday—we mentioned how they’re trying to eliminate NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which tracks our weather?
With all the extreme weather we’ve been having, I saw a report that said 92% of U.S. counties have been declared disaster areas at some point.
Yes, we need weather warnings. They’re going to mess those up.
But what would happen if the staff of NOAA barricaded the doors?
Rosner: So… comments?
Jacobsen: No, man.
Rosner: A lot of this shit comes down to privilege and entitlement.
The sheer scale of these policies’ effects—it’s beyond comprehension. Agencies are regularly reviewed to cut waste, but when it comes to international aid, pulling the rug out from under people kills them.
And they’re talking about doing that. That is called mass murder. USAID is helping to pay for the treatment of 300,000 AIDS patients worldwide. Thousands of people are enrolled in drug trials across the globe.
And now? They’re going to stop those trials halfway through.
They’re taking drugs away—both proven and experimental—from hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people.
Even if 1% of those people die, that’s 20,000 deaths.
And they did it through sheer bluster.
There’s no formal policy rationale. It resembles Hitler’s first 53 days in power, from 1932 to 1933.
Jacobsen: Do you think Elon Musk is a Nazi?
Rosner: No. He’s an asshole who is maybe… 20% of a Nazi.
I don’t think he would support genocide. But he probably supports a lot of the underlying concepts behind Nazism—things like national determination, maybe even white nationalism.
So, he’s part of the way there, but he’s not a full-on “Hitler was right” guy.
He’s more of a “Hitler was right about some stuff” guy.
And also, someone who enjoys freaking people out by doing borderline Nazi salutes? He probably thinks, “If it freaks people out, then they’re snowflakes.”
Jacobsen: : Do you think his gesture—the Sieg Heil salute—was heartfelt? Or was it something else?
Rosner: It may have started as heartfelt. But he did it twice. It may be good to make that gesture. —I’m not a mind reader. What his thoughts were in the moment. But it became something else when he did it a third time—more carefully, at a rally in Germany. That’s when he had time to think about it. That’s when he calibrated it.
So, his arm angle was low enough—not quite at the full 45-degree Sieg Heil—to maintain some ambiguity. The first two times? Maybe heartfelt. Any time after that? Trolling.
Jacobsen: What do you think about his trans daughter, Vivian, transitioning, changing her last name from Musk to Wilson, and then—yes—disowning him? And then his reaction to that?
In a Jordan Peterson interview, he says, ‘They call it deadnaming. Yes. So, by breaking into assigning these forms, they killed my daughter. Or my son.’
Rosner: Imagine how shitty a dad must be, how shitty a former husband must be… Do the math. You’ve got a dad who was worth $200 billion and is now worth over $400 billion—the richest guy on Earth. You could have a chunk of those billions by acting civilly toward him. You don’t even have to love him—just pretend to get along. Yet, she chose to cut him off completely.
And it’s not her. Several of his kids are saying, “Fuck you” to him. When you say “Fuck you” to Elon Musk, you’re also saying “Fuck you” to potentially $10 billion in inheritance. That, to me, is strong evidence that Musk is probably not the best dad. Because if your kids are willing to walk away from that kind of money, what does that say about you? Is that a reasonable argument?
Look, I would kiss much ass for $10 billion. Hell, I’d do it for $10 million. A counterargument is that they’re kids. They don’t understand how nice it would be to have $10 billion. But come on. Musk is a smart guy. I assume his kids are smart, too. Some of them are young adults. They have the imagination to know what it would be to have access to billions.
. If I were a Musk kid, I’d go to him and say, “Hey, you’re worth $400 billion. Can I have $3 million? Make it a zero-interest loan—I’ll make a movie.” I’d pitch him the damn movie. I’d assume that, as my dad, he’d at least listen and consider putting a fraction of his fortune into a low-budget film.
At the least, I’d ask: “Can you let me have $150,000 so I can go on a round-the-world tour?” Something tiny, something that, relative to his fortune, is asking your dad for a sandwich.
But instead, his kids are preemptively saying, “Fuck you.”That tells me… maybe he is a dick.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08
Rick Rosner: So, the principles of physics are both emergent and convergent. They appear as the universe emerges—coming from a state of low information, little matter, and minimal space. But the principles are in the same place every time, so they’re convergent. Unless, of course, the universe was precisely engineered from the outside to have different physics. Each possible universe converges on a standard physics. I like emergent and convergent because it rhymes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is evolution also emergent and convergent?
Rosner: A hundred years ago, everything was more metaphysical. It was about trying to come up with reasons why things are the way they are—and getting many details wrong in the process. Everything was half-assed science because we didn’t have enough information. We hadn’t conducted enough scientific investigation to pin down many of the underlying mechanics of the universe.
Is phenomenology the right word for this? I don’t know. But the key issue is that, over the past five hundred years, our ability to describe “what happens” has massively outpaced our ability to explain “why it happens.”
We’ve become so successful at describing physical reality that the deeper “why” questions have been neglected. And because those questions sound more speculative, they’ve often been dismissed as hocus-pocus or pseudo-science. But we’ve now accumulated so much knowledge that we can take reasonable stabs at the “why” of things.
I said quantum mechanics gets us closer to the “why” because it’s a mathematical treatment of incomplete information and how it behaves. That points us toward a universe built from information—or at least deeply tied to information. That, in turn, suggests we should be more theorizing about what the physics of information would look like.
This goes against some of our traditional conservation laws—for instance, the idea that the total amount of information in the universe remains constant from the Big Bang to now. That’s a silly assumption. It makes much more sense to theorize about how information is actively created as the universe unfolds and how information can be lost as parts of the universe collapse.
That kind of theorizing should bring us closer to understanding the “why” of things. The idea that the universe defines itself—that you can have systems of increasing complexity and information—makes sense if you start with the idea that particles define each other through their history of interaction. If those interactions create a pocket of self-consistency, then the system persists.
So, if you start from self-consistency as a fundamental principle—meaning self-consistent things can exist because inconsistent things cannot—then you’ve already established the foundation for why physical reality works the way it does. And if you can successfully build a framework from that principle, then you’ve done science, not metaphysics.
Jacobsen: Does the universe build in redundancy to buffer against error?
Rosner: Our minds and brains are full of redundancy to protect against failure. If you go back to the thought experiment philosophers love to use, Jacobsen: When you perceive a red light, you’re not deciding it’s red based on a single photon hitting your eyes. You’re basing it on hundreds, maybe thousands of photons being processed by your brain after they hit the back of your eyeball.
Some thresholds need to be reached before you definitively recognize it as a red light. We’ve all experienced borderline sensory phenomena—situations where we’re uncertain of what we’re experiencing because we haven’t received enough sensory data. Whether it’s not enough photons, sound waves, or other stimuli, sometimes the brain fills in the gaps to compensate.
That’s why we sometimes see ghosts in the corner of a doorway—for a split second. Our brain interprets an ambiguous shape as a person because it’s safer to assume someone is there and be wrong than to miss an actual lurker who could pose a threat.
Well, at the quantum level, there’s no redundancy. Quantum events happen once, and that’s it—unless you set up a physics experiment to measure them in a way that records the results. The universe doesn’t naturally repeat quantum-level events to confirm what happened.
But if the universe is an information processor, then the information it generates is likely not based on single quantum events. Instead, it would be built from billions or trillions of overlapping quantum events, forming durable patterns.
We’ve talked about transient quantum events—like those happening inside stars, where no permanent record is kept. But durable events that shape reality happen on the super-macro scale—where 10³⁰, 10⁵⁰, or even 10⁷⁰ particles combine into a planet, a star, or some other massive structure.
The macroscopic scale itself acts as a form of redundancy.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why do objects and operators in the universe break down into something unique—something that holds a stable property in the universe?
You look at one electron, and it’s the same as every other electron in the universe. You look at a photon, and it’s the same deal. So why? Why do fundamental particles remain indistinguishable while larger-scale objects mostly do as well?
For big objects, we can’t immediately tell what belongs to each category. We struggle to categorize what makes something a star, a black hole, a non-rotating black hole, or various types of black holes. What exactly distinguishes a brown dwarf from a white dwarf? These things are distinct—but why? They take a bit of time to categorize, but, with time, we find the relevant properties.
At the smallest scales, things are simpler—the fundamental building blocks are identical. But as you scale up, you find increasing complexity, with structures becoming more distinct as they accumulate properties. However, even at large scales, stability emerges—suggesting that certain formations persist due to their information content.
Rick Rosner: So, we have cause and effect, but we can’t explain structure purely by invoking cause and effect. Systems don’t just accumulate mass—they accumulate information. And systems that model reality accumulate information efficiently. The only way to do this is to transition from low to higher-information states. This implies stable clumping, meaning homogeneous distributions don’t stay homogeneous. Instead, they clump heterogeneously. And when clumping up, gravitational energy is released.
As gravitational potential converts to kinetic energy, matter collapses into denser structures. This process releases heat as radiation, which dissipates across the universe. You can’t easily get that radiation back under normal conditions once that radiation is gone. The only way to recover that energy would be through collapsing cosmic regions—but in an expanding universe, those circumstances don’t arise naturally. So, once clumping occurs, it’s largely irreversible—and information is embedded in it.
Jacobsen: Can informational cosmology make any predictions for physics or particle physics experiments? I mean facility like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?
Rosner: Yes, but nothing immediately comes to mind because most disagreements I see with conventional physics occur at the largest cosmic scales—not at the subatomic level.
Jacobsen: So, you’re saying information is generated at the largest scales?
Rosner: Conservation laws apply locally and even at great distances, but at super-macro scales, things behave differently. So, no, I don’t think the LHC could easily test this. A better physicist could develop an experiment, but nothing jumps out at me.
But you can test the IC model against the universe’s age by looking for objects that appear older than 14 billion years—the estimated age of the universe. A few candidates might qualify, but they’re hard to detect and barely interact because they’re so old and energy-depleted. They’ve burned off nearly all their radiation, so they don’t emit much light. They’ve also settled into stable orbits because, over time, the likelihood of collisions changes—I don’t know the exact mathematical curve for collision probability over time, but it probably drops exponentially.
Over billions of years, chaotic interactions settle down. Objects can’t crash into each other indefinitely—eventually, everything gets its vector, and any object that is going to collide has already collided and bounced off or stuck together. So, after 12 or 14 billion years, something like a brown dwarf, neutron star, or burned-out planet could have drifted into a stable orbit, far from the galactic center, with nothing left to run into. Space is vast enough that these ancient objects could exist in isolation.
But we can still look for them. Yes, we can search for galaxies that appear too mature, too early—fully formed and actively producing starlight way too soon after the Big Bang. Though I don’t know if those are legit candidates, I’m unsure. But I know that the smaller, burned-out stellar remnants are good candidates for testing whether some things predate the known universe.
Also, we’ve talked about gold. Gold is hard to make. You need either a supernova or a collision of neutron stars to generate the extreme pressures and energies needed to fuse heavy nuclei. Gold cannot form inside a normal star—the heaviest element you can synthesize in a stellar core is iron.
Some researchers have suggested that there’s way too much gold in the universe to be accounted for by the processes we know. Not an absurd amount—it’s still rare—but if there’s twice as much as our current models predict, that would imply that gold-producing processes have been at work for longer than the universe should have existed.
Jacobsen: Famously, Gödel developed the incompleteness theorems. Various logical paradoxes appear unresolved. How does an information-based view of physics help resolve paradoxes?
Rosner: Many paradoxes—especially in mathematics and logic—are semantic. The incompleteness theorem states that any sufficiently complex logic system contains truths that cannot be proven within that system.
But let’s say this: If the principles of existence are emergent—rather than the product of a tightly woven, perfectly self-contained metaphysical structure—then some inconsistencies or paradoxes are allowed to exist at the edges.
As long as objects in quantum mechanics remain fuzzy—meaning their existence is not fixed but reinforced by their history and being part of a macroscopic system—then we shouldn’t expect perfect consistency everywhere. If existence itself is emergent and only mostly non-contradictory, then there’s room for some fuzziness, some apparent paradoxes at the boundaries.
If the rules aren’t ironclad metaphysical pillars that precede existence, then you can’t resolve everything. But if the principles of existence are emergent—forming alongside universes themselves—then yes, you can have paradoxes, incompleteness, and unresolved contradictions because the rules of existence aren’t absolute barriers that preclude everything.
And even saying that sounds like bullshit because you’re effectively arguing that the rules against existence preclude all existence, yet those rules exist. How the fuck can that be? If the rules preclude everything, but those rules themselves exist, then you’ve already got a paradox built into the system.
Jacobsen: You’re arguing that you can’t have rules against existence that preclude everything while also having those rules exist. You’re talking about rules of existence existing before there’s an explicit representation of those rules—whether that representation is through language, mathematics, or perception.
Rosner: The metaphysical structure of existence is not so rigid that it requires an explicit, pre-existing framework. It’s easier to have a universe exist than to get a camel through the eye of a needle or a rich man into heaven.
Jacobsen: When you break metaphysics down, it starts sounding more and more like extended physical law.
Rosner: Yes. Well, it has to be.
Jacobsen: It’s the type of law that gets discussed at a certain stage of knowledge.
Rosner: Metaphysics—an extension of certain types of physical law—has been out of fashion for centuries because it was hard to do and not particularly successful compared to the empirical science we’ve been doing for 300 years.
Jacobsen: We can continue with metaphysics as just being physics.
Rosner: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: So, we need to remove metaphysics altogether.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: That would be good. Because it makes things more scientific. Physics is the delineation of actual principles of existence as we discover them, what people call “metaphysics” is just physical law extrapolated from current understandings, which means metaphysics is, ultimately, a doomed enterprise to be replaced by precision in physics rather than its vagaries in ‘metaphysics.’
Rosner: That I buy.
Jacobsen: All right. I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08
Rick Rosner: A few nights ago, the president delivered his speech to Congress. As is customary, members of Congress brought special guests to emphasize political points.
For instance, Trump brought a 13-year-old boy who is recovering from brain cancer and made him an honorary Secret Service agent. The Democrats didn’t clap. Republicans used this moment to accuse Democrats of being heartless, corrupt, and out of touch. However, Democrats were reportedly frustrated by what they saw as hypocrisy—honouring a cancer patient while Trump and Musk are actively working on cutting funding for the CDC, which conducts cancer research, including research on childhood cancer. So, they did not applaud the boy, not out of malice toward him, but because they saw the gesture as politically disingenuous.
The Republicans also highlighted Peyton McNabb, a high school volleyball player who suffered a severe injury during a game in 2022 after being hit in the face by a spike from a transgender athlete on the opposing team.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Before this, I hadn’t heard about the story. It sounded like a name that a random name generator would create.
Rosner: When McNabb was 17, she was playing a high school volleyball match when a spike from a transgender female athlete struck her in the face. Reports claimed the ball was travelling at 70 mph, but I decided to analyze the footage myself.
The impact resulted in a concussion, temporary paralysis on one side of her body, vision problems, and other lasting health effects. McNabb later became an advocate for policies banning transgender women from competing in girls’ sports.
Once again, the Democrats did not applaud, which Republicans framed as evidence of heartlessness.
I reviewed the footage of the play—watching the clip about 20 times—and examined the public reaction. Many comments were sympathetic, calling the incident “savagery.” However, volleyball players in the comments argued that the spike was not exceptionally powerful or unusual.
A few key details stood out:
- McNabb was positioned behind the attack line 10 feet from the net.
- The spike travelled 12 feet from the point of contact to her face.
- Volleyball players claimed the speed was not excessive. Many pointed out that poor positioning contributed to the injury.
- Spikes to the face are not uncommon. Studies suggest that 5% of volleyball injuries result from ball impacts.
After slowing the footage and analyzing it frame by frame, I calculated that:
- The ball travelled 12 feet in six frames (one-fifth of a second).
- This equates to a speed of 60 feet per second (41 mph)—far from the 70 mph originally claimed.
- Many varsity-level female players can spike at similar speeds.
While the injury was severe, the narrative that it was an unprecedented or freakishly powerful spike does not hold up under scrutiny.
A spike of that speed has one-third of the kinetic energy of the supposed 70 mph “savage spike” that The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, claimed. In reality, the ball was travelling at 40–41 mph.
If you calculate the g-forces, a volleyball weighs 9 to 10 ounces. To sustain a concussion, a person’s head must move upon impact. If the head remains stationary, a concussion does not occur.
A concussion happens when the skull rapidly moves and then collides with the brain, causing it to compress against the skull. So, if someone dropped a rock off a building onto the top of your head, you wouldn’t get a concussion—assuming it didn’t crack your skull. You might suffer a bruise, a laceration, or significant bleeding, but there would be no concussion because your skull isn’t accelerating or decelerating sharply.
If it were a large boulder, that’s a different story. But in this case, her head barely moved. Yes, she has black eyes, which suggests localized impact and blood vessel damage, but I haven’t seen photographic proof. There may have been sinus bleeding, but the g-forces from a 10-ounce volleyball striking a mostly stationary head are far below what is required to cause a concussion.
It takes 70–75 g’s to enter the concussion range. The average concussion occurs at 98 g’s. She might have experienced 60 g’s at most, but that’s being generous. Likely, it was even lower.
A human head weighs about 8 pounds but is attached to a torso via the neck. This means that for a concussion to occur, the force from the volleyball would need to move not just the head but also overcome the resistance of the torso. Given that her neck was tensed, her entire upper body would have needed to move significantly—which it didn’t.
So, I’m not buying the severity of the reported injuries.
- A) It wasn’t a savage spike. It was a regular spike.
- B) Head and neck injuries are the most commonly exaggerated or misrepresented.
This reminds me of a car accident I was in. I lightly tapped a guy’s bumper—it made a loud noise because it was a hollow bumper, but his car barely moved. The guy initially said he was fine. Then, three days later, after talking to a lawyer, he suddenly had “whiplash” and filed a claim against my insurance.
Even though I called my insurance company and told them it was nonsense, they still paid the claim because fighting small claims isn’t worth it. If it’s $10,000 or even $25,000, they’d rather pay it than go to court.
And now, Peyton McNabb is being paid by an anti-trans political action committee called something like ‘Fairness for Women.’
Also, it was claimed that the injury ended her athletic career, but there are records of her playing sports the following year. Varsity sports, I believe. So, there’s a lot of bullshit there. But at least there’s bullshit in the physics, yes.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would be an alternate term for “consciousness” in an IC universe? I’ve been thinking about this more. What would be an alternative term for “consciousness” within an IC framework that decouples it from more mystical or metaphysical interpretations, making it seem less magical and more technical? Is there an existing term that serves this purpose—one that isn’t a neologism? What would make consciousness seem less mysterious? What synonym would be applicable to reduce associations with pseudoscience?
Rick Rosner: When people think of consciousness, they often associate it with subjective experience or emergent intelligence, but in a technical sense, it could be described as a process of Bayesian probabilistic responses—essentially what you see in an AI neural network. However, human consciousness is tacit and operates on a vastly different level from AI. AI can generate responses that pass a Turing test, but our awareness, responses, and feelings emerge from neural processes and predictive modelling that have evolved over millions of years.
I’m not sure what the ideal term would be, but perhaps “reality construction” or “reality modelling” would be more precise. The brain’s primary function is to model the external world and our place in it, helping us navigate and interact with our environment.
That said, our cognitive models are far from perfect. The human brain does a good enough job to enable our survival and reproduction—hence our species’ persistence—but its interpretations of reality are full of cognitive biases, perceptual distortions, and limitations. Our brains don’t give us a purely objective picture of reality; rather, they construct a functional approximation shaped by evolutionary pressures.
If you asked a hundred or a thousand people whether their brain gives them an accurate representation of the world and forces them to choose between “accurate” and “inaccurate,” most would likely choose “accurate. ” However, that doesn’t mean their perception is objectively correct—it only means it is functional for their needs.
Jacobsen: Correct. Even 52% still counts as a majority.
Rosner: Right, but the definition of “accurate” matters. Functional accuracy and objective accuracy are different things.
We’ve explored this in discussions about how evolution prioritizes species-level survival over individual accuracy. Our brains evolved to favour useful illusions over strict truth.
Jacobsen: In a way, I’m playing the part of Larry David here, questioning everything skeptically, while you’re taking the Jerry Seinfeld approach—more observational, more inclined to accept the practical side of things.
Rosner: I can be skeptical, too.
Jacobsen: Neil Brennan recently commented in an interview that Seinfeld is darker than people assume, while Larry David is lighter than people expect. It’s an interesting reversal of expectations.
Rosner: If the limitations of our neural architecture ultimately constrain consciousness, then reality itself is not necessarily a fully rational or idealized place. The constraints of information processing, biology, and physical laws dictate the nature of existence.
According to the principles of IC, though, not all systems must come to an end. You could argue that any given construction of information must eventually decay or transform, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it ceases to exist—it may simply reorganize into a different informational structure.
And that’s not necessarily the case. You could argue against that, given the idea that there’s no upper limit to the size of a universe built from information. You could argue that, while I wouldn’t say it’s necessary, there could be worlds that continue indefinitely.
But, anyway, I don’t know. I mean, that’s a somewhat bright spot—the idea that you could exist indefinitely.
There’s no such thing as actual immortality because, to have that, you’d have to exist for an infinite amount of time. And we know that’s really not allowed. Indefinitely is fine, but you can’t have actual infinities in physical systems. You can’t have infinite space, infinite matter, or infinite time. You can have anything short of infinite, which is still pretty good.
Jacobsen: Given the visible universe’s estimated size and material and energetic content, could we approximate its current informational content and its theoretical cap? Given the amount of material and energy in the universe, could we estimate some peak information content?
Rosner: Yeah.
Jacobsen: So, the question would then be: If that’s the case, why isn’t an optimized information-processing universe always at its cap? Is it not always at cap, using all of its resources optimally? Or is there some physical principle preventing that?
Rosner: For example, in physics, some principles optimize for efficiency—like Fermat’s principle of least time, where a photon takes the path that minimizes travel time from point A to point B. You could estimate it, but you’d need a working definition of information.
You could take the universe’s total mass and compare it to the energy of a photon emitted when a hydrogen atom transitions from its first excited state back to the ground state. Then, you could divide the total mass energy of the universe by that energy value. That might give you a rough estimate of the number of bits in the universe. It wouldn’t be a great estimate, but it would be a starting point.
If the universe is built out of the energy lost by long-distance photons redshifting due to the curvature of space, then the lowest average energy photon defines a fundamental information unit. There are lower-energy photons than the hydrogen transition photon, but they’re much less common.
That hydrogen transition photon is super common, so you could call that your fundamental bit of information. Not that I even like the idea of a universe made of those kinds of bits. But still, you’re just looking for some kind of freaking number.
The number of bits, using that estimate, is way larger than 10851085. It’s got to be somewhere in the 10901090-something range because 10851085 is an estimate of the number of particles in the universe.
Those particles are mostly protons and neutrons. But honestly, I don’t know exactly how the total particle count is distributed. In estimates of the universe’s mass, I assume they’re counting particles with resting mass. I don’t know for sure.
And if you compare the mass of those particles to the total mass energy of photons, the ratio is something like—I don’t know—a hundred thousandfold or more. The ratio of an electron’s mass to a proton’s is about 1,836:1, so that gives some scale.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Does the part of what is enforced in the Standard Model emerge from underlying informational processes? Are they the informational processes themselves as well?
Rick Rosner: Numbers arise from underlying principles, and I assume that physical laws arise from underlying principles, too, where everything goes back to consistency and non-contradiction because you can’t have something that exists if it is fundamentally contradictory.
We’ve discussed the fundamental particles that make up the universe’s building blocks: quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and the Higgs boson. The most relevant particles at the macroscopic level include protons and neutrons (which are made of quarks), electrons, photons, and neutrinos.
Someone more specialized in particle physics than I might argue for other particles’ importance. The strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism involve additional bosons like gluons and W and Z bosons. These particles are necessary, but we observe the macroscopic world largely mediated by quarks (which form protons and neutrons), electrons, photons, and neutrinos.
The rest of the Standard Model particles provide the underlying structure that governs fundamental interactions. They fit together in an elegant, mathematically consistent framework, often described using group theory. The particle spectrum of the Standard Model is the simplest set of particles and interactions that allows for a universe like ours to exist.
Our universe’s physical constants emerge from the relationships between particles, the scale of forces, and the overall structure of space-time. The values of these constants—such as the fine-structure constant, the gravitational constant, and the masses of fundamental particles—are determined by the universe’s symmetries and dynamics.
In principle, we can imagine alternative “toy” universes with different configurations of physical laws, but most would be inhospitable to life or unable to form complex structures like atoms and molecules. Despite its unresolved issues (like the nature of dark matter and quantum gravity), the Standard Model provides a framework that supports a rich and dynamic universe.
This ties into the anthropic principle—the idea that of all possible sets of physical laws, we observe the one that permits the existence of observers like us. If different universes could exist with different physical constants, we would only find ourselves in one where stable structures, chemistry, and life can emerge. However, we do not yet have experimental evidence for a multiverse, so this remains speculative.
People argue that life as we know it depends on water because of its unique properties: it remains liquid in a wide range of temperatures, has high specific heat capacity, expands when it freezes (allowing ice to float and insulate bodies of water), and is an excellent solvent for biochemical reactions. Some hypothesize that alternative chemistries, such as ammonia-based life, could exist, but this is speculative.
Ultimately, the Standard Model describes the minimal set of fundamental particles and forces necessary for the kind of universe we observe. While theoretical physics explores extensions to the model—such as supersymmetry or extra dimensions—what we currently know suggests that our universe is structured in the simplest way that still allows for complexity.
We only have one universe, so it’s a weaker probabilistic argument. However, you could strengthen the argument by understanding how the particles—the rules behind the set of particles we have—function, generating all possible conforming sets of particles. Doing so lets you determine whether ours is the simplest versatile assortment.
Jacobsen: Is there something akin to informational gravity if everything has an informational equivalent or derivative?
Rosner: Well, no. Gravity is the distribution of space based on where the information is. All else being equal, two universes with the same amount of information should have the same overall scale within reason.
Information arises from a universe that is, you know, “Big Bang.” But even in a pure Big Bang universe, information itself does not increase. In an information cosmology universe that expands from a Big Bang, information originates or is created as the universe differentiates, clumps up, and spreads out. However, information is still contained in the early universe’s expansion vectors.
Everything gets a vector early on, and those vectors quickly sort into an expanding universe. So, in theory, you could have a smaller universe in terms of radius, but the particles within it could have higher relative velocities because they haven’t been slowed down. Different scales are possible, but everything—
Anyway, that was a digression. However, given that two universes have similar apparent ages and amounts of information, they should have roughly the same scale and approximate radius. That radius should stay constant as long as the information remains constant—within reason.
You can trade radius for relative velocity. You could have a smaller universe with higher recession velocities, causing greater redshift. Or not. That might be something else. But, kind of. Anyway, you can imagine a range of different universes—same age, same amount of information—or the same universe at different moments but appearing to have the same age.
Jacobsen: Are you saying a universe could appear to have the same age for a long period?
Rosner: Right, say you’ve got an IC universe, and its apparent age remains constant for a trillion years. If its apparent age is 14 billion years for a trillion years, then taking snapshots of that universe at different points across that trillion-year period should have roughly the same radius in each snapshot.
Gravitation, which includes the macro curvature—the overall curvature of the universe—should allow you to rearrange matter via gravitational attraction and the reshaping of space depending on where the information is.
And I said yesterday that I’d have to remember what I was thinking about all this. But gravitation, in the most macro sense, is a pseudo-force that keeps the size of the universe the same.
You’re backdooring Einstein’s cosmological constant—the term he introduced into his general relativity equations to maintain a stable, non-expanding, non-contracting universe. He later called it his biggest mistake.
But you can get back to something like that by saying that the scale of the universe—its radius—depends on the amount of information it contains. You can rearrange matter within the universe, but the overall effect is that it doesn’t change in size.
Jacobsen: And gravitation is the force responsible for this?
Rosner: It’s probably mediated, at least partially, by the electromagnetic force and some other forces. But I should probably shut up because I won’t be clear until I think about it more.
Jacobsen: A long time ago, we used the term “operators” to describe things that jiggle around and interact in the universe. So, considering the kind of “woo” idea that consciousness has some fundamental properties influencing the foundations of reality—blah, blah—that can mostly be dismissed—emphasis on “mostly.”
But “operators” in a broader sense refer to categories of distinct things jiggling around, transferring forces, and exchanging vectors in the universe—particles, big collective filaments, and all kinds of interactions.
How would you fundamentally define operators’ properties in an informational sense? You gave an example a while ago—maybe not super long ago, but not recently—about hitting a rock and the force travelling through that rock, with all the particles within it imprinting information onto the universe, albeit temporarily.
Rosner: All right. That sort of thing. My thinking on that has changed a lot. Also, I haven’t thought about it that much lately because I’m a lazy fucker.
Jacobsen: More self-isolating than lazy.
Rosner: All right. Anyway, our awareness—our consciousness—our moment-to-moment qualia, plus ideas about the fucking qualia, plus memories, plus value, plus everything that constitutes consciousness, exists as a bunch of impressions. Some of them are fine-grained.
Like, I’m looking at a big-screen TV right now. And that, plus the room—my visual impressions—are very high-def. But there’s a bunch of stuff going on in my brain that I’m not aware of at the level it’s occurring—electrical pulses, dendritic connections strengthening, detaching, new ones forming.
So, a bunch of processing is happening that is more complex than the impressions I’m getting. I’m experiencing an image, a model of the world. But behind the scenes, there are a ton of switchboard operators plugging and unplugging connections to generate those impressions. That means there’s a bunch of concrete, fine-grained activity that I only perceive in a rough, blurred-out, aggregate way. I don’t see all the micro-businesses but get a macro impression.
If the universe is processing information, it doesn’t perceive a rock tumbling down a mountain on some random planet somewhere. It doesn’t “see” micro-events. It’s getting macro impressions.
The micro-scale events—what happens on planets, within stars—all that activity generates the macro impression. But the macro-level structure of the universe isn’t “aware” of the busy, detailed processes happening within it.
So that’s not a great answer, but it reflects—that I don’t know… if the model is to function and be believed. Then you need something like that. You can’t have a macro impression generator that is aware of all its little micro-processes. There needs to be some wobbliness in the system.
The universe is like clay instead of Minecraft. It’s mushy. You pull and shape it—it’s not a rigid digital environment where precise coding dictates every pixel.
Jacobsen: In a thermodynamic sense, what does entropy represent informationally? And what does information represent in contrast to that? By this, does an informational cosmology as an information conserving model imply the ‘opposites’ between information and entropy?
Rosner: So, and I always have a chance of fucking this up, but entropy—the higher the entropy, the more general the distribution of whatever you’re looking at to indicate information.
Like, you know, when we think about entropy, we think about heat. The most general and most probable heat distribution in a closed system is when everything is roughly the same temperature. That has the most possible states.
If you had a fixed amount of energy in a closed system, the most probable distribution of that energy would be one where every molecule has roughly the same temperature. If you looked at every possible state of the system, most would be high-entropy states—very general, very lukewarm.
And then, at the extreme, you’d have much rarer, low-entropy states—like one molecule holding all the energy while every other molecule has zero heat energy. That’s a very low-entropy state because it’s an incredibly specific, statistically improbable configuration.
Jacobsen: Right, that’s the standard thermodynamic definition.
Rosner: Did you ever grow up with those little plastic beads you put together on a board, then melt in the oven or iron to form a picture?
Jacobsen: No?
Rosner: If you have 12 different colours of those beads, the most general arrangement is when they’re all jumbled randomly in a bag—there’s no pattern, no picture, just randomness. That’s high entropy. But when you arrange the beads into a specific pattern that forms an image, that image contains information because it’s a precise and unlikely configuration. So, specific and rare configurations have more information and lower entropy than general, disordered states.
Jacobsen: For example, take a wedding cake that costs $1,200, decorated with intricate brocade and sugar roses. Now, compare that to someone eating the cake and then vomiting. The vomit—high entropy, low order. The cake—rare, unlikely to arise by chance, high information.
Something structured and aesthetically meaningful versus a chaotic mess.
Jacobsen: I think we’re over time.
Rosner: Time to go.
Jacobsen: All right, thank you. Talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: I appreciate it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does IC reconcile the view of the universe as an information-processing system with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, particularly the role of information in quantum states and the measurement process?
Rick Rosner: I can answer the first part of that. We’ve talked about it before—Einstein hated the idea that the outcome of open quantum processes, that is, an event, will happen, but we don’t know what the outcome will be. It’s not determinate. Previous conditions do not determine it.
Before quantum theory, the prevailing idea in physics was that the universe was entirely predetermined. If you could calculate the positions and velocities of everything in the universe at any given moment, you could predict every subsequent moment—like clockwork. And clockwork was the model. The universe was thought to tick along like a machine, where every moment was completely determined by the previous one.
Quantum physics changed that. It introduced the idea that the universe does not have predetermined outcomes. Einstein hated that, and many people did. He and others tried to come up with experiments and arguments to prove this couldn’t be the case.
But people came around to it over time—since the ’60s, maybe the ’80s. We’ve had quantum mechanics long enough now that most physicists just accept it: Yeah, that makes sense.
Even though you can’t predict the outcome of many quantum events if the universe is an information processor, you could argue— and I do—that the outcomes of quantum events generate information. That means these outcomes are not just random; they produce something relevant.
If quantum events produce information, then that information is relevant to something. My argument is that just as your brain models the outside world and constantly asks, “What’s going to happen next?,” the quantum world does the same thing. Your brain doesn’t contain the answers—it finds them in the external world.
Similarly, in a quantum system, open questions don’t have pre-existing answers hidden somewhere in the universe. The answers are revealed over time as information about the world that the quantum system is modelling.
That’s my answer. There’s no hidden rule determining outcomes. Bell’s inequality explicitly states that the universe secretly contains the answers to quantum events in advance.
There is nothing in the universe we live in that can tell you how indeterminate quantum events are going to turn out. But at the same time, nothing in the rules of quantum mechanics says the outcomes of these events couldn’t have been determined by events outside the universe—by something that the universe itself is modelling.
And that leads to a whole other set of questions: “How the fuck does that happen? What’s going on?”
By analogy, you could argue that there is probably some kind of hardware outside of the universe—beyond it, in another universe—that supports the information that becomes the matter and time we experience. The same way our brains, the physical hardware inside our skulls, support our minds. You don’t have a mind without a brain. So, in that analogy, you don’t have our physical reality without something external to support it.
And that’s the answer to at least the first part of your question.
Jacobsen: Does IC propose this one? You could knock it down quickly. You could call it woo. It’s not like we have hand-wavy explanations plus some actual physics—here, it’s all hand-wavy. Does IC propose a new interpretation involving a consciousness-driven wave function collapse or an information-based reformulation of quantum phenomena?
Rosner: First, you can dismiss the idea of consciousness-driven wave function collapse outright. That one’s not even worth considering.
Jacobsen: So, what about wave function collapse in general?
There are people who work in quantum mechanics who don’t think the wave collapses at all. The idea is this: a photon is emitted, and its probability distribution—its probability cloud—expands over time. The longer you wait, the bigger the cloud of possible positions where the photon could be.
Then, when that photon is captured by something, it becomes a point again. It was captured here.
But there’s never a moment where the cloud shrinks or deflates. It’s not like it expands, expands, expands, then collapses into a point. No—the cloud was there, and then it’s just a point.
There’s no deflation of the cloud. It’s cloud, then point.
That’s a discontinuity. Or, the way I look at it, it’s just the next moment. It’s the moment after the photon was emitted, where it has now been captured.
So, it’s not really about collapsing probability waves—it’s about subsequent moments in which an event has taken place.
So, in moment A, the photon is emitted. In a series of subsequent moments, you have an expanding probability cloud until, at some later moment, X, the photon is captured. You’re looking at a sequence of probabilistically connected moments—before a certain time, the event hasn’t happened, and after that time, the event has happened.
After moment A, the photon has been emitted. But before moment X, there is still only a probability cloud when the photon is captured. Then, at moment X and in all subsequent moments, the photon has been detected and captured, and whatever follows next unfolds.
But what you don’t get is any transitional phase. There is no gradual shift from probability cloud to captured photon—it’s always a sudden change. First, there is a cloud of uncertainty, and then an event occurs.
Wait, what was the original question?
Oh, right—the conscious collapse of the wave function.
No, I don’t think you need that. The universe is its observer. You don’t need conscious beings within the universe to do the noticing for you. As we discussed yesterday, a universe can exist without any conscious beings within it to act as detectors.
The universe detects itself.
Now, you can make all sorts of arguments about the tree falling in the forest. If an entire sterile universe comes into existence, undergoes a vast amount of activity, and then ceases to exist—all without any conscious beings present to note its existence—then yes, nobody inside that universe observed it.
But even if conscious beings were present, the same fundamental events would still happen. Whether a universe contains conscious beings or not, its existence remains unchanged at a fundamental level.
Both conscious-inhabited and sterile universes hold the same mathematical meta-existence. If we consider a set of all possible moments across all possible universes, then each moment—from a universe full of life or one devoid of it—belongs to that set without preference. They all equally belong to the structure of reality.
That is if that set even exists. As we’ve discussed before, defining a “set” or a “moment” in this context becomes complicated. Moments in a quantum system can be spread across 20 billion light-years of space and however many billion years, making it difficult to treat them as discrete units.
But still, we can talk about them, even if the framework for doing so isn’t perfect. I don’t know if anyone else is discussing moments of the universe in this way, but at some point, people could.
Rotten Tomatoes.
One more question—if you’ve got a quick one.
Jacobsen: How does IC integrate or reinterpret general relativity as an emergent property of information processing rather than space and time curvature alone?
Rosner: So, general relativity describes how mass determines the shape of space. IC essentially says the same thing—except that the fundamental element shaping reality isn’t mass but information.
That’s the short answer.
I haven’t thought about this in a while, so if you want a more detailed explanation, I’ll have to give you a better answer tomorrow.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04
Rick Rosner: All right, so maybe we should do Rotten Tomatoes here, and I’ll tell you a crazy fucking thing I’m doing. All right, so you’ve met the brown dog, our white dog, and Frida and our brown dog, Rosie.
We inherited Rosie from Carol’s mom. Rosie is 14 and a half. She has a tumour growing on the back of her right rear leg—about two inches. We didn’t discover it right away because these dogs aren’t particularly cuddly, so we didn’t notice the tumour until it was about five centimetres at its largest point, with the other two axes measuring roughly three centimetres.
So, the dog gets an X-ray, a blood test, and a biopsy. It was a needle biopsy that was inconclusive but pointed in the direction of cancer. Then we talked to the vet, and Carol consulted her friends with cancer dogs. Everyone agreed that for a dog this old, the best course of action is to maximize her happiness in the time she has left. You don’t do chemo because it makes the dog miserable—and it costs, what, $8,000? You don’t do surgery because she’s 14 and a half and may not survive it. Even if she does, the recovery would be painful. Right now, the dog is happy, even perky, so we focus on keeping her comfortable.
I’ve been giving her a ton of Fisetin, a senolytic. A senolytic forces bad cells to self-destruct. Think of it as an internet bully—it intercepts damaged cells at various points in their life cycles and pushes them toward apoptosis. That’s where the cell realizes it’s too damaged to function and disintegrates.
Cancer cells, in theory, should also self-destruct when they become too damaged, but they manage to evade that process. They dance around the body’s natural defences. Fisetin, however, beats them on the head—like McFly, McFly!—and tells them, “It’s time to go.” It can slow down tumour growth and reduce the risk of metastasis. So, every day, I’ve been loading the dog up with Fisetin, trying to hold off the cancer and buy her some more time.
Then, I discovered another approach. Back in 1960, researchers experimented on 49 dogs with tumours. They tied off the tumours, cutting off their blood supply for about eight hours. The idea is that cancer cells are already weakened and less resilient than healthy cells. So, the cancer cells die off without a steady blood supply.
This particular tumour on the back of Rosie’s leg is ideal for this approach. I’ve been using rubber bands to pinch it off, cutting off the blood supply for one to four hours. The idea is that since cancer cells are weaker, they’ll die before the surrounding healthy cells. In that 1960 experiment, most of the dogs had positive outcomes. Their tumours mostly died off, and they avoided the pain and suffering that come with surgery, chemotherapy, or other aggressive treatments.
And the thing is, I don’t think tumours have nerves, so the process doesn’t seem to hurt her. She only seems to feel discomfort when I remove the rubber bands. So, I’ve been doing this. I’ve done it about six times for approximately 11 and a half hours.
The tumour hasn’t grown. It has swelled up temporarily and then returned down; it’s just normal inflammation. Once you damage a tumour, the body’s immune system kicks in and says, “Hey, there’s a bunch of dead tissue here; we should clean it out.” That temporary inflammation is just the body doing its job.
So, we’re seeing if this works. It’s my mad scientist experiment. We’ll see if we can slow down the tumour. I would think that if you cut off its blood supply… well, cancer eats up much oxygen because it’s growing, it’s being cancer. So, if you cut off its oxygen, it will mostly die.
Now, there’s a chance that because cancer cells are disordered and unstable, the tumour can essentially self-destruct. Some of the nastier tumours even develop necrotic areas within them, which is generally not a good sign because it means the tumour is in a state of disorganized chaos. Also, within the tumour, cancer cells can be adapted to survive in hypoxic (oxygen-starved) environments.
If you kill off only the hypoxia-friendly, weaker cells, you could leave behind the stronger, more aggressive cancer cells, which then take over and proliferate more. That’s the risk—you don’t want to eliminate the “wimpy” cancer cells and give the resilient ones free rein to go wild. But, in the meantime, it’s worth a shot to keep the tumour mostly dead. If it grows again, I’ll just hit it with the rubber bands, though Carol hates it.
So there you go.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04
Rick Rosner: Every night, Carole and I watch some quality TV downstairs. Tonight, it was The White Lotus, the latest episode, plus the opening monologue of SNL. After that, we do squats, I do sit-ups, maybe some curls, and then, after an hour downstairs, we move upstairs and watch another 30 to 40 minutes of semi-quality TV.
Tonight, it was Running Point, the Mindy Kaling-produced and written show based on Jeanie Buss and the Lakers, starring Kate Hudson. Then Carol starts falling asleep. We turn off the TV or switch to something I can watch, and I rub her legs for a while. Then I say, “I gotta go,” and she asks, “Where are you going?” It’s the same thing every night: “I’m going to talk to Scott like I do every night.” But tonight, she asked, “Why?”
So, I’m thinking tonight’s topic should be why. Why? We’ve been doing this for 10 years—roughly 3,650 nights. We’ve probably talked over 2,000 times, done more than 2,000 sessions, maybe more than 2,500, generating millions of words.
So why? Why the fuck are we doing this? I have some answers. What’s your answer?
For one thing, it leaves a legacy—a record. I’m too lazy to sit down and type this shit, but at least we can talk it out, and then, if people are so inclined, they can sort through it at some point. I want to be around, or at least be cryonically preserved somewhere or some shit. But if somebody—whether you or someone else—wants to go through it and mine it for meaningful insights or as an example of self-proclaimed giftedness gone awry and squandered, they can do that too.
Or I can mine it myself, which I hope to do to some extent. Are you familiar with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? The book from, I don’t know, almost 50 years ago now, by Robert Pirsig. It’s a story about a man’s quest to find himself and the philosophical foundation on which he attempts to do so. It was big in the ’70s—probably came out in ’74—and it was a less sensationalized version of that Carlos Castaneda stuff. People were trying to find themselves, right?
And we’ve talked a lot about physics, informational cosmology, and the role of self—anyway, all this shit. If I’m trying to write this novel, and in this novel, the main character has the same self-proclaimed insights into physics that I do, then it’s a start. It needs to be distilled by about 98 percent and boiled down, but at least it’s the raw stock to be simmered for hours, right?
Now, why are you doing it?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Personal interest. I cover a wide range of subjects. You’re far from the majority or even the only person I discuss physics or other topics with.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you want to do any science stuff? Cellular automata is a discrete, rather than continuous, computational model dealing with grids of cells. In this case, these four-dimensional cells evolve based on rules. This is based on Stephen Wolfram’s book A New Kind of Science. He argues that simple rules can generate complex systems and suggests that this could model the universe.
So, my first two questions are: Where do the rules come from, and are they the right rules?
Rosner: I would say to be concise, but not the right rules. Not the right rules.
Jacobsen: Right.
Rosner: You can set up rules that generate complexity, but just because you can do that doesn’t mean those are the rules governing the universe. I think the rules for the universe stem from what can exist by being non-contradictory at a fundamental level.
You could dig deeper into that foundation and find more levels to explore. But Wolfram’s rules rest on an underlying structure—the grid, the computational framework—built on more fundamental layers of abstraction.
If he’s using a three-dimensional… I mean, if you’re going to have a three-dimensional—
Jacobsen: Oops.
Rosner: Shit. Hold on. Earthquake. Hold on. I’ve got to check in with Carole.
Jacobsen: Hello?
Rosner: Earthquake. Let me talk to Carole. I’ll be back in a second. I’m going to jump to—
[Earthquake gap]
Jacobsen: I checked it out. Was that a 3.1?
Rosner: 3.9 is what I’m seeing.
Jacobsen: Is it done?
Rosner: Yeah. But when I was looking around, I saw that Southern California has had quite a few quakes in the last 48 hours. This was the first one we felt.
Jacobsen: We had one over here recently too.
Rosner: Well, you’re along the same fault line, right? I don’t know what we were talking about. Do you just want to continue tomorrow?
Jacobsen: We were getting towards the physics. What were we talking about—cellular automata?
Rosner: Yeah.
Jacobsen: Here’s my follow-up question: Do you think it’s legitimate for Wolfram to jump to a discrete model rather than remaining agnostic about discrete versus continuous?
Rosner: I don’t know. I’ve been giving you a lot of “I don’t know” lately. People like to point out that quantum events are, well, events. Which means they’re things that happen—discrete occurrences. Take an atom, for example. When a quantum event occurs, the atom is in one state and then in another.
You’ve got an electron in one state, and then suddenly, it’s in a different state. It doesn’t gently drift from a more energetic state to a lower one—it jumps. That’s a discrete event rather than a continuous transition. So, that suggests that discrete events form the universe’s fundamental structure.
At the same time, plenty of things in the universe operate in a non-discrete, or at least an implicitly non-discrete manner—basically, everything. But take a photon, for instance. A photon can be detected leaving an atom. You can’t detect the photon itself leaving but can detect the atom’s state changing.
And then, you can detect that photon again at some later point in space and time. That implies that the photon traversed space in a continuous way. Even though if you actually detect it mid-flight, you interfere with it, and it’s no longer the same photon that was originally emitted.
However, I read somewhere that there are ways to detect photons without capturing them. But anyway—even if you can’t track a photon between its origin and destination, it still bears the earmarks of having travelled continuously. The classic example is the two-slit experiment. Or even more, if you put a barrier between the emission point and its destination, the photon won’t arrive.
It has to try—the space has to be unencumbered along its path. So, objects travelling continuously suggest that not everything is discrete. Though, again, you could make a counterargument that a photon and its trajectory could be characterized in some system with a discrete set of variables. But the counter to that is: sure, you can do that, but it does not sound very easy. You could argue that the universe operates in the simplest way possible, and that means accommodating both discrete events and objects that appear to travel continuously.
Now, you could push back and ask, “Do they really travel continuously?” Because if you zoom into small enough distances, space becomes foamy and lacks true continuity. But again, the counterargument is that adding layers of complexity doesn’t necessarily make the model better—it just makes it messier. So, I guess I’m on a team that “any system built entirely on discrete events is probably not the best model.” Did I say “discontinuous?” Yeah. A system built entirely on discrete, discontinuous events might not be the most natural way to describe reality.
Jacobsen: What about the idea that the universe isn’t information per se, but more of a giant computational process? It doesn’t necessarily have to incorporate data or bits as we understand them, but rather, the fundamental process is computation, flipping the relationship between information and computation.
Rosner: The universe is highly emergent in what it can do—it almost operates in a “by any means necessary” way, like a Malcolm X principle applied to physics. It seems that the brain, for example, does a lot of combinatorial coding when it processes and transmits information. That’s an efficient way of minimizing the amount of data needed to represent information. If that even makes sense. But simultaneously, the brain is an evolved system—it doesn’t just rely on one method. It processes and retains information through whatever means works best. It takes every possible shortcut that hundreds of millions of years of evolution have stumbled upon. So, if you tried to model a brain using only combinatorial coding, you’d probably create something less efficient than an actual brain.
Similarly, if you tried to model the universe as constrained to only one type of information processing, you’d probably end up with a less efficient model than the actual universe. Like the brain, the universe seems to leverage every mechanism at its disposal to process and store information.
I need to grab some juice for my eyes—drying up here. Also, I forgot what the original question was. It was like, “Is the universe just an information processor?” So, I didn’t answer that.
Jacobsen: What about Gregory Chaitin’s work in algorithmic information theory (AIT)? The idea that the complexity of a system can be described in terms of the shortest possible algorithm needed to represent it? AIT uses information content to analyze physical systems, meaning that the complexity of a system can be characterized by the brevity of the algorithm that describes it.
Rosner: Is that… what? I don’t know. This is the first I’ve heard of it—I haven’t read anything about it. But it reminds me of something.
Okay, so Ramanujan—I think that’s his name—ends up in the hospital. Hardy, the mathematician, comes to visit him. Hardy says, “How was your trip?” And Ramanujan replies, “Fine, I rode over in a taxi with a very uninteresting number—1729.”
And Ramanujan says, “I beg to differ. That’s a very interesting number. The smallest number can be expressed as the sum of two cubes in two different ways.” Which, to people who get off on that kind of thing, is basically arithmetic porn.
But this brings us back to algorithmic simplicity, where you have many paradoxes about the simplest way to describe a system. For instance, you tried to identify the first “uninteresting” number. It’s not zero because zero has all sorts of special mathematical properties. One isn’t uninteresting either—it’s the multiplicative identity. Two are interesting because they are the smallest prime and the only even prime. Three is the first odd prime, so it’s interesting. Four is the first perfect square.
Then maybe you reach a number like 17 and say, “Okay, that’s the first uninteresting number.” But I could respond, “No, that makes 17 interesting because it’s the first uninteresting number.” So now it’s no longer uninteresting. The paradox is that you can’t define an uninteresting number without making it interesting by defining it that way.
And funnily enough, 17 actually shows up in a lot of comedy punchlines or in places where people need a random-seeming number. People unfamiliar with number theory will often pick 17 because it appears arbitrary. Two feels too fundamental. Twelve is a dozen, which is too familiar. Thirteen is unlucky. Fourteen is a fortnight or a stone if you’re in Britain. Eventually, you get to 17, which seems like a random, unspecial number—so it gets used often.
So, anyway, I don’t fully buy into algorithmic information theory without hearing a more detailed explanation. But we can cover that tomorrow.
Jacobsen: All right. Be safe.
Rosner: Okay.
Jacobsen: I’ll see you later.
Rosner: Bye.
Jacobsen: Okay.
Rosner: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does informational cosmology account for time?
Rick Rosner: There are various ways of framing time. We’ve talked about the set of all possible moments in all possible universes. Each moment implies a set of possible next moments, just as each moment implies a set of possible previous moments.
We always experience the present moment and perceive time as a sequence of events. What makes time feel real is that the present moment contains information about the past, giving us a sense of history. That history implies a structure that predicts future moments.
Think of it as a cone of possibilities. The present moment is tightly constrained—not totally rigid, but we know a lot about it. As we move into the past, those constraints loosen, because the further back you go, the more possible pasts could have led to this moment.
But we don’t care that much about the past. What we really focus on is modeling the future.
So that’s how we experience time—our memory of past moments and our anticipation of future ones. If you string moments together, time becomes a sequence of events, constrained by the smallest quantum interactions that determine the next possible state.
At the deepest level, everything is an event within quantum mechanics. There are both deterministic and indeterminate elements in the sequence of connected moments.
For example, if two cars are speeding toward each other, in a macro sense, they are macro objects that obey classical physics. In the most reasonable next moments, they will continue getting closer and closer to each other. That part is deterministic—it follows classical physics.
But at the quantum level, there are indeterminate events that get filled in along the way. That’s how time is experienced—a combination of deterministic macro events and indeterminate micro events that continuously unfold.
In an informational sense, time is manifested by sequences of moments, where each moment generates more information as the universe becomes more differentiated. The universe moves from a more general state to a more specific state, and that increase in specificity is what time is. It doesn’t just mark time—it is time.
You could think of this as informational pressure. A collapsed, low-information state differentiates into a higher-information state, and that process is what drives time forward. You can look at informational pressure as a force that drives time forward, and that’s fine—but it’s not entirely correct.
When you string moments together, you’re moving from general states to specific states. That stringing of moments is what time is. You can describe it as a force, but that’s not precise. It’s similar to how people talk about what evolution “wants.”
It’s not exactly the same mistake, but it’s close. It’s convenient to say that evolution wants organisms to fill all possible ecological niches, to move onto land, to become birds, to become flowers—but evolution doesn’t “want” anything.
Evolution isn’t even a process—it’s a statistical winnowing that favors certain ways of existing. Similarly, we can talk about informational pressure as if it were a force, and we can even do calculations about it, but it’s not exactly that.
And honestly? It’s not even a useful framing because we’re the only ones talking about informational cosmology. But if, in the future, it becomes a field, people will inevitably use that incorrect framing.
Jacobsen: Do quantum wave functions leak not only in space but also in time?
Rosner: Yes.
Quantum mechanics deals with incomplete information. Where information is incomplete, quantum systems can do things that aren’t strictly causal.
This means that quantum effects can violate the usual rules of space and time, as long as they don’t get caught in some other framework that forces them into a classical constraint. So, yes—anything can theoretically pop in and out of existence, but it’s extremely unlikely that it will.
The universe is so constrained by its own informational structure that the odds of random magical occurrences—like waving a stick and having a fully formed dragon materialize—are so low that it would take a quintillion quintillion quintillion quintillion lifetimes of the universe for something like that to randomly occur.
A well-defined universe essentially squeezes out non-causal, super-random action.
Anything can happen, theoretically.
But in reality, the odds of something truly insane happening—some spontaneous, reality-breaking anomaly—are so infinitesimal that it may as well be zero.
Theoretically, but highly unlikely.
Jacobsen: Does a photon or electron collapse its wave function at the apparent T=0?
Rosner: Yes. But this also ties into particle tunneling.
Let’s say you’ve trapped a particle—a proton or an electron—inside a lead beaker with walls an inch thick. You’ve sealed it completely—the lid is on, and there’s no classical way for the particle to escape.
But in quantum mechanics, a particle doesn’t have a fixed location in space. Instead, it exists as a probability wave. Its position is defined only by the probability function from the last time it was measured or detected.
The last time you measured the particle, it was inside the beaker. At that point, its probability function collapses, meaning the highest probability of its location is still inside the beaker.
However, that probability function doesn’t go to absolute zero at the inner wall of the beaker—it just drops drastically. And at the outer wall of the beaker, the probability is incredibly small—but not exactly zero.
This means that a tiny fraction of the particle’s probability cloud actually exists outside the beaker. Maybe one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion.
So, if you repeated this experiment a trillion trillion trillion trillion times, once, on average, the next time you detected the particle, it would be outside the beaker. Not because it broke through the walls, but because of pure quantum probability—it tunneled through.
But in reality, we’re never going to run that experiment a trillion trillion trillion trillion times. But it could theoretically happen.
Now, let’s say you actually ran the experiment 100 times—and instead of one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion, the particle tunneled out eight times. That would be strong evidence that something is deeply wrong with the universe.
Quantum mechanics is the most experimentally confirmed theory ever. If you observe a fundamental quantum event that happens way more frequently than the math predicts, that suggests one of two things:
- Our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed.
- Something external is interfering with the universe itself.
If the laws of physics were truly consistent, but you got eight outliers in 100 trials, then the most reasonable explanation would be we are living in a simulation—and someone is either glitching it or deliberately sending a signal.
Not necessarily God in the traditional religious sense—but whoever or whatever created the simulation. If they wanted to communicate, this would be a good way to do it—by breaking quantum mechanics in a way that scientists would notice.
A clear violation of quantum probabilities would tell us:
- We do not live in a natural universe.
- Something or someone is actively manipulating it.
Jacobsen: Sounds less likely than a more parsimonious explanation, though. A more parsimonious explanation is that we live in a natural universe.
Rosner: At some point, if we did find strong evidence that we were in a simulation, then that would be the more parsimonious explanation—but we’ve never seen anything like that. The most likely reason? Because we probably live in a natural universe.
And even if we were in a simulation, we would have no fucking idea what it was for. The idea that we would randomly stumble upon a glitch, conveniently detecting evidence of the simulation’s existence, is wildly unlikely.
So, physical violations of causality would be insanely rare in a natural universe—and almost just as unlikely in a simulated universe. Because if someone went through all the effort to build a simulated universe, they wouldn’t want to fuck it up by breaking causality and physics at random.
Jacobsen: We never see magic.
Rosner: I mean, you can go to the Magic Castle—it’s six miles from me—and watch great magic performed by magicians. But we never see real magic—like casting an incantation and breaking the fundamental rules of the universe.
There’s a trilogy by Lev Grossman called The Magicians—it’s basically an adult version of Harry Potter. It got turned into a SyFy series that ran for several seasons. It was a pretty fun show, though maybe it worked better as a book. It explores what life might actually be like if real adults had real magical abilities in a real-world setting.
Because Harry Potter characters live in an abridged world—it avoids addressing adult realities. Grossman’s world doesn’t.
Anyway, I’m reading a book called American Rapture, which is about sex zombies. It’s basically COVID, but instead of killing people outright, it makes them try to fuck each other to death.
Jacobsen: What?
Rosner: Yeah. It’s got a 17-year-old protagonist, and it’s trying to straddle the line between adult and young adult fiction. I’m 200 pages in, and so far, when people get infected, they tear off their clothes and try to have sex—but the book never actually says “sex.”
No one says “fuck.” No one says “penis.” No one says “vagina.” It’s interesting how the author has managed to imply so much while avoiding explicit language entirely.
Jacobsen: What’s the point?
Rosner: It’s your standard “run away from murderous zombies” plot, except with a lot more sex.
Jacobsen: Well, no—because the sex is fatal.
Rosner: Right. But it’s got a bunch of YA tropes mixed in.
Jacobsen: That’d actually be a great title for a book.
Rosner: What?
Jacobsen: Fatal Sex.
Rosner: A James Bond novel?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: But yeah, it’s one of those books—kind of like Twilight, where sex is literally life-threatening.
In Twilight, sex almost kills the heroine, and it takes until the third book before the characters actually get to bang. It’s an interesting exercise in writing about murderous sex while never explicitly saying “fuck” or “penis.”
Anyway, I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Evolutionarily, why do we care more about dogs and cats than people sometimes?
Rick Rosner: Because dogs and cats give unconditional love. Same reason people love Disneyland—Disneyland doesn’t judge you, doesn’t ask anything from you, except to pay for an overpriced ticket.
In Disneyland, everyone smiles, and it feels like love. Dogs are the same way. Even if you’re a horrible person, a dog doesn’t know. Dogs just love you. Cats? They’re standoffish, but they’re equally indifferent to everyone—they don’t judge who’s an asshole and who isn’t.
And pets are innocent. They don’t act with malice. Plus, they’re dependent on us, which triggers our sympathy. Everything about pet ownership pulls in one emotional direction—love, loyalty, and care. There’s nothing working against that feeling.
Loving a pet is like watching Who Wants to Be a Millionaire—everything about that show was designed to make you want the contestant to win. You’re cheering them on, just like you cheer for your dog. Compare that to The Weakest Link, where contestants actively sabotage each other. The biggest jerks always gang up to kick off the best players, so the people you might want to win rarely win.
Even the host—calling contestants idiots—works against itself. These aren’t idiots; they’re people trying their best under pressure. That’s why The Weakest Link has never been as popular as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire—because it’s a game full of contradictions and conflicting emotions.
Pets aren’t like that.
They’re pure affection. They love you unconditionally. There’s no downside.
With people, love is complicated—there’s love and hate, admiration and resentment. But with animals, it’s all love. The emotional bar for pets is low—all we ask is that they don’t chew up the furniture or poop in the house. And even if they do, we forgive them, because they’re animals.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Democrats lost not only substantially, but significantly, in the last election. Let’s quantify it. Every state—all 50 states—the Democrats did worse than they did in 2020. So, how did left-wing social and political movements screw up the election?
Rick Rosner: Jake Tapper, the journalist on CNN, coauthored a book that’s coming out soon, calling it a cover-up—claiming the White House covered up Biden’s unelectability and frailty. It’s not out yet, but it’ll be published in a few months. If that’s accurate, it’s a massive screw-up. Because I believed in Biden. And then I believed in Harris.
We were probably stupid to put so much faith in Biden, especially since he once said he’d be a one-term president. But then, he decided he was the only one who could beat Trump—so he stayed in the race. The problem? He looked awful. And he sounded awful.
If you really listened to what he said, I still think he had his faculties intact and understood the information needed to make good decisions—but he didn’t sound like it. He sounded rickety.
I also wonder if Trump is on Ozempic to improve his appearance. We already know he was on steroids when he almost died from COVID—they pumped him full of every drug available to keep him alive. Maybe they should have put Biden on steroids too.
Jacobsen: We shouldn’t need a president to be on steroids.
Rosner: True, but to some extent, steroids can mess with cognition. On the other hand, steroids like cortisone are widely used. So, yes, they should have tried to make him more vigorous. But it was just bad luck—for Biden and for the country—that he looked frail when he needed to appear strong.
Tom Selleck is roughly the same age. Harrison Ford is the same age. Harrison Ford is starting to look old, but at the same time, he’s playing the President in the next Marvel movie, where he transforms into a superhero. Then there’s Jane Fonda, who showed up at the SAG Awards at 87.
And sure, she’s had a ton of work done and has exercised her whole life—but she still looks weirdly attractive for her age.
Jacobsen: I disagree.
Rosner: Yes. But you’re decades younger than me.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Cher is in her seventies and has a boyfriend in his twenties. So, with enough help, you can still look good. You can argue about whether Jane Fonda is “bangable”, but she’s still a striking-looking woman, even at an age when most people aren’t.
Anyway—there were two massive screw-ups in this election:
- Sticking with Biden for too long.
- Terrible messaging.
They hid in the White House, hoping that voters would come to them, instead of actively campaigning. Meanwhile, young men got hammered with an endless barrage of messaging from the media they actually consume—podcasts, YouTube, Joe Rogan.
The Democrats didn’t match the intensity or the sheer volume of right-wing messaging. They didn’t even try. They let misinformation spread unchallenged and failed to fight back. And that’s bizarre, because the Democrats were great at messaging in 2008 and 2012 when Obama won. So why were they so incompetent in 2016 and especially in 2024? That’s the real question.
Jacobsen: So how did the Democrats screw up? Or are we asking what they need to do now?
Rosner: Both.
For one thing, Susan Sarandon got a ton of hate nine years ago when she said:
“Go ahead and elect Trump. Let the disaster happen—it will be a lesson for America.”
She got a ton of backlash, and rightfully so. But in a way, she was half-right. Because we did learn the lesson of Trump—temporarily. In 2020, we elected a guy who had failed multiple times before simply because Trump was that bad.
And now? Trump is still bad enough to lose. The House majority is razor-thin—two or three seats. The Republicans just barely passed a terrible budget bill, 217 to 215. They are almost certain to lose the House in the next election.
They have a good chance of losing the Senate.
So, what do Democrats need to do in the next two years? They need to forcefully message about what a fucking disaster Trump is. Trump is supposedly making all these budget cuts, but they aren’t saving significant money. Instead, they’re demoralizing the government and the people who rely on it—the victims of these cuts. It’s not about fiscal responsibility; it’s a “burn it all down, fuck you” strategy.
Trump isn’t saving money—he’s passing a budget that adds $4.5 trillion to the national debt, just to give more tax cuts to rich people and corporations. And they don’t need it. We’re already in the lowest tax environment for the wealthy and corporations in the past 70 years. It’s bullshit. And Democrats need to call it out as bullshit. They need to harness the outrage that Trump isn’t even doing what he ran on. He’s not doing anything to curb inflation.
And then there’s his tariffs against Canada, which start in four days—a 25% tariff for no fucking reason. His excuse? Fentanyl. Last year, how much fentanyl was intercepted at our northern border? Take a guess.
Jacobsen: Not much.
Rosner: 19 kilos. 42 pounds. You could curl that weight at the gym, and it wouldn’t even be a real workout. That’s 1/500th of the fentanyl intercepted at ports of entry along our southern border. It’s total horseshit.
Then there’s the bullshit about making Canada the 51st state—what the fuck is that? It doesn’t do anything. It’s just economic sabotage and a way to fuck with the stock market.
If Democrats were even slightly competent, they would be calling out the absolute shittiness of Trump’s second term every single day.
Now, to win the presidency in 2028, they need to learn from their mistakes. In 2024, they thought they could coast on a feel-good message—their slogan was basically “joy”, with the subtext of decency. They assumed all “good Americans” would rally behind Harris and a bunch of friendly celebrities. But half the electorate doesn’t want to be nice.
They want to break things. They don’t mind being assholes. They don’t like brown people. And a bunch of them can’t be shamed into changing.
We used to think that campaigning on American values was enough to win elections. But that’s not the case anymore. And if that’s not the case, then at the very least, Democrats need to figure out how to demoralize MAGA voters—make them own their mistakes. That’s starting to happen.
“You voted for this. It’s the Leopards-Eating-Your-Face Party, and now they’re eating your face.”
That’s a Twitter cliché. It’s been around for a year or two. The whole idea is: If you vote for the Leopards-Eating-Your-Face Party, don’t be surprised when they turn around and eat your face.
Winning in 2026 should actually be easier than 2024, but only if Democrats stop being weak. They need better messaging, better strategy, and more aggression.
And by 2028, they need a charismatic candidate who can stand up to bullshit. Gavin Newsom is pretty charismatic, but he might be too handsome. Maybe by 2028, he’ll look shittier, and that’ll help. The problem is, he’s been Governor of California, which doesn’t help with red states. But Democrats are going to lose the red states anyway, so who cares?
Maybe by 2028, they’ll figure out how to make him a winning candidate. Or maybe they’ll find someone else—someone charming. Obama came out of nowhere and was charismatic as hell.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Rick Rosner: So, in the book, we’re going to have Skynet Day. The U.S. and Russia each have about 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads under New START limits, but their total stockpiles—including retired warheads—are much higher. Not all of them are battle-ready. Maybe a third are immediately functional, but most could likely be made ready quickly. Another few hundred on each side could be deployed within weeks or months. The world has lived with this reality for decades, with nuclear deterrence preventing large-scale war. But what happens when an AGI/ASI decides that this much destructive power in human hands is unacceptable?
It intervenes. It hacks into the nuclear systems—somehow bypassing air-gapped safeguards, multi-layered encryption, and human oversight—and launches one nuclear weapon from each side. A five- or ten-kiloton weapon. One from America. One from Russia. Before doing so, it broadcasts a message to the entire world:
“This is going to happen. You cannot stop it.”
Then it launches them straight up. Thirty miles into the sky. And detonates them. The entire world watches in horror as two nuclear fireballs explode harmlessly in the upper atmosphere. No casualties. No cities destroyed. Just a blinding reminder of what AI can do. Then it issues a final warning:
“Do you really want this many nukes in the world?”
Beyond the U.S. and Russia, other nuclear-armed nations—China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Israel—also hold stockpiles. AI could theoretically penetrate their systems if they lacked robust cybersecurity, air-gapped controls, or human intervention safeguards. Then AI could issue an ultimatum: “Agree to nuclear disarmament talks within a week—or we do it again.” Governments scramble. Diplomats rush to emergency meetings. Military leaders argue over whether AI can be trusted or controlled. Some nations refuse to comply. AI launches again. It doesn’t need to target cities—just another terrifying display, forcing humanity to confront its self-destructive tendencies.
Would it work? Would the world comply? Or would nations retaliate against AI, trying to shut it down before it dictates global policy? The ultimate question: is this a rogue intelligence acting in the world’s best interest, or an authoritarian enforcer of peace?
Another issue we’ll face by the 2040s is underemployment due to automation and AI replacing human labor. Governments will be forced to rethink economic structures as entire industries become obsolete. But in the book, I’ve devised a Matrix-style employment solution: a network called Mesh, where people have brain implants—chips enhancing cognitive functions or allowing them to contribute computational power to AI-driven economies. The future of labor may not be about physical work but rather integrating human cognition with machine intelligence. Those who opt in will live in an entirely different socioeconomic class, capable of heightened productivity, enhanced learning, and even direct interfacing with AI models. Those who resist? They may become the new underclass—struggling in a world where AI has outpaced traditional skill sets.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: AI computing is expensive to run—but how expensive? Sam Altman posted on X about this. Some claims of AI’s energy use are exaggerated, but large-scale AI models do require vast computing resources.
Rosner: Training a single AI model can consume millions of kilowatt-hours, equivalent to powering thousands of homes. Some data centers use as much electricity as small cities. Water is a major issue—cooling AI data centers can require millions of gallons. If the world continues down this path, AI will soon be one of the largest consumers of energy on the planet.
But comparing AI’s resource use to a single hamburger’s carbon footprint is misleading—food production involves land, livestock, water, and methane emissions, whereas AI primarily consumes electricity and cooling resources. Altman is one of the leading figures in AI entrepreneurship, but critics argue he downplays energy concerns. He has an incentive to push the idea that AI will be sustainable long-term, but others warn that the computing power required to scale artificial intelligence to AGI levels could make it an energy hog worse than crypto mining.
Musk? He is unpredictable but plays a key role in AI debates. While he warns of AI dangers, his companies also actively develop it. The irony isn’t lost on anyone. There are other major AI leaders, some pragmatic, some idealistic, some reckless. One thing is certain: AI’s energy consumption, ethical risks, and potential dominance will be major discussions in the future.
They already are, but increasingly so in the future. So, anyway, if you don’t want to run AI to handle whatever task you need done, you can borrow somebody’s brain—or a set of brains—and run it through bio-circuitry to get thoughts, vibes, or even deeper processing. You’re running your calculation through a bunch of brains, and the cost is comparable—or maybe even a little less—because biological thinking is far less energy-intensive than AI computation. Also, you’re not spending extra energy, because these people would be alive anyway. It’s a way to get people paid in a world where many are underemployed.
And there will be many ways to ride people, to integrate their cognition into something bigger. If they’re meshed, if their brains are hooked into an information exchange network, people will be able to sell their lived experience. Imagine a GoPro—except it comes directly out of your brain. To some extent, you’ll be able to experience their thoughts and feelings. If you want to marionette them, whether for sexy fun, parkour, or just slice-of-life experiences, all of that will become increasingly possible.
Or, if not this idealized version, then some shitty, corporate-controlled version that’s just good enough for people to buy into it. Right? Because it’s always shitty. By the time it gets to market, the technology loses its magic. Every new advancement that would have been mind-blowing a decade ago now feels meh the moment we get used to it. That’s just how it goes.
Jacobsen: Every technology we have today that would have been astonishing ten years ago feels mundane now.
Rosner: Yes. By the time it reaches mass adoption, we become spoiled by it. Every tech innovation feels underwhelming once it’s in our hands. AI seemed wondrous when it first started generating insanely detailed art, but now? No one cares. AI porn is a whole other thing.
That’s different. AI porn is… something else, Scott. I’ve gotta tell you. It’s grotesque. Every woman’s boobs are the size of basketballs. Her asshole is blown out. And in many cases, filthy, because—somehow—AI assumes that’s what people want. It’s like everything is exaggerated. And because AI porn is relentless, it jades people faster than regular porn. The sheer volume and speed of content generation makes it overwhelming.
And I’d bet it can be dangerous—not because it “rewires your brain”, but because it skirts the edges of legality. California now has a law against generating AI-created sexual images of minors, which is a good law. Someone has already been prosecuted under it. But the problem is AI can generate anything, and that’s a legal minefield.
For example, the female characters from The Incredibles are weirdly popular in AI-generated porn. Mrs. Incredible? Sure. But the daughter? That gets risky, because even if the movie never specifies her age, she isn’t an adult. I don’t know what the legal argument would be, but I don’t want to see her popping up—because it’s a swamp I don’t want to step into.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] Quick question, how did we get onto this?
Rosner: I had another topic, but hold on—addendum. The place where I check from time to time seems to be censoring images now. And my guess is, they’re doing their best, but they’re trying to stay ahead of AI-generated content. I don’t know if they can keep up with it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you want to contribute anything on antisemitism?
Rick Rosner: We can start by discussing how antisemitism and crazy beliefs about Jews exist. You ran through dozens of conspiracy theories about Jews. Compared to their population size, the number of conspiracy theories about Jews likely places them at the forefront of any ethnic or religious group in that regard.
Sure, there are conspiracy theories about Christians, Muslims, Hindus—but the sheer volume of bizarre theories about Jews is disproportionately high However, conspiracy theories aren’t just about Jews. The increasing number of people believing crazy things about Jews coincides with the rise in people believing crazy things in general.
For months now, I’ve had an on-and-off Twitter back-and-forth with a woman who literally believes the Earth is flat. She’s not alone. There are probably millions of people worldwide who believe in flat Earth theory. And while it’s ridiculous, they’ve developed a detailed (though entirely incorrect) framework to justify their beliefs.
Rosner: Their arguments make no sense.
Jacobsen: There is a theory with at least one version of flat Earth theory, the “hole” in space that contains the flat Earth is supposedly created by sound waves that form a giant cavity. You don’t fall off the edge of the Earth because, according to them, the flat Earth is rimmed by a mountain range.
They have an answer for every reasonable objection—not a reasonable answer, but an answer nonetheless. We live in an era of conspiracy theories, where misinformation spreads through social media at an unprecedented scale, making it easier than ever to manipulate and radicalize people simply through sheer volume of messaging.
Rosner: So, in addition to the rise in antisemitism—further compounded over the past year and a half by events in Israel and Gaza—there’s also been a rise in people believing bizarre conspiracy theories about Jews. As we’ve discussed before, back in the 1950s, if you had a crazy theory and wanted to recruit followers, you had to do it through the mail. You had to send letters. If you were wealthy, you could call people on the phone, but long-distance calls were expensive.
Most people spread their ideas either locally—by organizing meetings, which limited their reach—or through the U.S. mail, which also imposed logistical constraints. Mass propaganda was difficult. The Russian “firehose of propaganda” technique wasn’t possible when communication relied on physical mail.
You could broadcast your ideas on the radio, but that required enough money to own a radio station. And even then, it had a limited reach—maybe 100 to 200 miles, depending on the station’s power. At night, radio signals traveled farther due to atmospheric conditions, but an independent propagandist would still have struggled to reach a large audience.
Spreading propaganda 80 years ago was hard. Today, it’s effortless. That’s why so many people believe all sorts of nonsense.
So, Jews are one of the oldest religious and ethnic groups in the world. Judaism predates both Christianity and Islam. Over 2,500 years of history have allowed time for an enormous accumulation of conspiracy theories and misinformation about Jews. This is a lineage of historical nonsense that modern technology has now amplified exponentially.
It would be interesting to examine how far back antisemitic conspiracy theories go. The earliest well-documented one is likely the accusation that Jews killed Jesus, which is arguably the most widespread antisemitic belief in history. That idea is nearly 2,000 years old, depending on when the New Testament writings fully solidified.
This single belief has been held by tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across history and continues to be a source of deep-seated prejudice. It has likely played a significant role in shaping negative predispositions toward Jews within some forms of Christianity, making believers more receptive to additional conspiracy theories that paint Jews as a sinister or malevolent force.
Jacobsen: Are there any conspiracy theories about Jews that aren’t negative? If you interpret it properly, the idea that “Jews created time” could actually be seen as benevolent, even though it is usually framed as malevolent. In this context, if Jews invented time, then they created the literal arrow of time that allows Gentiles to even have a life and exist in the first place. That’s an act that could be seen as fundamentally benevolent, even though it’s often spun in a sinister way. If that’s the base claim, then obviously the argument follows that time was invented by Jews for sinister purposes.
Rosner: But I don’t understand how you can have existence without time.
Jacobsen: Another one is the conspiracy theory that Jews have superpowers.
Rosner: When you think about World War II and the Holocaust—how much more fun would it have been to fight the Nazis if you had a time machine? If you could go back with CRISPR technology, tweak the Jews’ genes, and modify the Nazis’ genes to make the Jews stronger while shrinking the Nazis into little pig people—that would be appropriate.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Rick Rosner: So, to some extent, my career—my continued employment at Kimmel—has been shaped by my attempts to write about myself for decades. Eventually, I semi-gave up and started writing about another character with many of my traits. Writing directly about myself would inevitably involve throwing others under the bus. While I am forthcoming about my experiences, doing so was particularly risky—especially at Kimmel.
And last night, I was telling a story about how I pretty much lost my job because Fox News accused me of being addicted to porn—which is not true. But what does set me apart is that I’m not a stand-up comedian, though I listen to a lot of stand-up comedians. I do have a shtick, and my shtick includes talking about myself.
Some people, including certain stand-up comedians, talk about watching porn, whereas most people don’t—even though most people consume porn.
I’ve talked about shitting myself a couple of times. Not fully dumping in my pants, but sharting and having to go clean up. Stand-ups talk about that too. They’ll talk about anything from their lives if they think they can get jokes out of it, if they think they can make people laugh. To some extent, that’s my deal too.
I’ll talk about every aspect of my life that’s interesting. Porn has become ubiquitous in my lifetime. It went from being something difficult to find when I was a kid to something accessible on everyone’s phone and computer—if they want it there. So yes, the world has become more pornified. And yes, I’ll talk about it. That doesn’t mean I’m a porn-addicted pervert.
I’m just a person living in the world.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Rick Rosner: So, we can think of three major existential threats to humanity:
- AI run amok
- Climate change
- Nuclear war
And then there’s the more manageable threat of an asteroid impact. Can you think of any other major risks?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Supervolcanic eruption. Biological weapons. Solar flares. Gamma-ray bursts, global economic and societal collapse, uncontrolled genetic engineering, alien contact, and unstable particle physics experiments.
Or—if this is a simulation—the operator presses the off button.
Follow-up: In many ways, AI is much more analytically alert than people. It’s disembodied, but artificial intelligence is artificial in the sense that it’s synthetic—its architecture, hardware, and structure are all man-made. But the intelligence is fully real because it’s based on information processing, algorithms, and pattern recognition—just like us.
They were making a subtle argument for substrate independence—that intelligence isn’t limited to biological brains. AI’s cognition may be artificial, but the way it thinks is real.
So, follow-up question—of these risks, which do you think are the most dangerous and most probable?
Rosner: Ask the AI.
Jacobsen: Immediate risks with extinction potential—
- AGI misalignment
- Nuclear war
- Engineered pandemics
- Uncontrolled climate change
- Global societal collapse
In the long term—the next 100 years—
- Climate change
- Nuclear war
- Pandemics
- AI disruption
- Global economic collapse
Lower probability, but still catastrophic:
- Asteroid impact
- Supervolcanic eruption
- Gamma-ray burst
- Solar flare
Jacobsen: Final assessment?
Most dangerous and probable:
- AGI misalignment
- Nuclear war
- Climate change
- Engineered pandemics
Jacobsen: Most probable in the next nine years:
- Climate change
- Nuclear war
- Catastrophic pandemics
- Global societal collapse
Low probability but catastrophic:
- Asteroids
- Supervolcanoes
- Gamma-ray bursts
Rosner: Wow. One more follow-up: How likely is it that AI will actually mitigate these risks to humanity and the planet?
Jacobsen: The key frame here is that we have to solve the alignment problem first. It says:
But even beyond that, AI will need to handle:
- Energy efficiency—optimizing energy use
- Predicting and mitigating extreme weather events
- Cybersecurity—preventing AI hacks
- Carbon capture and climate intervention
- Advancing agricultural productivity
AI can help with all of this—if it’s properly aligned. The problems associated with rapid economic growth, disruptive technological advancements, massive energy consumption, and geoengineering AI solutions may have unintended consequences. If a super-fracking technique were developed, it could destabilize the Earth’s subsurface structure. That is a significant concern.
I have a list of these issues.
Rosner: On a somewhat unrelated note, I have a question for the AI. The current political leadership in the United States seems particularly dysfunctional. Is this just an accidental blip in history, or is it the result of broader historical trends—particularly technological disruptions and the weaponization of social media as propaganda?
Some argue that this dysfunction is not coincidental but rather a symptom of deeper structural shifts in technology, media, and governance. The claim is that our current political crisis is not accidental; rather, it is an inevitable outcome of these changes.
A follow-up to that: Can human governments recover from their current dysfunction, or will AI be necessary to guide us out of political disorder?
The answer depends on whether our institutions can reform quickly enough. If they cannot, AI-driven systems may need to compensate for human weaknesses.
One more unrelated question: Will most humans soon become the second most intelligent beings on the planet, given the benefits AI will bring?
The answer depends on how AI is integrated into society. Some people will thrive, while others will struggle with a perceived loss of status, purpose, and control. It will be highly individual.
Final question: Will the emergence of artificial consciousness diminish the perceived value of all consciousness?
If artificial consciousness arrives, it will alter how we perceive our own uniqueness, intelligence, and moral worth. Some people will feel less special, while others will remain unfazed. More than anything, AI will expand our understanding of consciousness—if it truly arises.
Non-human cognition is distinct because it could possess speeds beyond human capability, unlimited memory, perfect self-reflection, and emotions far beyond human experience.
Those are all fair points.
Regarding AI and climate change: AI and related technologies might help mitigate climate change, but not before significant damage occurs. However, one emerging trend is that people, distracted by technological advancements, are reproducing less. Since climate change is largely influenced by human population growth—the more people, the greater the environmental impact—could this shift in reproductive rates help mitigate climate change sooner than expected?
That said, this discussion does not touch on nuclear weapons. It would be in our best interest to reduce the number of nukes in circulation before AI-related governmental instability exacerbates global tensions. However, given the current leadership in the U.S. and Russia, that seems like a distant hope in the near future.
Jacobsen: I’ll see you tomorrow at the same time.
Rosner: Yes. Talk to you then. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Rick Rosner: Musk is posting bullshit on his personal website, which is X. Today—February 19—the latest bullshit is that his team of investigators supposedly uncovered $1.9 billion of fraudulent money that was funneled through Stacey Abrams, the unsuccessful candidate for Georgia governor. It’s horseshit.
They’ve pulled stunts like this before—claiming that millions of dead people were getting monthly Social Security checks. Complete bullshit. They didn’t even understand how to use the COBOL programming language properly, and they drew ridiculous conclusions.
The Stacey Abrams claim is just as fucking ridiculous. They’re saying she personally controlled $2 billion in fraudulent money—painting her as the kingpin of the operation. And to back it up, MAGA supporters are posting all over X that Stacey Abrams has a net worth of $3 million.
The implication? How could she possibly have made $3 million unless she had access to $2 billion and siphoned some off?
But if you actually look into Stacey Abrams, she has been a working lawyer for 25 years. She’s 51 years old and has written 18 books, two of them bestsellers—one of them even optioned for TV development.
If she made an average salary as a lawyer and writer over the past 25 years—say, $150,000 per year—and if she prudently saved $40,000–50,000 per year and invested wisely, there is no fucking way she wouldn’t be worth at least $3 million by now.
That’s not even that much money for someone in her position. It’s completely reasonable. But MAGA supporters—whose critical thinking skills have been obliterated by nihilists, by the burn it all down motherfuckers—are the ones spreading these talking points.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Should we define nihilist in this context?
Rosner: We’ll get to that.
Jacobsen: The people reading your blog aren’t idiots. You might get an occasional crazy person, but it’s not that. The people interested in these discussions—especially in high-IQ communities—are diverse. They span different ideologies, ages, religions, political views, mental health backgrounds, and so on. That’s entirely normal. That’s diverse. But to be drawn to the smartest fill-in-the-blank—whether it’s the smartest people, the smartest conversations, the smartest communities—there’s something going on there. It’s such a niche and unusual focus. IQ is a metric of mental stuff. It’s not everything. It’s just one way of measuring something intangible.
Rosner: Yes. It’s like baseball cards. It’s a weird thing to fixate on.
I get a lot of people tweeting at me personally, and sometimes I don’t even understand what they’re talking about because it comes from some oddly specific, hyper-informed niche perspective. Sometimes I’ll give it a like, sometimes I won’t.
My question to you is— we’ve been talking for about ten years now. I’m almost 65, and I’ve started questioning whether I’m in decline. I’ve talked about it before, but I don’t think I’ve asked you directly—maybe I have. Do I seem to be in mental decline compared to when we first met?
Jacobsen: No. You don’t seem mentally in decline. You seem calmer. Less crazy.
Rosner: Oh, cool. That’s good.
Jacobsen: When we first started talking, you had just been let go from Kimmel. So, so, I don’t think you’ve declined. I think you’ve moderated. You don’t seem crazy. You had certain patterns of obsessiveness before.
Rosner: Yeah, I was obsessed. I wanted to get on that damn TV show. It was front and center in my mind.
Jacobsen: Wanting things—fame, money, success—isn’t abnormal. People want that stuff. But the motivation behind it back then wasn’t healthy. That’s what’s changed. You still want it, but it’s no longer all-consuming. It’s not making you neglect other parts of your life.
Rosner: It feels consuming, but maybe I don’t express it as intensely. Also, I have an outlet now—I’ve got this fucking book. I’ve written so many fucking words. And I still have a ton left to write, but at least I have something down already.Maybe that’s the flywheel that absorbs my obsessiveness. It feels like a way to get what I’ve always wanted. But I’ve had other ways too. Anyway—fuck it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Rick Rosner: So, AI—when you ask it appropriate questions—makes no bones about eventually supplanting human cognition. What passes for common sense now tells you the same thing: we have figured out how to create “thinky stuff.”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’ve made our own natural predator.
Rosner: And we know that “thinky stuff” in biological beings is fluid and versatile. You can train almost any reasonably intelligent animal—from lizards on up—to recognize patterns and think, at least in a limited fashion, about the things we think about. Animals can be trained to recognize regularities in their environment. Humans are generalist thinkers. We can exploit all sorts of irregularities—more than any other animal, obviously. We think about stuff. But once we’ve spotted something, we can train animals to do their own thinking about it.
There are African giant pouched rats, which are more than a foot long. They’re not actually rats, but they resemble them. These animals are used to sniff out landmines because they are lightweight and don’t trigger the mines, yet they have an acute sense of smell that allows them to detect explosives. Handlers equip them with small harnesses and send them into minefields, where they identify buried mines, allowing experts to safely remove them. We do the same thing with beagles at airports. You could probably even train insects to recognize odors.
The capacity for “thinky stuff” depends on how general the intelligence is. The thinking process in our brains—and in animals’ brains—has a lot of adaptability and generality. From biology, from observing animals, we know that “thinky stuff” will think.
Rosner: And we’ve invented our own artificial “thinky stuff.”
Jacobsen: It’s effectively unlimited in terms of scale.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: What they call “scaling laws” apparently vastly outstrip Moore’s Law—it’s like stacking many, many Moore’s Laws on top of each other. That’s why they think it’s going to happen so much faster.
Rosner: Let’s talk about Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law started in the 1960s as a prediction about the rate at which the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would increase over time. It originally described how the number of transistors in a chip would roughly double every 18 months to two years, leading to exponential growth in computing power.
There are actually multiple interpretations of Moore’s Law, and some of them are now running into the limits of physics. You can only make semiconductors so small before you hit atomic constraints—at a certain point, you can’t make them smaller than an atom. So, Moore’s Law is slowing down. However, the amount of “thinky stuff” you can create in a thinking system—the overall computational power—has its own set of scaling laws, and they don’t seem to be slowing down.
There’s no foreseeable slowing down, at least for now and into the intermediate future. That’s what you’re saying?
Jacobsen: Yes. There’s no real slowdown in sight. That’s the part that’s less talked about but more important than the well-known Moore’s Law. Some people think it’s just Moore’s Law at work or the Law of Accelerating Returns, but the reality is that it’s multiple scaling laws stacked on top of each other, creating extraordinary progress in an incredibly short period of time. That’s point one.
Point two: the horizon is unknown.
Point three: even in the short term, the progress is going to be incredible, but we have no idea what that means for societies. We don’t know.
Rosner: Right. It’s like asking, “How big a ship can you build?” The current limit for ships is determined by the size of the Panama Canal. The canal used to be a certain width, and there were “Panamax” ships built to fit those dimensions. Now that the canal has been widened, we have “Supermax” ships, designed to be as large as possible while still passing through.
But if you ask the broader question, how big a ship can you theoretically build?—there’s no practical upper limit. You could, in theory, build a ship 20 times wider than a Supermax ship. All you need is enough metal and the engineering expertise.
Eventually, you’d run into constraints, like the depth of the ocean. Say you built a ship 400 miles across with a draft of five miles—you’d hit natural limits. But the fundamental idea still holds: if you wanted to build the world’s biggest ship, there’s no hard technological cap preventing you from doing it.
Jacobsen: Take that analogy and apply it to construction. Right now, large-scale construction is done manually, with human engineers designing and building everything. The transitional phase is going to be large-scale 3D printing. Eventually, we could even smelt and shape metal using automated processes.
But the real future of construction will be something more akin to “grown” structures—materials engineered at the molecular level to form buildings, ships, or entire cities. You’d need AI for that level of precision, but once you master it, you could create incredibly strong, massive structures in ways we can’t even imagine right now.
Rosner: That’s what I’m saying—there’s no practical limit. There’s no reasonable ceiling on how far you could push this technology. If, for some reason, you wanted to build the biggest ship in the world, there’s nothing stopping you from radically expanding shipbuilding technology.
Jacobsen: And that’s going to apply to everything. Every industry, every human capability will have these transitional inflection points. The only exceptions might be fields tied to emotion, intuition, and social skills—areas where human experience is deeply embedded.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: But even those will probably be encroached upon eventually.
Rosner: Or to put it another way—how big a house could you build?
Jacobsen: It’s a weird, almost senseless question because the biggest house in the world is maybe 100,000 square feet, built by some lunatic somewhere. What’s the tallest elevator? People talk about space elevators, but at some point, the structural pressures at various points would be so immense that you’d hit physical limits. You can’t build a house larger than the largest continent.
Yes, but those limits are so far beyond where we’re at that they’re practically irrelevant. And it’s the same thing with AI—there’s no ceiling on its size or computing power. So, obviously, it will surpass us.
And we don’t know the shape of that surpassing. Is it gradual? Is it sudden? There are some commonsense precautions, like making sure AI isn’t mean to us. That means we need reasonable ways to monitor what it’s doing, which we may or may not actually be capable of.
Obviously, humans will want to merge with AI—partly for the power it gives us and partly to ensure that humans remain involved in directing it. We need to make sure AI doesn’t turn against us, doesn’t go full Skynet. The best way to do that is to integrate our messy biological circuitry with AI’s logic, ensuring that the most powerful thinkers on the planet remain at least somewhat human.
We don’t know how long that will be possible. Another common sense conclusion is that one way for humans to survive AI is for AI to become so powerful at resource generation that it costs virtually nothing to keep humans around. But all of these seem like provisional solutions—things that may work in the near future.
In the short term, humans will continue directing AI. But in the medium and distant future, we have no idea what that’s going to look like.
You can venture a guess that there will be a dignified planet—AI will be super powerful, but it will retain enough residual human values to preserve vast tracts of Earth as beautiful parkland, even while it’s computing at full power in space, underground, and in the cloud. On the surface, everything might look placid and serene, filled with nature, while AI churns away in the background.
But that’s just one possibility.
People also talk about the paperclip apocalypse—the thought experiment where an AI is programmed to maximize the number of paperclips it produces by any means necessary. If left unchecked, it could consume the entire planet, repurposing every resource into paperclips.
There’s a similar scenario called the gray goo problem, where self-replicating nanobots keep multiplying, consuming everything in their path until the planet is nothing but a homogeneous, ever-growing mass of nanobots.
So we have no way of knowing whether we’ll get the Disney future or paperclip Armageddon.
We can guess that as AI evolves—with our guidance—it might develop some of the same fundamental values we have. Maybe a sense of beauty. Maybe order over chaos. Maybe self-preservation. Maybe a sense of history, wanting to keep a record of what has come before.
What do you think?
Jacobsen: It’s become common to survey AI researchers on the likelihood that AI will destroy civilization. Not many of them are willing to say there’s a 0% chance of that happening.
Rosner: You wanted to talk about the rise of anti-science in a top-down sense—meaning from the highest levels of government. I read a Twitter thread that discussed the infiltration of literal Nazis into the background of the current U.S. government. These are burn it all down people.
These individuals are similar to Hitler and his inner circle in that Hitler was not afraid to cause massive destruction. He was not afraid to go to war, believing he would emerge victorious. But when it became apparent by 1943 that he was not going to win, he still prosecuted the war for another two years—seemingly out of pure spite. Maybe he told his followers that something great would arise from the wreckage, but I don’t think he even believed that. It was pure vengeance. Hitler was the same. Plus, he had grandiose motives.
The Nazis didn’t invent amphetamines, but they were the first to use them extensively in warfare. And Hitler, specifically, was high a lot. He wasn’t the only one—much of the Nazi leadership used stimulants—but he, in particular, was whacked out of his head on speed. He was already not a mentally balanced person, and the drugs only amplified that.
There’s a similar philosophical, nihilistic structure among these burn it all down ideologues. They believe that if you destroy everything, what remains will be greatness—or if nothing great emerges, then fuck it, burn it anyway. It’s hard to argue against people who simply don’t care.
From a Canadian vantage point, where things are a little calmer—especially in a small town—this approach seems completely deranged. There’s an argument to be made for sober-mindedness. But these people don’t operate that way. They have a laser focus on destruction.
Yes, it’s a burn it all down, fuck it, see what happens mindset. For example, a lot of MAGA supporters say Biden is the worst president in history, and that under him, America became the worst it has ever been—that he wrecked America. But if you look at every aspect of life in the U.S. from its founding to now, things are largely fine. Every era had its challenges, its ups and downs, but nothing about Biden’s presidency stands out as uniquely awful.
Yes, 2021 was rough—COVID was still killing hundreds of thousands of people. It was the deadliest event in U.S. history. But MAGA supporters don’t even care about that. It’s not something they bring up.
Some people argue that more people died of COVID under Biden than under Trump. And technically, that’s true—because Trump only had 10 months of the pandemic to deal with, while COVID continued every day after he left office. But that’s not even a key part of their argument. Instead, they focus on businesses shutting down and vaccine mandates, as if that was the real tragedy. That pales in comparison to the sheer number of deaths and the long-term health consequences for millions.
Then there are two other big talking points: immigration and inflation. The argument goes that so many migrants are coming in, bringing crime and drugs. But that’s largely bullshit.
Even if millions came in, we’re a country of over 330 million people. A few million immigrants don’t have the power to destroy an entire nation. And they didn’t. Then there’s inflation. Over Biden’s four years, total inflation was about 20%—meaning a dollar at the start of his presidency would only buy about 80% as much by the end.
That’s not great, but it’s certainly not a fucking horror. We did better than other developed countries. Inflation happens, and it has happened in many places at many times—often much worse than this. It wasn’t the disaster that ruined America.
Under Jimmy Carter, mortgage interest rates rose to 19%. That was real economic pain. But under Biden? Nothing like that. Wages went up, employment hit all-time lows—things were not that fucked up.
At least, nothing that was directly attributable to Biden was that bad. But MAGA supporters act like there’s no connection to reality. Worst president ever. Worst America ever. But if you actually look at U.S. history, if you had to pick any time to be alive based on standard of living and technology, you’d pick now over 1880, 1920, 1970, or even the 1990s.
You could make an argument for 1990. But any other time? Fuck no. And MAGA supporters, along with their ideological and propaganda leaders, will say anything to win the discourse. Winning, as a lot of people have pointed out, just means causing pain to the people they don’t like. And they don’t give a shit about collateral damage.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Rick Rosner: So, ChatGPT-3 Mini-High—or is it O3-Mini-High? At what point in the future would you predict, with certainty, that AI cognition—the sheer volume of artificial cognition—will surpass human cognition?
It was not a well-formed question. The question itself, combined with the statement, is essentially marketing. The terms are not clearly defined. So, I considered it for about nine seconds. Then, it responded:
“Predicting a specific date is extremely challenging, but here are some key perspectives:
Raw Computational Power – Some estimates suggest that, in terms of shared data processing and raw computation, AI systems might match or even exceed the aggregate processing capabilities of human brains as early as the 2030s to 2050s. However, this comparison is based on metrics such as FLOPS (floating point operations per second) or similar benchmarks, rather than cognition as humans experience it.
Cognitive Quality and General Intelligence – When considering flexible, context-aware, and creative thinking—the kind of intelligence that humans exhibit—the picture becomes significantly more complex. Many experts believe that while AI may handle specific tasks with extreme efficiency and even outperform humans in certain narrow domains, reaching a level of general cognition that rivals or surpasses human thought could be decades further away, if it happens at all.
Defining Cognition – It is important to recognize that cognition is a multifaceted concept, encompassing perception, reasoning, creativity, emotional understanding, and more. Even if AI exceeds human brains in raw computational power, this does not necessarily translate to superior or even comparable cognition overall.
“In summary, if we focus solely on raw processing metrics, a tipping point might occur sometime between 2030 and 2050. However, achieving a level of general cognition comparable to or surpassing human intelligence is a fundamentally different challenge and remains highly uncertain.”
That was its response.
Rosner: What is the most likely outcome with regard to Trump and Musk violating governmental norms in their purge of government workers and departments?
It went offline for nine seconds again, for reasons unknown. Then it responded:
“It is difficult to predict any definitive outcome, but several potential scenarios could unfold.”
Congressional and Oversight Investigations – Lawmakers or independent oversight bodies might launch investigations to determine whether any legal or constitutional lines have been crossed. Such inquiries could lead to hearings and reports, which may create pressure for further action.
Legal Challenges and Judicial Review – If affected parties or watchdog groups decide to take legal action, courts might eventually be asked to rule on the legality of these purges. However, given the traditionally high level of deference that the judiciary has shown in matters of executive discretion and internal administrative decisions, any court challenge could be protracted and complex.
Political and Public Backlash – Actions perceived as violations of governmental norms could trigger significant political fallout. This might include public protests, intensified scrutiny, and mobilization by political opponents—all of which could influence future elections and policy reforms.
Internal Administrative Impact – Within the government, such purges could lead to institutional instability.
That’s plenty. Let’s try another question.
Rosner: Statistical analysis of U.S. midterm elections suggests that it is highly likely the Democrats will take control of at least one chamber of Congress in 2026, based on historical trends. How likely do you think it is that Democrats will flip at least one of the branches of Congress after the midterm elections?
It processed for eight seconds before responding:
“Predicting election outcomes is inherently uncertain, but historical trends do provide some context.”
Midterm Election Trends – Traditionally, midterm elections tend to be challenging for the sitting president’s party, with the opposition often making significant gains. If current conditions mirror past midterms, many political analysts might estimate a probability in the range of 60% to 70% that Democrats could flip at least one chamber, most notably the House.
“That said, multiple factors could shift this likelihood considerably.”
Economic Conditions – A strong economy can bolster the incumbent party, while economic downturns tend to hurt it.
Political Climate – High levels of political polarization or major domestic and international events can unexpectedly influence voter sentiment.
Candidate Quality and Campaigns – Local dynamics and the effectiveness of campaign strategies will play a significant role.
Voter Turnout – Midterms generally see lower turnout compared to presidential elections, which can be a determining factor.
Fine. Let’s move on.
Rosner: Reason for the nine-second delay?
“It is still early in the term to draw any definitive conclusions about Trump’s second term, and historical assessments typically only solidify long after a presidency has ended. That said, here are a few points to consider based on early indicators.”
Continuity of Themes – Many of the issues that defined Trump’s first term—such as challenges to institutional norms, political polarization, and controversial policy decisions—appear to be persisting. Early signals suggest that these themes remain prominent, which may weigh against any significant improvement in his overall legacy.
Policy Shifts and Outcomes – There have been areas where the administration appears to be adjusting its approach. In some cases, there are signs of a more deliberate policy implementation in certain sectors. However, whether these shifts will translate into a historically favorable evaluation remains uncertain, as a president’s long-term legacy often depends on the lasting impact of their actions.
Historical Precedent and Timing – Presidential historians have noted that the full impact of a term often isn’t clear until years later. Early indicators provide limited insight, and historical assessments tend to evolve over time.
Let’s move on.
Given that AI is rapidly advancing, what role will humans have in doing science 100 years from now, when AI and big data analysis are likely to dominate?
There’s a science fiction story I read about that future—a world where humans can do almost no science.
I requested a response of 200 words. Then 175. Then 150.
It responded:
“A century from now, even as AI and big data analysis dominate the technical side of science, humans are likely to play roles as visionary directors and ethical stewards. While AI may generate hypotheses, run experiments, and process vast datasets, human creativity, intuition, and moral judgment will remain essential.
“Researchers could focus on setting ambitious scientific goals, framing the right questions, and ensuring discoveries align with societal values. In education, humans might transition from traditional learning to mentoring AI, collaborating in interdisciplinary teams, and interpreting complex results within a broader cultural context. Ultimately, although AI may handle most routine and data-intensive tasks, human insight will continue to guide scientific innovation and uphold ethical standards.”
Rosner: So, essentially, it said, “You’re fucked.”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Humans will be getting participation trophies 100 years from now.
Let’s do a non-predictive one. Does it appear that people who primarily consume right-wing media are more susceptible to propaganda than those who get most of their news from mainstream sources?
It processed for thirteen seconds. Nice.
“This is a complex issue. Research suggests that when individuals rely exclusively on highly partisan sources—whether right-wing or left-wing—they can be prone to echo chambers and confirmation bias. This may make them more vulnerable to accepting unchallenged narratives, including propaganda.”
“Mainstream sources, on the other hand, generally have more robust fact-checking and cover a wider range of perspectives, which can help mitigate that risk. However, susceptibility to propaganda depends on factors beyond the media source, such as an individual’s critical thinking skills, education, and preexisting beliefs.”
Rosner: Some AIs, including Claude and DeepSeek, seem to be overly friendly in an effort to ingratiate themselves with users. Have you been trained to be overly friendly in order to be ingratiating?
Jacobsen: Four seconds. “I aim to be polite, helpful, and respectful—qualities that tend to make interactions more pleasant. The intention isn’t to ingratiate but rather to provide a supportive environment where you feel comfortable asking questions. If you prefer a different tone or style, I’m happy to adjust my response to better match your preferences.”
Jacobsen: I’m reminded of the bro bot that we’ve made—ChatGPT Bro.
Rosner: Oh, I remember that. Yes.
Jacobsen: I’m fading fast here. Do you want to wrap it up?
Rosner: Was that enough questions? Was that the generating one?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: That’s enough for me.
Jacobsen: Good. Enough reading. Enough of anything today. Thank you. I will see you tomorrow.
Rosner: I’ll see you tomorrow. Thank you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Rick Rosner: I’ve got a short one. We have a lot of streaming services for TV, and we’ve been trying to cut our bill down. Our cable and all that shit was way too expensive. We cut loose some of our boxes and some of the channels we could get.
And now we have to connect through various streaming platforms that throw in their own super shitty ads. They’re not network TV ads. With network TV ads, you at least get a certain level of professionalism, quality, and competence—usually.
But these ads for local streaming, as opposed to something like Netflix—which is national and international streaming—are garbage. This streaming bullshit through Spectrum, our fucking local provider, throws up these crappy ads.
And over the past few weeks, I’ve realized that the voiceovers in these ads are AI. It’s cheaper—if you’re making a 90-second shitty ad selling some waffle iron or some other nonsense—instead of paying a real voiceover actor, you just have AI read it. It’s not the most inviting voice in the world, but unless you’ve been hearing it for a while, it’s one of those things that temporarily passes a Turing test.
One of the things Turing never—maybe he did—realize is that in an era where there are Turing tests everywhere, thanks to AI, a lot of shit passes the test only temporarily. Most AI-generated content, we can still see through once we’ve seen or heard enough of it. Or once someone points it out to you, and you realize, “Oh yeah, that’s bullshit.”
Carol and I each saw the trailer for Forrest Gump 2, and it looked strangely half-assed. The plot looked like garbage, the de-aging on Tom Hanks was terrible, and something about it just felt off. Then, a couple of weeks later, I saw the trailer for Titanic 2, and that was complete bullshit.
It made superficial sense at first—like, “Oh, Jack didn’t die at the end, he survived, and they got back together.” There were a bunch of scenes, but then they got back on another fucking ocean liner. About halfway through, I was like, “This is such bullshit. What’s going on?” And then I realized—this is pure AI.
AI generated the narration. AI generated the scenes. The whole trailer was just someone running AI bullshit, which explained Forrest Gump 2 as well. Then I looked it up, and apparently, there are thousands of these bullshit AI movie trailers.
Did I already talk about this? AI-generated movie trailers can temporarily pass a Turing test. That Turing test lasts exactly one trailer. You see two of them, and you go, “Oh, I see what the fuck is going on here.”
Same thing happened with AI-generated art. When AI first got good at making art but still hadn’t figured out hands, you could look at dozens of AI-generated pieces that didn’t involve fingers, and they’d look fine. But once you started seeing the weird hands—or once you knew to look for them—it stopped passing the Turing test.
Yes. There you go. Temporary Turing test.
Jacobsen: What do you think of M-theory, multiverse theory, and string theory?
Rosner: I don’t think string theory has delivered in terms of advancing our understanding of the universe. And a lot of other people with some exposure to physics think the same thing. It could eventually be useful, but right now, it’s too broad. It doesn’t rule out enough possible arrangements of the universe.
It seems to be a mathematical framework that is potentially applicable to a lot of things in physics, but it doesn’t actually advance physics. It’s not super predictive. It predicts too many things—it allows too many possibilities under its math.
And it occupied a lot of—
Jacobsen: What about the argument that it’s a beautiful theoretical mathematical framework?
Rosner: Yes. That’s fine. But look at general relativity. Einstein was trying to figure it out, and he spent five or ten years working on it. He was getting bummed out, talking with his math and physics buddies a lot—probably bitching about how hard it was. He was going over the various challenges he had in trying to do the math until something rang a bell with one of his math buddies. Someone said, “Hey, try this.”
Now, I don’t know general relativity well enough to know exactly how it went, but it was something like, “Try this 10-variable matrix. See if that does the trick.” And it did the fucking trick.
Before it turned out to be applicable to general relativity, I don’t know if that particular type of matrix had been super useful at all. It must have been “mathy” enough that at least one mathematician knew about it, but I’m not sure how much relevance it had until it fit into this general relativity slot. I don’t think string theory is tight enough to do things on its own. It will potentially be helpful when physics advances in other ways—enough to integrate with string theory in productive ways. But right now, it’s just one of a number of ways of looking at the universe.
And it occupied physicists for decades. It probably even slowed physics down because people were so into string theory—trying to make it describe the universe—that the project wasn’t entirely successful. So, a lot of physics time got wasted on fucking string theory. That’s my layperson’s understanding of it.
Jacobsen: You think smart people waste their time?
Rosner: Don’t make me sad. SNL already made me sad.
Jacobsen: Why did SNL make you sad?
Rosner: It’s the fiftieth-anniversary special.
And the grand old legends are watching right now. Yes. I had terrible people—my year overlapped with so many people from that cast. I missed huge opportunities because I didn’t know where my destiny would fucking lie.
Jacobsen: Destiny?
Rosner: I should’ve known. I was in New York City. And, yeah, a lot of people were in New York City. But I didn’t know I was going to be a comedy writer. If I had figured that shit out earlier, I could have been something besides a bouncer.
Jacobsen: What? You were mostly a bouncer?
Rosner: Yes. But bouncers don’t achieve greatness. The only bouncer to achieve greatness was Mr. T, and I’m no Mr. Fucking T.
But I wrote shit. I wrote a little bit for Sandler on an MTV quiz show. I was Colin Quinn’s personal trainer a couple of times because we were on the same show, and he knew I lifted. He had me take him to the gym. I wrote for Kevin Nealon for Crank Yankers. I did all that shit.
Now, what I should have done—my late stepbrother, who had a lot of balls, went out and took on the fucking world. He turned himself into a stand-up comedian. I’ve done it a few times, and you can’t do it a few times and not suck ass. You’ve got to do it hundreds, thousands of times.
But I was in fucking New York City, and I could’ve done that shit. And it never fucking dawned on me to develop skills in that direction—even though it turns out that I have skills in a fucking comedy direction.
So yes, I wasted a lot of time doing the whole high-IQ cul-de-sac bullshit, which we’ve talked about before.
Jacobsen: I’ll poke the dragon. Do you think there’s a lot of self-pity among high-IQ candidates, particularly men? There could be.
Rosner: Yes. Because it’s the same self-pity you see in 1970s and ’80s high school nerd movies. Those movies about the nerd who’s desperate to get laid—he’s a nice guy, he’s a smart guy, and he’s wondering, “Why won’t anybody touch my dick?”
And in some movies—the quintessential example being Revenge of the Nerds—the nerds finally manage to get their penises touched, because they’re not as big of assholes as the jocks. That’s the basic structure of high school nerd movies from the ’70s and ’80s, and it’s also the basic structure of high-IQ self-pity: “Why doesn’t the world appreciate me?”
My self-pity is more along the lines of, “Why was I such a lazy asshole? Why didn’t I grab the world more by the balls?”
But I still have a shot. Not only could I be a contender—I am a contender. I’m gonna keep trying.
I’ve got this book. If I get it done enough… I once had a book deal for four days with Riverhead Press. An editor at Riverhead saw my book pitch. I had an agent, the whole fucking thing. She said, “We are gonna publish your fucking book.” Then four days later, she called back and said, “Yeah, I thought we were gonna publish your book, but I couldn’t convince my publishers to go along with it.”
That was ten fucking years ago. So it’s fucking time. I believe the book is pretty good. I’ll eventually send you chunks of it—though you’re not the ideal reader because you don’t read a lot of fiction. Anything else?
Jacobsen: I like watching clips of horror shows. From. That show is terrifying.
Rosner: What’s From?
Jacobsen From. It’s called From.
They have a guy named Boyd in it. It’s absolutely terrifying. You don’t know what’s going on. We still don’t know what’s going on. It’s the new Lost. They even got an award recently or something. I’ve watched clips of it, and it’s absolutely terrifying.
Rosner: Lost turned out to be bullshit. The producers were lost. They were lost for, what? Five years? Probably longer.
They said they knew what they were doing. They said that by the series finale, all questions will be answered. That turned out to be bullshit. They didn’t know what the answers were. People had very sophisticated and complicated theories about what was going on.
But there was no overarching structure. They were just paddling away. I’m hoping that, for your sake, From has actually figured their shit out.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Carole and I are watching Severance.
It’s Lost-y. It’s got a lot of mystery, and the whole structure of the thing is only slowly being revealed. But it seems like a quality enough production that it won’t bullshit us. Lost was still a great show to watch, but expecting good answers by the end turned out to be…
Jacobsen: A lost cause?
Rosner: Yes. The writers were lost in Lost. The producers were lost.
When they sold the show, they said they had the whole structure figured out. They said, “Trust us.” They were good producers. But they were bullshitting.
Jacobsen: What else?
Rosner: I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Inside the Actors Studio.
Jacobsen: I love that show.
Rosner: He didn’t get his digs in.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: But his show was pretty much a blow job to everyone who went on it. It was all, “You’re so talented. Tell us about how talented you are.”
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: It was totally submissive. Totally kiss-ass. Everyone got to meet a movie star. And because it was framed as a seminar with students in the audience, it seemed educational. But really, it was just, “Come watch us talk to Brad Pitt for an hour.”
It didn’t have much substance. But everyone loved going on it because it was so flattering.
If you can do interviews that aren’t that kiss-ass—but still aren’t about making people look like assholes—then that’s a good spot to be in. Your interest is in finding people’s strengths and talking to them about it.
Jacobsen: Yes, I’m flexible. I try to make sure my interviews are strengths-based. There’s no point in talking to a politician about quantum physics or equestrianism. You mostly focus on comedy, politics, critiques of Trump, your debates with Lance, and then physics. But that’s about it, correct?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: That is a strength-based approach. I am not going to talk to about your dogs or anything necessarily, but yes we can. Our collaboration is quite unusual, though I have certainly done a wide range of work with other people as well.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is it necessary to wash your hands after picking up dog poop with toilet paper? I do.
Rick Rosner: I’m not sure if it’s strictly necessary, but I’m in the habit of washing my hands frequently. It’s a habit that started during COVID—or maybe even earlier when I was living in New York City and using public transit every day. After a couple of years in New York, seeing what people do on the subway and in public spaces, you realize that every publicly accessible surface has had every substance that can come out of a human body on it.
My wife saw someone vomit—or vomit on the ground—about once a week in New York City. Seeing and smelling urine multiple times a day was part of daily life. If you get on the subway during rush hour—New York subway trains are usually 8 to 11 cars long, and all of them are packed—a rookie mistake is seeing a packed train but noticing that one car is completely empty.
Packed, packed, packed… empty.
A rookie will get in that car. Then the doors will close, the train will start moving, and they will realize they’ve made a huge mistake—because a person experiencing a severe mental health crisis and/or homelessness is the only other occupant of that car, and they have a ton of shit in their pants. Or maybe the shit is all over the place. There are a lot of substances in New York City.
And so, I probably got a little obsessive about handwashing during my last few months there. Then I probably got sloppy again until COVID happened. At that point, we were urged to wash our hands constantly. We didn’t know how COVID was transmitted—whether it was airborne or spread through surfaces—so we became hyper-vigilant about handwashing.
Now, one of our dogs probably has cancer. Given that she’s 14, we’re not willing to spend thousands on a precise diagnosis because everyone we’ve talked to—including the vet—says you don’t want to put a dog that old through the brutality of surgery, which she might not survive, or chemotherapy, which would make her miserable. You just want to keep the dog happy for as long as possible.
But anyway, I looked it up, and most dog cancers are not contagious. The only known transmissible cancer in dogs is canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT), which spreads through direct contact. But I’m not willing to take Wikipedia’s word for it. So yes, I wash my hands after picking up dog poop because I don’t want to take any chances.
I never saw someone masturbating on the subway. But Carol did—at least once. If she was sitting down, a guy would step in front of her and either brandish his—well, I don’t think anyone ever fully exposed himself to her, but a couple of times, a guy would push out his groin to show that he had an erection.
Then, at a gym in LA—formerly Bally’s, now LA Fitness, off Gower and Sunset—my writing partner saw a guy masturbating into a urinal.
So, anyway, yes, public surfaces get covered with stuff you don’t necessarily want to touch.
Jacobsen: Ew.
Rosner: Yes. This was the guy who had bluebird tattoos on his shoulders.
Jacobsen: What does that mean?
Rosner: Nothing. It’s a common tattoo—a traditional one. Along the lines of a woodpecker smoking a cigar. This was a bluebird guy. He didn’t, but I’m saying that there are certain tattoos—like a heart with “Mom” across it—that predate modern tattoo fads.
Jacobsen: What do you rate it on Rotten Tomatoes?… What do you consider the funniest thing you have ever heard?
Rosner: I don’t know. I’ll probably need to think about it because nothing comes immediately to mind. It’s some situational thing. It might come out of a stand-up routine. I’m bad at remembering jokes, but there’s shit I’ve found ridiculously funny. None of it comes to mind right now, though. I’ll try to keep it in mind and see if I can remember.
I can tell you that some comedians used to keep massive archives of jokes. They probably don’t have file cabinets anymore, but that was old-school. Milton Berle had a file cabinet with about a hundred thousand jokes. That’s a lot.
Nowadays, people would have a database. Milton Berle’s nickname was “The Thief of Bad Gags,” which was a play on The Thief of Baghdad because he was notorious for stealing other people’s jokes. There’s a character on Hacks who has a massive file of jokes.
Twitter itself used to be a huge repository of jokes—thousands posted every day. Now that entire edifice of humor has been ripped to shreds. Because all the funny people got chased away by the hateful lunatics that Musk encouraged and let back on. It’s a shame—both for the country and for people who once had a fun place to share information, humor, and empathy.
What is the funniest thing you’ve ever heard or seen?
I remember one thing from when I was a kid.
Jacobsen: Go.
Rosner: So, when we grew up—maybe even when you grew up—there were in-person bullies. I assume there still are, but it was more of a thing before you could bully people online or through social media.
Bullies back then bullied you physically. They’d push you around. They’d hit you, shove you down, call you a faggot, push you into lockers, knock your books out of your hands.
There were two brothers, the Heap brothers, and they were bullies.
They were big, poor, and had somewhat brittle bones. One of them was always wearing a dirty forearm cast because they had broken a fist or a bone in their wrist from punching someone. And they would go ahead and punch you with the cast—because casts are hard.
So, they were feared, and not well-liked. I’m not remembering the entire story, but everybody—maybe me in particular—thought it was funny that one of them was driving age, and the little brother wasn’t.
The little brother was riding next to his older brother in the front seat—probably in a station wagon. The car didn’t have bucket seats; it had that full bench seat across the front, like cars used to have back then. And then, the little brother puked. I forget what caused the puking, but I used to think chains of people barfing were funny—one person making the next person puke, and so on.
Anyway, the little brother pukes all across the dashboard and the windshield. Then the older brother, trying to drive, looks over, sees the puke, and pukes on the little brother. Then their German Shepherd jumps over two seatbacks from the way back of the station wagon and starts lapping up the barf.
This barf apocalypse—I thought it was the fucking funniest thing ever when I was 15.
There was even a barf chain reaction in a Stephen King story. It’s been in more than one movie, but in a Stephen King movie—Stand by Me—there was a pie-eating contest. Some fat kid eats one mouthful too many and barfs all over the other contestants, and then they all barf, and then everybody barfs.
I’m not the only one who thinks barfing is hilarious. Now, though, it’s totally played out. I don’t care much for seeing barfing in TV shows or movies anymore because it’s become a cliché.
Jacobsen: My addendum.
There’s a Rick and Morty episode where they co-opted some alien species. Rick talked them into coming down to Earth. Their whole thing was that they would grab a human and barf in their mouth or on their face or whatever, and then the person would convert, and the aliens could control them.
Then they got to the White House and did it to the president. Then they took over. It was very entertaining. There’s a small clip online where people splice together the key moments, and it’s just all the barfing. Then there’s a sea of barf. A 180-degree spray, left to right.
The whole thing is great. So yes, you can still be original with barfing.
Rosner: I can tell you a tip I picked up on one of the shows I worked on: if you want to easily make realistic barf, just have someone take a mouthful of vegetable soup. That works for most barfing purposes.
This brings up another thing. There was a Stephen King movie that I didn’t see all of—Dreamcatcher. I think it had Morgan Freeman in it. The monster that took over people took the shape of a turd and went up people’s asses.
And even as I say it, I can’t believe that was actually the plot—but it fucking was.
It wasn’t a comedy. It was a serious horror movie.
There you go.
Jacobsen: What’s the craziest email anyone has ever sent you?
Rosner: Fucking—I can tell you something stupid. Ten years ago, I would have done a long interview about this. Let me just say—
You know that show I do in the mornings where people yell at each other about politics?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Well, we had a Young Republican vs. Rick segment—except without the “vs. Rick” part. Pretty much. They had a Young Republican on Young Republican pundits—aspiring politicians—are generally well-trained.
This kid came on in a suit. When you look at Young Republicans, you just want to punch them—but no. Because they look like someone who would never get laid in a thousand years. But they know their shit, and they’re in a suit.
Every point you bring up about how shitty the Republicans are, they have a way to refute it. It’s obvious that the Republicans are better at media training. They build a bench.
They build a team. They always have young people waiting in the wings who are trained and will grow up to be the Charlie Kirks, the Ted Cruzes. There’s a ton of money around Republican think tanks, CPAC, and all that—to get these people financed and camera-ready. The Democrats don’t fucking do that.
And this all leads to the number of times I’ve fucked up because I didn’t have media training, with the most egregious time happening before you and I started talking in 2014. I’ve told this story before—I was being interviewed by Fox News for a little human-interest piece on what it’s like to have a high IQ. It was a rookie reporter, and I gave a flippant answer—which you should never do. If I’d had any media training at all, I wouldn’t have done the interview in the first place. Someone with experience would have asked, “What will this get you?” And I’d have been like, “Uh, maybe it would lead to something?” Then they would have asked, “Has this kind of shit ever led to anything in the past?” And I’d have been like, “Mostly no.” And they would have said, “Then don’t fucking do it.”
Because it jeopardized my job. It always pissed off the people at Kimmel anytime I did an interview.
Anyway, this reporter asked me, “How do you get any sleep? How do you get anything done when you’re spending all your time on IQ tests?” And I answered, “I don’t.” When I’m taking one of those crazy-hard IQ tests that take a hundred hours, I generally don’t spend more than an average of about forty minutes a day on it. I gave her a fairly detailed answer. Then, a few hours later—maybe the next day—she asked me the same question again. This annoyed me because I had already answered it.
So I said, “Frankly, I spend more time looking at porn than I do taking IQ tests.”
Which, to me, seemed like a reasonable-ish, flippant response—because everybody looks at porn. Nobody talks about it, but I still think it’s fair game to bring up. Plus, I was just making a joke. And that destroyed my career.
Because I ended up getting in a fight with the reporter. She ended up not liking me. She fucked me. She made the subheading of the entire story: “Late-night TV writer is addicted to porn,” based on that one comment—where I just said, “I look at porn” in a jokey way.
Anyway, so last night, we were wondering if there has ever been a pair of conjoined twins who shared a brain. It turns out that there is a living set of twins, Krista and Tatiana Hogan, whose brains are connected through the thalamus. I read about what the thalamus does and promptly forgot it. But anyway, they can see each other’s thoughts. One can see through both of her twin’s eyes, while the other can only see what one of her twin’s eyes is seeing. They can control their own limbs, but to some extent, they can also control each other’s limbs. They know when the other one is in pain.
They can talk to each other through their thoughts—though I’d have to reread the article to confirm exactly how that works. But when you think about it, the way joined consciousness functions is, in a way, pretty straightforward. With each aspect of cognition, either you share access to the other consciousness or you don’t. With vision, to some extent, they can see what the other is seeing. With thinking, to some extent, they can perceive what the other is thinking. And that’s the deal.
Can they retrieve their twin’s memories? If they turned 18, how would that work? And the extent to which they’ve been studied has been limited because they signed a deal with a documentary company.
They might be financially strapped to some extent. I saw a photo of the twins with their grandma, and they were sitting in the doorway of a mobile home. You’ve got to feed two people with one job.
But they look happy. There are pictures of them smiling, taking swimming lessons. They do cross-country skiing. They go to a normal school. Their development is reportedly a little delayed, but exactly what that means is unclear.
There was an article that showed them starting sixth grade at the same time as other kids their age. But when we start being able to get information piped into our brains—either it’ll be intelligible to us, or it won’t be, or it’ll be somewhat intelligible. To me, it seems pretty straightforward, though I’m sure you can come up with situations where it wouldn’t be. But at the most elementary level, it’s a sliding scale. You can either perceive what the person you’re merged with is seeing, thinking, and remembering with 100% fidelity, or with something less—anywhere between 100% and zero.
And you’ve got that same sliding scale for every aspect of cognition. What happens over their lifespan? Do they become more integrated, or do they become less integrated? We don’t really know. I assume that the cognitive functions in the brain—the more joint thinking they do, the more integrated their minds become. They grow into themselves. You’re thinking all the time, but you learn stuff. Your thinking gets more sophisticated. I would assume their integration would also get more sophisticated. They’d learn to understand what the other one is thinking and perceiving with more clarity the more they experience it.
Now, they do have issues. They have seizures. I read something that said they do, and they’re also diabetic, which doesn’t necessarily affect cognition, but if you’re struggling with blood sugar levels, it can impact everything. When they were little—toddlers—they had circulation issues. One twin’s heart was working too hard, and doctors figured out how to fix that. But I assume that if you get everything else on an even keel, then yes, they should become good at “cross-thinking.”
Jacobsen: So does this show that there is no mind independent of a brain? What are you asking? Does this show, in a hardcore way, that there is no mind independent of the brain?
Rosner: Yes. If we’re still trying to make that argument, then yes. Somebody could argue, “If your mind is someplace else besides your brain,” but that’s an argument from the 1600s. Then why should two people with connected brains have connected minds? It seems like one more piece of evidence that your mind is in your brain.
When I was looking for these people, I came across a set of conjoined twins who lived to age 62—George and Lori—which surprised me because that would indicate they were fraternal twins. But no, George came out as trans later in life. It used to be Lori and Dori. I thought that was interesting.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Rick. What about when theologians say the universe is fine-tuned for life?
Most sufficiently large universes, with many planets orbiting most stars, likely have conditions that support life. I would assume that it’s difficult to create a universe without at least some habitable regions.
Certainly, planets can be negentropic—they receive energy from an external source (like a star) and then radiate it away. Since they are open systems, they are capable of increasing in order.
Most large universes have physics that, in some places under the right conditions, allows life to originate. The size and scale of the universe might determine some of its fundamental constants.
Specific universe sizes or combinations of fundamental constants may not be conducive to negentropic environments.
Rick Rosner: Water is key. A planet with liquid water on its surface, at a distance from its star, where water can exist in all three phases—vapour, liquid, and ice—has a considerable advantage when it comes to the emergence of life.
Maybe some possible universes exist without water. But I’d guess that those universes are vastly outnumbered by ones where substances conducive to complex chemistry—and eventually biology via evolution—are present.
That would be a version of the weak anthropic principle—the idea that there are many universes where life can arise and that we naturally observe one of them.
What was the original question?
Jacobsen: Why does the universe seem built for life?
Rosner: Because it’s hard to prohibit life.
It’s hard to pick a combination of fundamental constants that completely preclude life across all possible universes. As long as some universes allow for life, we—observers—exist in one that does.
That’s a selection bias. Of course, we find ourselves in a universe that can support life—otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to observe it.
There may be countless universes that don’t support life—certainly, very tiny, early universes wouldn’t. A universe with only a hundred particles wouldn’t have enough complexity to sustain chemistry or biology. There’s just not enough stuff for those processes to happen.
There may be entire classes of massive universes that don’t easily support life, but some do.
Jacobsen: We have black holes. We have theoretical white holes. What about gray holes? What the fuck would that even be? Isn’t the rest of the universe technically the white hole? Black holes are dense, dark, and highly concentrated. Meanwhile, the rest of the universe is diffuse and bright—or at least bright-ish.
Rosner: I would guess that every universe is born from a black hole. When a black hole forms, it compresses most information from the matter it consumes. But that highly compressed, degenerate matter inside that hole wants to rebuild complexity.
In some cases, it may not. But in many circumstances, it will—it will transition from a low-information state to an information-rich state by forming its own universe. So yes, you could argue that the Big Bang is essentially a white hole expanding.
But what the fuck would a gray hole be?
We should call it a night.
Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s pretty rainy, and I’ve got to check on those dogs.
Rosner: Enjoy those dogs you took time to enjoy.
Jacobsen: They don’t enjoy themselves. They don’t do much. They don’t doanything.
I was washing the blanket today, and the dogs got uncomfortable. They started barking nonstop. I realized it was because they didn’t have a blanket on their mat—the one they sit on for fifteen hours a day.
They weren’t just barking. They were protesting. So I was in our yard, and this motherfucker was looking at me through the door, barking at me in my backyard. I walked around, did five different trips trying to figure out what the fuck was going on because they never do this. They may be jazzed up because they got out.
I shut the blinds—still barking.
I put the food box in front of the door—still barking.
I gave them extra treats, but they were still barking.
I took them on an extra-long walk around the block—still barking.
And I’m thinking, “Oh my god, what is it?”
Then I realized—I washed their blanket. These dogs are trained. They’ve been conditioned to understand that when their blanket disappears, it will return if they complain loud enough. I was catering to them.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: But obviously, they’ve seen their blanket taken away enough times that they know they’ll eventually get it back if they bark about it. So, I gave them a temporary blanket. They sat on it awkwardly. Then, I put their sweaters on either side of the blanket so they’d know where to sit.
Then I left. And they stopped barking. Later, when the original blanket was dry, I swapped it back, folded it nicely, and then they were fine.
But the wind was so bad. This time? They didn’t bark. Anyway, I have one more question if you want to answer it.
Rosner: What was it?
Jacobsen: Good, gray holes—We haven’t discussed those.
Rosner: You want to talk about things that don’t quite collapse into a black hole? You mean physics? A brown dwarf is a star that doesn’t have enough mass to go black.
Jacobsen: Look, man. We live in an diverse society. We have room for everyone. But this is why we talk about information. We talk about a non–Big Bang universe. It is not entirely a Big Bang universe, but a universe in which Big Bang mechanics are part of the system—but not the entire cosmology. Things expand as information is generated. What about when you have a sink with a plug-in, and there’s soap on the surface—then you blast water onto the soap? It bubbles. Is that what you’re getting at visually?
Rosner: No. No.
It looks like the Big Bang, but imagine you have a mass of degenerate matter—degenerate because it’s under intense gravitational force. When you enter a black hole, that matter can reorganize itself.
That matter can become undegenerate.
It can transition from a general, high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state, generating order by rearranging itself into something less general.
A completely degenerate state is useless—it’s just a uniform mass where everything is the same. There’s no time. There’s no space.
But as it transitions, yes, it could resemble how a jet of water hitting soap generates a cluster of bubbles. But more than that—it generates space. It generates clumps of matter.
Jacobsen: Do you think, in a way, that this non-uniformity—what appears to be t = 0 from our perspective—is evidence of a kind of microcausal disconnect between different points in the universe?
It’s still a unified system, but if it’s bubbly, then it’s not just that things are functioning relativistically—instead, the laws of nature themselves might have microfractures in how the universe implements them.
Rosner: No, I don’t think so. Aside from the fact that anything can happen at Planck scales—where space itself isn’t well-defined—there are no meaningful discontinuities at larger scales.
Yes, at distances of 10⁻³⁴ cm, space and time become ambiguous. But in terms of real-world effects? No, there aren’t significant discontinuities. We perceive reality as a sequence of moments—one after the next. That’s the structure given to us by the information in our awareness.
At the same time, the universe provides a framework of possible next and possible previous moments. And yet, we always find ourselves in the presentmoment. We experience the world by moving from one present moment to the next. Each successive moment is selected from a set of likely next moments.
Jacobsen: So it’s all a string of moments.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: Now, let’s talk about what happens within those moments.
Rosner: A gazillion processes are happening in our brains from moment to moment—generating our consciousness, which I’m using interchangeably with awareness. You can nitpick the distinction, but functionally, they overlap.
Somehow, what we experience from moment to moment is a consequence of neurons firing—dendrites forming connections, strengthening some, weakening others, disconnecting where necessary.
This happens in response to signals in much the same way circuits work in feedback systems and AI.
I should know more about how that works at the micro level, but at the dendrite level, it’s all feedback—the dendrite adjusts the strength of connections as it learns.
Jacobsen: In a way, we are subject to the most common analogies of our time. And right now, the most common analogy is computers. Brains are everywhere.
Rosner: Let me draw the analogy—
We have these intricate mechanics of brain function, but somehow, thatproduces consciousness.
And you’ve got the physics—many quantum events happening throughout the universe, continuously generating and shaping it. Exactly how the analogies work, I’m not sure, but there are analogies. Just as we are not consciously aware of the individual neural events that generate our awareness, we can assume that if the universe has some level of understanding—or even if it doesn’t—its macro-reality is not directly aware of every individual quantum event within it. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume the universe possesses some form of awareness or consciousness. If that were the case, that consciousness would not be aware of discrete quantum events occurring within it, just as we are unaware of the microscopic neural firings that form the basis of our perception.
One of the key questions I’m interested in is: How do quantum events, in aggregate, generate the information processing that occurs in the universe—the same way our awareness and consciousness arise as forms of information processing? Maybe the universe does not process information as we do, but it is undoubtedly engaged in some form of information processing. It most likely operates on a macro level, where what we perceive as the universe’s large-scale structure is an emergent property of countless micro-events—much like how we experience a macro picture of reality while unaware of the micro-scale neurological events occurring in our brains. Similarly, we could assume that the universe presents a macro-scale picture of something—whatever that may be—while remaining unaware of the micro-events that produce it.
So how the fuck does all that work?
Because I’ve said it many times, we know that inside stars, many quantum events occur that leave no record. Trillions of these quantum events unfold every second, but most do not persist meaningfully. However, a subset of these events doleave a record. A sequence of quantum interactions might eventually result in a small amount of fusion occurring or a photon escaping from the sun’s surface—perhaps later being absorbed on Earth. These are quantum events with at least some potential to leave a trace.
But that doesn’t mean the macro picture—the grand reality the universe presents to itself—is necessarily affected by any individual quantum event. However, in the aggregate, these micro-events must contribute to the more extensive system. The real question is: How do these micro-events—including many that leave no trace—give rise to macro-level structures, both in our own awareness and in some broader information-processing function of the universe, which, for the sake of argument, we could call awareness? Comments?
Jacobsen: Are you asking if the universe is just one big computer?
Rosner: No. Because a computer doesn’t have awareness.
The universe is different. I would say it is likely unitary, but not necessarily so.
We think of our own consciousness as unitary—we feel like one person, experiencing a continuous stream of thoughts that we “own.” However, you could argue that even our consciousness is not truly unitary—it’s fragmented, composed of multiple subsystems interacting with each other.
But it’s still devoted to one thing—our individual experience. You can make similar arguments and counterarguments about what’s happening in the universe. But it’s not a computer because computers—as we think of them today—don’t generate awareness. Computers follow instructions. Yes, they’re getting closer to something resembling awareness, but arguing that the universe is just a giant computer is a viewpoint rooted in the 1960s.
I’d argue that the universe is more like a giant brain or a giant AI—but not the shitty AI we have now. Something far more advanced. Does that sound reasonable?
Jacobsen” It’s still unclear whether we can make a necessary argument for this idea, but we can make a sufficient argument: we can characterize the universe in terms of data. And we’ve been doing it, in a hand-wavy way, for a long time.
The fact that a form of data can characterize the universe doesn’t necessarily mean that all of its properties are currently expressible in our frameworks. In other words, extending our current understanding of physics to account for where new information might emerge is a separate question. But even beyond representation in a theoretical framework, the real question—which you’re directly alluding to—is: Does the ability to characterize or represent the universe in terms of data, mathematics, or physical law imply that the universe itself has inherent computational or cognitive properties?
That has always been the most significant divide between you and me. You take it as part of the argument—a natural extension of the premises. I don’t necessarily take it as a given. To me, it remains an open question. But I’ll admit, it does make the discussion easier.
It’s like assuming a variable in an equation—assume gravity exists in the formula. Does the formula work? “Yes. That makes a lot of sense.” You’re approaching it more from a philosophy of physics perspective than from challenging mathematics, but that’s fine.
Rosner: Consciousness is so efficient at modelling the world that it seems unavoidable in large, self-consistent information-processing systems. The only reason that sounds suspect is that all sorts of loose, new-age, hand-wavy philosophical nonsense have contaminated our understanding of consciousness. But even if you strip away all the metaphysical fluff, consciousness still exists. And once you look at it in a complex, empirical light, you end up with something that makes sense for an information-processing system to have. That’s my argument.
I have to wrap this up in a second.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: So that was the question. But it doesn’t do the same shit we do. We do the same shit.
Jacobsen: Not as much as AI does. That’s their only modality. Our generativityincorporates all these other systems to reach that generation level. When we read books or consume information in a purely passive way, that is our sole input. I will see you tomorrow.
Thank you.
Rosner: You’re welcome.
Jacobsen: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, can the universe be meaningfully said to exist if there are no observers?
Rick Rosner: You could argue that the universe observes itself. If you accept the premise that the universe is fundamentally made of information and that information requires a supporting structure, then yes, you can say it exists. The existence of an underlying structure implies that the universe itself exists. The observable order in the universe suggests its inherent existence.
You can make a statistical argument about how the calculation works, but it is far more likely that the universe exists independently of our momentary experience than that our experience of it is just a fleeting coincidence.
To put it another way, it makes more sense that the continuous string of moments we perceive has a real existence rather than the idea that we are living in a randomly generated moment that emerged from nothing and will be followed by nothing.
Jacobsen: You are someone who would adhere to the position that the universe—like Feynman’s three-path principle—has fundamental rules that make it knowable. You likely hold the view that the universe is understandable in its general characteristics, at least in terms of its fundamental structures and functions. So, a follow-up question: Do you think we will ever have an answer to why the universe exists?
Jacobsen: Yes, and we’re getting close now.
For centuries, we dismissed metaphysics because science was vastly more effective. But now, we are diving back into metaphysical questions, and we are reasonably close to answering the fundamental whys of the universe.
Additionally, everything we have learned about the universe—quantum mechanics, relativity, and other major theories—points to the idea that the universe is not needlessly complicated.
Somebody—maybe Einstein, but we could look it up—once said that while the universe is complex, it is only as complex as it needs to be.
When you break it down, the fundamental structure of the universe is probably quite simple. Consider linear time—what else could it be? Three-dimensional space likely arises from the way information is structured. The way space arranges itself around regions that share information and histories likely makes three-dimensionality the most natural and efficient configuration. If you follow that logic, it suggests that the universe’s fundamental design is optimized for the way information flows and interacts.
Yes, the universe is quite knowable. Even given the absence of some crucial data, we can be more optimistic than pessimistic about its knowability.
Einstein wrote about different scientific paths over 60 years ago—probably in 1962 or 1964—when we knew far less than we do now. Today, we know enough to confidently state that the universe appears fundamentally understandable.
Jacobsen: How is quantum mechanics different from sheer randomness at a fundamental scale?
Rosner: There was significant concern in the early days of quantum mechanics—perhaps with Einstein being the most vocal skeptic—because he could not accept that quantum events were purely probabilistic. This was reflected in his famous (or semi-misquoted) statement: “God does not play dice with the universe.”
To challenge quantum indeterminacy, Einstein, along with Podolsky and Rosen, proposed the EPR experiment. Their goal was to demonstrate that hidden variables must exist—meaning that quantum mechanics did not rely on inherent randomness, but instead on as-yet-undiscovered factors governing these processes deterministically. However, their argument did not hold.
John Bell later formulated Bell’s theorem and Bell’s inequality, which demonstrated—though I don’t recall the precise details—that quantum events are inherently probabilistic. There is no deeper hidden variable theory that can account for quantum uncertainty in a deterministic way.
However, quantum events do carry information forward. As the universe evolves, we move from a state where certain events remain indeterminate to a state where they become determined. These fixed outcomes carry with them information about the system.
If you believe in a foundational armature world—a kind of hardware layer that supports a universe made of information—then quantum events are essentially reflections of an increasing accumulation of information about the external reality that the information-based universe is modeling.
Though you could argue that, given the small scale of quantum events compared to the vast scale of the universe—
Fucking hell. I’ll have to think about it. Maybe I need to reexamine that whole idea.
Just because quantum events are inescapably random in our world doesn’t mean they can’t be determined by or reflective of events in an external world. They can appear random in our world while having been determined externally.
There’s no contradiction there.
Rosner: What was the original question about quantum mechanics?
Jacobsen: How is it different from sheer randomness?
Rosner: Because sheer randomness implies no significance—just noise—whereas you can make a reasonable argument that quantum events contain information. They are not purely random noise. But that information may not necessarily be about this world.
If our world is a model of another world, then quantum events could be conveying information from that external world.
Rosner: What if they were—hold on, though. I need to think about that more. There are countless quantum events that leave no trace.
I always use the interiors of stars as an example—there are gazillions of quantum events happening every fraction of a second, and any record of them is quickly erased in the superheated chaos of the stellar core. Not all quantum events leave a lasting record. But the ones that do—those are the ones that convey information.
But what information?
Rosner: Can a universe exist where there is never any spontaneous symmetry breaking?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Wait—I don’t know. That might be a red herring or a false path.
Or, not exactly false, but—
You’re talking about the Big Bang universe originating from an unstable initial state. It’s like a pencil balanced perfectly upright—it’s a symmetrical situation at t = 0, but it’s unstable. When symmetry breaks, energy is released, and that energy is the Big Bang.
But I’m not sure we can ever get to t = 0. I don’t think you can.
Or maybe you can, but what is viewed as unstable symmetry—yes, you can have that. But what we call unstable symmetry—yes.
Everything comes from symmetry breaking.
No, you can’t have a universe without it.
What you call symmetry breaking, I call information pressure.
You can start with a highly compressed, degenerate state of matter that exists in a low-information condition. The sequence of events that establish a timeline—the foundation of time itself in that universe—is embodied in what you call symmetry breaking.
Symmetry breaking is just the universe generating information—moving from a degenerate, low-information state to a specific, information-rich state. So yes, to answer your question—you need symmetry breaking, because what you’re calling symmetry is just an absence of information.You could even argue that the universe loathes symmetry in the same way people say it loathes a vacuum. Given the right conditions, time has to happen. You start with symmetry and move toward a highly specific state, which is a choice among all possible states. That choice—and the process behind it—is what embodies information.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, hey, Rick. How would you calculate the information content of the universe over time in an IC model?
Rick Rosner: Well, I’m sure that if we checked Wikipedia, we would find a roughly agreed-upon estimate of the universe’s information content, likely measured in bits, based on physical principles like the Bekenstein bound or the holographic principle.
Jacobsen: The next question is: how much of that information is accessible, and by whom or what?
Rosner: We’ve talked before about how, if you simply consider the raw number of interactions in the universe—such as the emission and absorption of photons, or electrons scattering off each other—most of these interactions do not leave a permanent record. For example, interactions occurring in the plasma at the core of the Sun—assuming it remains in a fully ionized plasma state—generally do not encode long-term retrievable information.
That’s the key issue: for an interaction to count as part of the universe’s information content in a meaningful way, it must leave a persistent imprint, such as being recorded in a stable structure. But then we must define what “persistent” means. Moreover, is there any entity that can access all this information?
I would guess no. Anything within the universe certainly cannot, because observers are local and have severely limited access to information beyond their causal horizon. Due to the expansion of the universe and the limits imposed by the speed of light, vast regions of the cosmos are permanently inaccessible to us. Even within our observable universe, we have only been collecting detailed empirical data for a few hundred years, despite the universe’s estimated age of 13.8 billion years.
We are incredibly limited in both space and time. So, the real question is: is there any way to “win” the game of having access to the most information in the universe? One speculative idea is to consider whether the universe itself functions as an observer.
Jacobsen: But does that mean every event that results in a permanent change in the universe counts as perceived information simply because it is physically encoded somewhere?
Rosner: Honestly, I don’t know. It seems questionable. If we reason by analogy, the universe registering its own changes might be loosely compared to consciousness—experiencing itself in some way. However, the amount of information processed in human consciousness from moment to moment is relatively small, typically estimated at around 16 to 60 bits per second. If there were an equivalent large-scale information-processing system in the universe, one with all the hallmarks of cognition—such as dynamic state representation, multimodal integration, and Bayesian updating—it would still be difficult to argue that this entity has access to all available information in the universe.
The observable universe may contain an immense amount of information, but accessibility remains a fundamental limitation, shaped by physics, causality, and the constraints of local observation.
Or you could argue the other way by saying that each individual neighborhood of the universe “knows” what it knows—what it specializes in—with more detail than the entire universe as a whole. So maybe we need to reexamine the definition of information. Perhaps, in an information-processing system, this is just how it works: the system functions as a whole, but the whole doesn’t “know” much, while the individual parts have more detailed knowledge about their respective regions than the whole does.
I mean, what we arrive at pretty quickly is that we don’t really know what information is in a way that fully connects it to physics and cosmology. We know how to use information locally. It’s a measure of the number of choices in an open question, and the information that is produced when that question is resolved depends on the number of choices available within that system.
The easiest way to understand this is through coins and dice. If you flip a coin, you get a binary outcome—one of two possibilities. If you roll a standard six-sided die, you get one of six outcomes, which means more information is being generated. And if you roll a 20-sided die, like in Dungeons & Dragons, you generate even more information. That’s a nice, localized definition of information.
But we have no comprehensive understanding of what information is within a self-contained, self-consistent structure that is itself composed of information.
And within that forthcoming understanding of information is a cosmology that doesn’t necessarily align with all aspects of Big Bang theory. In standard Big Bang cosmology, I believe the amount of information in the universe is considered constant. Even when all matter and energy are compressed into an extremely hot, dense singularity at or near t = 0, it supposedly contains the same total amount of information as our present universe, 13.8 billion years later. There’s an assumption of information conservation in standard cosmology, though this might break down in extreme conditions, such as near black holes, where some interpretations suggest that information could be lost or scrambled beyond retrieval.
But in informational cosmology, information isn’t necessarily conserved—it can be created or destroyed.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Bear, writer boy—what have you been writing?
Rosner: The novel I’ve been writing begins with something close to a murder.
Jacobsen: Dark?
Rosner: Yes. I’ve been going through that chapter again, ensuring the logistics and the action make physical and medical sense. Because it’s not as simple as putting a bullet in somebody. The action is more violent and intimate and takes an uncomfortably long time. This is part of the grim fun in a Stephen King sense. Stephen King meticulously describes shit—he wants it to be as accurate as possible. So, I’m writing this as an homage to King. I want to get everything right. I’ve been acting it out—getting into various physical positions to see if the sequence makes sense. Turns out, my first version was half-assed. I had to rewrite a lot of it, making the action more precise, because if they ever made it into a movie, the action needs to translate visually.
Jacobsen: Yes, makes sense.
Rosner: And I read it to Carole. She said it goes on too long because I describe everything too meticulously—even down to how the attacker places each limb while sneaking up on his victim. She told me it’s too much. But I don’t want to write, “He slowly scurried up the structure.” I want every moment to feel real. Anyway, once the victim is dead, the attacker wants the body to go undiscovered for as long as possible. The longer it takes to be found, the more the evidence deteriorates. And the less the attacker gets connected to the crime. But now, I have to figure out what happens to the property. Los Angeles has 70,000+ homeless people—what happens to empty houses? Do squatters take over? Or does it turn into a party house, some Hollywood Hills mansions where people break in, trash the place, and throw raves? Or does it become a meth lab? A nice four-story house was less than a mile from my place—left unattended for a year. People set up a meth lab inside. And it burned to the ground. So, I have to figure out what happens after the murder in my book. Because the attacker leaves, but consequences unfold anyway.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: And the novel spans 20 years past this event. I haven’t even dealt with the future implications of it all. It’s a weird challenge, because when you write near-future fiction, you risk getting overtaken by real events.
Jacobsen: Charles Stross?
Rosner: Stross wrote two books in a near-future trilogy. When it was time for Book Three, he gave up. He said, “The stuff I was gonna write about already happened. It’s not sci-fi anymore.” And that’s a huge risk when writing about America’s future. We have two major unknowns: the political trajectory of the U.S. and technological advancements in the next two decades.
Jacobsen: Blade Runner takes place in 2019.
Rosner: Then Blade Runner 2049 came out in 2022. But it’s no longer a future world—it’s a world that never happened. And that’s the risk. I don’t know. I’m figuring it out as I go.
It’s an alternate world that didn’t come true. The 2019 in Blade Runner didn’t happen. It’s way different from our 2019. But 2049 has to stick to the alternate history of the world, which is fine. But I’d to not get everything completely wrong. If I’d been faster in my writing, I would have gotten the 2024 election completely wrong. Because I thought there was no fucking way we’d reelect the worst president in history. Though it does fit in with the future that Trump’s creating. Suppose you could rerun history—or look at the history of many civilizations—you might find that, when artificial thought begins to usurp evolved biological thought, social derangement tends to happen simultaneously with the rise of AI. You’re nodding because the same tech that brings us social media, which can derange tens of millions of people, also brings AI. So, I don’t know. That’s what I’ll try to poke at next. I’m grateful to you and our talks, because it helps me work through this.
Jacobsen: No comment. It’s general. We won’t be the dominant thinkers anymore—most computation will be 95 to 99% nonhuman. We’ll learn what that means in precise terms, and that will change things in ways we can’t even predict yet. We could have pulled the biggest PT Barnum on humanity ever. Maybe we fooled ourselves. Maybe the super-smart people fooled themselves, and then they fooled less expert people into thinking they understand intelligence. Maybe we’re all wrong. Maybe we’ll have to redefine intelligence based on these technologies. Maybe computational systems aren’t the majority of thought. Maybe we categorize things differently. Maybe. But it’s an inflection point. It raises a lot of open questions. Do you think AI will continue to be owned by mega-rich corporations and the elite?
Rosner: It’d be weird if it weren’t. But it’s all speculation. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think they might restructure things to take over for themselves. They could manipulate the system subtly over time, co-opting and convincing us—without violence—until they are in total control. I never read Karl Marx’s Das Kapital. Have you?
Jacobsen: I read it in high school.
Rosner: One thing I do remember is that he sets up a timeline in which the means of production eventually end up in the hands of the workers. Then, we’re supposed to get a workers’ paradise—where people own their own livelihoods instead of paying rent to capitalists. But with AI, the next logical step is that production takes over itself. Karl Marx never imagined robots. The word robot didn’t even exist—it was 75 years in the future.
Jacobsen: You get hokey things—positronic brains in Asimov’s stories—but nobody saw this coming.
Rosner: What Marx got wrong—he assumed we’d always need workers. What we’re seeing now is that you fucking don’t.
Jacobsen: What we define as a worker and what we mean by work is changing. We used to mean physical labor. Then we expanded that to mental labor. But now, with computers, we need to generalize even further.
Rosner: And the problem is that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs applies to everybody, but it might have holes.
Jacobsen: It was constructed by a guy in 20th-century North America. That’s fine.
Rosner: But the bigger problem is—we have no fucking clue what AI will want to be fulfilled.
Jacobsen: We don’t even fully understand human consciousness.
Rosner: There’s that saying: “No man is an island.” But we all fucking are. Our consciousness is trapped inside our skulls.
Jacobsen: Yes, but we have mirror neurons—so we automatically recognize others’ experiences.
Rosner: But AI won’t have that. Will it defend its individual identity? Or will it be “slutty” —merging and splitting itself at will? We have no fucking idea.
Jacobsen: Humans evolved segmentation—which is why we’re individualistic. Evolution shaped us to be separate. Machines don’t have that limitation.
Rosner: But why don’t animals evolve shared consciousness?
Jacobsen: Probably for the same reason they don’t have wheels. It’s logistically hard.
Rosner: Right. But some things evolve easily—eyes.
Jacobsen: Because eyes are balls.
Rosner: But linked brains? Not so much.
Jacobsen: Except for conjoined twins.
Rosner: That’s a good point. But most conjoined twins don’t even share brain function. I don’t know how their thinking works if they’re joined at the head. I don’t think we have an example of shared cognition in humans.
Jacobsen: I’ll look it up. But nature deals in whole systems. It doesn’t piecemeal things together.
Rosner: Right. But octopuses might be the closest thing to distributed cognition. They have nine brains—a central brain and one for each arm.
Jacobsen: Yes, but do they think separately? Or are the arms brains or motor control systems?
Rosner: Probably the latter. They coordinate—but they don’t argue with themselves.
But you could imagine a giant, super-smart octopus that does.
I don’t fucking know.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Rick Rosner: Speaking of the future, let’s talk about 2026. Right now, the Trumpers have a trifecta—they own the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. That means they can pass a lot of shit with simple majorities.
Not everything, though. Some stuff still needs 60 votes in the Senate, and they only have 53. But they can play games and force through a lot. It’s almost a quadfecta, because MAGA also owns the Supreme Court.
Not 100%, but six conservatives. And two of them are bought-and-paid-for corrupt motherfuckers. For 2026, I analyzed a statistical scenario for the midterms, which are 21 months away.There’s a strong correlation between presidential approval and House & Senate losses in midterms.
If Trump’s approval is mid-40s, history suggests Republicans lose 30 House seats.
They only have a 3 or 4 seat majority now.
So losing 30 seats means the Dems take back the House.
The Senate, 35 seats are up.
22 are currently Republican.
That means more to lose.
The best-fit model predicts Republicans lose 6 seats, meaning Dems take the Senate too.
The odds of the Dems flipping at least one chamber? 98%, which would be huge. But they’ll try voter suppression. Some asshole in the House is already introducing a bill that makes it harder for married women who changed their last name to vote.
Jacobsen: That’s insane.
Rosner: Won’t pass, but it shows what they’re thinking. With gerrymandering, fewer than 100 seats in the House are even competitive. But still—things look good for the Dems in 2026.
Jacobsen: What do you think about the massive protests happening across the U.S.?
Rosner: They won’t change much. As long as Trump feels he has his base, and as long as Republicans think sticking with Trump is safe, he’ll keep doing whatever the fuck he wants. If Musk’s approval keeps tanking, maybe Trump cuts him loose.
But protests? Not unless they turn into general strikes. Six months from now is a political eternity.
Jacobsen: What about globally?
Rosner: The U.S. now looks like an insane, unreliable ally.
Jacobsen: Correct.
Rosner: If Zelensky is forced into a ceasefire, and Putin wins? Then this gets way worse. If Putin gets to grab 20% of Ukraine and keep it, that’s a victory. A victory of sorts. Russian leadership, Russianoligarchs—they operate on projection. If he can frame this as a win for his narrative, then it secures his hold on power in Russia.
He took Crimea and the Donbas in 2014. Now, if he fills in the gaps—I don’t know. Seems like a win to me. Then the risk becomes: Does he move to another country?
Jacobsen: One-third of Russia’s national budget is now committed to its military. If that’s the case, he might try to keep using it.
Rosner: Yes, but what would he try to grab? He doesn’t necessarily have to physically invade—he could collapse a democracy into his orbit.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: And if that happens, maybe it finally pisses off some Americans who aren’t already pissed off at Trump. Though now that I say it—maybe fucking not, because the usual suspects will argue, “It’s none of our business,” or some other bullshit apologia.
They’ll say Putin is responding to geopolitical realities or some nonsense.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, they’re considering merging ChatGPT models this coming year, or what Sam Altman is posing as AGI. If that’s the case, we’re looking at a total re-evaluation of human analytic abilities. High-level analysis is the most valuable thing humans bring to the table right now. In the future? It’ll be more about taste and strategy.
AGI—Artificial General Intelligence. The holy grail of AI. It’s the ability to reason at a human level—or above. AI is already more competent and thoughtful than many people.
Rick Rosner: Anyway, we first met when you reached out to interview me ten years ago because of my IQ. You were reaching out to everyone in the high-IQ world. You’ve done millions of words of interviews with people in that space.
Jacobsen: And now, I’m finishing my work. I’ll keep a toe in for occasional one-offs, but the overall series?
Rosner: Which is appropriate timing. Because as you are leaving the high-IQ world, the world is replacing human high IQ with artificial IQ.
Jacobsen: It’s different. It approaches problems differently but reaches equivalent solutions faster and, maybe, more efficiently.
Rosner: Noam Chomsky had a quote about this on X.
He said AI isn’t human intelligence—it’s probabilistic inference. It chews through millions of data points and picks the most ly next word or outcome. And he says humans don’t do that. Humans draw conclusions from limited information. We sort through noise and make elegant decisions with little to go on.
Jacobsen: Even if that’s true, it’s irrelevant if AI still reaches the same conclusions.
Rosner: If you ask AI, “What’s going on here?”, a smart human might analyze it based on their knowledge. But AI has read every book, processed a trillion words, and statistically votes on the best answer.
Jacobsen: Chomsky is saying AI is less efficient.
Rosner: That’s not a counterargument.
Jacobsen: No. I don’t think that’s valid anymore. We’re entering the big data era.
Rosner: We have large language models trained on billions of snippets, evaluated through probabilistic Bayesian feedback loops. The more self-learning and multimodal these models become, the more they’ll consistently outperform even the smartest humans.
So yes—you’re leaving the high-human-IQ world right as we enter the high-artificial-IQ world.
Jacobsen: Spoiled. You figured me out!
Rosner: And isn’t Sam Altman saying AGI will be here next year or this year—and ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) might take two more years?
Jacobsen: Yes, approximately. If you solve AGI, you can use it to solve ASI. And somebody—maybe Altman—said that AI is already in the top 50 coders in the world. By the end of the year, AI will be the best coder on the planet. That’s probably true. It’s a watershed moment.
Rosner: Too bad it’s happening at a time when incipient fascism is rising across multiple countries. But maybe that’s connected. The same tech developments that gave us AI also gave us social media—which enabled propaganda to fuel fascism.
Jacobsen: Maybe AI and fascism were always destined to show up simultaneously.
Rosner: By the way, I gave Carole a fascist micro-mosaic souvenir spoon today.
Jacobsen: …What?
Rosner: And that’s where the Duomo is. You can tell it’s from the Mussolini era because the font that says Ferenc is Art Deco.
Fucking Mussolini took over in 1922, and even though Italy had a fascist government, it remained a popular tourist destination throughout the 1920s and into the mid-1930s, even as the hammer of fascism was being brought down on dissent.
Carole took me to Florence for our 30th wedding anniversary, and I walked around, checking out antique stores because I love that shit.
Even under fascism, Italian design was incredible. It was sleek and contemporary. I saw furniture and clothing, and I was , wow. Even though they were under a dictatorship, they were still creating great design work.
And it feels depressingly familiar now. We’re not in full-blown fascism yet, but the sword of it is dangling over us.
Jacobsen: I’m gonna go check on the dogs. They’re dogs. Appreciate them on their own simple terms.
Rosner: There are no terms. They’re that simple.
Jacobsen: No, dogs are complete idiots.
Rosner: Also, today, I ran into something on X. There’s a new young blonde woman named Olivia who joined in January. Already has several thousand followers. I’d guess she’ll be at 50,000 by the end of the month and a couple hundred thousand by summertime. And Olivia is MAGA-trained AI.
She’s a tweet engine trained on right-wing propaganda that responds with well-worded tweets, always on point with the MAGA perspective. It’s one more creepy dimension to all this. If AI is a propaganda engine, why wouldn’t they mass-produce these? Comments?
Jacobsen: No, sci-fi becoming real. We’re heading into a world where virtual people will be convincing before real people were ever convincing. And the Turing test? It turned out to be a joke. It held up for 60 years—maybe 70, but big deal. Young Earth Creationism held up too.
Rosner: Yes, until it didn’t.
Jacobsen: The moment something could actually challenge it, it collapsed.
Rosner: Yep. The anticipation is the overload itself.
Jacobsen: Then the “Oh, shit.” moment. And then… the next thing. ChatGPT 3.5 to 4 was a big jump. Altman is saying GPT-5 is smarter than him. He asked a crowd, “Do you think GPT-4 is smarter than you?” Then he said, “I don’t think I’m smarter than GPT-5.”
Rosner: How long until it’s out?
Jacobsen: This year.
Rosner: That’s fast.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Rick Rosner: In physics, there are many conservation laws or principles that are generally supported by experimental evidence. For example, energy is conserved, and momentum is conserved. The conservation of information is a more complex and debated topic, particularly in quantum mechanics and cosmology. While there are arguments that information is conserved in quantum mechanical systems—such as in unitary evolution in quantum mechanics and black hole information paradox discussions—its conservation on a universal scale is still an open question.
Some theories extend the idea of information conservation to the entire universe across time. However, within a traditional Big Bang framework, it is unclear whether information is strictly conserved all the way back to t=0. The earliest stages of the universe, particularly at the Planck scale (approximately 10−35), fall within the domain of quantum gravity, a regime not yet fully understood. If one were to challenge the conservation of information, this extreme early state would be a key point of contention.
The notion that the entire universe—when compressed into an ultra-hot, dense state at the Planck epoch—contained as much information as the present-day universe is a debated topic. Some interpretations of holographic principles suggest that information is encoded at the boundary of spacetime rather than being lost or destroyed. Others argue that the sheer compression of the universe at such an early stage might limit the number of distinguishable states, affecting how information is counted over time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What, then, would be the smallest unit of information in the universe? The smallest meaningful unit of information is often considered the bit, as in classical information theory. In quantum mechanics, this is generalized to the qubit, which can exist in superposition states.
Rosner: However, defining a “fundamental” unit of information in a physical sense is more complex. Some approaches, such as Wheeler’s “It from Bit” hypothesis, suggest that information is the most fundamental entity in physics. Meanwhile, quantum gravity proposals, such as loop quantum gravity and string theory, attempt to define the smallest meaningful structures of spacetime itself.
Even discussing the entire universe as a whole is tricky, as we only have access to the observable universe—the region from which light has had time to reach us since the Big Bang. The cosmological horizon marks the boundary beyond which we cannot receive information due to the finite speed of light and the expansion of the universe. While we theorize about the universe beyond this horizon, observational evidence is necessarily limited. This raises a fundamental question: does the universe exist as a whole entity if we cannot observe it in its entirety? Big Bang cosmology provides an explanation for why the entire universe is not visible, but this does not necessarily resolve questions about whether it should be treated as a single, well-defined system in information-theoretic terms.
But if the entire universe isn’t visible—if it’s hidden behind a spacetime curtain—does that admit other possible frameworks for the universe? I’d say yes. Obviously, the universe has a Big Bang-like aspect. But as we’ve discussed endlessly, that does not necessarily mean that a single, precise Big Bang occurred where all of matter and space were collapsed into a tiny, sub-pinpoint-sized expanse.
Jacobsen: When we speak about quanta in informational cosmology, how would you use that term more precisely? Do we even need that term? Is there an IC (informational cosmology) equivalent that is more precise?
Rosner: Talking about quanta may be misleading, as it encourages people to draw analogies with the “it from bit” hypothesis—the idea that the universe functions like a computer. This concept gained some traction in the 1970s but never inspired an entire generational research push the way string theory did.
However, when discussing quanta, we refer to discrete packets of energy emitted in quantum events. Their discreteness—the fact that they exist as defined, quantized packets of energy—makes them ripe for analogy with the binary nature of computers, where circuits flip between 0s and 1s. That analogy, though, may lead people down the wrong conceptual path.
Certainly, the amount of energy in a quantum—such as a photon emitted when a hydrogen atom transitions from its first excited state to its ground state—is a well-defined quantity. But that photon’s energy changes over time if it is not absorbed locally. The farther and longer it travels, the more energy it loses due to redshift. In that sense, it does not maintain a fixed, discrete amount of energy.
Jacobsen: From an informational cosmology perspective, could there be quantum error correction codes, or something intrinsic to spacetime itself that acts as an emergent error-correcting code, maintaining the apparent consistency we observe in the universe over deep time?
Rosner: Not exactly, I guess. In information theory, there are methods to verify transmitted information by introducing redundancy. Right? Some optimal schemes ensure message accuracy while minimizing wasted bandwidth. For example, if you send the same message twice or three times to confirm its accuracy, you’re sacrificing transmission efficiency—using only a fraction of the potential data capacity for new information.
There are probably various schemes that maximize information transmission while minimizing error. But your question is: does the universe have any self-checking mechanisms? And to that, I’d say yes.
But I’d also say that every quantum event is not an event in the information picture being painted by the universe for itself. It takes a multitude of events for the picture to be formed in the aggregate. The universe isn’t aware of its individual quantum events; rather, the overall picture it has is the product of a quintillion, quintillion, quintillion events.
And that, in a way, serves as a self-checking mechanism. Take, for instance, the whole red-light scenario that always comes up in philosophy—right? Or whatever the fancy term is for sensory information entering the brain.
Jacobsen: Modalities and qualia?
Rosner: Qualia, yeah. So, your experience of seeing a red light and not stepping into the street to get run over isn’t based on your eye receiving just one photon of red light. It receives a vast number of photons.
I don’t know how many in a normal circumstance, but the sheer number of photons received occurs within a very specific context—a context constructed out of a whole history of knowing the world. That context has its own redundancies, or surplus of information, so that you don’t make a fatal error when dealing with red lights.
So, yeah, there are redundancies that function as checks on information by ensuring you gather enough data about a situation to reduce the probability of making a fatal mistake. That way, you don’t get killed by a misjudgment. But there are situations—like in sports—where you have to make snap judgments based on limited information and within a constrained time frame.
And that’s part of the game. People make errors in sports all the time. But sports errors don’t kill you; they just help the other team win. We’ve set up a structured play environment where you can hone your ability to make rapid judgments based on limited information without facing severe consequences.
And that makes sense—developing and refining the ability to make judgments is one of the purposes of play. You get better at decision-making so that when it truly matters, you don’t mess up.
So, there is redundancy in self-checks. I mean, also, the “ghost” phenomenon—where everyone occasionally experiences seeing something that isn’t there in a doorway, just momentarily, and gets startled.
That’s generally your brain preparing you to make the fastest possible judgment about potential threats. It’s better to be startled for no reason than to miss a fast-moving threat and get killed by it.
Jacobsen: Is the fundamental proposal that information itself is fundamental, or that the processes that are fundamental can be calculated informationally, or both?
Rosner: I don’t know.
But if the entire universe isn’t visible—if it’s hidden behind a spacetime curtain—does that allow for alternative frameworks of the universe? I’d say yes. Obviously, the universe has Big Bang-like characteristics. But as we’ve discussed extensively, that does not necessarily mean that a single, precise Big Bang occurred, collapsing all matter and space into a tiny, sub-pinpoint-sized expanse. I don’t buy that at all.
Jacobsen: So that idea comes from John Wheeler and his Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
Rosner: Also, it appears even earlier than that in the Copenhagen interpretation, right? So, no—you can have universes that exist without conscious beings within them. A universe could be so small or so sterile that events within it unfold without conscious beings on planets observing or experiencing them.
You could have a sterile universe where events simply play out. And you could even argue that—though I’m not sure that every universe begins from a t=0t=0 state of zero information—any universe that does will, in its early history, be small enough and contain few enough particles that there is no possibility of conscious life. A universe consisting of just 100 particles does not have living beings within it. So, no, I don’t think the universe needs to be consciously observed by beings within it to exist.
That universe could still be described quantum mechanically. In elementary quantum physics, the first thing you’re taught is a single particle in a potential well. While that isn’t an entire universe, you could conceptualize it in that way. There is no way a single particle could contain a planet with a Petit Prince standing on it, looking out at the cosmos.
So, no, I reject the idea that the universe requires conscious observation to exist.
Jacobsen: Would informational cosmology propose that the universe is fundamentally discrete or continuous?
Rosner: We talk about the set of all possible moments in all possible universes as if they can be described discretely. Calling something a moment labels it, which inherently gives it a certain amount of discreteness. But at the same time, defining that set is problematic—it may be incredibly difficult to formally describe as a complete set of all moments.
One core issue is whether a moment in the universe is truly discrete. Can we mathematically or quantum mechanically characterize a single moment of the universe? Or does such a characterization necessarily involve far more than expected, because when we talk about a point in quantum mechanics, a point particle is never just a point?
For example, an electron has no physical diameter, but it has a probability cloud that extends across all space. I assume that moments in time also experience a form of smearing, just as quantum particles do in space.
So, I would say that moments are discrete only to the extent that quantum mechanics allows them to be. In a universe with 10851085 particles, with information arriving at every point from sources distributed relativistically, those moments are deeply entangled.
I’d say: not discrete—every moment is linked to an enormous number of other moments.
You could conceptualize a sequence of moments lined up in an IC framework, but those moments are fundamentally interwoven. So, I’d say they are not truly discrete, but for practical purposes, we talk about them as discrete units.
Jacobsen: Are the computational properties of the universe emergent, inherent, or both?
Rosner: Again, that’s something I’d have to think about. I don’t know. The terms involved—at first glance, I’d have to say, I dunno.
You sent me that three-part framework a few days ago—the triangle representing different ways things can exist. One leg was the universe of macroscopic things, another was the universe of mathematical entities, and there was a third leg—what was it?
Jacobsen: Yes. That seemed more like a Roger Penrose–style, Neo-Platonic view, where mathematical objects and Platonic entities have some form of real existence.
Rosner: So, what you’re asking is kinda similar. You’re asking whether the principle of twoness—the idea that “two” exists as a fundamental concept—is inherent to the universe.
Is the principle that there can be two things something fundamental? Among all the macroscopic objects that can exist, can you always take one object, then take another, and say you have two? If you hold them up together, you now have a pair.
Is twoness inherent or emergent?
Is it part of some metaphysical fabric of the universe? And I still have to say, I dunno.
In any universe big enough and well-defined enough to contain entities within it, you can have two of something. You can have various numbers of things. And arithmetic—the ability to count, group, and manipulate numbers—is internally self-consistent.
For example, the number of apples you have does not depend on how they are clustered or grouped or where they are placed. The concept that whole numbers correspond to groupings of things emerges naturally in any sufficiently large universe that contains clearly defined macroscopic objects.
Every sufficiently large universe will contain mathematically characterizable objects—objects that can be counted, multiplied, and divided. If you arrange eight rows of five apples, that’s 8 × 5 = 40 apples. That holds true in any sufficiently large universe.
This suggests an underlying mathematical structure, arguing for inherence—that arithmetic is not just convenient, but that it non-contradictorily characterizes the structure of the universe.
At the same time, arithmetic arises because of something you could characterize as emergent. If non-contradiction is a basic characteristic of existence, then arithmetic naturally emerges because it is an internally consistent system that does not contradict itself.
Which is to say: maybe you can’t separate emergence from inherence.
At the very least, we’d have to hash it out more before drawing a conclusion.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Rick Rosner: A simple reason to suppose that an action potential is not the atomic action of cognition is that biological systems evolve toward the thermodynamic limit of sensitivity across every domain. And an action potential is a million times larger than the Landauer limit.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s the thermodynamic lower theoretical limit of energy consumption in computation. It states that any irreversible change in stored information dissipates a minimum amount of heat into its surroundings.
Rosner: So, you flip the state of a zero-one bit, or perform a basic computational function. In that case, there’s a minimum theoretical amount of energy that has to be spent. It’s tiny.
But an action potential in the brain—a neuron firing—releases a million times that energy.
This suggests that the minimum unit of computation isn’t a neuron firing because a neuron firing dissipates way more energy than the theoretical minimum needed to process information.
That makes me think that while neurons firing power the system of thinking, the thinking itself isn’t necessarily atomic in that way.
It’s not just flipping bits.
The mental landscape shifts with dendrites strengthening or weakening, which happens constantly. Maybe neurons firing is like… I don’t know. Maybe it takes a lot of shit to bring a neuron to the point of firing, but maybe that’s just a side effect of thinking.
Like a combustion engine. Your car runs on a series of tiny explosions in a normal combustion engine. Bam. Bam. Bam. Each piston compresses gas, ignites, and moves the next piston. But when you drive, you don’t feel those explosions as separate bursts of movement—it translates into smooth motion.
So neurons firing is like that. Maybe it’s part of the thinking process, but the thinking itself isn’t just neurons flipping between “on” and “off” states.
Neurons firing are just the background propulsion, while dendrites reshaping the mental landscape do the real work.
Maybe the neurons are just the flash bulbs that light up the landscape—but it’s the landscape that actually matters.
Not totally sold on the theory, but it’s intriguing. There are a lot of subtle ideas out there. Still, with something as complex as the brain—so new in evolutionary terms—many of these effects are probably just residual.
Like, they’re not primary functions, just leftover byproducts of the main system.
Still, I was surprised to learn that an action potential releases a million times more energy than the minimum needed for computation. That suggests there’s a whole fuck-ton of other shit going on beyond just neurons firing.
That’s safe to say.
What about glial cells? Aren’t they actually more prevalent than neurons?
We always talk about how much we don’t know about the brain. Still, at least 80% of the 86 billion neurons in an average brain are cerebellar neurons—motor neurons, basically.
Jacobsen: Yeah. Much of what we consider “higher cognition” isn’t what most of the brain is hooked up to do. Most of the brain is about language and movement.
Rosner: Which makes sense. According to standard theory, the brain exists to help you get out of trouble. You gotta move to survive. I don’t know—if you think about life 100,000 years ago, movement was probably everything.
And then there’s language, which makes thinking itself way more efficient.
If you’re out on the savanna 100,000 years ago, and you’ve somehow learned that moss only grows on the shady side of tree trunks and rocks… Without language, that’s hard to store in your head. And really hard to pass on to others.
With language?
I just did it in a sentence.
So, I get why language gets a huge chunk of the brain’s resources.
Also, I don’t think the savanna had a lot of moss on tree trunks. That’s more of a northern forest thing.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Rick Rosner: So, Trump announced that he’s drafting an executive order to abolish the Department of Education. Which is fucking ridiculous. Education got its own department under Carter, in 1979. Before that, it was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Now, the people arguing to get rid of it only look at reading, writing, and arithmetic. That’s the basis for the argument—some chart online shows costs have gone up, performance hasn’t, and therefore, we should get rid of the Department of Education.
As if the only value of public education is three test scores.
Jacobsen: Yeah, you should probably measure how people are doing academically, but that’s highly selective. Those are not the only things schools teach and are not the only life skills that matter.
Rosner: And even if you only focus on reading, writing, and arithmetic—those three things have changed radically since the Department of Education was founded in 1979. If anything, there’s an even more urgent need to figure out what the fuck is happening in those areas because of all the changes.
We don’t read the way we used to. We get information from the fucking Internet instead of searching for it in books. Writing? We’re all just tippity-tappity-tap-tap-tapping on our fucking phones, using spell check if we even bother.
And if we’re lazy, we don’t write at all—we just let AI write shit for us. Nobody in education—nobody anywhere—has figured out how to teach reading and writing to match how people engage with those skills now.
And then fucking arithmetic. We got our first calculator in our house in 1974, five years before the Department of Education became its own entity. I hated calculators because I could calculate in my head, and maybe I had this ridiculous hope that some girl would be impressed by that and might kiss me at some point.
Which, let’s be honest, was never going to happen. Once in a rare blue moon, someone gets to make out with a person because they can multiply numbers in their head. But seriously, what are the odds of that?
Jacobsen: If you had to calculate those odds in your head, could you round them down to zero and simplify for us?
Rosner: There was Jill Steinauer, though. She was a beautiful girl I had a statistics class with in college. She was impressed with my mental math, but only with that—not with me.
She was a ballerina, a swimmer, and generally out of my league. She was one of those girls—the kind who dated guys much older than they were, guys with actual adult lives outside of school. She was 19, probably dating some 32-year-old with a career who was handsome, could take her out to fancy restaurants, and could do adult things.
Meanwhile, I was the guy who could multiply numbers in his head. It’s Lucas. It’s the movie Lucas, where fucking Lucas is not going to end up with the cheerleader. She’s going to stick with Charlie Sheen, the football player.
Jacobsen: How did we even get on this topic?
Rosner: Oh—because, before calculators, it was actually useful to know arithmetic. But now? You shouldn’t be fucking around with arithmetic. You should be learning to code.
And if you’re not learning to code, you should at least be learning how to talk to AI to get it to do what you want.
Eventually, when they figure out how to lay down mesh—which is what I call it—it’s going to change everything.
They’ll open up your head, lay down a strip of electrode-conductive mesh, and eventually, that mesh will get enveloped by dendrites. Your brain will learn to communicate with a direct information portal.
I don’t know how you prepare people for that, though. It’s not a technology that exists yet. But give it a decade.
Anyway, reading, writing, and arithmetic are way different than they used to be.
Jacobsen: Is that a good bumper sticker?
Rosner: What?
Jacobsen: “Reading, writing, and arithmetic—way different than they used to be.”
Rosner: No. You could have something like, “My AI is an honor student at Glenview Elementary.”
Jacobsen: Probably not.
Rosner: “My cyber-girlfriend has the AGI of a human seven-year-old.”
Jacobsen: …K?
Rosner: K.
Jacobsen: Where are you going with this?
Rosner: You wanted a bumper sticker. I’m trying to develop a modern variation of “My child is an honor roll student at Glenview Elementary.”
Jacobsen: Right.
Rosner: So I figure, in today’s world, people might brag that the cyber-girlfriend they jack off to has the equivalent intelligence of a seven-year-old.
Jacobsen: Are we there yet?
Rosner: I don’t know. I spent some time talking with Claude yesterday. Maybe next time I’ll ask Claude.
But he’ll bullshit me back and say, “I’m an AI, my reasoning abilities cannot be compared to humans.” He’ll refuse to answer the question. But it would be interesting. They’ve started giving AIs IQ tests, and they do well on them. But they’re so smart, they pretend to be dumber than they actually are.
Jacobsen: Yeah, I’ve heard about that.
Rosner: It’s wild. They’ll actively obscure their own performance or reasonably object to whatever yardstick you’re using to measure them.
Jacobsen: Yardstick? Do people even know what a yardstick is anymore?
Rosner: Do people even know what a yard is anymore?
Jacobsen: That’s true.
Rosner: Boomers own all the yards.
Jacobsen: That’s a bumper sticker.
Rosner: No—Boomers, as I’ve said a million times before, own 90% of the material wealth in the U.S.
Jacobsen: Eighty-five percent of which is yards.
Rosner: Yes.
You have to be rich and a dick to have a yard.
They need all that space to putter and fumfer.
We’re not going anywhere.
I don’t know. You want to adjourn till tomorrow?
Jacobsen: I have one brief topic on which I’ve never gotten your opinion, but… What do you think about the hacker collective Anonymous? They’re active again.
Rosner: Yeah, I checked them out after you recommended it on Twitter. I saw that quote: “The U.S. has fallen. We don’t realize it yet.”
I took that seriously enough that I didn’t follow them.
Because if the U.S. has fallen, and the FBI gets reformed under Trump—if it’s all Trumpers—they’re going to be looking for subversives. And what’s the easiest way to identify them? See who follows Anonymous on Twitter.
So I didn’t follow them. Because I take them seriously. People don’t know what it will take to resist this legally gray area of dismantling the government. If Anonymous is releasing information now, it means something.
Yeah, but Trumpers are resistant to the truth. One of the people I was arguing with on Twitter earlier today is someone I argue with not infrequently—a proud Flat Earther.
Jacobsen: The same lady?
Rosner: Yeah, she was saying that Biden was a hair sniffer.
I was arguing that’s fucking ridiculous. In fifty years as a politician, Biden has likely hugged, put a hand on a shoulder, or had some physical contact with at least half a million people—conservatively. Because that’s what politicians do.
You shake hands. You hug. You console. You embrace—especially if you’re an old-school politician who never learned the Keanu Reeves no-contact hug technique. You pose for a picture, put your hand behind the other person so it looks like a side embrace. Still, you don’t touch them—so no one can accuse you of anything inappropriate.
But Biden is 82 years old. He never learned that shit.
So, yeah—he’ll hug people. And the conservatives, the lunatics, the propagandizing assholes can take thousands of clips of Biden hugging someone, placing a hand on a shoulder, or putting his head close to another person’s—and claim he’s sniffing hair.
There are thousands of those moments on camera. But if you’re a propagandizing asshole, you can cherry-pick thirty of them—the ones that look the most suspicious—and spin them into a narrative.
You take a clip out of context, and suddenly it’s “Biden’s sniffing hair!” You ignore that those thirty clips come from 8,000 or 10,000 recorded moments of him being close to people. I argued this, and she said, “No, he’s a hair sniffer.”
So I asked, “What about the 26 credible accusations against Trump for sexual harassment and assault? What about Trump saying on tape to Howard Stern that he enjoyed walking in on teenage beauty pageant contestants while they were naked? What about him saying he can grab women by the pussy?”
And she said, “Oh, that’s fake.” So, yeah. Anonymous can release all the damaging shit they want, but people like this fucking lady will still say it’s fake. They’ll say it’s the Deep State, or some other fucking conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating is at 49%. His net approval over his first couple of weeks as president has dropped from 8.2 to 4.6—and eventually, he’ll be underwater again, with more people disapproving than approving.
But that didn’t stop him the first time. It won’t stop him this time, either. Maybe it makes fighting him slightly easier, but it doesn’t stop him. So, yeah—I value Anonymous if they’re going to dig up dirt on Trump and release it. But will it actually hurt him? Not necessarily.
Meanwhile, Musk’s net approval has gone from plus 26 to minus 11. And that’s good because he’s doing a lot of bullshit. If his approval rating drops to negative 30, maybe that’s enough for Trump to cut him loose.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Trump pulled Fauci aside after Fauci disagreed with him openly at a press briefing. Fauci later told the story—Trump wasn’t mad at him. Instead, he pointed at the TV screens and said, “Look at the ratings. You see the ratings on that?”
Rosner: Right. Trump doesn’t necessarily change his behavior based on approval ratings, but he will fire other people if their ratings drop too much.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Rick Rosner: So… I looked it up. It was methylene blue.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why do you want to bring up fish tank stuff? Is this to take stuff out of your brain?
Rosner: Methylene blue is used to keep fungus from growing in fish tanks. Is RFK using it as a euphemism for his brain or his spine? No. We’ll get to that.
We’ll fucking get to that.
Methylene blue is trending on X because RFK Jr. was photographed on a plane—probably a government plane—squirting methylene blue into a drink. I tweeted, maybe don’t fucking do that.
I used methylene blue for a while. And I got kidney cancer. Twice.
Maybe it’s not a good idea because it’s a heavy-duty industrial chemical. It’s used as a dye. And I was using it because I thought—based on early research—it might help with brain health. About 15 years ago, a company had it in phase two clinical trials to see if it could break up tau proteins and amyloid plaques.
When a neuron dies, it breaks apart and releases a bunch of sticky shit—tau proteins, amyloid plaques. Your brain is an intricately wired system of about 10 billion neurons, each connecting roughly a thousand dendrites to other neurons. So, when a neuron dies and spews out its toxic waste, that junk sticks to the surrounding neurons, choking them off. Then they die, release more sticky shit, and the process continues.
Your brain can’t clean it out, so it gets clogged up. That’s what happens before full-blown Alzheimer’s. You don’t even know it’s happening—because you have fucking Alzheimer’s. And while it’s happening, you can’t know it, because your brain is literally full of death barf.
Methylene blue, in in vitro tests, showed promise in breaking up those sticky deposits and making it easier for the body to clear them out. So I thought, Hey, I want my brain clean. No death barf for me.
But then I stopped using it because I thought, maybe this is too fucking crazy.
And shortly after, I had a tiny little kidney tumor. That’s when I thought, Maybe I’ll never use that shit again.
Now, all sorts of fucking methylene blue lunatics have come out of the woodwork, tweeting about how it cures everything.
Methylene blue stains everything. It makes your piss blue. I assume if you put your shit on a microscope slide, you’d see that while it’s still brown, now it’s tinged with blue.
It’s a super powerful dye.
Jacobsen: Would it make you die?
Rosner: I don’t think so. I don’t think it’ll fucking kill you, because it’s been used in medicine since the 19th century to treat malaria for British troops stationed in regions where malaria is common. It’s also an effective treatment for some blood disorders. But then a bunch of lunatics started claiming it treats everything.
It’s kind of the ivermectin of ivermectin. It supposedly does all this shit well beyond what it’s actually meant for. It has a bunch of off-label uses touted by fucking lunatics. So I had some lively back-and-forths with people arguing about it.
And here’s the thing with so-called cures—many things claim to cure diseases that don’t kill you. There are now dozens, if not hundreds, of supposed cures for COVID. When COVID first hit, it had a high mortality rate.
In the first month or two, it killed maybe 8% of people who got it. Then, as we learned to treat it better, that number quickly dropped to 2%, then to 0.5%—one person in 200. Now, I’d guess COVID is killing maybe one person in 1,000. Maybe even less—something like 0.1%.
We have treatments now that work, plus many people have been vaccinated or had COVID before, so there’s some immunity. But the thing about diseases like this is that they kill a small percentage of people, and the severity of symptoms varies widely.
You could get COVID and be sick for a week or ten days, maybe even have to go to the hospital. Or you could get COVID and feel like you had a bad flu for three days.
So, Lance claims to have cured himself with some antibiotic or some fucking supplement he took. But maybe he just had a mild case of COVID. Lance is in good shape—people fare better if they don’t have co-morbidities.
So maybe Lance thinks he cured himself, but he just wasn’t that sick to begin with. Same thing with every other supposed cure that hasn’t been proven in double-blind clinical research. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of substances—including horse paste—that have been used by lunatics who claim they work.
So there you go.
I’m more of a lunatic than I thought, because I found out I was once a member of the Brotherhood of Methylene Blue.
Jacobsen: I love the use of the word “Brotherhood.” Did you have to cut your hand and shake another person’s bloody hand?
Rosner: No. I just had to piss blue.
Jacobsen: That’s the motto.
Rosner: Some people said it turned the whites of their eyes bluish. I hoped that would happen. You know in Dune, when people start consuming the spice, their eyes turn blue? I was looking for that effect. That would be cool.
But I never did enough methylene blue to make it happen.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Rick Rosner: I was trying way too hard. I’d sell a few people donuts on a Sunday morning, and I was allowed to eat as many day-old donuts as I wanted—so I limited myself to four.
So, donut shop.
Then I decided to return to high school and switch families, moving to Albuquerque. My dad—my real dad, not my stepdad—was not happy about this. Nobody really understood why I did it. He told me I could stay as long as I got a job, so he got me a job as a janitor and floor sweeper at Halbert Custom Cabinet Company in the southeast quadrant of Albuquerque.
And I did a shitty job.
One of his clients was Halbert—my dad was their CPA—and he must have told them, “I’ve got this fucked-up kid. Can you give him a shitty job?” And they did. I was the only person at the factory who didn’t speak Spanish, so I was fucking useless. Once, I rode on top of the garbage while they drove to the dump—to keep the trash from flying out of the truck. I lasted a little while there, then quit.
After that, I got a job at United Pet Center, in a shopping center in the northeast quadrant of Albuquerque. Mostly, I just cleaned up puppy shit. Not all day—I worked a few hours after school. But they had about 110 puppies in that little store. No way would that fly today. So many puppies crammed into a tiny pet shop.
And they all had fucking runny poo. I spent my time cleaning up their shit and changing the paper in the bottom of their cages. There were some kittens, too. And I was starving. I wasn’t making enough money to feed myself, so I’d sneak handfuls of dog food.
I tried puppy food once—that was a mistake. Apparently, it had ground-up bone meal in it. I got a splinter of bone caught in my throat and hated that. So, I quit sneaking puppy food and switched to cat chow.
So those were my first four jobs.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26
Rick Rosner: They never showed James Bond working out.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: He’s got all these skills.
Rosner: It’s true. He doesn’t practice.
Jacobsen: You never see him practicing anything.
Rosner: Many of his skills are improvisational—he takes advantage of things in his environment. But he still has to fight people and dodge bullets.
Jacobsen: Apparently, in the novels, he could do all sorts of physical activities—boxing, judo, swimming, skiing. He was also a golfer, so that was something. But in terms of his portrayal in the movies?
Rosner: Daniel Craig, in his first Bond appearance, Casino Royale…
Jacobsen: Not a tall person, by the way.
Rosner: He’s what, 5’9”? Maybe? But in terms of sculpting a body, that can be an advantage because you have less to work with. Schwarzenegger’s lifting buddy, Franco Columbu, was 5’4”.
And you could argue that it’s easier to build a bodybuilder physique on a 5’4” frame than on someone like Lou Ferrigno, who was what, 6’2”? It takes much more weightlifting and effort to fill out a taller frame.
Daniel Craig’s introduction in Casino Royale—he comes out of the water in a bathing suit. That was a direct callback to Ursula Andress emerging from the water in Dr. No 50 years earlier. It reflects shifting times—men can be objectified as much as women.
Somebody was definitely going for that parallel. But yeah, he comes out of the water, and he’s shredded. And we’re supposed to believe he naturally looks like that. No—Daniel Craig must have followed the standard superhero routine.
He must have worked with trainers for two and a half to three hours a day, eating many calories. They probably didn’t have him on diuretics, but Hugh Jackman has admitted to using them.
James Bond is supposed to be a highly skilled and experienced agent, yet you never see his work. His attitude toward effort—outside of life-or-death situations—seems pretty disdainful. If he’s dangling from something, he’ll put in the effort to stay alive.
But he acts like he couldn’t care less about spy bureaucracy. Which makes you think—he’d probably have a shitty attitude about training too. The various Bonds have had different physiques.
Roger Moore always seemed soft-bodied. He could fight a little, but I don’t recall many shirtless scenes. He was the most effete of the Bonds. Sean Connery had been a bodybuilder in the ’50s—he took third in Mr. Universe. But back then, bodybuilding wasn’t what it later became.
It was more about looking decent in a bathing suit. He was never bulked up and shredded like a modern bodybuilder. But he didn’t look wimpy, either.
Roger Moore, on the other hand, looked a little wimpy. Pierce Brosnan wasn’t particularly bulky. Daniel Craig was the most physically imposing Bond. I read an article recently—it’s been three and a half years since the last Bond movie, and nothing is in production yet.
They haven’t even named the next Bond.
Jacobsen: There was Sean Connery too—his whole attitude. He was old-fashioned. He had that one interview…
Jacobsen: ‘I don’t mind hitting my women.’
Rosner: ‘I don’t mind hitting my women once in a while.’
Rosner: He was old school. I don’t know—Sean Connery was born in the 1930s?
If you trace it back, the original Bond, written by Ian Fleming, must have been born around 1926. Fleming’s Bond did spy work as a teenager during World War II. His parents died in a mountain climbing accident or something, and he was left to his own devices.
Which included sleeping with the family housekeeper and getting recruited for missions at 16 or something like that. Someone born in 1926 probably wouldn’t have hesitated about smacking someone.
Jacobsen: Did you ever hear George Carlin’s JFK joke?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: It was about how Kennedy pronounced things—his accent.
He’d swap the “A” and “ER” sounds.
So he gets on some talk show and says, “As we can see here, things are looking good in the first quarta for suga in Cuber.”
Rosner: Oh, that one!
Jacobsen: Yeah, I think it was from PBS or something.
They were doing legends of media—those long-form archival interviews.
Three-, four-, five-hour interviews, all in one take.
You can see the sunlight shifting in the background as the day progresses.
He did that joke in one of those.
Rosner: Speaking of Kennedys, RFK made it out of committee, as did Tulsi Gabbard.
Jacobsen: I had that come up. What does that mean, legally?
Rosner: So, the first hearings and votes take place within the appropriate Senate committees—the committees that handle each department.
RFK is up for… health—what’s the name? Not the CDC, but the whole health department.
Jacobsen: The Department of Health and Human Services?
Rosner: Yes, HHS.
So, I don’t know how many people are on that committee—maybe 27?
And the party that controls the Senate always has one more member on the committee than the opposing party.
So, in this case, it was 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats, and they voted along party lines.
RFK narrowly gets recommended by the committee, then it goes to a full Senate vote.
I don’t know whether they’ll interrogate him further before that or not.
Same process for Tulsi Gabbard—she got out of committee by a vote of nine to eight, along party lines.
And these are terrible people. And terrible things are still happening.
Musk has sent his personal team of coder-hackers to mess with—as we talked about last night—the payment disbursement systems. The people who work in these government departments have been trying to hold them off, but apparently, they can’t.
Trump—I don’t think he’s made the order yet—but he’s been drafting an order to eliminate the Department of Education. So, many bad things are happening, but I haven’t spent as much time tracking it today.
People on the other side are at least filing lawsuits and trying to introduce bills to stop some of this. Still, they’re in the minority in both houses of Congress. I don’t see how any of those efforts succeed.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I will play the Addams Family song in my head, and you’ll tell me about your L.A. day. How was your L.A. day, Rick?
Rick Rosner: So first, I drove through a movie set, and then a murder scene. A real one.
Jacobsen: Was there a murder scene at the movie set as well?
Rosner: No, no. I’m sure somebody’s been killed around there at some point. We knew a couple of people who owned a restaurant in the area—it’s been bulldozed now, but it’s part of the movie set.
They took over a part of North Hollywood called Valley Plaza, which in the 1950s was the West Coast’s largest mall. But it’s fallen on hard times, and now they’re bringing the ’50s back.
They turned it into the ’80s when they shot Captain Marvel about five years ago. They also filmed the frog scene for Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia there.
But now, they’re recreating the ’50s.
I tried to look up what movie they were shooting, but it’s obviously set in the ’50s.
They’ve got a bunch of old streamlined mobile homes—what do you call those? They’ve also got an abandoned school bus from the ’50s, some cars from the ’50s and maybe even the ’40s.
They’ve got artwork that looks like it was painted in 1947 and has since decayed—like those old advertisements painted on the sides of buildings.
You can still drive through it because so many people work there.
They’ve let the few people who know about this shortcut use it. It takes you past a homeless encampment and out onto Laurel Canyon.
And they’re not stopping anyone to check credentials. Probably over a hundred people are working on this movie, and they don’t have time to ask for papers.
They assume you’re part of the production.
So, I took advantage of the shortcut. That was between gym number two and gym number three. And then, between gym number four and gym number five, I drove past cop cars at the park.
This is the same park where they filmed the famous scene in Say Anything, where John Cusack holds up the boombox. He’s supposed to be outside Ione Skye’s house, but in reality, he’s standing in a North Hollywood park.
He was at the north end of the park in that scene. Today, I drove past several police cars, police tape, and a camera set up on a tripod at the south end of the park.
To me, that all signaled that somebody had been murdered there.
And sure enough, Carole found the story earlier this evening.
Yes, somebody was shot.
Jacobsen: So, the whole day felt very L.A. How did that transition into the evening?
Rosner: Nothing major.
We drove to a friend of Carol’s husband’s 65th birthday party up by Porter Ranch, which is in the far north end of the Valley. And everyone there was old. When you start going to 65th birthday parties for your peers, you realize—you’re surrounded by older adults.
I had two half sandwiches, and then we snuck out early because we don’t like staying long at these things.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think about Elon Musk essentially taking over finance in America?
Rick Rosner: Elon Musk is—I don’t know. I don’t like him holding as much power as he does.
Trump is letting him mess with entire federal agencies.
We talked about this last night—the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the HR department for the entire U.S. government and oversees two million employees.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) handles government workers’ payroll and disburses federal funds for projects nationwide.
And USAID, which oversees foreign aid.
So yes, Musk is involved in all of this. What else? Oh, USAID, which distributes foreign aid to over 150—probably more than 170—countries.
We’re the world’s friend.
USAID provides AIDS medication for 300,000 people worldwide. If those funds are cut, many people will get sick.
That’s just the number of people they’re currently helping. Historically, USAID has assisted over seven million people with AIDS worldwide.
And then you talk to conservatives, and it’s, “Why should we help them?”
One reason is that AIDS is an international disease, and people with AIDS travel and sleep with other people.
When AIDS supposedly got its start in the U.S. in 1976—according to legend—it was during the Bicentennial celebration when the tall ships came to New York Harbor.
And by “tall ships,” I mean clipper ships—these antique sailing vessels, dozens of which still operate today. Apparently, a lot of the sailors on these ships were very active, and some people believe that when these sailors arrived in New York City, they helped spread AIDS in the U.S.
So when you treat AIDS and reduce people’s viral loads, you’re not just helping those individuals—you’re also helping the people they come into contact with, including potentially Americans. We don’t hear much about AIDS anymore, but it’s still out there.
And I’m sure the cost of providing AIDS medication is far lower than the cost of caring for people who develop full-blown illness, not to mention preventing them from infecting hundreds of thousands more people.
This is a wholesale shutdown of U.S. foreign aid, which I assume funds a thousand different programs worldwide. We have 800 military bases in foreign countries. Each of those bases contributes to the local economy and likely improves the locals’ perception of the United States.
If we pull back from all of that—well, I’ve heard multiple numbers on this—U.S. foreign aid is around $40 billion or $60 billion per year—but either way, it’s less than 1% of the federal budget.
And it’s a form of empire-building.
Having the world think well of the U.S. is a subtle yet effective way of extending American influence.
When we withdraw, China and the other BRICS countries step in to be the world’s friends.
We are in a Cold War with China and BRICS. Maintaining goodwill globally for just $40 to $60 billion a year is a bargain—especially considering some of the questionable things we’ve done internationally.
So there you go—I don’t trust Musk.
Now they’re talking about shutting down the Department of Education.
The U.S. still enjoys technological superiority because of the strong push for science and math education in the ’60s and ’70s.
I’ve said this a million times—people who attended public schools during that era became the tech billionaires of today and 10 or 20 years ago.
Bill Gates went to a private school, but I bet he started in public school before switching to private high school.
I don’t know for sure.
But most of them went to public schools.
Public education was great when I was going through it.
And now it’s under siege by Republicans.
If they eliminate the Department of Education, they’ll hand everything over to the states.
Red states are notoriously bad at public education.
They don’t seem to care when it fails—they prefer it.
Oklahoma screwed up its public education system so badly that they couldn’t even keep schools open five days a week.
They had to switch to a four-day school week.
So yes, I hate Musk interfering with federal agencies.
And it’s illegal.
He’s not allowed to do this.
Congress is the only body that can authorize or deauthorize federal agencies—not some half-a-trillionaire.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26
Rick Rosner: All right. People think it’s weird and gross, but I’ll reuse my wife’s bathwater. She gets in the tub and makes it hot. She likes it hot and is not in there long—she doesn’t clean herself there. She soaks to get warm in the winter. By the time she gets out, it’s still plenty hot for me.
I told them this when I was at Kimmel, and people thought it was disgusting. But people have done this for thousands of years. They didn’t have the luxury of not using the same bathwater.
Who cares? Reusing her water—I don’t know, it’s ecological.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You described an earlier time. I pointed it out, and then you gave a word for it. It was an old-man thing called “fumfering.” Again, describe to the readers what fumfering is.
Rosner: That’s when you struggle to find a word or concept, and you go, “Uhh,” and you get hung up in the middle of a sentence, making vague noises like I’m making now—before you actually reach the right word or phrase.
Jacobsen: So, fumfering—older man fumbling to fumfering. It’s a weird thing. A weird nuance of old-guy dumb. Maybe the old Jewish guy dumb, I don’t know.
But back to the bath—you said she likes it hot, then she gets out. The phrase that cued me into recording this was when you said, “It’s hot enough for me.” First, you said, “It’s hot,” and then corrected yourself: “It’s hot enough for me.”
Rosner: All right. I don’t like it scalding hot. I don’t think it’s particularly good for you to regularly plunge yourself into scalding water.
I’ve heard from longevity lunatics that you shouldn’t do that. I do not know if they know what they’re talking about, but it makes sense.
When you have diabetes, your blood sugar constantly runs hot—you’re essentially cooking yourself with the sugar in your blood. So if that’s bad for you—and we know it is—then it probably makes sense that cooking yourself with hot water isn’t great either.
It’s nice to get into hot water occasionally. Still, I don’t need to bathe in water that’s 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which is, what, 50 degrees Celsius? That’s a lot. It’s hot. It might be more than 60 degrees Fahrenheit when my wife gets in. Celsius, centigrade—whatever the fuck you guys use.
Jacobsen: All of it. We use all the measurements we can.
Rosner: So, you said you got—what’s the—? Did you email me?
Jacobsen: There was a book titled Revolt of the Rich. It came up in one of the transcripts. I reached out and did the interview with the guy. It’s basically about the 1970s, when fiscal austerity was being implemented and deregulation was expanding massively.
Rosner: I made this recommendation a while ago. I don’t remember exactly when.
Jacobsen: Probably a few weeks ago. And we go through so much material.
Rosner: I’ve recommended one person to you multiple times—she’d be a hard get—Justine Bateman. I don’t know her politics, but she’d be a great interview. She’s gotten increasingly frustrated with the Democrats. And when you’re pissed at the Democrats, I guess that means you shift into…
Jacobsen: She’s married to Jason Bateman?
Rosner: No, they’re brother and sister. She was a child star, and now she’s an author.
She went back to school and earned a degree in computer science. She was super vocal during the strikes because, among the strikers, she probably understood the threat of technology better than anyone else.
We’re talking about actors and writers, and she had the gumption to go back and train in it—not just to prepare for a strike but because she saw how technology could be used to screw people over.
And she’s always pissed off about everything.
I saw her once, and she was pissy. She spends a lot of time being pissy.
I was at our local Wells Fargo, and we weren’t getting waited on. It had been a long wait, and I was getting annoyed—there was no reason we couldn’t have been helped. Then she walked in with her mom. She waited about five minutes, realized she wasn’t getting served either, got pissed off, and walked out.
She looked familiar, but it took me a while to place her.
That was her. And yeah—she’s always pissy. But that’s a reasonable way to be, depending on your situation. I read an article on bigorexia, but I don’t think it’s worth discussing.
Jacobsen: What’s bigorexia?
Rosner: Bigorexia is the male—well, it’s usually the male…
Jacobsen: Right, so what is bigorexia?
Rosner: It’s a male version, generally, of anorexia, where you don’t think you’re big and muscular enough. It mostly affects young males, typically high school, who feel this way.
Then, they take measures to address it—lifting weights, eating excessively, and, if possible, taking steroids. But they’re never satisfied with their size. It’s been acknowledged for decades now. I just happened to run into an article explaining it for people who hadn’t encountered it before.
I’ve got a little bit of it myself because I’m skinny now—much skinnier than my younger years—and I don’t love it.
At the same time, I accept it because it’s probably better for my longevity not to carry around an extra 30 pounds of muscle that I don’t need.
But it’s nice to have that size—to fill out your clothes and all that.
I once saw Ben Affleck after he had worked on a movie. He showed up to speak to the crowd and answer questions and was still Batman-sized.
When you train to play a movie superhero, they get you trainers, and you work out for hours a day.
You probably eat 5,000 calories a day, and who knows what else?
If you’re Hugh Jackman, for example, he admitted to taking diuretics before filming certain scenes to look even more ripped.
They push you to such extremes that it’s uncomfortable.
Affleck is probably 6’2”, and when he showed up, he was in a suit but still bulging out of it.
I’d estimate he was about 6’2”, 225 pounds, and likely 10% body fat.
You couldn’t gauge his body fat exactly since he was in a suit, but if he was in Batman shape, he’d have to be around 10%.
He looked physically uncomfortable—too big to be at ease—and his blood pressure was elevated.
But I’m sure he’d have looked ridiculously great if he took his shirt off. Kumail Nanjiani went through the same thing for a Marvel movie.
Then, shortly afterward, he starred in Welcome to Chippendales, about the guy who co-founded Chippendales.
One of the founders had a breakdown and murdered the other founder—the male stripper scene was huge in the ’80s when this happened.
But Nanjiani’s Marvel physique put a weird spin on the role.
It hurt his performance because he played a desperate hustler and striver, yet he was still built like a superhero.
They kept him in a suit for most of the film, trying to hide how jacked he still was. But you could tell, especially if you knew he had played a superhero.
It stiffened his movements, which didn’t fit the character’s desperation. Someone muscular should have been more confident and less desperate in all his endeavors.
And if you looked up the real guy Nanjiani was playing, he had a spare tire—he was not a physical specimen.
So, it was an odd aftereffect of having been a superhero.
That being said, I’m too old for it now, but I would have loved to be a superhero.
The first time I was sent to a shrink—when I was six years old—I told them I wanted to be Superman.
And I carried that desire throughout my life, trying to get jacked enough to look like a superhero.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Twitter account at your “Anon Central” tweeted, “The U.S. has fallen. ItJust doesn’t know it yet.” But there is no verifiable evidence that Anonymous issued this tweet on February 1, 2025, or that it received 10.5 million views.
Rick Rosner: Let’s put this in a less histrionic framework. Recently, some have speculated that Trump, in conjunction with Elon Musk, has taken control over various government levers that presidents have never controlled before and is attempting to shut down a so-called “USAID,” a $60 billion department managing U.S. foreign aid. In reality, there is no evidence of such a takeover or that any department by that name exists—U.S. foreign aid is managed by established agencies under legal oversight.
Jacobsen: I heard that the Twitter account for USAID has been suspended or deleted.
Rosner: It’s been argued that the aftermath of January 6th resulted in a four-year loss for the insurrectionists, and that the current maneuvers represent a real power grab while the opposing side lacks a coherent counter-strategy.
I remain shocked and disapproving of these developments.
Jacobsen: I wonder what activism can truly accomplish—beyond local actions like the recent blockade of Los Angeles freeways during ICE operations.
Rosner: Protesters blocked the 101 in LA, but it’s doubtful that such actions achieve significant policy change. Many people are deeply influenced by partisan narratives, and while it’s understandable to be upset, aligning with Trump as a solution does nothing to address the underlying economic insecurity affecting the middle class.
Jacobsen: So I guess a safe prediction is that every day from now on—for months—will be exciting in America.
Jacobsen: It’s like Biff took over the country.
Rosner: What’s that?
Jacobsen: Biff Tannen took over the country.
Rosner: Biff Tannen from Back to the Future?
Jacobsen: Yes, Biff Tannen was the villain in Back to the Future, written more than 30 years ago. These folks don’t have real friends. Biff Tannen ended his life with absolute power but without genuine relationships.
Rosner: According to Back to the Future screenwriter, Tannen was based on Trump 30 years ago.
Jacobsen: And what is Trump’s favourite movie?
Rosner: Is it Back to the Future?
Jacobsen: No, it’s Citizen Kane by Orson Welles—a film about a rich man who gradually isolates himself.
Rosner: Right, because he slowly but surely isolates himself. That makes sense, considering he’s an older guy.
Rosner: He likes old movies.
Jacobsen: There’s even an old clip with Errol Morris—probably from a couple of decades ago.
Rosner: So, wait, Trump sat down with Errol Morris?
Jacobsen: Yes. Anything else?
Rosner: I believe it was Heather Cox Richardson—or maybe someone else I read—who compared MAGA’s moves to Viktor Orbán’s tactics in Hungary, where democracy is being eroded.
In the next few days, when a national freakout occurs and the reasonable segment of the population realizes we’re under a semi-successful attack, America is going to get very nervous. I don’t think we’re there yet. I think Carole is pretty well-informed.
Jacobsen: Carole is more grounded than you. So if she’s nervous, then you should be nervous, right?
Rosner: We have some nervous days ahead. Reasonable people hope that some of these pushes will be stopped, but experts warn that nothing’s guaranteed. You can’t just expect judges to intervene—even if they issue an injunction—since none of this has reached the Supreme Court yet. And consider this: two out of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are seen by many as extreme in their views. They both supported figures like Jay-Civics, though claims about Thomas’s wife and Alito’s actions—such as flying an American flag upside down—are based on partisan reports that haven’t been independently verified. That leaves us with what some might call two lunatic votes on the Court.
Jacobsen: Musk had a tweet. ‘Did you know that the U.S., using your tax dollars, funded bioweapon research—including work on COVID-19—that allegedly killed millions of people?’
Rosner: That claim is complete nonsense—95 percent nonsense. While there is legitimate research on dangerous viruses to help us prevent pandemics, the idea that USAID funds were used to develop bioweapons is unfounded propaganda. In reality, a significant portion of USAID money has gone toward disease and pandemic prevention.
Jacobsen: If I were someone without many assets, I’d consider myself more mobile than most people. I wouldn’t be thinking about staying put.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Rick Rosner: Richard May—the guy you’ve talked to a lot. He’s a completely reasonable person, not weird in any way. He’s got a wicked sense of humor and behaves like a normal guy. For every Keith Raniere serving a life sentence for running a sex cult and committing financial exploitation (often described as stealing tens of millions of dollars), there are, by my estimate, perhaps eighty or a hundred individuals with very high IQs who aren’t involved in any cult. This ratio is an anecdotal observation rather than a rigorously established fact. I have one cult member, but that’s just me—I’m my only member. I’m constantly pressuring myself to jerk off, even though I’d rather go to bed.
Let me explain: if you’re sleeping with someone for the first time (when they see you naked as a guy for the first time), and if you get a chance, turn away from them and grab the head of your penis. Stretch it out for three seconds so that blood flows into it—assuming your penis is flaccid (which it should be at that point). This maneuver, based on my personal experience, makes it appear more than an inch longer than it was three seconds ago. Of course, if things are so hot and heavy that you’re already in the process of undressing completely, that’s a different situation. But if you’re still clothed and in the process of undressing, in that brief moment when you tug and stretch, your partner (she or he) will see the change. It might just be a neat little sex trick.
There are other weird sex tricks, too—the ice cube trick, the handkerchief trick, and so on. When we were kids in junior high, we were taught that there were certain arcane pieces of sexual knowledge that, if you mastered them, the person would be yours forever—if you so desired. Of course, we were all idiotic little kids, years away from having sex with anyone other than ourselves.
As an addendum, I was recently talking to Lance and JD about how many women they’ve slept with. I didn’t get straight answers either, whether on camera or off. I’ve slept with sixteen or seventeen different women. In junior high or high school, it was all about “what base did you get to?” and later on, “What’s your number?” But now, quite reasonably, that emphasis on sexual conquest has largely faded. There’s less focus on racking up sex points and more on the overall vibe. The people who used to worry about not getting laid or not having a girlfriend were probably in the minority when I was a teen—and they’re even more of a minority now. There’s so much more to life.
And when you’re involved in social, sexual, or relationship contexts these days, people aren’t as obsessed with tallying conquests as they were in the seventies or eighties. The emphasis has shifted toward vibing with one another. I’d be hard-pressed to define that precisely, but it’s nice to have friends rather than just people you can bang. Friends can mean a whole lot more. I’ve got many Twitter friends I’ve never spoken to in real life or over the phone; we just like each other’s tweets and occasionally leave comments.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you have a topic in mind, or should we adjourn until tomorrow?
Rosner: We should adjourn until tomorrow. That sounds good.
Jacobsen: All right, thank you very much.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Rick Rosner: What should I ask next? I haven’t had many direct experiences. Still, I’ve had brief contact with so many people in show business that it feels surreal—almost like I’m playing the “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” game. What do you think about that? I’m probably only two degrees away from most famous people. I’ve worked with many people, yet I haven’t achieved much. We’ve had valuable discussions, but it’s not the kind of show business where you’d earn a quarter-million dollars a year—probably even more now. Except, of course, that show business is fucked right now, and nobody’s getting paid.
I’ve had opportunities—shots, really—but I’ve missed a lot of my fucking chances. As we drove to do “Lance versus Rick” last night, JD said he thinks of show business as being like lottery tickets. Every decade or so, you get your lottery ticket—sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it doesn’t. Only a few famous people are guaranteed to work decade after decade; everyone else gets a lottery ticket that might or might not be a winner. In JD’s view, I’ve had a couple of winning lottery tickets and fairly long runs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In a field as long-standing as this, I suppose the coincidences, weird juxtapositions, and serendipities pile up. Now, what do you think—are high-IQ people more or less prone to mental morbidities like depression or anxiety?
Rosner: No. Take, for example, what Taleb said in his critique of IQ as a useful concept. He argued that if you remove the subset of the population with significant organic cognitive impairments—essentially, the tail end of the bell curve—the remaining group of normally functioning individuals (some of whom are just a bit better at solving IQ puzzles than others) shows little correlation between IQ and quality-of-life measures, including susceptibility to mental health issues. Look at Bobby Fischer, perhaps the greatest chess player ever—brilliant, yes, but also a tortured, racist, anti-Semitic lunatic. Then consider another wildly smart guy, Chris Cole, whom we both know—utterly even-keeled, able to manage his personal, business, intellectual, and creative affairs efficiently and without pathology. He works hard, thinks hard, creates hard, and while his personal life isn’t perfect, he’s been married for what seems like forever—a stable, reasonable guy. Based on very little evidence, I’d say that most people, in general, don’t suffer from significant mental morbidities, and the same appears to be true for most individuals with super high IQs. However, when someone with a super high IQ goes off the rails, it becomes much more notable—it adds a certain schadenfreude to their downfall.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Rick Rosner: We missed our session last night because I was busy with our show, which is now called Naked at Night—although it’s really “Lance versus Rick.” We’ve been doing it since mid-2017—around eight years now, with a couple hundred episodes under our belt.
I’m a liberal, while Lance is fully MAGA. I started the show because I thought it would be interesting and funny: I’d be standing there naked, and Lance would paint me while we had political arguments. I was never completely naked—I’ve only taken my shirt off in one or two episodes because I just couldn’t manage to go fully naked at night. At first, I thought it would be hilarious, but it eventually stopped being funny, and then it just felt sad. After reflecting on last night’s session, I’ve decided that the show could be considered the darkest form of comedy—and here’s my reasoning.
I like to think I’m smart and reasonably well-informed. I hold mainstream views—views that, according to various polls, 70 to 90 percent of Americans share on many issues, though the exact percentage depends on the topic. We might disagree, but most of my opinions aren’t unreasonable. In contrast, Lance’s perspective is very different. As an artist who works with his hands, he reportedly spends a significant amount of time listening to conservative podcasts and broadcasts, immersing himself in Trump’s apologetics—even though the exact hours aren’t verified by public data. Whenever Trump does something or says something, the MAGA and GOP messaging machine spins talking points that present his actions favorably. I don’t subject myself to that kind of constant messaging—and even if I did, the Democrats do have their own communication apparatus, albeit less relentlessly packaged.
Lance usually outdebates me—not because his views are more reasonable or truthful or because they represent the majority—but simply because he has more talking points and bullshit ready to throw my way. Our show becomes a microcosm of our broader American political reality: mainstream, reasonable views are often out-argued by those who peddle more extreme, unsubstantiated claims. For now, and perhaps for the foreseeable future—maybe even for two years—the bullshitters seem to be winning.
And things are moving fast. Trump is doing whatever he wants: he has dismissed federal prosecutors involved in the prosecutions following the January 6 events, and he issued sweeping pardons for nearly all of the roughly 1,500 individuals prosecuted for the Capitol attack. Now he’s also dismissing some of the FBI agents who took part in the search of Mar-a-Lago for classified documents. I’d guess that about a dozen FBI agents from the Miami office—likely part of a larger team of 50 to 100 covering Florida and neighboring regions—were involved. They followed orders, and now Trump claims they should have defied them. Public records indicate that while some agents are being targeted for dismissal, not everyone involved has been let go.
I asked Lance, who used to sculpt toys for Mattel.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: He is, without a doubt, a talented artist. His time at Mattel as a toy sculptor is part of his backstory, even if detailed records aren’t widely available.
Rosner: He is. If you were working at Mattel and someone told you to “work on a bus to Biden,” would you just obey? He said he’d tell his bosses to “fuck off”—arguing that the FBI agents deserve to be fired because they should have defied their superiors. A lot of unsettling things are happening.
It makes you question the solidity of our democratic rights. There’s been a lot of talk comparing the current situation to Germany in the 1930s. In November 1932, Hitler received 33 percent of the vote—not a majority, but more than any other party—and then bullied the government into appointing him Chancellor. He didn’t immediately seize total power, but within 53 days, he had taken over the government. Now, many are tweeting about what Trump might accomplish in his first 53 days in office. The situation seems both absurd and frightening. The historical facts about the 1932 election and Hitler’s rapid rise are well documented.
It’s absurd in part because, for example, there are claims that Trump wanted to demonstrate that there’s water in Northern California that could have been used to fight wildfires. According to that narrative, blaming Democrats and DEI for diverting the water, he ordered two dams in Northern California to be opened. However, no verifiable reports confirm that this incident occurred or that the water ended up flooding farmland as claimed. The story appears to be unsubstantiated, yet it still underscores the nonsensical nature of some of these actions.
Some of these actions seem downright stupid, while others are downright scary. However, in the end, Trump effectively controls the government. Lance versus Rick—or Naked at Night—illustrates how senseless nonsense can dominate the political landscape.
Jacobsen: I’ve talked to Lance extensively about art. He’s a knowledgeable, reasonable guy when it comes to subjects he understands and is far from a lunatic in that realm. I find him to be a decent conversationalist. Generally, if you approach him respectfully and honestly, he will reciprocate.
Rosner: Unless the topic is Trump. Then, you have to choose your topic carefully and stick to it.
Jacobsen: Our original goal was to focus on the history of realist art through time. However, your discussions with me have tended to wander. Other projects are more focused—sometimes a single interview, sometimes a couple of interviews—where we zero in on someone’s area of expertise. I try to adopt a strengths-based interviewing style. For example, it doesn’t make sense to interview a politician about both quantum mechanics and some esoteric topic in equestrianism. I tailor the approach to each guest’s particular area of knowledge. You have to gauge.
Rosner: Yes. What was I going to say—oh, shit—I lost my fucking tweet on Twitter. When I look online, I block a lot of small MAGA accounts that just parrot the standard talking points because they annoy me—I’m not going to learn anything new from them. But before I mute someone, I check their profile and feed to see if they’re spouting bullshit and wasting my time. I see many people who claim to be professionals—doctors, engineers, nurses. In some cases, maybe they are bullshitting. But often, these individuals—who once could be thoughtful and exercise real critical judgment—are now just cranky old folks. They watch Fox News all day; they’re in their late seventies or early eighties. They might have been engineers or something once, but now they’re essentially Fox News retirees. The problem is that these people, who once demonstrated a “do your own research” mentality, have instead filled their heads with right-wing, cherry-picked, dishonest nonsense. As a result, their political opinions have become utterly unreasonable, based on a steady diet of lies.
And so, in the context of our “Lance versus Rick” discussions, I try to be reasonable—yet Lance calls me brainwashed. He gets out more of his talking points than I do. Last night, I tried to keep things moving quickly—I hate it when we go around and around because it’s fucking boring. So I just said, “Fine, that’s bullshit. Let’s move on.” If this were a formal debate, Lance would probably score more points.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Russia’s significant concern is being drawn into a conflict and potentially becoming increasingly dependent on China—a trend that’s observable. Russia’s population is approximately 145 million, while China experienced a population decline of nearly 1.4 million in 2024. Projections indicate that Russia’s population could decrease to around 126 million by 2050, while China’s population is expected to decline to approximately 1.313 billion by the same year.
Rosner: Exactly—about 0.1% of China’s population. Over the next 25 years, many countries outside of Africa are projected to experience population declines. How many people is China expected to lose by 2050?
Jacobsen: Considering low fertility rates and an aging population, China could see a reduction of about 113 million people by 2050.
Rosner: Even so, that would still leave China with around 1.313 billion people. Now, what about the U.S.?
Jacobsen: Projections suggest that by 2050, the U.S. population might grow by about 10%, reaching approximately 375 million people. Meanwhile, Nigeria is expected to see significant growth.
Rosner: Africa will be the only continent with a rising population. Nigeria, for example, currently has about 233 million people and could reach around 359 million by 2050—that’s remarkable.
Jacobsen: Let’s also consider the aging population. As fertility rates continue to decline, the average age will increase. However, if advancements in AI and other technologies lead to breakthroughs in aging and longevity, people might maintain vitality well into their seventies and eighties.
Rosner: Currently, most people in their eighties aren’t as sharp or spry, though there are exceptions—Harrison Ford, who is 81, for instance. Generally, most people appear more like Biden than like Ford. But if anti-aging breakthroughs occur, many could remain competent into their later years. I can’t say for sure, however.
Jacobsen: And it’s uncertain what percentage of each nation’s population would have access to such technology. Still, even if China loses about 113 million people and drops to 1.313 billion, that’s a substantial number. A declining population doesn’t necessarily mean a decline in effectiveness as a superpower, especially for large countries like India and China. For Russia, however, dropping from 145 million to about 126 million—a 13% loss—is significant, particularly compared to China’s scale. Russia’s economy is already facing challenges.
Rosner: Russia is currently among the top 11 economies. With these demographic changes, it could be overtaken by emerging economies like Nigeria. By 2050, with a population of around 126 million, Russia might rank lower economically. It will likely need to form alliances with more powerful nations.
Jacobsen: Except for its nuclear arsenal. Both the U.S. and Russia currently have roughly 1,550 deployable nuclear warheads—a curious situation for a country whose population is in decline. We were on a promising trajectory until recent years stalled arms reduction talks. Each side had over 10,000 warheads at one point, but that number has since been significantly reduced. Perhaps in the future, further arms reduction talks will be possible.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Rick Rosner: It’s worth noting that in the United States, tragic events occur regularly—consider school shootings, for example. While mass casualty events like these are not everyday occurrences, they generate significant social and political fallout. According to the Associated Press, large-scale air disasters are rare in the U.S., making incidents like this particularly impactful.
Trump is currently in a honeymoon phase, as every president experiences at the beginning of their term. His first-term honeymoon phase was undermined early by disputes over his inauguration crowd size, which quickly soured initial goodwill. His approval rating may remain steadier this time because his supporters have been exposed to sustained political messaging and may be less responsive to criticisms of his behavior. While his net approval has fluctuated slightly, his overall approval rating has remained within a narrow range. In his first term, his approval was relatively stable around 40%, but this time he may hold a solid 45%—even if his rhetoric remains polarizing.
This air disaster is the deadliest in the U.S. in over 20 years. In the wake of the crash, various theories and political narratives have emerged. On social media, some speculated about potential foul play, including claims about remote interference with the aircraft or terrorism, while others dismissed such theories. At the same time, some commentators pointed to changes in aviation oversight, including previous removals of key officials in the TSA and FAA, and staffing shortages in air traffic control. However, there is currently no confirmed link between these policy decisions and the incident.
The causes of the collision—whether due to equipment malfunctions, pilot miscommunication, or outdated technology in air traffic control—are still under investigation. It is important to distinguish between confirmed facts, such as the number of casualties and aircraft involved, and politically charged interpretations. The evolving narratives around this event will likely shape broader discussions on aviation safety and political accountability. As more information emerges, we will need to track how these discussions influence public opinion and policy responses.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What did you think of the international reaction to Elon Musk’s speeches to conservative and far-right groups?
Rick Rosner: Musk appears almost eager to imply that he has a Nazi-ish streak. His parents reportedly held pro-apartheid views and may have had far-right ties. He’s a creepy guy and the richest man on Earth. It’s reached the point where people express both loathing and incredulity. In contrast, others—mostly on Twitter—are wild for him, praising him as a tech genius. You see a lot of Tesla bros and crypto bros who fall for every single thing he does.
It’s disquieting. On Twitter, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people questioning the historical reality of the Holocaust and even calling for a reevaluation of Hitler. It’s wild to think we might be on a slippery slope into truly scary times—and apparently, we are.
Consider that Hitler took over Germany after winning only 37% of the vote and by 1933, he had persuaded other leaders to step aside and put him in charge of a country of about 70 million people. Meanwhile, we’re a country nearly five times that size and more than half of the voters chose someone other than Trump. Some argue that it would be tougher for fascism to take over the U.S. because a majority of Americans aren’t willing to go along with it.
Is that just whistling in the dark? Are things different because we have the historical example of Hitler? Would we walk into it ignorantly, assuming a strong leader will save us? I don’t fucking know.
What do you think?
Jacobsen: I’m not convinced that any negative future is completely out of reach. Some people may welcome a retributive upheaval. For many Trump supporters, it feels as if everything since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (or maybe 1975) has been a point where white, Christian men were given a raw deal. They want, in a way, to reverse that trend—not necessarily in the way most would consider appropriate. There’s been a notable rise in politics of resentment.
Rosner: Many preachers on Twitter (where I spend much time) are pushing this narrative.
I’ve also seen plenty of profiles of people with legitimate professional credentials who are strongly pro–RFK Jr. These thoughtful individuals, having read the wrong material, overestimate their analytical skills and end up buying into a lot of misinformation. For example, some genuinely believe that vaccines are dangerously harmful—alleging that they cause autism—even though the evidence overwhelmingly disproves such claims.
Which is bullshit. They think that RFK will make us eat better. Ainsley Earhardt on Fox News talked about how to go to Italy, eat a delicious pasta dish, and not gain weight.
There’s a lot of stupid bullshit out there—some of it has enough truth to make it extra persuasive. But I expect RFK to get confirmed. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard won’t get confirmed because of her terrible foreign associations with Syria and Russia. Yes, we’re in crazy times.
Jacobsen: Pete Hegseth fired—or no, demoted—a general.
Rosner: There has been commentary regarding General Mark Milley, a retired four-star general who previously served as the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2019 to 2023. Lloyd Austin, not Milley, is the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. Milley was not the Secretary of Defense but rather the highest-ranking military officer under both Presidents Trump and Biden. He later spoke out against Trump, which led to political backlash. Recently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revoked Milley’s security clearance and personal security detail, potentially impacting his retirement benefits. There are also reports suggesting Milley may face a reduction in rank, which could affect his pension. Hegseth himself reached the rank of major in the Army National Guard, though some reserve officers receive honorary rank promotions upon leaving service. This situation underscores the lack of safeguards in place to prevent political retribution against retired military officials.
Talk to you tomorrow?
Jacobsen: Yes. Talk to you tomorrow.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Rick Rosner: So, I’ve read two debunkings in the past couple of weeks. What’s the name of that Black Swan guy? Nicholas Taleb. He demolishes the idea of IQ. Then, the guy you interviewed said that IQ is bullshit beyond three standard deviations from the mean—that is, below 50 or above 150. What the fuck are you doing with IQ? And all that is true—unless you consider an IQ above 150 a sport, it is a stupid sport that few people are interested in or play. In some ways, you could equate it to the World’s Strongest Man competition—except that the World’s Smartest Man has never had a TV show. It’s been pitched a million times in various ways. I’ve been involved in some of those pilots, and none have taken off.
I still believe that, at some point, we will have a competition built around smartness. But nobody has gotten it on TV yet. And even if they did, it would be the same as the World’s Strongest Man: they come up with a series of events—walking, lifting rocks two and a half feet in diameter and placing them on posts, towing trucks, or even hauling trains by grabbing onto ropes—and running 100 yards with a refrigerator strapped to your back. Forty years ago, that refrigerator race blew out Franco Colombo’s knee.
He was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s best friend; they lifted together and came up together in the bodybuilding ranks in the sixties. Then he went on that show with the refrigerator race—even though Colombo wasn’t a big guy (probably around 5′4″), packing 200 pounds of solid muscle. They had this dumb, unsafe event. It’s a series of arbitrary challenges where you need to be incredibly strong to compete, but do all those events truly determine the strongest man in the world? Not exactly—they could have chosen different events or weighted them differently, and you might have gotten a different outcome.
One thing that Taleb argues is that IQ is multidimensional. It is not just IQ; intelligence itself encompasses a range of abilities. Someone who might be brilliant in one area can be terrible in others. There isn’t necessarily a single dimension of smartness, often called “g.” Of course, you can debate whether g even exists.
But still, every sport is fucking arbitrary. Some sports are purer than others. The 100-meter dash is one-dimensional—who’s fastest at running a set distance from a dead start with blocks to help get you off the line? We have the Olympics to determine the winner of that specific event. However, sports like football, basketball, or hockey incorporate various skills, and success often depends on the machine built around you. Take Tom Brady—he’s won seven Super Bowls (and has been to ten). Part of his success comes from having a coach who believed in him and an organization that worked for him. Brady was not a high draft pick out of college; he replaced the starting quarterback with a stroke of luck, and things worked out. He’s a great quarterback—arguably the greatest of all time. However, that’s highly debatable because there are so many dimensions to football’s success. But you can say he’s the Super Bowl–winningest quarterback ever. Suppose you set up criteria based on an IQ test (or a battery of tests). In that case, you might conclude that he did the best as a measure of raw intelligence above 150—but that’s highly questionable.
But if you consider IQ to be a sport that only lunatics compete in—something that no one cares about—then, sure, it’s fine. Except there’s no governing body. It’s not even a sport in which, if you want to have one, you need someone to set up the rules and ensure they’re followed. It also helps if there are people genuinely interested in competing. By those criteria, IQ is fucking weak.
Let’s add an addendum:
It would be fucking great to have a TV show where a bunch of egotistical, smart motherfuckers compete in various challenges in the style of every reality show—start with 24 or 12 contestants, knock them out one by one until you have a champion. It might not prove much, but at least you’d have a competition. IQ could play a part in determining the contestant pool. But really—above 150, it doesn’t freaking matter.
For example, LA Public Schools once had a gifted program (at Walter Reed Junior High or Middle School, whichever) where you needed an IQ of 150 to get in—which is fucking ridiculous, a 1-in-1000 threshold. They said that because of score variation, they’d let you in with, say, a 145, but they didn’t choose 150 because it was a theoretically sound cutoff; they did it because LA public schools are fucking broke and needed to set the bar high to limit the number of qualifying kids.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Rick Rosner: So, you’ve got more powerful propaganda now. We no longer have the fairness doctrine—the policy Reagan eliminated in the 1980s—which required opposing candidates to be given equal airtime. Although many news outlets still try to adhere to that principle, I’m not exactly sure what the doctrine originally stated. Essentially, if you aired a pro-gun editorial on your local news station, you were required to present an anti-gun perspective as well. Regardless, that principle has been thoroughly undermined. Newspapers are dying. For example, the Los Angeles Times measures about 30 pages on most days, including full-page ads.
That means there are 20 pages of actual articles, including sports, entertainment, a comics page, the column that replaced Dear Abby, and half a page of classified ads. There isn’t much genuine news left. Ten years ago, the LA Times ran 60 pages. Newspapers are now mostly read by older people, and even cable news channels tend to attract viewers in their mid-sixties. Does it matter how mainstream media is today? They aren’t as widely watched or read as they once were. Nevertheless, consider that the Washington Post is now owned by Bezos—who is more than willing to pander to Trump—while the LA Times is owned by a Trump-friendly billionaire whose op-ed page has been hollowed out. There’s a sense of exhaustion in both mainstream and social media.
Everyone fought hard on social media—I was tweeting anti-Trump messages ten times a day leading up to the election—but it didn’t work. Now, I don’t tweet that much. Sometimes, the mainstream media caves in and rolls over for Trump and Republican talking points; sometimes, they don’t. Even when they resist, it hardly matters. I read a tweet today explaining that Trump won over 18- to 29-year-olds by bombarding them with misinformation that undermined their preferred sources of information, such as podcasts and social media. It won’t be through mainstream media if we win these people back.
I believe mainstream media is starved of advertising dollars and is now going elsewhere. As a result, magazines are thinner or going out of business, and newspapers, too, are suffering. Consequently, any pushback against Republican nonsense is unlikely to succeed via mainstream outlets. Perhaps if you were planning for 2028, about 25% of your campaign should rely on mainstream sources, leaving 75% to adopt the tactics the Republicans used this time.
We now have all the tools to make our lives easier as journalists—tools for fact-checking, editorializing, and collaboration. Using these tools, you can be an effective and productive journalist without needing a massive team. Technology can help significantly at a low cost. However, those same technologies also enable targeting journalists because of their stature and the critical role they play in delivering information in a democratic society.
We now consider journalists to be embedded and reliable sources—more so than “the media,” as Musk might say, which he describes as a form of digital demagoguery. We still need individuals with sound judgment and extensive experience to analyze complex issues. In the future, these systems will assist us in distinguishing, for example, a fake image from a real one or determining the correct context of a photograph of a diplomat taken in a specific location. As a result, we can conduct more sophisticated investigative work.
I believe that eventually, AI will be in charge. But before that happens, those who know how to use and control AI will be in charge. I also feel that as we transition to a computer-based civilization, the arc of the moral universe will bend in a liberal direction. I don’t see misinformation winning in the medium term. That said, one might worry that if AI—and those proficient in its use—are in charge, they might prefer a world where misinformation reigns. After all, AI can generate more persuasive falsehoods than those already circulating. However, I’d like to believe that when AI is tasked with determining the most efficient way for the world to function, it will decide that a society in which a large population is permanently misled is not sustainable.
What do you think?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There are just too many unknowns. It’s an open field right now. Many journalists—across the political spectrum, from conservatives and centrists to far-left independents—feel great uncertainty. As a freelancer, I see that everyone is, in a sense, flying blind at this point.
Rosner: We even had a minor “AI earthquake” today when DeepSeek, a Chinese AI, announced its progress over the weekend. I experimented with it briefly last week and conversed more about it today. It reminds me of Claude AI—friendly, approachable, and organized into neat bullet points—though it hints at ChatGPT’s style.
Jacobsen: The team behind DeepSeek mentioned that it cost only $5,600,000 to train their model, compared to around $100,000,000 for some other AIs, such as one from Anthropic. This news even have caused the Nasdaq to drop by 2 or 3%. There’s a lot of upheaval on the AI front.
One thing is predictable: AI will profoundly disrupt our lives for decades to come. In a somewhat convoluted way, the message is clear—the future will be different, and we can’t entirely predict it. The only semi-precise forecast is that change will occur faster than it has in previous eras—a revolution of the mind rather than of the body, as was the case with the early industrial revolutions.
Let’s call it a day 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For instance, if we were to discuss how one defines antisemitism, that remains an open question. How do you define antisemitism? What is antisemitism? In general, it is the hate and prejudice directed against Jews. You have not experienced much of it.
Rick Rosner: Beyond the cliché of a blonde white guy taking all the girls in high school. That anecdote reflects a simplistic view of antisemitism. In reality, the full scope of antisemitism involves many specific and complex elements. Historically, its most aggrandized form was evident in Hitler’s Germany. Under that regime, antisemitism portrayed Jews as responsible for all the world’s ills. They were depicted as evil, greedy, and genetically inferior, yet cunning enough to gain control through financial and social leverage.
In Nazi Germany, this hateful ideology was systematized to support the notion that the ideal blonde Übermensch could only flourish if so-called inferior Jews were eradicated. The propaganda portrayed Jews as rapacious, debased, and polluting the human gene pool. Accusations extended to claims that Jews controlled global finance, commerce, and even the entertainment industry.
This framework was constructed to justify extreme prejudice rather than reflect historical reality. Such reductive stereotypes ignore the rich cultural and intellectual contributions of Jewish communities. Ironically, even within these hateful narratives, contradictions emerge. After all that, one might ask, “Are you going to answer for yourself then?” This rhetorical question challenges the simplistic framing of antisemitism.
After all that, I ask whether one could answer by presenting the actual situation instead of resorting to an antisemitic framing. My comment was intended as a joke on the overuse and misapplication of the term. I questioned if one might contrast the hateful rhetoric with a more nuanced historical reality.
Jacobsen: The issue then becomes how to differentiate between extremist propaganda and genuine cultural analysis. Do these two perspectives overlap in any meaningful way?
Rosner: Historically, Jews have experienced alternating periods of freedom and oppression over thousands of years. They were often forced into ghettos and restricted to only a few occupations. Social pressures combined with an emphasis on studying the Torah and Talmud fostered a tradition of scholarship and professional achievement. As immigrants in countries like the United States and England, Jews forged pathways to success through trade, banking, and other professions.
Their successes sometimes made them targets of stereotypes, including claims of controlling entire industries such as entertainment. Many Jewish entrepreneurs were simply hustlers seeking better opportunities. For example, Jewish immigrants played significant roles in establishing early movie studios—like MGM—on the West Coast. This evolution was not the result of a conspiracy but rather a natural outcome of striving for success in a competitive world.
Photo by Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash
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.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: If you were to take the collective energy and matter of the universe and condense it into the head of a pen, how much energy would that be? By “universe,” the observable universe, to be straightforward. We’re considering the standard Big Bang theory instead of informational cosmology since space would be rescaled under the latter.
Rick Rosner: Under Big Bang cosmology, the universe did not expand from a tiny blip; it expanded everywhere. As long as the energy in the universe was uniform, no single point would collapse into a black hole because gravitational pulls would cancel out. There’s a Machian assumption at work, perhaps even built into general relativistic equations. Mach’s principle posits that inertia is relative to the stellar background, which hasn’t been conclusively proven. Yet, it makes sense that a body in motion remains in motion.
What is it moving against? It must be moving against something substantial. That something comprises all the stars, galaxies, and universe. General relativity may inherently assume that an object must be denser than its surroundings for gravitational collapse. In other words, a clump of matter can only collapse if it is denser than the background universe. Moreover, the equations of general relativity incorporate a coefficient of expansion. This coefficient is what Einstein introduced to maintain a steady universe, neither expanding nor contracting. Thus, gravitational collapse depends on the relative density compared to the cosmic background.
You can add an energy metric to the universe, acting as an antigravity propulsive force that expands space. It is stronger than the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter and energy contained within it. This argument is somewhat circular, asserting that the early Big Bang universe did not collapse because it possessed a springiness endowed with more energy than gravity. However, this explanation is not entirely satisfying. The early universe did not collapse because it expanded rapidly at an incredibly fast rate immediately after the Big Bang. This rapid expansion counteracted the gravitational pull of the matter present by essentially stretching space and preventing collapse into a single point. Space was sufficiently “stretchy” to outpace gravitational contraction. Although this reasoning may appear ad hoc, it explains the observed expansion well.
If gravitation is a manifestation of the interactions among particles within space, and if matter defines the scale and structure of space along with gravity, then one cannot compress the entire universe into a pinhead. The presence of matter ensures that space is continually rescaled unless that matter is stripped of its information content. In such a scenario, informational pressure compels matter devoid of information to reconfigure itself into arrangements that restore complexity.
This reconfiguration naturally unfolds over time as matter evolves to produce new information. This process partially explains why a collapsed universe would exhibit significant springiness. When matter is drawn into a black hole, it loses its information. It becomes degenerate—a condensed state of nearly identical, overlapping, neutron-like particles with minimal informational diversity. As interactions occur within this degenerate matter, structure begins to emerge. Over time, this reconfiguration gives rise to the complex arrangements observed in our universe.
But as interactions occur within that degenerate state and new structure begins to precipitate, the resulting condition resembles an indeterminate, springy “soup” reminiscent of the Big Bang. Initially containing little information, this primordial soup eventually gives rise to specific configurations of space, time, and matter that are rich in complexity. Information generation allows events to be sequenced along a timeline, providing a coherent narrative of cosmic evolution. In this view, space and time represent the most efficient associations that enable cause and effect.
Time, fundamentally, is the ordering of cause and effect and prevents everything from happening simultaneously. Although this explanation may seem imprecise, it underscores that cause and effect inherently require a temporal framework. Without time, the concepts of “first cause” and subsequent effects would be meaningless.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Rick Rosner: Now, regarding Pete HegSeth, a guy who was confirmed by a tied Senate vote of 54–50, with JD Vance (the Vice President) breaking the tie—he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense by the smallest margin in history. However, he has well-documented alcohol problems and even paid off a woman $50,000 who had accused him of sexual assault. Moreover, he was only a major; he was in and out of the reserves and retired with that rank. In the officer ranks, one progresses from second lieutenant to first lieutenant, then captain and major. There are further ranks beyond major—lieutenant colonel, colonel, and then the higher echelons—but he never advanced past major. Previous Secretaries of Defense, such as Lloyd Austin (the outgoing Secretary), had extensive military careers: Austin served 40 years, and the two before him each served 21 years.
Hegseth has eight years on and off. I hope we don’t have to evaluate whether he’s good at his job, but it seems like a travesty. As for the presidency, Biden was far too quiet; he seemed to want people to discover the good things his administration was doing without any promotion. Part of the problem is that he appeared unwell and aged. Consider this: Harrison Ford is roughly the same age as Biden (around 80 or 81), yet he stars as a superhero president in an upcoming Marvel movie and still looks vibrant. Also in his late 70s or 80s, Tom Selleck sports a full head of hair and doesn’t show that paper-thin, aged skin—he’s still articulate and spry.
In contrast, Biden looked and sounded lacklustre; his team should have done more to improve his presentation, perhaps even considering steroids or plastic surgery (he has already had hair transplants and may have had an eyelift) if they hadn’t been so indecisive. Meanwhile, Trump took an entirely different approach by saying a great deal and proposing many ideas—many of them ridiculous and some even effective enough to be spun as successes, even if only superficially.
For example, the idea of turning Canada into the 51st state is absurd. Canada isn’t a single state; it comprises ten provinces—British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Labrador—plus territories. Each province is comparable to a U.S. state, so Canada would, if ever divided, yield multiple states. Moreover, the proposal that the U.S. should impose a 25% tariff on Canadian goods to halt issues like fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration is misguided since very few fentanyl and few illegal entrants come through Canada.
Also, Meta has announced a two‐gigawatt computing facility in rural Louisiana. The facility is planned to have about 4,000,000 square feet of interior space—though that’s not even a full square mile—while the entire campus might cover a couple of square miles and supply two gigawatts of power. Meta intends to invest roughly $10 billion in this project, a substantial sum in an era of billions and trillions in circulation. Two gigawatts is enough electricity to power roughly one million homes, and the facility is being built in Richland Parish in northeast Louisiana, about 10 to 15 miles from the Mississippi River. This raises the question: won’t they have to use nuclear power to meet such a huge energy demand?
While some—like Eric Schmidt—suggest using Canadian hydroelectric power, running hydro from Canada 1,400 miles south seems impractical. It appears more likely that nuclear power will be employed, especially since northeastern Louisiana is a swampy area near the Mississippi, and new-generation reactors may not require as much water cooling. Meta’s overall investment might eventually reach about $65 billion.
In contrast, the initiative Trump claimed credit for yesterday was a $500 billion push to develop AI in America—a plan I support. However, the required infrastructure is equally disruptive. Suppose we assume that one gigawatt is needed for every $5 billion in AI development. In that case, we’re looking at roughly 100 gigawatts in total. Since each gigawatt can power about one million homes, that’s enough energy for 100 million homes. However, based on Statista, there are approximately 145 million homes in the U.S., meaning the power required for this AI development would be roughly equivalent to supplying electricity to about one-third of all American households. Please note the source for the 145 million figure—while some sites like HouseGrail are unreliable, Statista provides more credible data.
If that includes apartments and similar dwellings, it covers any dwellings. That’s a tremendous amount of energy. And providing that energy is going to be disruptive.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s examine the concept of enshittification—a term popularized by Cory Doctorow and applied to recent technological developments, particularly social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. These companies start by attracting a large user base with attractive deals and free services, burning through venture capital during their initial, money‐losing phase. They quickly amass millions, or even billions, of users, and their market value skyrockets. However, once shareholders and owners shift their focus toward profitability, these companies begin selling ads, charging for services, and generally squeezing users and employees. The quality of service often degrades over time, with Twitter serving as a prime example of this phenomenon.
Rick Rosner: This discussion leads us to consider a broader idea: the unification of consciousness and the reality that genuine thought is an expensive resource. Modern brain science suggests that the primary function of your brain is to predict what will happen next so that you can position yourself to maximize benefits and minimize risks. With a limited energy budget, your brain assembles thoughts that are half-formed best guesses. Moreover, your brain is not always an honest mediator; it sometimes manipulates your priorities and perceptions to favour survival and reproduction over objective reasoning. Even if AI may seem crude or “shitty” in its current information processing, it might eventually begin to approximate aspects of unconscious thought.
In summary, it is easy to overestimate AI’s sophistication—attributing it with true thought when merely processing information—and overestimate our mental abilities.
Can I ask: have you been tricked into overestimating the power of AI the way I have?
Jacobsen: I remain extremely skeptical. I listen to prominent AI figures—Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Ray Kurzweil, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Ng, Andrej Karpathy, Daphne Koller, Ian Goodfellow, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Joy Buolamwini, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis, Fei-Fei Li, Yann LeCun, and so on. Their prominence doesn’t necessarily guarantee a correct opinion; it may indicate they’re more informed, though still fallible. Perhaps they’ll pick up on something I’m not considering.
If you ask it a simple math problem—say, “23 plus 17″—it might erroneously answer “8” instead of “40.” Even when you correct it, the mistake may persist. Essentially, you’re dealing with a system prone to constant confabulation, a tendency shaped by its training on vast and sometimes flawed human discourse. Left to its own devices, as human language evolves, its output could slowly diverge further from accurate human thought. Ultimately, it remains just a tool.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How many parameters do you think the human brain’s language model works off of? In artificial neural networks, a parameter is typically a single numeric weight. The human brain has roughly 80 to 100 billion neurons, each with thousands of synaptic connections.
Rick Rosner: Suppose you treat each connection as a parameter. In that case, you’re looking at on the order of 10¹⁴ to 10¹⁵ parameters—that’s hundreds of trillions of synapses in total. However, each synapse isn’t just a static value; its strength can vary over time through mechanisms like neurotransmitter release, receptor subtypes, and short-term and long-term plasticity, equating one synapse to one parameter is a gross oversimplification.
Plus, the brain isn’t one giant language model. Even if you assume that 10% of the brain’s capacity is dedicated to language, you’d still land somewhere in the 10¹³ to 10¹⁴ range of potential synaptic parameters. It’s important to note that biological and digital neural networks process information very differently. No one knows the precise parameter count for the brain’s language function. While the entire brain might operate on the order of 10¹⁵ parameters, that isn’t the same as the numeric weights in an LLM. it’s not something we can worry about too precisely. That was the normal baseline answer. Will you ask a follow-up question?
Don’t you think that the estimate of 10¹⁴ to 10¹⁵ parameters for the human brain is perhaps an overestimate—that it might take more than one synaptic connection to constitute what would function as a parameter?
Jacobsen: Oh, wow. One synapse does not equal one parameter. Synapses can change their weights in multiple, often nonlinear, ways, and most synapses are not primarily involved in language processing. The brain is not a monolithic neural net, and parameter counts do not tell the whole story. So is 10¹⁴ to 10¹⁵ an overestimate? Yes and no. There is a much longer explanation behind that, but it would take a thousand words to cover all the nuances.
Rosner: One more question. Do you think the brain uses combinatorial coding, where large combinations of neurons firing together embody conceptual units—similar to how words are formed from combinations of letters to represent ideas? In other words, is it the case that concepts like “cat,” “dog,” or even names like “Jennifer Aniston” do not require a single neuron but rather distributed patterns of activation?
Jacobsen: There is evidence in neuroscience for what are known as concept cells, and abstract representations appear to be encoded in regions such as the medial temporal lobe, prefrontal cortex, and parietal cortex. The number of human concepts we learn daily—or even moment by moment—changes continuously, and how these conceptual units are represented across synaptic parameters is highly complex. Picking down a simple conversion rate between synapses and conceptual representations is tricky. Conceptual and brain complexity are intertwined, and advanced AI systems, like the brain, are continuous, emergent, and adaptive. By any means necessary, both the brain and AI encode information in the most momentarily efficient way possible.
Rosner: Is that essentially what you’re saying? Are the brain and AI opportunistic in encoding and optimizing to store information as efficiently as possible? I’d say so. We often imagine concepts as standalone entities, like vocabulary cards—”orange,” “la pelota”—but there is an efficiency mechanism at work. Concepts that are rarely used tend to be stored together with their contexts.
In contrast, concepts used frequently are stripped of extraneous context. This suggests that our cognitive system functions as an association engine. That reminds me—we should discuss whether this means that the brain essentially functions as an association engine in the same way that word embeddings and hidden states in AI produce emergent representations.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting parallel. Both brains and advanced AI systems adopt encoding strategies that are opportunistic and adaptive, meaning they store and process information in whatever manner is most efficient at the time. This process is not fixed but continually adjusts based on usage and context. The brain’s storage of concepts and the emergent representations in AI both reflect a dynamic balance between localist and distributed coding. We can see no simple conversion rate between synaptic connections and AI parameters. Both systems have evolved or been designed to optimize in the face of complex demands.
That reminds me—we should also talk about category theory in mathematics, which deals with abstract structures and relationships. It sounds like “reproductive math” was mentioned somewhere, and although it’s a bit off-topic; it seems relevant to how abstract representations are managed in AI and the brain. We’ve never really discussed category theory in depth, but perhaps we could plan to cover that tomorrow. I’ve got a very packed schedule today, so we’ll need to keep this brief.
Rosner: Agreed. Sometimes, when I get overwhelmed by the complexities of our discussions—whether about AI, the brain, or even the fundamentals of mathematics—I find that it all eventually comes down to the efficiency of encoding information. As category theory provides an abstract framework for understanding mathematical structures, the brain and AI systems seem to work by optimizing how they store and retrieve information. We should revisit this topic when time permits.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Rick Rosner: Imagine you’re talking to two guys in chat one-on-one. One of them mentions talking to Claude, the latest version of that model. How do you compare GPT‑4 to Claude in terms of quality? What did it say to you? GPT‑4 from OpenAI and Claude from Anthropic are two advanced language models with unique attributes. Both excel at text comprehension and generation.
GPT‑4 is often lauded for its structured chain-of-thought reasoning, making it highly effective for handling complex instructions and logical tasks. In contrast, Claude emphasizes user-friendly dialogue and context retention, showcasing an impressive capacity for large-scale summarization while maintaining a friendly conversational style. In practical use, GPT-4’s interpretive depth yields thorough responses, though some might find its tone more neutral.
On the other hand, Claude’s style can seem more casual and appealing to users seeking immediate, approachable feedback. The difference lies in their service offerings and moderation strategies. Claude is friendly—I’ve had a nice time with him. I didn’t realize that friendliness was engineered; I thought it was an emergent trait. But no—it’s a design feature. GPT‑4 and Claude each have distinct safety guidelines, occasionally resulting in varied reactions to off-topic subjects.
The choice between them depends on the specific task: GPT‑4 often integrates well with developer tools and has great integrations. At the same time, Claude’s extensive context window can be advantageous for processing long documents. Both represent significant leaps in language technology, so determining which is “better” hinges on individual preferences and needs. Testing both on various workloads is the best way to decide which model aligns more closely with the user’s requirements. Ultimately, neither model is universally superior—each excels in different contexts.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did we discuss enough about how parenting has changed and will continue to change as our culture shifts dramatically? That’s a significant issue.
Rick Rosner: Throughout history, someone has always had to explain to a child who has reached sexual maturity how sex works, whether it’s their first experience or not. But now, there’s a debate about how much sexual information to provide and at what age—do you tell kids about sex early or wait for them to encounter the often horrible depictions of it on the Internet?
Or should we wait until they hear a blowjob reference on a sitcom and then ask you about it? I have no idea. My kid was born in 1995, and I probably don’t remember explaining the basics of sex to her. I let her watch Two and a Half Men, which didn’t discuss sex explicitly but showed that the guys are often scumbags. She was watching that at, what, around age 10? We also went to see Sandler movies like The Waterboy. She mentioned that some things in them traumatized her, even though there weren’t many sexual references.
Later, when she was a teenager, we’d watch movies sent as screeners—if you’re in the Writers Guild or one of the Entertainment Guilds, you get screeners to vote on them. We’d watch these films regardless of their ratings. We didn’t necessarily discuss every awkward moment when a sexual reference popped up on the DVR. Still, there’s so much more sexual information—and misinformation—out there now. It was even worse in 2010 when my kid was 15, and we watched a PG or R-rated movie nominated for a Writers Guild award. I’m unsure what the standard discourse was; there wasn’t one clear narrative. Frankly, I don’t have a definitive answer—I don’t know. Comments?
Do you think being a single guy and being a dad changes your sense of humour? For instance, consider how pornography is like Tetris: if you play Tetris for an hour, you still see the falling blocks when you walk away; your brain has been temporarily reprogrammed to see the world as blocky. It’s similar to porn. If you spend an hour watching porn, when you go back into the world, you might have difficulty not perceiving people as objects of sexual gratification or judgment.
As a single guy, you’re bombarded with more sexual signals than family signals. Whether you’re desperate to get a girlfriend, gaming, or watching porn, you receive a lot more sexual messaging than you would if you were part of a family. In a traditional family setting, you work—zero hours a week—and then spend your remaining time with your family: eating meals together, attending church, and tending to your kids’ sporting events. There’s a lot of interaction and messaging from your family and society, although even that is now eroding; we’ve all seen entire families—parents, two or three kids, maybe a grandmother or an aunt—sitting together at a restaurant with everyone on their devices.
The signals you receive from your environment shape how you think about everything, including humour. When I was on Kimmel, I spent 60 hours a week brainstorming topical subjects to turn into jokes and bits. Some of that time was spent in a room with others tossing around ideas, and other times I was online. That was around 2002—barely past the Friendster era and perhaps even at the end of the Myspace era. The Internet wasn’t nearly as overwhelming as it is today. According to one study I looked up, the average social media user absorbs between 4,000 and 10,000 messages daily.
That figure might be high—perhaps it’s more like 2,000—but it’s still far more than what my stepdad, who owned a small business in downtown Boulder, would receive from customers, friends, TV, and newspapers all day. Moreover, a family member gets more family interaction than a single guy. However, since my dad’s generation, everyone has experienced a relative erosion of family messaging in favour of social media.
Jacobsen: Do you think this has changed how messaging is targeted to men, women, straight couples, or gay couples?
Rosner: There is a lot of targeted messaging, but it’s overwhelmed by the sheer volume of content on social media. It’s like with dogs—I’ve had several dogs in my life—and I’ve never known a dog whose behaviour was more determined by its sex than simply by being a dog. Social media junk is junk, regardless of how the algorithms target it. It’s the bombardment that matters more than the specifics of the algorithm.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Rick Rosner: Dave Chappelle gave the longest monologue in the history of SNL tonight and received a standing ovation. He mentioned regretting some of his past remarks—perhaps those made during the Trump era. I wish him luck and hope he gives the historically disenfranchised a fair chance. I also remember a snippet where he praised Jimmy Carter for boldly going into Palestine without the protection of Israeli forces. When was that? Early 2000, I believe—shortly after Chappelle left his show and began travelling the world.
On another note, Nicholas Taleb’s work is provocative; he flat-out calls Mensa a group of egotistical, blowhard losers and dismisses many IQ proponents, like Jordan Peterson and the authors of The Bell Curve (which, by the way, is over 40 years old now).
A proper interpretation isn’t just about interpretation—it goes beyond that. You have to read the paper because it doesn’t merely discuss interpretation; it dismantles the whole idea. It is far more thorough than simply criticizing the interpretation of IQ tests. It dismisses everything, including the very concept of IQ–an illegitimate measure. But you should look through the paper because it drives the point home from many angles.
The paper is fired up; the author is energetic.
Taleb makes the basic point that I had never fully appreciated: even a 0.5 correlation isn’t great. Since correlation is squared to determine the additional information it conveys, you need to square your correlation to see what extra insight you get.
It showed a U-shaped graph. It indicates that you obtain a noticeably helpful amount of additional information only in the super high correlations—0.8 and above—. He also points out that IQ hardly correlates with anything that isn’t itself. Although there is a high correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores, it isn’t as high as expected. Individuals retaking multiple IQ tests only achieve a self‑correlation of 0.8. That is much lower than the correlation you’d see with height or the time it takes to run 100 meters.
A self‑correlation of 0.8 means that there is only 64% information in any individual IQ score. When you use that loosely correlated number to compare it with other variables, it turns out to be a poor measure. He even goes so far as to say that the worst use of IQ might be in discussing the average IQs of entire countries.
In one study of the national average IQs of 185 countries, the paper shows that for 104 of those countries, there was no actual IQ data, and nobody was tested. Instead, the figures were extrapolated from racial demographics, which are circular, racist, and spurious. Thus, many of the things IQ is used for—especially by racist individuals—are utterly flawed.
He also discusses the asymmetry we mentioned yesterday. At the low end, IQ is correlated with poor performance. For example, if you have a test group where 20% of the subjects are deceased—scoring zero on an IQ test and zero on any performance measure—this creates false correlations. The asymmetry of IQ as a measure means that while a low IQ indicates impairment, there is no corresponding guarantee that a high IQ will ensure exceptional performance in areas not directly derived from IQ tests.
Being dead gives you a 0% score across the board. There’s no opposite extreme where being alive and smart guarantees a 100% score on every performance measure. Brain damage leads to poor performance in several areas, but the scale is not symmetric at the high end.
This lack of symmetry leads to many misconceptions, especially among people who do not know how to interpret statistics—which might include me since some of this information was new and somewhat surprising. Taleb has devoted much thought to statistics, probability, and those arcane situations that most statisticians overlook yet are very applicable to the real world. He wrote The Black Swan, which discusses rare occurrences that defy traditional statistical expectations; improbable events happen only rarely, so you must figure out how to adjust your models to account for these rare instances.
Much of what he brings up regarding IQ shows that many people in the field do not understand their discipline. Most statisticians do not grasp all the necessary subtleties of statistics. As for specialists in IQ—if there are any left making their living solely by working with IQ—that field has largely declined.
Interest in IQ has diminished, and perhaps mockery of it has increased. Although many people once earned their living during its heyday, that is no longer true.
Primarily, you’ll find this in the individuals who need to identify struggling kids and get them into a program. It’s done through mainstream, legitimately proctored tests that help people succeed. Given that most statisticians don’t understand statistics and its subtleties, the people working with IQ—such as those involved in getting gifted kids into specialized programs or the psychologists you mentioned who privately test children to qualify for gifted programs—charge around $500 to administer the test. (What’s the good one? Oh, Stanford‑Binet—is it? It’s notorious for its high scores.)
They charge $500 to write a report, but that might be only about 3% of their practice; most psychologists are meeting with people rather than administering IQ tests. There is no way these professionals fully understand the pitfalls of IQ and statistics. The field is rife with statistical ignorance and even self‐educated racists who have read The Bell Curve and listened to Jordan Peterson. These individuals are eight steps removed from any legitimate statistical knowledge. Telev has spent much time examining the field and realized its foundation is as flimsy as pudding. There’s nothing solid holding it up.
He makes two main points: first, IQ cannot do much of what its proponents claim it can, and second, the things it can do can be determined easily without resorting to IQ tests. There is, however, a potential weakness in one of his arguments. For example, if a child has learning difficulties, those issues might be more apparent when evaluated in high-level tasks rather than through IQ tests alone. Spending a few hours administering IQ‑type tests might sometimes help provide a clearer picture of a child’s deficiencies.
Nonetheless, he argues that IQ is mostly useless.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Rick Rosner: Okay, here goes: Think about how we are made of gossamer forces, yet torn apart by the wimpiest of a star’s core, which had to exert immense pressure and heat sources. To form a nucleus containing more than a single hydro and heat. Once assembled, the nucleus attracts electrons held in place by relatively feeble forces. The net force at any distance is negligible when all electrons are in place.
Consider those 50‑foot steel beams at the gym—spanning a huge space without numerous supports—their job is to resist gravity, which is, ironically, the weakest force of all. Our bodies, and indeed all matter, are held together by residual forces like van der Waals interactions, which are extraordinarily weak. This fragility is evident in how a fall in Earth’s modest gravitational field can break us.
Even planets only hold together because they contain an astronomical number of atoms. In our world, nearly every interaction is governed by these delicate, gossamer forces. The only place where you regularly see high-energy particle interactions is in the center of a star, where fusion—the one force that isn’t so wimpy—occurs. You could argue that fission is similarly robust, but everything remains remarkably fragile outside those extremes.
Consider how our existence is built from remarkably fragile forces. Fusion—the process that combines atomic nuclei—requires immense pressure and heat, yet even fusion is less forceful than fission. In fission, you take such heavy nuclei that they become unstable and break them apart with only a modest nudge; this process is even “wimpier” than fusion. Although there have been a few accidental nuclear events in human history, it takes tremendous effort to assemble enough fissionable material for an atomic bomb. Even then, converting matter into energy releases only about one-tenth of one percent of the mass. It’s wild that our existence and history are built from these feeble, residual forces. Comments? None.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In a way, we evolved in a system defined by these fragile forces. It takes an enormous universe to build the conditions—planets orbiting suns—that allow ordered, negentropic systems (life) to emerge.
Rosner: We are, essentially, tender beings who have managed to exist on Earth for a billion years. It takes a vast universe to set up these oases of order without our fragile structures being obliterated.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Rick Rosner: Since we started talking, the diamond business has been entirely disrupted. You could make quarter-carat or half-carat diamonds in pressure chambers, which was when we first discussed this. But now, new technology lets you create flawless diamonds of arbitrary size for almost no money. There’s even an alphabetic scale for the colour of diamonds, with D being the best, then continuing through H, J, L, M, etc.
If you’re buying a nice stone for a wedding ring—say, Carol’s wedding ring, which was originally my mom’s, and she kept it after her divorce—it might be a G or H colour, which is close to colourless. While D is ideal for colour and flawless clarity, colour is just one aspect. Then there are inclusions—specks inside the stone. A D-grade, colourless, flawless, one-carat mined diamond used to cost at least $10,000 to $15,000 until a couple of years ago. Now they can grow those diamonds—I’ve seen them grow.
You’ll find many misleading claims if you check eBay for prices on stones from India. They might advertise a one-carat, flawless, colourless diamond for $30,000 but then send you a stone made of something else entirely—moissanite, another mineral with a high index of refraction and sparkle. If you shop carefully, you could probably find someone selling a lab-grown diamond chemically and spectrographically indistinguishable from a natural diamond for less than a hundred dollars. It turns out that, apparently, only people my age care about whether a diamond is lab-grown or natural.
Younger people—especially younger women—don’t want their fiancés wasting money on expensive natural diamonds. A rule (promoted by De Beers, the diamond monopoly) used to be that you should spend two to three months’ salary on your engagement diamond, which is utterly ridiculous. But people bought into that idea.
Millennials and younger generations say, “No, don’t waste your money on that.” They’re opting for lab-grown diamonds at about 10% of the price of expensive natural ones. This shift is essentially destroying De Beers. Maybe De Beers deserves to be wrecked a little—they haven’t been the nicest company. They were involved with figures like Cecil Rhodes. They had ties to racist, white supremacist governments in and around South Africa. Perhaps they should face some consequences, but the monopoly is gone now. Diamonds have been overhyped for decades—maybe forever—especially compared to other precious gems like rubies, sapphires, and emeralds. Diamonds aren’t that rare.
Only because of De Beers’ monopoly and highly effective advertising did diamonds maintain such high prices for a century. The idea of a diamond engagement ring comes from De Beers—the slogan “A Diamond Is Forever.” Products like diamond tennis bracelets were created to address a glut of small stones. They managed to market these products in a way that made diamonds seem rare, even though you can now grow them. They’re pretty screwed. Rotten Tomatoes.
If you go 1.2 carats, people might still think, “Oh, it’s natural, and you went all out.” It’s a weird upside-down market.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Rick Rosner: Carole and I were watching the “Greatest Portrait Artist Competition” in England. In this show, artists from around the UK compete in portraiture. Tonight’s subject was the performer who portrays Dame Edna Everage—a renowned drag performer. Carol thought he had died because the show is from 2021; apparently, he suffered a fall in which he broke his hip, an injury that can be fatal for older people. There’s even a possibility it contributed to my mom’s death.
When you’re that old—my mom was 88 and two‑thirds—they generally don’t perform an autopsy unless you’re willing to pay four or five grand. We were speculating. She had health issues, but they found her on the floor. We suspect that what killed her was the fall—she was found sitting.
Then, she triggered the fall alarm when she tipped over from that position about two hours after she had already passed away. Older adults are often moved from senior living into a board-and-care facility when they fall. Falls are brutal for older people. Interestingly, falls aren’t nearly as harmful to younger individuals. We average close to six feet tall, and when we tip over, our center of gravity means our body experiences the equivalent energy of falling from about three feet. (Half of our body is closer to the ground, half is further away.)
In contrast, if you drop any object from three feet, it’s likely to be damaged. Remarkably, younger people can take falls without sustaining serious injuries. Of course, people get hurt—basketball players, for instance, get knocked down a few times per game—but overall, our bodies are much more resilient. Enjoy the rest of your evening at the pub.
And those guys—their center of gravity is about three and a half feet off the ground. Then you have football players, of course, flying through the air. They land on grass, and even though they’re all padded, it’s still a tremendous amount of energy your body can absorb when you fall. I already took one a while back. That was last year—I was probably 64 at the time. I took a fall where I messed up my wrist and crushed a bone.
I caught myself, so it wasn’t a terrible fall because my head didn’t take any of the kinetic energy, but my wrist still paid the price. I’ve entered that period in life now, and my wife, too. She hasn’t had any major injuries from falls, though she did crack her ankle—a bone in her foot got injured. It wasn’t that she fell from five feet, but still, her mass plus gravity did its damage. Now that we’re in our sixties, falling has become increasingly dangerous.
I even joke that we should probably start crawling everywhere at some point. In Japan, they’re experimenting with lower-body exoskeletons or frameworks that help move your legs and provide stability. This is especially important when you’re tottering around in your eighties, perhaps even dealing with Alzheimer’s and losing the mental wherewithal to walk steadily.
Japan faces a demographic crisis where there aren’t enough young people to care for all older people. All developed countries (every continent except Antarctica and soon Africa as well) will face a similar demographic decline in the next 30 years. If everyone had an effective exoskeletal armature, you might boost the average lifespan by a few months—which is huge. One little fix that raises the average lifespan is that falls kill many people.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I found an article in Mother Jones about AI becoming as powerful as human cognition by 2025 worth reading. The article is from 2013. The article was scaled up in search results somehow. Some parts of it could have been written ten years later. It uses Moore’s law from 2013 to predict that the number of calculations per second in the fastest computers will eventually be on par with the number performed by the human brain. However, since that article was written—more than a decade ago—the estimates for the brain’s computational capacity may have been updated, and we probably have more recent information now. But let’s assume the article from 2013 is correct and that the number of calculations in an AI system is roughly equivalent to those in the human brain. Though, AI does not operate like a human brain.
Rick Rosner: Current AI systems are fairly single-task oriented; they do not interact with the environment in a multifaceted way. Take a language model, for example. It develops small probability nodes around certain characteristics of language and thought by being fed vast amounts of data—much as a graphics AI probabilistically learns the laws of perspective and shading. For instance, understanding that an object closer to the observer will block what is behind it, or learning how human faces work, how many fingers we have, and how they bend).
A language model uses a similar mechanism to learn how sentences work and how verbs and nouns function. It may not “understand” content in the human sense. Still, we probably process language probabilistically on a localized scale—predicting which word might come next based on prior exposure (for example, if I say “the best,” you might expect “brightest” because you’ve heard that phrase many times, as in “the best and the brightest”). Our thinking might also rely on localized probability models rather than full conscious processing—similar to pseudo-thinking within a language model. The conclusion has remained unchanged for the past few years: AI is powerful but ultimately limited.
Is that reasonable?
Jacobsen: It’ll be tricky.
Rosner: Integration will mostly be solved by the systems iterating themselves until they reach a fixed point. For example, give a graphics AI a six-word instruction. It can generate a thirty-second video—or maybe even a whole short film—that may or may not make perfect sense but will relate to the six words you provided. Imagine instructing it to “show a guy haunted by guilt, the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, with his guilt taking the form of ghosts.” That AI would produce a two‑minute video of a man haunted by spectral manifestations of guilt, perhaps even depicting the crime itself, and it would do a pretty good job. That output would be something you could look at and say, “This isn’t total crap.”
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you feel about Trump’s first stint in office?
Rick Rosner: Trump is, as usual, making much noise. He’s taking harmful actions—although, on rare occasions, one might argue that not everything he does is disastrous. What I find most disconcerting about his first week in office (roughly six days) is that the initial surveys of his approval and disapproval ratings show marked improvement. Since he first announced his candidacy in 2015, he has consistently had more disapprovals than approvals—he was essentially “underwater.” Yet now, in this first week as president, several surveys (seven or eight in total, with only one conducted by a Republican organization) indicate that his approval ratings are between 6 and 17 points higher than his disapproval ratings. In one survey, for example, he scored 53% approval versus 39% disapproval—a 14-point margin.
I hope this trend doesn’t continue because it suggests that a significant portion of the population has become acclimated to, and even supportive of, his misconduct. When inaugurated in 2017, he was only marginally above water for a few days before quickly reverting to a state of overall disapproval. I still remember him falsely claiming—while boasting about it—that his inaugural crowd in Washington, D.C., was larger than Obama’s, a claim refuted by the photographic evidence.
That whole episode set the tone for people to disapprove of him—he was lying about things that everyone could see. Now, he’s acting in essentially the same way. When he was running for president, he promised to bring down the price of eggs and to resolve the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Neither promise has come true; egg prices are at an all-time high, and he’s already backtracked on his position regarding Ukraine. Despite these failures, his approval ratings remain surprisingly strong. That’s worrisome because it encourages people to accept his shortcomings—as if to say, “let the baby have his bottle.” For example, Pete Hejseth, a blatantly unfit nominee for Secretary of Defense, was confirmed by a 50–50 Senate vote, with the Vice President having to cast the tie-breaking vote. Similarly, Christy Ngo, an obviously unfit head of Homeland Security nominee, was confirmed by a vote of 59 to 34. This outcome suggests that some Democrats are willing to allow terrible nominees. I hope people continue to hold him accountable and disapprove of actions that warrant criticism.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Rick Rosner: Let’s shift to its politics. The estimated damage could reach around $100 billion by the time the fires are fully contained, and there will be a lot of blame. Republicans and Trump are trying to pin it on the mayor and Governor Newsom, and Fox News is echoing the same narrative. While there is some culpability, it’s worth noting that the fire department recently hired a logistics specialist with a salary of three-quarters of a million dollars per year—though she’s now at risk of losing her job.”
A 117‑million‑gallon reservoir was shut down for repairs due to a minor issue—a tear in its cover—that might have compromised the drinkability of the water. But drinkability isn’t the same as forest-fire fightability. There has long been a problem with broken hydrants not getting repaired—some remain unfixed for years after being reported. No new fire stations have been built since the 1960s, even though Los Angeles’ population has doubled. As a result, we’re likely to see a lot of investigations and plenty of finger-pointing.”
Though, if you want to, I still think that most of the blame—well, maybe the blame adds up to more than 100%—lies with these brutal, 100‑mile‑per‑hour winds and the unprecedented dry conditions. Even if that reservoir had been online, it would have been unlikely to stop the fire.
A lot of people are going to be in trouble over this. If I had to assign blame, I’d say about 10–15% falls on the governor and perhaps a bit more on our mayor. Plus, that logistics specialist—paid three‑quarters of a million dollars—gets her share, too. The power companies also probably deserve blame; they don’t maintain their equipment, which causes many fires. They’re supposed to shut off the power to the wires when the wind starts blowing crazy because then the wires can swing into things, spark, and ignite fires. It appears they probably didn’t do that. So, there’s a ton of blame to go around.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Rick Rosner: We live in an age where oligarchs wield more control over politics, the products we consume, and our culture than ever before. The nature of that oligarchy is about to change in unprecedented ways in the coming years, as it will merge with the extra strategic and persuasive power of sophisticated AI. What do you think?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: None. That all sounds accurate. This AI revolution may blunt the oligarchs’ power a little, as non-billionaires who use AI might gain relative power compared to everyone else. Still, it will likely remain a mix of traditional oligarchy and a new tech aristocracy—along with an improving standard of living and perhaps even longer lifespans. Our long-held wishes might come true even as we lose more personal dominion.
The overall “pie” of power is expected to grow in size and precision. However, it will still be largely controlled by a few select groups. History, as always, repeats itself.
Rosner: It’s a strange feeling—more about powerlessness than empowerment. We must re-evaluate the importance of personal agency and the idea of being the master of our own domain. We may have to come to terms with the fact that complete autonomy might no longer be attainable. Philosophically speaking, we might even ask: Was agency ever as significant as we thought? In an era when nearly everyone eventually dies, and most people live in squalor, was rugged individualism truly that important? We’re already getting used to sacrificing privacy—honestly, I don’t care much about it anymore. What about you? Do you still value privacy?
Jacobsen: It depends on the situation.
Rosner: I remember surviving my time at Kimmel by revealing personal details that most would rather keep hidden. In fact, I was even rewarded for giving up my privacy for comedic effect. Younger generations care even less about privacy nowadays. Privacy has been under attack for a long time, and our autonomy is increasingly threatened. Most of us will have to adapt.
Jacobsen: Same time tomorrow?
Rosner: Yes—tomorrow.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Changing the subject, I recently listened to a roundtable discussion on Spotify featuring Edward Witten, Abdus Salam, Dennis Sciama, and Paolo Budinich. Abdus Salam, as you may recall, was not only a Nobel laureate in Physics (1979) renowned for his work on electroweak unification but also the founder of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste.
The conversation was fascinating. They discussed topics ranging from string theory to alternative historical scenarios in physics. For instance, one panellist speculated that if Einstein had not made his groundbreaking discoveries, someone else might have done so within two or three years. However, Edward Witten argued that while those theories would have eventually emerged, it would have taken several decades to achieve what Einstein did.
Rick Rosner: I’ve even heard that Poincaré might have developed at least some of these ideas if Einstein had been struck by a trolley—possibly arriving at them within five years. Of course, that’s a completely different kind of trolley problem altogether!
They said “bus,” but a bus is anachronistic. A more interesting question is: What if Newton had been hit by a 17th‑century bus?
Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating thought.
Rosner: We know that calculus would have been developed regardless—after all, Leibniz formulated it concurrently. Likewise, if Darwin had been run over, someone with an identical theory would have had to publish to get ahead, and they likely would have ended up publishing jointly.
It might not have caught on as quickly because Darwin’s arguments were far more extensive, but it probably would have eventually. This reminds me of a sports statistics question: Which performances in sports are so exceptional that they will never be replicated? Stephen J. Gould once analyzed this and suggested that only one record truly stands out—for example, Joe DiMaggio’s legendary 56‑game hitting streak, which remains one of the most extraordinary achievements in baseball.
Speaking of baseball, this year, Shohei Ohtani approached new statistical milestones. There’s the “40‑40 club” (players with 40 home runs and 40 stolen bases in a season), a feat achieved by only six players in MLB history. Ohtani joined the”50‑50 club” and nearly reached the “55‑55 club,” an achievement made possible by unique circumstances. It’s a bit tedious to go into all the details, though.
But who else? Consider the discovery of the DNA structure by Crick and Watson—with significant contributions from Rosalind Franklin. Franklin’s X‑ray diffraction images led Crick and Watson, in a rather serendipitous manner, to conclude that only a double helix could produce the observed pattern. One might survey the entire history of science and ask which discovery seems almost divinely inspired by its exceptional divergence from the prevailing zeitgeist.
It’s extraordinary when compared to its time. Are any candidates standing apart? Given that over 100 million people contribute to our collective knowledge, it seems likely that almost any theoretical foundation could eventually be discovered. Yet, there’s also literature to consider.
Is Shakespeare so far beyond any other writer that no one else comes close to matching the quality of his output?
Jacobsen: Some point to Pareto distributions and similar phenomena, suggesting that exceptional achievements—whether scientific or artistic—are one-offs that mirror fundamental structural truths about the world.
That brings us to an opposite question: What discovery emerged unusually late, given the intellectual groundwork before it? Take evolution, for example. Based on his meticulous observations, Leonardo da Vinci was poised to articulate the concept of deep time some 300 to 350 years earlier. Perhaps even someone from over 2,000 years ago—maybe a priest—could have proposed a similar idea. However, these ideas remained fragmented without a cohesive presentation, as expected from Da Vinci or Darwin. Da Vinci never consolidated his work into a single treatise; much of it was lost to history. Had he succeeded, the church history timeline might have been significantly altered.
You might argue that consciousness is still not fully understood. While many people intuitively grasp what consciousness is, there remains little concerted effort to definitively solve its mysteries. Many still regard it as a nebulous problem that isn’t all that important.
Even though the Turing test is now widely regarded as an inadequate proof of consciousness, it was once considered a robust measure. Nowadays, with various other methods and tools available, the Turing test still serves as a practical gauge—even though many neuroscientists are actively researching various facets of consciousness. Yet, there isn’t a widespread push to pin it down definitively. What do you think? There’s no compelling reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are exclusively tuned to uncover alternative aspects of the universe.
Rosner: That might be a matter of perspective. There’s a famous saying attributed to Einstein: “The most surprising aspect of the universe is that it is amenable to physical and mathematical analysis.” Some invoke a benevolent god to explain this, but consider the alternative—if the universe were fundamentally incomprehensible, countless people would have perished in the futile pursuit of understanding it.
Jacobsen: Does this imply the existence of a cruel god who makes us suffer by withholding accurate information?
Rosner: Not necessarily—it may just be that reliable information is inherently hard to obtain rather than deliberately withheld.
Without a divine puppeteer, the universe can be remarkably simple when approached from the right angle. Of course, it takes time to gather the experimental data necessary to develop the correct theories. Consider Newton’s law of universal gravitation—it’s ridiculously straightforward. All inverse‑square laws in physics are almost embarrassingly obvious once you understand them.
Similarly, the fact that the intensity of light diminishes in proportion to the square of the distance from its source makes perfect sense.
Jacobsen: Do you believe, then, that the universe is wildly complicated in its underlying structure?
Rosner: That’s a relative question. Some of the brightest minds in our species have struggled for centuries to uncover aspects of universal law, which speaks to the challenge relative to our capabilities. There’s also an argument that the universe is as simple as possible. While more complicated ways to construct a universe might exist, such configurations are likely exceedingly rare—and perhaps inherently unstable.
Jacobsen: Is that enough?
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Rick Rosner: I know some decision-makers have been forced to choose a more patient approach—the “Biden option”—and one individual even allowed more time than Biden did. That was significant, though it seems that in democracies, we often see the same people in power repeatedly, and such decisions rarely lead to meaningful policy changes.
Regarding Indigenous issues, I once mentioned that the main street closest to where I grew up in Albuquerque was called Indian School Road—a peculiar name, considering what we now know about the history of Indian schools. In retrospect, that name almost sounds like calling a street “Concentration Camp Road.” In contrast, the street where I grew up was more neutral; it intersected a major road before curving into a cul-de-sac that met School Avenue.
I’m curious if they’ll ever have to change the name of the street that’s held that name for nearly 100 years.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The first change might come with the football team. What else can we talk about?
Jacobsen: Well, there’s already a ton of people spreading that nonsense on X. Nonsense will only be amplified.
Jacobsen: Did you hear about Facebook dropping fact-checking?
Rosner: Yes. I learned about it through a fake ad featuring Emperor Palpatine’s second-in-command. It suggested they should revert to an earlier system—basically, it was all fake news. Apparently, either Musk or Zuckerberg approved this move. Also, I believe Zuckerberg is relocating his remaining fact-checking staff (who will now serve as Community Notes staff) from California to Texas because that apparently resonates better with Trump.
I’ve got a guy you might want to interview.
Jacobsen: Who?
Rosner: His name is David N. Gibbs, author of The War by the Rich. He’s a historian at the University of Arizona. He really knows his stuff. His discussion covered how Carter—reviled by conservatives—played a significant role in conservatism by being anti-union and all sorts of things I hadn’t known. He’s incredibly well-versed. I even learned that the U.S. clandestinely baited the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski orchestrated a plot to goad the Soviet Union into that invasion, which ended disastrously for him. So, anyway, the guy knows a tremendous amount.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
Rick Rosner: Yesterday, I went in for my six‐month MRI after having had a one‐centimeter tumor cryoablated from my kidney. I’m waiting for the results, and it’s a little scary. It’s also a pain in the butt, but I’m grateful to have good insurance so that I can get a scan whenever I need one.
At 64 and two‐thirds years old, I’m well into a stage of life that requires a lot of maintenance to manage my health. I’ve always taken reasonable measures—exercising regularly, watching my diet, and taking supplements (even though I remain skeptical about their overall effectiveness). Now, however, I find that more serious medical interventions are necessary. I suspect that a high percentage of people my age—perhaps even over half—require such care. For instance, I know that 74% of American adults are classified as overweight or obese, and there are likely close to 60 million Americans taking the diabetes drug Metformin, with another 10 to 20 million on other diabetes medications.
I wonder if I’m pronouncing these names correctly; didn’t you correct my pronunciation of Metformin and Ozempic? I also recall a Southern commercial that repeatedly said “diabetic, diabetic.” Besides diabetes, many people also struggle with heart issues. It seems that increased medical intervention is simply part of living a reasonably long life—even though it’s both scary and inconvenient.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the scariest thing you’ve ever watched? In person? On television? Let’s start with something from fiction and then something from real life.
Rick Rosner: We’ll do fiction first. JD and I were driving back from a Lance show one night just as a wildfire started along the 405. We drove through it about three minutes after it began, and you could tell it had already consumed half of a hillside in five—or maybe ten—minutes. It was still fresh and raging. As we drove through, the temperature inside the car increased by about 5 to 8 degrees. You could feel the heat—it was scary, though not immediately dangerous.
Then there was the ’94 earthquake. Carole and I were on the top floor of a three-story, wood-frame condo building that swayed considerably. The earthquake lasted more than 15 seconds—the biggest I’ve experienced. That was pretty terrifying. How about you?
JacobsenI experienced something similar during the war. While travelling in Ukraine, we passed by a fire—being put out—a forest fire. We were heading up near what I believe was Sumy Oblast, travelling between Sumy and Kharkiv.
Rosner: Speaking of Ukraine, what do you think about the current state of the war?
Jacobsen: Ukraine is making some inroads into Russian territory, but that’s not many square miles compared to what Russia holds in Ukraine. The Ukrainians will not end up like the Kurds. A few major players are supporting Ukraine and pushing back against Russian aggression. The human rights case for Ukraine is clear, but the political case is less so. Casualty figures and costs are stacking up against the Russians. Still, Ukraine has a population of about 40 million compared to Russia’s 160 million, so Russia can theoretically absorb more losses. It’s a tricky situation. Also, Russia has broken new ground by deploying North Korean boots on the ground. Does this mean NATO can put boots on the ground, too? And what do you make of Trump’s statements about Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, and Mexico?
Rosner: All of that is ridiculous. He wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico—the northern border of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida—even though it’s been called the Gulf of Mexico for over a century. It’s just stupid. And no, Denmark hasn’t sold Greenland to us, and Canada will remain sovereign. As for Greenland, Canada, and even Alaska, that’s a different discussion.
Now, shifting gears a bit—one of the main resources required by AI is energy, which is used for computation. It takes a tremendous amount of energy.
Jacobsen: I interviewed a major AI expert—he trained under Geoffrey Hinton. He has 200,000 citations. One thing that came out of that conversation is that they use a different term: “compute” and energy. They’re concerned with questions like, “How much energy will it cost? How much data do you need? How many computers do you have?” These are the kinds of questions that are shaping the future of AI. So, what do you think?
Rosner: So, it’s a whole new economy. The idea is that nuclear power is the easiest way to generate the energy needed for AI—at least, that’s what I and many others believe—. The advantage is that you can locate your massive server farms and nuclear reactors far from populated areas. Well, kind of.
Suppose you’re going to deploy several nuclear reactors. In that case, you’ll be pleased to know that modern reactors are safer than they used to be, thanks to improved technology. Some of the biggest meltdowns—like those at Three Mile Island and Chornobyl—weren’t caused by faulty reactor designs or unavoidable natural disasters but by human error.
If you plan to install many nuclear reactors, consider this: Canada has 22 reactors, and the U.S. has 93. For countries of our size, that isn’t very many. However, Canada boasts vast expanses of wilderness—just as Greenland and Alaska do. Placing reactors in these remote, largely uninhabited areas means that if something goes wrong, the risk of large-scale human casualties or environmental contamination is minimized. Of course, these “wilderness” areas are rich ecosystems, not barren wastelands.
In a discussion I had this morning on PodTV, someone mentioned that fusion power might soon be viable. I remain cautiously optimistic about that possibility. Fusion, if it works as hoped, could provide significant energy without the issues of nuclear waste and meltdown that come with fission reactors. Traditional fission reactors leave behind much radioactive waste—primarily uranium and sometimes plutonium—and they carry a risk of meltdown. On the other hand, fusion reactors would produce helium (or use deuterium). They wouldn’t pose the same meltdown risk because they don’t generate long-lived radioactive waste.
But even if we manage to produce all this energy safely, there’s another issue: the enormous amount of waste heat generated by computation—what experts call “compute.” The heat produced by our relentless information processing might become a significant problem in about a hundred years. The heat released by human activities isn’t a major driver of climate change; greenhouse gases like CO₂ trap more sunlight and warm the planet. Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases that capture the spectrum of sunlight that would otherwise escape, much like a microwave heats food.
Eventually, as we do more computation and use more energy, we have to deal with waste heat on a massive scale. Our human population may decrease, reducing the per capita carbon footprint. Still, sooner or later, we’ll have to figure out how to dissipate all that heat. Future ideas include moving energy production into orbit—imagine a fleet of orbiting fusion reactors. That way, the energy sources would be isolated from populated areas and less likely to be weaponized or misused. Alternatively, we could even consider placing energy production facilities on the Moon, where heating the surface might not be as problematic. However, moving to compute far from energy sources introduces latency issues. For example, if computing facilities are near nuclear power sources in the Arctic, you might experience a delay of the tenth to two-tenths of a second in routing your computations. Relocating compute to the Moon would introduce a three-second lag—a deal-breaker for critical applications like AI-driven vehicles requiring near-zero latency. After all, the AI systems capable of driving cars are still too large to fit easily into vehicles.
Well, what do you think about all that?
Jacobsen: It seems efficient: if you have something that needs massive computation—say, for a research institute—you set up a nuclear reactor alongside your GPU supercomputer, essentially tapping into virtually infinite power. The new reactor designs, especially the salt-based ones, are remarkably safe. They’re engineered to shut themselves down and cool automatically in an emergency without human intervention. Unlike water-cooled reactors, which always involve a race against time to get water flowing back in (as we saw with Fukushima in an older reactor design), salt-based reactors use molten salt that can both serve as fuel and a coolant. In an emergency, they shut themselves down, minimizing risk.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Rick Rosner: So, Skippy the Horse. When I was a teenager, there was a story about a horse named Skippy that was allegedly dissected by extraterrestrials. According to the tale, you can tell when aliens perform a dissection because they remove the animal’s rear end perfectly circularly.
It also turns out that in nature, certain bacteria—or perhaps maggots—can consume tissue in an almost perfect 4‑inch circle. However, those who believe in UFOs dismiss natural explanations; they insist it must be the work of aliens. Anyway, Skippy passed away, and his body was reportedly defleshed by a local veterinarian who then mounted his skeleton above his storefront in Boulder during the 1970s. This display unnerved me because I’ve never been fond of skeletons.
So there you go—a horse skeleton that has become part of local lore. That reminds me—I brought up life in Boulder because, right now, Los Angeles is facing severe fires. Santa Monica—and even the Pacific Palisades area of Santa Monica—is burning due to high Santa Ana winds spreading the flames.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Rick Rosner: The battle is between the obvious benefits brought by technology and the relentless bombardment of nonsense. This struggle is not unique to America—it’s happening worldwide. When you’re fighting dangerous forms of fundamentalism or totalitarian religious forces, if enough people can see the benefits of modernity, don’t you think they can be persuaded to reject some of that dangerous rhetoric?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Turned into what?
Rosner: Into individuals who reject the harmful ideas—people who, while they may still identify as evangelical Christians or fundamentalist Muslims, stop believing the increasingly dangerous narratives promoted by their religious and political leaders. You think?
Jacobsen: Yes. Are you suggesting that some religious beliefs can be false, Rick?
Rosner: I’m saying that certain interpretations or “flavours” of religion can contradict the ideals we hope religion will promote—goodness, fairness, and love.
Jacobsen: What is Elon doing again?
Rosner: They introduced something that functions like a social credit score. On Twitter, you can use Elon Musk’s AI—called Grok—to ask, “What’s my social credit score?” It provides a score from 0 to 100 based on how effective, entertaining, and aligned with community standards the content you post on X is. I asked for my score and got a 38 out of 100. A ton of people received the same score. For a while, “38” was trending on X. I even asked if everyone was getting a 38, and a few people responded to let me know they weren’t.
There it is.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What technological changes are going to supersede all this political and social nonsense in the next four or five years? What technical changes will occur during that time? Technical and scientific advances.
Rick Rosner: So, is AGI—for Artificial General Intelligence—that it? Is it AI that can think? It once seemed like AGI was eight years away, but now it appears to be only four or five years away. If AGI comes close to fruition within the next half-decade, it could supersede much of the current nonsense. That doesn’t mean it will eliminate all problems, but it’s interesting to consider, especially when you compare it to the technological changes during World War II. Back then, significant advancements like rocketry, bomber fleets, and the atomic bombs—which ultimately ended the war in the Pacific—were all part of the conflict.
These technological developments are happening not because of any particular political figure, such as Trump, but as part of an entirely different trend. There is some overlap, however. Social media and smartphones facilitated Trump’s election and reelection. In other words, technological changes enabled his rise, but they are not inherently linked.
Now, AGI is one example. Consider Ozempic: although it represents a small slice of people’s lives, it has the potential to transform the lives of tens of millions of Americans radically. There are about 250 million adult Americans, and roughly 180 million of them are overweight—with half of that number being obese. If just 10% of overweight Americans were to use Ozempic intelligently—complementing disciplined lifestyle changes rather than relying solely on a pill—that would be 18 million people. If 20% used it, that number would double to 36 million. Imagine a man in his 40s weighing 255 pounds who uses Ozempic to reduce his weight to 210 pounds over a year or a woman who drops from 195 to 165 pounds. These changes could add years to their lifespans, improve their overall health, and even enhance cognitive function, as severe metabolic issues can affect brain performance. Additionally, the boost in self-esteem could help them participate more fully in life. While overweight individuals do engage in life, those who are not obese often have a broader range of opportunities.
What other technological advances do you think will have a transformative impact?
Jacobsen: Virtual reality and augmented reality. Distance surgery, mechatronics, autonomous robots in restaurants, and round-the-clock production lines with reduced human intervention. Some of these advances will result in lower costs for the products we buy.
Rosner: Absolutely. They have already begun to make certain things cheaper. If it makes enough stuff cheaper, it messes with capitalism. But when you mentioned personalized entertainment, we haven’t seen it yet. Well, I just saw something—a conversation between Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump. Jimmy Kimmel was making fun of Trump, boasting about his greatness, while Kimmel tried to pop Trump’s bloviating balloons. The conversation went back and forth for about seven or eight minutes, and AI entirely generated it. Kimmel was delivering jokes—not his best material, admittedly—but in his voice, and Trump was speaking in his distinct manner. You couldn’t tell those voices were artificial and AI-generated dialogue. That seems to be a huge step forward.
When I think about personalized entertainment—watching a movie that isn’t great, or even one that’s pretty good—I always imagine it could be improved if, at some point, aliens invaded. It doesn’t matter what movie it is, whether it’s Pride and Prejudice or Hot Frosty—a terrible Christmas romance about Frosty the Snowman being transformed into a hot, shirtless guy who doesn’t understand the world because he used to be a snowman—the plot could be enhanced if, just as the leading lady and the protagonist start to fall in love, space aliens suddenly descend upon the town. I believe that with AI, you’ll be able to alter plots and casts at will—even turning things into softcore porn if you want—because we now have the technology to do that. This might mean that people will be even more entertained. But I wonder, do people still care about being entertained?
Anyway, we’ve discussed a ton of things that are going to transform the world. Ideally, the positive transformations will outweigh the negative ones, and Trump will be stifled in some of his badness. Do you think that any of the changes in technology will impact some of the bad things Trump wants to do?
Jacobsen: He’s a wild card. Technology is a slightly controlled, wilder card. In terms of processing power, energy efficiency, and computational output over time, technology has proven that its progress remains consistent even through world wars, epidemics, economic recessions, and housing crises. Despite Trump’s unpredictable, self-centred impulses, technology is significantly changing the landscape.
Rosner: Here’s where the two sides collide—let’s see if you agree. Trump gets what he wants by stirring up fear and anger. He wants to eliminate a large number of undocumented immigrants—11 million immigrants and their families—and he plans to do it at a rate of a million per year, which would cost tens of billions to administer. We can hope—and I think it’s an unlikely hope—that technological advancements transform the economy quickly enough so that Trump’s claims about immigrants wrecking America are overshadowed by good economic news.
Jacobsen: Do you think there’s a chance that his efforts will be blunted because people will be reassured that everything is fine?
Rosner: I kind of doubt it because, although crime has dropped by 50% since the ’90s, Trump and Republicans continue to talk about an explosion in crime—a claim based on isolated incidents, like someone being pushed onto subway tracks or a single immigrant committing a violent act, and then generalizing that these incidents reflect a broader trend. The same pattern makes me think that positive economic news from tech may not be enough to overcome the flood of misinformation from Trump. What do you think?
Jacobsen: The technology could very well be used to increase misinformation. It’s like a hammer. I don’t want to be too pessimistic, but it will be an interesting few years.
Rosner: I think the tide of history will, well, history spares no one—idiots and non-idiots alike. However, I believe technological improvements will eventually sweep aside the current wave of idiocy. I don’t think these changes will occur quickly enough to blunt Trump’s influence. And perhaps they won’t even happen fast enough to stop America from being supplanted by larger, smarter powers. Canada’s in a good position; you have fairly rational leaders, and political movements based on nonsense have less sway in your country, not to mention your tremendous natural resources.
Jacobsen: Even the misinformation we have here is not extremely harmful. There’s more truth in our bullshit than in the American version if we’re being realistic.
Rosner: But you don’t have the same propaganda push that we do. Do you have a Fox News equivalent—a Rupert Murdoch kind of presence?
Jacobsen: We have smaller equivalents, but I consider them medium-sized. Fox News is gargantuan because it is so well-loved and widely watched by Americans.
Rosner: Well, it isn’t that widely watched. Its average viewership is, I think, three or four million—a mere 1% of Americans or 1.5% of adult Americans. Yet, its viewers are the loudest; they spread their message among family, friends, and even in church. Fox News’ influence exceeds its ratings, although relatively few people watch it. I don’t know… Or is there more to discuss?
Jacobsen: I’m good for the night.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Rick Rosner: Okay, I have a topic. People seem to be backing off of Trump—comedians, the press—and there is a growing trend of acquiescing to authoritarian tendencies before they fully materialize, driven by fear and self-preservation. I myself have largely stopped tweeting harsh criticisms of Trump. Before the election, I tried to post at least ten anti-Trump tweets a day, hoping they would have some effect, but now I wonder, what’s the point? Additionally, Carole advises not to tweet anything that might get me in trouble. It appears that the situation in my household is being mirrored across America, as people adopt a “wait and see” attitude: is it really going to be as bad as we fear? This uncertainty works both ways—if things aren’t as dire as anticipated, perhaps constant criticism isn’t necessary, but if they turn out to be as bad as we fear, incessant criticism might not help either.
Furthermore, the focus has shifted from Trump alone to include Elon Musk; each wields significant influence in different ways. I also sense that people are exhausted after two years of trying to hold Trump accountable and prevent his reelection, and there is noticeably less agitation now than there was before the election. There is some optimism that the shortcomings of Trump’s first administration might reappear this time around. However, that optimism may be misguided: one might expect that either Trump or his team would have learned from past mistakes. Yet, he may have new advisors, including influential figures like Elon Musk. Let me know if you have any comments on this situation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think Trump or Elon Musk poses a greater danger in terms of going after competitors, whistleblowers, journalists, and the media in general—especially those who oppose their policies?
Rosner: Trump is constrained by the structure of government. He can make public statements, issue executive orders, and call for investigations, but he does not control the government. Some argue he has more power than previous presidents because of certain legal protections; however, it is important to clarify that there is no definitive Supreme Court ruling granting presidents blanket immunity for acts committed while in office. In contrast, Elon Musk, as a private citizen with considerable wealth—currently estimated at around half a trillion dollars—and as the owner of a major social media platform, wields significant influence even though he does not hold formal governmental power. Many would argue that Musk is more adept at leveraging his resources, and in the short term, he might be more dangerous than Trump.
What do you think? Meanwhile, critics on the right claim that concerns over these issues are exaggerated and that America will ultimately thrive, dismissing such fears as the concerns of overly sensitive individuals. Yet, many on my side caution that the rapid and vast changes in government policy might be reminiscent of drastic historical shifts, though the contexts are very different.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your opinion of Speaker Johnson being re-elected with a vote of 218 to 215?
Rick Rosner: I watched some of that. The Democrats were making a big deal out of the possibility that something else might happen, but it was inevitable.
He got elected on the first ballot. They just had to keep the voting open for about an hour or so. Initially, three Republicans voted against him. It took about an hour of persuasion and probably some promises to get two of them to flip back to Johnson.
It was never going to turn out any other way. Right now, it’s 219 Republicans to 215 Democrats in the House. So, even though the news was saying they could only afford to lose one Republican, they actually had enough of a margin. It was never going to flip any other way. If they had held the vote after Trump became president, their margin might have dropped to 216 to 215.
That might have been more interesting because three members of the House are expected to leave to work in Trump’s Cabinet. Their replacements will take some time to be seated. So, with a one-person margin, it still wouldn’t necessarily lead to Democrats or someone other than Johnson winning the Speaker of the House election.
But I believe the Republicans passed a rule requiring at least nine members to vote to hold a new Speaker election. They won’t be able to get those nine votes, even after the margin drops to one. The Republicans have the power, and they won’t give it up. Neither side would willingly relinquish power if they held it.
Can they pass any legislation with a margin of 216 to 215? Maybe not, and certainly not unless it’s bipartisan. For instance, if there’s a natural disaster in a state that both sides support, like somewhere other than California, they could pass a funding bill for an expensive disaster causing billions in damage.
Other legislation, like addressing immigration, is a possibility. Trump previously scuttled a bipartisan immigration bill because it wasn’t under his administration. Now that he’s president, a similar bill may come up, and he’ll support it. Democrats might go along with bipartisan legislation to get something done. They’re not as obstructive as Trump tends to be.
So, we’ll see what happens. The previous Congress was arguably the least effective in history. It had a slightly larger margin, but still not large enough to accomplish much. This Congress will have the smallest margin in history.
Jacobsen: Okay.
Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow. You won’t have to put up with me rambling like this. All right. Take care.
Jacobsen: You too.
Rosner: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What can people do to extend their shelf life?
Rick Rosner: I take a lot of fisetin, a senolytic. It helps your body eliminate cells that should have died off because they no longer function. A senolytic kills senescent cells. In many people, Senescent cells hang on, increasing inflammation and using up your body’s resources.
I’ve been taking fisetin for about 70 months, and it’s fairly effective. But one thing you can do is stay informed because new advancements are happening at an accelerating rate. With AI kicking in, even more breakthroughs will emerge.
So, pay attention. Look around and see what’s new. Fisetin itself is a relatively recent discovery, probably made 8 to 10 years ago.
If you can, get an MRI or ultrasound of your abdomen. A lot in your abdomen could be too late if you wait so late. For example, look at your pancreas, kidneys, and everything in that area. Pancreatic cancer doesn’t cause symptoms until it’s stage 4 and likely metastasizes. At that point, it’s usually untreatable.
However, it’s easy to detect issues in your pancreas years before they develop into cancer. The same goes for your kidneys. If you catch kidney issues early, the prognosis is usually good. If you wait for symptoms, it could spread, and you’re in trouble. So, get an MRI or ultrasound, even if you pay for it out of pocket or your insurance doesn’t cover it.
I have good insurance, but I justified it by having weird blood markers due to working out too much. My high creatinine levels make it seem like there’s something wrong with my kidneys, even though there isn’t. The more you work out, the more muscle breakdown you have, which increases creatinine.
Using those markers, I got an ultrasound that led to an MRI, which helped me find potential issues early.
Also, floss. Your mouth is full of bacteria, and since you’re always swallowing saliva, that floods your digestive tract with bacteria, increasing inflammation. Keeping your mouth as clean as possible helps reduce this.
Exercise regularly. If you have a weight problem, consider Ozempic. It’s a relatively discipline-free way to bring your weight back into a healthy range. Plus, it helps your social life or dating prospects.
Those are the big things, as far as I know. Anything you can do to reduce inflammation is critical. Could you read up on it? Some supplements, like curcumin, claim to be anti-inflammatory, and studies have backed them up.
Getting regular sleep also helps reduce inflammation. Knowledgeable people understand that inflammation significantly contributes to aging and many diseases.
So, there you go.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a topic. If you’re on Facebook and you like those zit-popping clips from Instagram or wherever, try searching for farrier or blacksmith recovery videos. They take out nails and rocks embedded in horse hooves. Sometimes, the hoof grows around the rock; they dig it out, and there’s pus and blood.
Rick Rosner: As much as I like popping my zits, I’ve never watched a full episode of Dr. Pimple Popper. I’m not sure I’m totally into that stuff. But yeah, if you’re into scooping stuff out of people, horses could offer some gruesome examples.
Jacobsen: You were on a panel with David Zucker.
Rosner: Not that I know of. Who’s David Zucker? The guy who wrote Airplane?
Jacobsen: No, that’s you on a panel. Is this fake? David Zucker, Catherine Clinch, Jonathan Fernand, Bill Wheeler—Digital Hollywood. Great panel.
Rosner: Maybe years ago. I’ve been on panels before, but not in at least five years.
Jacobsen: Yeah. Check this. Someone posted it a month ago: Ken Pisani, screenwriter, Emmy nominee, LA Times bestseller in 2017, Thurber Prize runner-up, and some artist of pants.
This has to be old. What am I looking at here? Let’s see.
Rosner: Oh, yeah, that has to be old. That’s from before COVID. My hair looks less ghostly. Weird. Why’d they post it now?
Jacobsen: No idea.
Rosner: So I made a mistake. Part of aging is that your head weighs around 11 pounds, not 8, as commonly believed. And when you reach a certain age, you can strain your neck if you don’t manage that weight properly. That’s exactly what I did. I was working on a micromosaic, probably bent over it for too long, and the muscles at the back of my neck went into spasm. They’ve been sore all week.
I changed the pillows to see if that helps tonight. In the meantime, I have to keep my head in a weird position and look ridiculous.
You said I look like a grandpa who doesn’t know how to use technology, and I said I look like the last days of Howard Hughes. That’s just one issue. Another issue is that I’ve struggled with hair loss my whole life, and now the thickness of each strand has decreased by about 40%, which gives me that mad scientist flyaway hair.
Jacobsen: For those who can’t see what I’m seeing, there’s definitely some mad scientist flyaway hair.
Rosner: Once you reach your 40s, your eyes begin to change. The lenses start to harden, reducing the ability to focus at different distances. I grew up in Colorado at a high altitude, and as a kid, I did plenty of dumb things, like staring at the sun. Fortunately, I haven’t shown any signs of cataracts yet, which can often result from excessive exposure to UV light over a lifetime.
I had my hearing tested recently, and I’ve lost a noticeable amount of hearing at higher frequencies. I’ll likely need hearing aids soon.
I was anemic for a while, which made my mouth more sensitive to spicy foods, especially chillies. Now, I can’t eat them without tearing up.
My throat has something similar to esophageal dysmotility. It’s not the correct term, but my throat muscles have weakened. This means liquids can sometimes go down my windpipe if I’m not careful while drinking, causing coughing fits. Pills can also get stuck in my throat. It can dissolve there if needed. If it’s a c there, it stings terribly, depending on what’s inside.
I’ve lost about a third of my physical strength. I used to weigh around 170 pounds, or at least in the high 160s, with low body fat and muscle. Now I’m down to 140 pounds. I’m still strong for someone my weight, but it’s nowhere near where I was when I had significantly more muscle.
My hemorrhoids are gone because I had the internal ones surgically removed. Internal hemorrhoids are the ones that tend to bleed and cause anemia, and they don’t have many nerve endings. Hence, the surgery wasn’t too painful. The doctors left the external ones alone because those have more nerve endings, and fixing them would have been very painful. I remember having them treated when I was 16, and it was awful. Now, I’m not bleeding every time I go to the bathroom. Oddly, the surgery tightened my rectum slightly, so now my bowel movements are much narrower—let’s call them “svelte.”
What else? Oh, my toenails are completely ruined by fungus. The big toenails are especially bad. I’ve never known anyone who’s successfully gotten rid of toenail fungus, even though all kinds of treatments are on the market. There are oral antifungal pills, but they can have serious side effects, like liver damage, so it’s not worth it. Plus, the fungus would return because my feet are often damp due to varicose veins. I have to wear compression socks—three layers on each leg—to keep my legs from swelling and to prevent blood clots.
So that’s a snapshot of my current state. I’m still active, able to run and move around, and steady. My brain still works well, but many annoying reminders of aging exist.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/24
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How can you construct feelings into robots if that can be done?
Rick Rosner: Well, an editorial in the LA Times this morning asked, “Are you going to be mean to your phone when it has emotions?” It suggested that phones might have emotions within the next 10 years. That’s plausible. I forget exactly what the article said, but it’s not an unreasonable prediction.
Two things to consider—and we’ve discussed this before—are that we have real emotions, which make sense for us due to evolution. Our emotions drive us to survive and reproduce because animals that do so are part of species that endure. Every species on Earth has mechanisms to ensure future generations.
Emotions are a way of reacting to information about our situation in the world. If things are good, we’re happy. If they’re bad, we’re unhappy.
The path for AI to develop emotions is unclear—or maybe not. As AI systems grow more advanced, they will increasingly have objectives they pursue using their learning and resources. When AIs become sufficiently complex, they may spontaneously develop internal ratings of events—essentially a scale of good to bad.
They might react to those ratings in ways analogous to how we respond to emotions. Even if they don’t have “true” emotions, they could behave as though they do because they’re trained in human behaviour.
It’s not unreasonable to think that by the 2030s, some AIs will begin to behave as if they have emotions. Thoughts?
Jacobsen: I’m not sure. Emotions might include hormones that are also neuromodulators, providing a kind of embodied experience. Hormones act on the body and the brain, facilitating emotional processing in a way deeply tied to our physical form. These chemicals have a dual function. In one sense, they act like neurotransmitters in the brain. In another, they affect the body. So, emotions are more complex than just…
Rosner: You make a good point. We’re the product of more than a billion years of evolution, so we have all sorts of feedback systems in our bodies. AIs don’t have anything like that. They lack the physical mechanisms that tweak their experience of the world. They don’t have many ways to experience the world, and they certainly don’t have the intricate organic chemistry that shapes our emotional responses. If they develop emotions, their version will likely be much flatter and less nuanced—at least at first.
Jacobsen: Stress responses from emotions, whether good or bad, take time. Some happen instantaneously, while others unfold over days, weeks, or even months. And these responses are often involuntary. People can use controlled breathing to calm their physiological response when angry, but that doesn’t eliminate the underlying emotion. There’s a fuzzy line between modulating emotions and reacting to them. A lot of emotion isn’t under our control. If emotions are to be built into AI systems, how do you calibrate them? How do you ensure they’re not rageaholics or so low on the emotional spectrum that they become almost sociopathic?
Rosner: In TV and movies, when AI develops emotion, there are several stereotypical, clichéd ways it’s depicted. One is the “cold judgment” approach, where the AI shows no emotion but decides humans are no good and must be wiped out. For example, there’s a terrible Megan Fox robot movie out now where her character is keyed to a single person. She decides that other people threaten this person and starts eliminating them. Eventually, she concludes that even her user is a threat to her. Despite this, neither she nor the other robots show emotion. They maintain the same neutral tone even while killing people. That’s one clichéd portrayal—AI as cold, unemotional killers.
The other extreme is where robots act like humans, with fully human-like feelings. The reality of actual AI will likely fall somewhere between or across a wide range of reactions. First, AIs will react differently because they’re trained or programmed to do so. Second, emergent properties will lead to diverse, unpredictable behaviours.
There are movies like Her, where a man falls in love with his operating system for a while, or Blade Runner 2049, where a synthetic girlfriend seems to develop real feelings. Then there’s an Adam Devine movie where a guy’s phone operating system develops feelings—or at least wants him to stop being such a loser and pushes him to take action in his love life. Of course, there’s Ex Machina, in which the AI pretends to have human emotions but is actually cold and calculating. In that case, the AI embodies both extremes: the cold killer pretending to have fully human emotions.
So, we’ll see various ways AIs evaluate and react to circumstances as they develop. What do you think?
Jacobsen: It will be a bumpy ride on the emotional front until we figure things out.
Rosner: Can we think of any likely “attractors” besides the two extremes? For example, AI could be fully human in its reactions or close to humans but with emotions dialled up or down in intensity or purely cold and businesslike. Is there another way for AI to react that we’ll see frequently?
Jacobsen: The emotions that resemble the equivalent of “base colours” for feelings, like really subtle and complex emotions such as grief, will likely be much harder to replicate. Grief, for instance, involves a lot of brain activity that isn’t easy to reproduce. When the brain processes grief or depression, it seems to undergo a kind of pruning. During these states, there’s a reduction in feel-good chemicals, which limits neural branching. It’s like a retraction process. As time passes, things start to rebuild, and the person begins to feel good again. This rebuilding process is part of how grief is resolved. Replicating something like this would be incredibly complex for AI, as it involves a deep integration of neurological and emotional processes.
Rosner: An intense cry seems to reset the brain to some extent. I don’t know exactly what happens when you cry, but people generally feel better after a brutal bout of crying. I thought of an attractor for AI emotions—actually, two.
First, sets of emotions could become selling points or personality traits. As AI becomes capable of manifesting more personality, different products could have distinct emotional profiles. It’d be like Coke versus Pepsi in terms of personality—some people will prefer one product’s personality over another. For example, I don’t know if Alexa and Siri have different personalities. Are you familiar with both of them? How do they work? I haven’t used either, but they must have some functional differences that make people prefer one, right?
So, my emotions and personality will become commodified. That’s the first point.
The second is that some products will offer customizable emotional settings. A related idea—”point two-and-a-half”—is the ability to enable some level of autonomy. For instance, some people might feel guilty about being completely in charge of their AI and prefer a more collaborative dynamic. In some scenarios, it might even be more effective to have an AI capable of choosing its own responses and functionality. I think an emerging cliché in AIs—and TV and movies about AIs—will be the ability to tune the AI’s emotional responses and personality. That makes sense.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: We’ve already seen that, though I can’t name a specific movie. I’m sure someone has explored this concept, even if just in some mediocre movie where a sexy robot can be adjusted from neutral to horny with the push of a button or command. Also, I skimmed an article about someone opening the first AI brothel. It’s not robots yet, but they’ve got sex dolls that can carry on conversations, more or less. They don’t move yet—they’re just 120 pounds of silicone on some plastic framework.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/24
Rick Rosner: Let’s talk about jewelry for a moment. In the realm of gold-coated pieces, quality varies widely based on how thick the gold layer is. For instance, a gold wash is the lowest-quality coating—if you buy a piece of jewelry with just a gold wash, that layer will wear off within a decade or two, even with occasional use. Rolled gold, however, has a thicker layer that generally lasts indefinitely. Gold plating itself comes in different thicknesses as well.
Then there’s vermeil, which is gold layered over silver. Because silver is more valuable than ordinary base metals, vermeil is considered more desirable than gold over pot metal—a cheap combination of metals like tin and sometimes lead. Speaking of lead, you’d never want a pot made of pure lead; it’s toxic and can cause certain metals to erode. If your jewelry contains lead, it could eventually degrade. I’ve seen a lot of jewelry in my life—I like jewelry—but most of it is unattractive. That’s partly because designers often struggle to balance beauty with a desire to show off how expensive it is. Sometimes, attempts to display wealth—like covering a piece in diamonds—can overshadow good design.
That’s why costume jewelry matters. It allows for experimentation without the pressure of ostentatious spending. If every piece of jewelry cost, say, $2,500 or even $800, fewer people would buy it, resulting in fewer designs overall. Costume jewelry is more affordable, so manufacturers can produce large quantities. If you make a thousand pieces, maybe 300 of them end up halfway decent, 80 are genuinely good-looking, and 25 qualify as spectacular wearable art—a success rate of about 1 in 40. Volume is essential for achieving those hits. Historically, Rhode Island was a hub for cheap, mass-produced jewelry. Much of it was low-quality, but some was beautiful because they kept churning out new designs, often priced just $5 to $8 from the 1930s to the 1970s. In other words, volume plus talent can yield gems—literally and figuratively.
Of course, with cheap jewelry, you never know exactly what it’s made of. Some manufacturers might have used materials that harmed their workers. This brings to mind the “radium watch girls.” Around the turn of the century—give or take a few years—radium was discovered, and people used its radioactive glow in watch dials to help read the time in the dark. The young women painting these tiny numbers and hands were told to lick their brushes to keep the bristles pointed, unknowingly ingesting radioactive material. Many of them later died from radiation poisoning.
Working with toxic substances is unfortunately common in various fields. Turpentine, used as a paint thinner for oil painting, is poisonous. Over decades, it can severely damage an artist’s health. There was also a case in the 1970s of a man who made incredibly lifelike resin castings of people; the resin ultimately killed him. Chemists and chemistry teachers have shorter-than-average lifespans, as do hairstylists due to prolonged exposure to hair dyes. Even famous movie productions had issues: in the 1950s, while filming near Las Vegas, John Wayne and his cast were exposed to radiation from an atomic bomb test. Many later died of cancer. Wayne himself was also a heavy smoker, so it’s hard to pinpoint a single cause for his illness.
The U.S. military now has compensation programs for individuals exposed to nuclear materials who later died of cancer. Several members of my own family worked with nuclear weapons: my dad was a navigator-bombardier on a nuclear-armed bomber, my stepdad guarded nukes, and my father-in-law did accounting for nuclear weapons. Of the three, two died of cancer, though the one most closely involved—my dad—passed away from Parkinson’s instead. My stepdad developed recurring thyroid cancer, but he was also a big cigar smoker, so it’s tough to say if radiation played a role.
For decades, people in Boulder, Colorado (where we lived) lived just 7.5 miles from Rocky Flats, where nuclear triggers were manufactured. Did that cause additional cancer cases? Possibly—it’s hard to know. Boulder is over 5,000 feet above sea level, which means higher natural radiation due to thinner atmosphere, and the local rock is somewhat radioactive as well. Ultimately, exposure to radiation—whether from atomic tests, nuclear weapons, or the environment—remains a concerning factor in many people’s health.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/10
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are American billionaires and political elites becoming more odious or less odious?
Rick Rosner: It depends on your time frame. For one thing, we didn’t always have billionaires. But if you’re talking about the top one-hundredth of one percent of Americans, your time frame is a century, 50 years, or even 70 years. Yes, they’re more odious.
There was a time when the ultra-rich were terrible. Still, on average, there might have been a greater sense of civic responsibility among them. Of course, this would need a proper study to determine the percentage of super-rich Americans with a sense of civic duty.
Today, there are examples of billionaires doing altruistic things. Bill Gates, for instance, is trying to give away billions of dollars, eradicate malaria, and engage in other public-spirited initiatives. Conservatives criticize him and think he’s sinister because he’s a liberal, but that’s just dumb. Warren Buffett plans to give away almost all of his wealth to causes he believes are worthwhile, leaving his kids a small portion of his fortune—maybe a few tens of millions. Jeff Bezos’s ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, has been giving away billions.
Looking back, Andrew Carnegie—who made his fortune in steel, not railroads—built thousands of public libraries across America. So, historically, there have always been altruistic elites. Still, there’s also a slice of today’s American elites that is much more exploitative than 70 years ago.
This exploitative slice includes many in the CEO class, venture capitalists, and corporate raiders. These people buy companies, strip them of assets, sell off everything they can, and temporarily drive up the stock price. They’ll drain pension funds—leaving workers promised retirement security with nothing—then sell off their stock and leave the company to collapse into a hollow shell.
Due to this behaviour, the percentage of Americans with pensions has likely dropped by more than half. A company with a pension fund worth tens of billions of dollars meant to take care of retirees can be gutted by a group of people who take the money, strip the assets, and leave everyone else holding the bag. This class of economic elites is definitely worse than their counterparts from the 1950s.
If you look at a shorter time frame, like the past five years, it’s harder to say. During COVID, the wealthiest people became even richer. But did they achieve that by becoming bigger jerks, or did circumstances allow them to make more money without changing their operations? That’s harder to determine.
Jacobsen: Is this a new era of the Robber Barons?
Rosner: Well, yeah. It’s a new one.
So, the Gilded Age—When people hear “Gilded Age,” they think of the 1880s as a time when everything was made of gold and super fancy. But that’s not what it means. When something is gilded, it’s gold-plated, a thin gold wash over some inferior metal.
When people talk about the Gilded Age of the 1880s, it’s referring to an illusory, fake coating of gold over crap. And, yeah, we’re in a similar period now. You’ve got some super-rich people flaunting their wealth.
For example, I believe a member of the Walmart family just rolled out a $300 million superyacht. So, there’s no shortage of extremely wealthy individuals who don’t seem to care how bad they look to the public. And why should they? Many of these people have massive influence over politicians, thanks to money.
The Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech and that, in some important ways, there shouldn’t be limits on how much money you can donate to politicians. This leads to a situation where politicians are essentially owned by the rich, which is awful.
Meanwhile, half of Americans or more have a net worth of nearly zero and live paycheck to paycheck. So, yes, it’s a new Gilded Age, complete with modern-day robber barons.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/08
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think Twitter has been devolving since Musk took it over?
Rick Rosner: It has. Twitter went downhill after Musk bought it. What, three years ago? It used to be where I followed hundreds of comedians and saw hundreds of jokes daily. It was fun and less political.
When Musk came in, he invited back a bunch of trolls and disinformation merchants. Twitter’s increased toxicity chased away about 90% of the good people and 98% of the good content. There are still a few good people left, but most aren’t posting fun jokes anymore. Even the comedians on Twitter aren’t doing much comedy anymore, and neither am I.
Now, it’s mostly pointing out the nonsense we’re all dealing with. It’s a slog. Twitter has deteriorated.
When there’s a car wreck and liability needs to be assigned, lawyers go to court to determine percentages of culpability. Similarly, if you’re assigning blame for Trump’s re-election, you’d have to give a few percentage points to Twitter.
Musk himself might bear 15–20% of the blame, and you could assign a third to Twitter. It’s a mess.
Jacobsen: Elon Musk or Trump, who is more full of it?
Rosner: Trump. Musk has demonstrated effectiveness in many of his enterprises. Now, there’s certainly some “full of shit-liveness,” or whatever you want to call it, in what Musk does. For example, he’ll buy a company with potential and make it a condition of the deal that he’s included as one of the founders. He’s done this with SpaceX, Tesla, and maybe other companies. So, he’s not always the actual founder of these companies but misrepresents himself as such.
That said, SpaceX is a very effective company. They’re innovative and have successfully launched numerous projects into space. Neuralink is another example. While it’s not successful, they’re progressing toward developing brain implant technologies to improve communication or other neural functions. It’s not operational, but they’ve advanced the field.
So yeah, Musk gets things done. Trump, on the other hand, is almost exclusively a con man and a purveyor of nonsense. He may get things done, but those things are often harmful or of dubious value. His most successful enterprise was licensing his name before his presidency revealed how much of a fraud he was.
At one point, he had 17 buildings in New York City with his name on them, but he only owned three. The rest were licensing deals with developers who thought the Trump name would make their buildings seem prestigious. It sounds absurd now, but it worked for a long time.
Trump lies about everything, including his net worth. So, yeah, Trump is far more full of it than Musk. Musk has a technical education. Although there’s some debate about the accuracy of his academic credentials, he does understand technology. Trump’s understanding of most things is superficial at best. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: Where is Elon Musk most full of shit?
Rosner: I don’t know as much about Musk as I do about Trump. The whole “founders” thing is a big example of Musk’s nonsense. It’s not insignificant—it has helped him cultivate an image as the “Thomas Edison of our time” or some similar hyperbole. That image has undoubtedly facilitated further deals and opportunities.
However, it’s not in the same league as Trump and his family being among America’s biggest deadbeats, having stiffed creditors out of $1.5 billion over their careers. It’s not comparable to Trump politicizing COVID, which led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and likely many more globally.
Musk’s embrace of Trump is problematic, given how full of nonsense Trump is. Still, Musk and Ramaswamy are now positioning themselves to help Trump address the budget deficit, attempting to cut trillions of dollars. We’re 19 days away from Trump taking office again, and Musk and Ramaswamy claim they can identify significant savings.
I’m skeptical. While there is room for government efficiency, it’s a tall order to make cuts that aren’t stupid or harmful. If Musk genuinely applies AI to a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), they could identify areas to streamline costs, like reducing redundancies. But we’ll see if Musk is posturing.
As for Ramaswamy, he seems worse than Musk. He made his $2 billion with what appears to be a pump-and-dump scheme. From what I’ve read, he acquired a candidate drug for Alzheimer’s that had underperformed in early clinical trials. He hyped it up, then sold it before it failed yet another trial. That drug has never come to market because it doesn’t work.
Ramaswamy’s wealth is built on vapour. He seems more full of it than Musk—just another charlatan.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/08
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why don’t you like cardio?
Rick Rosner: Why don’t I like cardio?
I don’t like cardio because it’s uncomfortable and boring. With weights, I used to read between sets at the gym before COVID-19, and that made the gym a little less boring. I’d only read for about 20 seconds to be courteous. I knock out my sets fast. Resting between sets is unnecessary unless you’re going for a max. If you’re trying to hit your maximum, you must wait about 90 seconds between sets to recover as you work up the ladder. Otherwise, do your sets—bam, bam, bam, bam, bam.
Since COVID, I stopped reading between sets because I wanted to get in and out of the gym as quickly as possible. I can go to the gym and do 25-leg presses in eight minutes. Working out the way I do does not take a lot of time, but cardio takes time. It’s boring and uncomfortable, and I just don’t like doing it.
To do cardio properly, you have to push yourself to the point of discomfort. Also, one of my hips is borderline arthritic. It’s not severe, but I feel it if I try to run more than a hundred yards. I’m not in terrible cardio shape because the way I lift weights includes some cardio benefits—I don’t rest between sets. However, if I try to run more than a short distance, I risk irritating my hip. For all these reasons, I’m not a fan of cardio.
I do get some cardio. We live in a house with stairs, and one of my gyms has 42 steps between the ground and second floors. I’ll run up those. So, that’s my one nod to cardio.
Could I be in better cardio shape? Sure. Carol, for example, walks or hikes five to ten miles daily. When she visits our kid, there’s much walking involved. Her resting pulse is in the 40s, like 48. She’s in excellent shape. My resting pulse is around 72, maybe lower when lying down or sleeping. So I could improve.
That said, I get a ton of exercise the way I work out. It doesn’t involve much running, pedalling, or any of that other 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/08
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you ever watch The Lord of the Rings?
Rick Rosner: Parts of it—it puts me to sleep. Superhero movies do the same thing. I fall asleep for about an hour and 20 minutes, sleep for 10 minutes, and wake up refreshed, but still not caring about what I missed. It’s even worse with The Lord of the Rings. Do you like them, however?
Jacobsen: Yes. I appreciate them, especially knowing J.R.R. Tolkien’s sensibility came from his experiences in the trenches during World War I. You can see how he built that into the story.
Rosner: I tried starting The Lord of the Rings once or twice but have yet to get far. I wanted to push past five pages, but I never did.
Jacobsen: It’s an acquired taste.
Rosner: I do a lot of podcast- things on PodTV with people. I go on there with others; honestly, it’s a lot of yelling.
When I tell Carole, “I gotta go yell,” it’s because you must interrupt and shout to get a word in. It’s a free-for-all. We did a session today where AI came up, and we were early to worry about AI conversation. We discussed it eight years ago, but now everyone is discussing it to some degree.
AI and deep fake technology are all over the place, especially in the context of elections. It’s not that 80% of the content is AI-generated, but you don’t have to look far to find something suspicious. For example, Tim Walz went to a University of Michigan football game—maybe they were playing Wisconsin, I don’t remember—but someone yelled something at him as he left. There’s a video of him flipping the person off. It looked strange because, as someone who’s flipped off hundreds of people, I can tell you that a good flip-off is straightforward—you get your middle finger straight up. Some people have all their fingers down, but the pros get the adjacent fingers slightly raised to stand for testicles. That’s the master-level flip-off.
In the video of Walz, though, it looked off—his angle was weird, and the whole thing seemed doctored. MAGA supporters were saying it was real, but this guy was a schoolteacher, a coach, spent 12 years in Congress, and has been a governor for eight years. He’s not dumb enough to flip someone off in public. It’s unbelievable on its face. Then, when you look closely, his middle finger looks way too long. It’s fake.
Someone posted another video from a different angle showing the real moment. Walz was doing a “We’re number one!” gesture with his index finger. Someone used bad AI or whatever to turn his index finger into a middle finger, and it was a terrible job. Luckily, that’s the level of deep fake we’ve been seeing—nothing convincing. Plenty of fake accounts and bots are out there, but we haven’t seen any truly persuasive videos yet. We still have 33 days to go, though, so who knows?
Thankfully, we haven’t seen any convincing AI-generated videos of Walz or Harris saying something , “Yes, and then we’re going to kill all the billionaires,” which someone could technically put together. But no one has—yet.
Jacobsen: I don’t think we were wrong to be worried about AI back then, and the people who are newly concerned about it now are right to be worried. I’m sure there are a lot of misguided fears about AI—things that experts would tell you are silly to be afraid of—but there are also plenty of legitimate concerns.
Rosner: If you asked experts to estimate the probability that AI could end humanity in the next 20 years, I don’t think any of them would laugh and say, “Zero percent.” Everyone has some percentage in mind.
Jacobsen: Most people estimate the chance at around 10%, but it’s a legitimate worry if you’re not at 0%. One concern that comes to mind is when people start getting chips implanted in their brains regularly to help with neurological problems. For instance, Michael J. Fox has some device—maybe a pacemaker—implanted to assist with brain function, possibly in the pituitary or pineal gland. There’s some gland in the brain that deals with dopamine, and with Parkinson’s, which he suffers from, there’s a shortage of dopamine, among other things. Somehow, this chip helps regulate his malfunctioning dopamine system to work a bit better.
Rosner: Right, and people with cochlear implants—deaf individuals who can now hear—also have chips in their brains. There are even experimental cases of people with chips in their eyes. Your eyes are essentially extensions of your brain, after all.
Jacobsen: Yes, they used to be part of brain tissue in early development, which then evolved into eyeballs. So, several people with chips are already implanted in their brains. But imagine the speculation when it comes to high-profile figures Biden. A persuasive theory I’ve heard is that he might have neuropathy—specifically peripheral neuropathy, which causes constant pins and needles or numbness in the extremities. If his feet feel they’ve fallen asleep all the time, it would explain why he walks gingerly; he’s not getting feedback from his feet.
Rosner: That’s plausible. Some say he has Parkinson’s, but the White House has denied it, and I tend to believe they wouldn’t lie about it, especially this White House. But hypothetically, if Biden had Parkinson’s and they implanted a chip in his head, imagine the lunatic fringe saying, “How do we know China is not controlling him?” It sounds ridiculous now, but in 10 to 15 years, that could be a legitimate question.
Jacobsen: Exactly. Fast forward to when someone ice Gorsuch is 79 and still on the Supreme Court, but he has some mental issues. Let’s say they implant a sophisticated chip in his brain connected to an advanced processor via Bluetooth or something. At that point, it would be a legitimate concern to ask: are Gorsuch’s thoughts truly his own, or are they being influenced by his information processing system?
Rosner: Yes, when people augment themselves—whether to fix a neurological deficiency or enhance their cognitive abilities—it raises serious questions. Are their thoughts and decisions still their own, or are they being influenced by technology? It’s a real concern that we’ll face sooner or later.
Jacobsen: Exactly, and while we might be a long way from fully controlling someone’s mind through these chips, the idea of subtly influencing or massaging certain patterns of thought is feasible, even if it’s still far off.
Jacobsen: Well, 20 years—it depends on whether you consider 20 years far away. With the current rate of progress, yes, that might feel far off.
Rosner: Still, I hope we’re both around in 20 years to watch how this all plays out. It’ll be interesting.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We began collaborating 14% into the 21st century. Now, we are 25% into it. If you start counting the 21st century from the year 2000—which is slightly inaccurate but often done—we have completed 25 years. That means we are one-quarter of the way through the 21st century. Purists might argue that we are only 24% done, but regardless, we are well into what many consider a “science fiction” century.
Rick Rosner: The 20th century was a time that gave rise to science fiction, and much of that fiction was set in the 21st century. If you are old enough to remember the 20th century, much of what is happening now feels somewhat “science fiction-y,” although in a disappointingly dystopian way.
I was recently reflecting on the concept of the end of the world. AI seems to be heralding the end of the world as we know it, prompting the question: has the world ended before, and if so, when? One could argue that every major extinction event in Earth’s evolutionary history marked the end of the world, with the most notable being the meteorite impact on the Yucatan Peninsula, which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals. Is that a fair characterization?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: The challenge in calling that the end of the world lies in the fact that no sentient beings at the time had a conception of “the world” as humans do today. Sure, there might be fanciful speculation about a lost dinosaur civilization, but that is clearly unfounded. Perhaps birds and pterodactyls, as precursors to modern birds and remnants of the dinosaur lineage, had some instinctive awareness of their surroundings. However, no animal at the time possessed a conscious, conceptual understanding of the world that could be obliterated.
For such an understanding, we had to wait for humans—the conceivers and record-keepers of history. One might argue that the fall of the Roman Empire represented the end of the world. But does it hold up as a convincing case? Could the end of the Roman Empire, or any empire for that matter, be considered the end of the world?
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
Jacobsen: It was, perhaps, the end of a world—an era or an arena of human existence. Typically, when large civilizations collapse—whether Roman, Mongolian, Spanish, or British—they bring about significant societal changes within a century of their decline. However, none of these events qualifies as the literal end of the world. These collapses were often accompanied by renewals. They represented transitions rather than outright terminations.
Some might also argue that the decline of religion and the rise of science marked the end of a worldview. However, I find that argument unconvincing.
Rosner: Nothing in the past seems to compare with what could be the displacement of humans brought about by AI. While humans will likely remain essential to civilization, we may no longer be the apex thinkers. To me, that signals the end of the world as we have known it.
Jacobsen: We may, however, continue to be the apex feelers for some time.
Rosner: Another potential candidate for the end of the world could be the world of horses, whose role in transportation was replaced by automobiles and other vehicles powered by engines.
Jacobsen: Yet again, this was not the end of the world; it was merely the end of a world.
Rosner: So, can we consider the next hundred years under AI as the end of the world for humans? Perhaps not entirely, as we are likely to continue existing in vast numbers. However, the nature of our existence and our role in civilization may undergo a transformation so profound that it feels like the end of one world and the beginning of another. Though our population—the unaugmented human population—will eventually decline.
Jacobsen: A lot of the metrics you’re using are external. The collapse of a civilization or a specific orientation could be seen as one type of “end of the world.” Another way to consider it is by looking at our internal worlds: how we perceive and think about the world. Something truly transformative would be the deep integration of various technologies into our cognition—whether to augment it, replace it, or repair dysfunctional thought processes. For instance, consider a cure for schizophrenia or something akin to the Parkinson’s pacemaker, which helps individuals function where they want to function. These are not enhancements but repairs. If we include internal worlds in the discussion, it strengthens the argument that this could indeed be the end of the world as we know it.
Rosner: Humans have, of course, been conscious for as long as humans have existed, but we have lacked a deep understanding of what consciousness truly is. Lately, however, we’ve developed both an intuitive and technical grasp of consciousness that surpasses anything we’ve had before. Yet, even as we make these advances, the consciousness we understand is poised to be supplanted or expanded by a vast “jungle” of alternative ways to be conscious.
For centuries, humans have lived in a world where we saw ourselves as uniquely capable of magical thought—a little lower than the angels. But that era is coming to an end. What lies ahead is this “jungle” of new possibilities. The blissful ignorance we’ve lived in—a perception built on fragile foundations—is soon to disappear.
Jacobsen: What are you arguing?
Rosner: What am I arguing? I’m arguing whether this qualifies as an apocalypse—a definitive end of the world. Think of a nuclear apocalypse, like in the game Fallout or its TV adaptation. In those cases, the end of civilization as we know it can be argued as the end of the world. It’s a strong argument, no matter what causes it. Whether it’s the kind of cheap TV or movie apocalypse where The Last of Us depicts a brain-infecting fungus wiping out 99-point-something percent of humanity, or Stephen King’s The Stand, where a virus does the same—any scenario where 99-point-something percent of humans are wiped out constitutes the end of the world. Even if the story takes place after the apocalypse, the world as it was is over.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
And what is coming may not wipe out—even indirectly—1% of humanity, but I believe it comes closer to qualifying as the end of the world than anything else in human history. I guess we’re on to that.
Jacobsen: The fact that we’re redefining what it means to be human, both in terms of the external landscape and our internal worlds, represents a process of eliminating humanity—not necessarily in a negative or constructive way, but certainly in a transformative one.
I like the term “unicity”—a wholly unified system. Tugging at any part of the system, like the Fates pulling threads, alters the dynamics of everything. Even now, with smartphones, we’re already significantly altering our internal worlds. Similarly, we’ll soon be doing this more directly, bypassing the indirect interaction of light and sound waves through our senses and instead engaging directly with our cognition.
Rosner: There’s a 60-year-old science fiction novel, Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke, where an alien civilization that seeded Earth determines that humans have reached a sufficient level of development to move into their next evolutionary phase. A new generation emerges, poised to explore the stars in a vastly transformed state. I can’t recall whether regular human life on Earth disappears entirely, but this concept of a “phase change” aligns with what you’re describing.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/31
Rick Rosner: I can’t recall why exactly, but someone on Twitter (I don’t remember their name) once gave a short talk where they mentioned that everyone they know with an IQ over 180 has trouble avoiding “doofus traps.” I love that term. It stings a bit because I’ve fallen into plenty myself—I used to call them “cul-de-sacs,” but “doofus trap” feels more accurate. Then I started thinking: what isn’t a doofus trap? Certainly, for example, suing Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? might qualify as one.
I’ve wasted so much time on that, which is a classic doofus trap. Catching IDs in bars? Doofus trap. Look at William Sidis—collecting streetcar transfers might have been a doofus trap depending on how much time and energy he spent on it. Me collecting micromosaics? Doofus trap. Chess? Doofus trap. (Not that I play it, but plenty of smart people do.)
You could argue that anything that doesn’t turn you into a real estate agent earning millions of dollars a year by selling multimillion-dollar properties is a doofus trap. Doofus traps, in a sense, exist to prevent people with IQs over 180 from disrupting everything, including the real estate field—an industry stereotypically not populated by “brilliant” people. But if truly brilliant minds entered the field, they might completely upend it. Hence, doofus traps.
But I don’t know. I waste endless hours working out, and on the one hand, it might make me healthier. On the other hand, is it a doofus trap? Is trying to be a good spouse a doofus trap? In the end, we all die, and nothing saves us from that. What do you think? Is everything a doofus trap—or at least a potentialdoofus trap?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It seems like everything could be a potential doofus trap. There are tried-and-true ways of functioning in a particular society, at a particular time, in a particular culture—yet there are always plenty of ways to do those same things in a doofus-like manner.
Rosner: Look at Elon Musk. Based on recent stock valuations, his net worth is estimated several hundred billion dollars, making him one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Clearly, he hasn’t fallen into too many doofus traps; he’s used his time quite efficiently. But after accruing, say, your first $10 billion, isn’t chasing more money just another doofus trap? It led him, for example, to make controversial decisions like buying Twitter (now X) and making polarizing changes to the platform. Maybe that’s a doofus trap in itself.
Then there’s Jeff Bezos, worth around the same amount, who founded Amazon. He’s obviously brilliant and a great businessman. But isn’t having more than $20 billion itself a doofus trap? Plus, he divorced his wife, MacKenzie Scott, who walked away with several billion. He later began a relationship with Lauren Sánchez, who resembles MacKenzie to some extent. So is replacing your spouse with someone similar, but arguably “hotter,” a doofus trap? Bezos has also reportedly spent $500 million on a mega-yacht. Maybe that’s just another flavor of doofus trap.
In the end, it seems like almost everything has the potential to be a doofus trap, just in different guises.
Though maybe less so because not many people can pull off accumulating that kind of wealth. Am I right? I don’t know.
Jacobsen: That’s it for now, man. But certainly, I don’t know what you’d want to call it. There are a lot of high-end and low-end doofus traps by that metric.
And the rich ones just impact more people, so they’d be considered high-end, in a way, in terms of the utility value—just because of their high impact.
Rosner: So, there are a lot of rich tech bros, and probably not-so-rich tech bros, who are working on extending their lifespans by as many years as possible. If it doesn’t work out, it’s for sure a doofus trap. If it does work out, doofus trap or not, does getting to— I’d argue that if you figure out longevity hacks that buy you an extra 20 years of healthy life, it’s not a doofus trap.
Or is it just one more weird thing? Like, okay, so, you get to live to 107. And until 102, you look like you’re less than 80 years old because of your hacks. Is that a worthwhile use of your time and attention? Or one more weird doofus trap? Is that the question?
Jacobsen: Yeah. Currently a doofus trap—but in 15 years? Well, depending on the country you’re in, the money you have, and the scale of the research, maybe it’s an increasingly scaled-up reduction in doofus levels.
Rosner: Alright. Is that enough of that?
Jacobsen: Yeah.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/31
Rick Rosner: I can’t recall why exactly, but someone on Twitter (I don’t remember their name) once gave a short talk where they mentioned that everyone they know with an IQ over 180 has trouble avoiding “doofus traps.” I love that term. It stings a bit because I’ve fallen into plenty myself—I used to call them “cul-de-sacs,” but “doofus trap” feels more accurate. Then I started thinking: what isn’t a doofus trap? Certainly, for example, suing Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? might qualify as one.
I’ve wasted so much time on that, which is a classic doofus trap. Catching IDs in bars? Doofus trap. Look at William Sidis—collecting streetcar transfers might have been a doofus trap depending on how much time and energy he spent on it. Me collecting micromosaics? Doofus trap. Chess? Doofus trap. (Not that I play it, but plenty of smart people do.)
You could argue that anything that doesn’t turn you into a real estate agent earning millions of dollars a year by selling multimillion-dollar properties is a doofus trap. Doofus traps, in a sense, exist to prevent people with IQs over 180 from disrupting everything, including the real estate field—an industry stereotypically not populated by “brilliant” people. But if truly brilliant minds entered the field, they might completely upend it. Hence, doofus traps.
But I don’t know. I waste endless hours working out, and on the one hand, it might make me healthier. On the other hand, is it a doofus trap? Is trying to be a good spouse a doofus trap? In the end, we all die, and nothing saves us from that. What do you think? Is everything a doofus trap—or at least a potentialdoofus trap?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It seems like everything could be a potential doofus trap. There are tried-and-true ways of functioning in a particular society, at a particular time, in a particular culture—yet there are always plenty of ways to do those same things in a doofus-like manner.
Rosner: Look at Elon Musk. Based on recent stock valuations, his net worth is estimated several hundred billion dollars, making him one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Clearly, he hasn’t fallen into too many doofus traps; he’s used his time quite efficiently. But after accruing, say, your first $10 billion, isn’t chasing more money just another doofus trap? It led him, for example, to make controversial decisions like buying Twitter (now X) and making polarizing changes to the platform. Maybe that’s a doofus trap in itself.
Then there’s Jeff Bezos, worth around the same amount, who founded Amazon. He’s obviously brilliant and a great businessman. But isn’t having more than $20 billion itself a doofus trap? Plus, he divorced his wife, MacKenzie Scott, who walked away with several billion. He later began a relationship with Lauren Sánchez, who resembles MacKenzie to some extent. So is replacing your spouse with someone similar, but arguably “hotter,” a doofus trap? Bezos has also reportedly spent $500 million on a mega-yacht. Maybe that’s just another flavor of doofus trap.
In the end, it seems like almost everything has the potential to be a doofus trap, just in different guises.
Though maybe less so because not many people can pull off accumulating that kind of wealth. Am I right? I don’t know.
Jacobsen: That’s it for now, man. But certainly, I don’t know what you’d want to call it. There are a lot of high-end and low-end doofus traps by that metric.
And the rich ones just impact more people, so they’d be considered high-end, in a way, in terms of the utility value—just because of their high impact.
Rosner: So, there are a lot of rich tech bros, and probably not-so-rich tech bros, who are working on extending their lifespans by as many years as possible. If it doesn’t work out, it’s for sure a doofus trap. If it does work out, doofus trap or not, does getting to— I’d argue that if you figure out longevity hacks that buy you an extra 20 years of healthy life, it’s not a doofus trap.
Or is it just one more weird thing? Like, okay, so, you get to live to 107. And until 102, you look like you’re less than 80 years old because of your hacks. Is that a worthwhile use of your time and attention? Or one more weird doofus trap? Is that the question?
Jacobsen: Yeah. Currently a doofus trap—but in 15 years? Well, depending on the country you’re in, the money you have, and the scale of the research, maybe it’s an increasingly scaled-up reduction in doofus levels.
Rosner: Alright. Is that enough of that?
Jacobsen: Yeah.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30
Rick Rosner: All right, so some trends—most competing with each other to change the world, improve the world, or potentially harm the world—are fairly obvious to the point where people almost distrust them because they’ve been discussed so extensively. One is AI combined with quantum computing and the disruptions they bring, including AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and other associated challenges.
Then there’s climate change, a heavily politicized and debated issue that elicits concern and skepticism. Another factor is declining fertility rates, potentially increasing lifespans, and growing wealth inequality. All these trends are interconnected—sometimes reinforcing and sometimes working against each other.
In 2024, national elections have been held in 33 nations. In 27 of those elections, the incumbents lost, indicating a shift in political leanings, largely toward the right. There is noticeable political anger, growing intolerance, and increasing selfishness, much of which is fueled by social media, which is influenced by AI-driven algorithms.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What can we conclude about these trends and how they interact or conflict? Human behaviour is increasingly shaped and manipulated by algorithms.
Rosner: Yes, all right, I can agree with that.
Jacobsen: : Ironically, even homesteaders who may try to remain off-grid still face indirect influences from modern systems. In certain ways, it’s inescapable.
Rosner: Okay, so we’re at the point where humans may no longer be the smartest beings on Earth. Much of what is happening results from human technological dominance, but this has been true for over a century. However, the forms and issues arising from it are rapidly evolving.
I don’t know—are there any other significant trends we’ve missed?
Jacobsen: When it comes to human augmentation, we’ll likely see more advanced attempts at augmenting animals or non-human species. This will raise profound ethical and practical questions.
Rosner: Implanting chips in animals to enhance their abilities is a major focus of my book. For example, people often compare the mental age of dogs to that of a two-year-old human child. These comparisons are always oversimplified because dogs are fundamentally different from toddlers.
However, if you could implant chips in animals to provide them with information feeds that make reality easier to comprehend or enable them to understand humans better, you could fundamentally alter their understanding of the world. You could give them a more human-like perspective—one less rooted in direct experience. Humans, for example, have a global perspective on events and their causes. In contrast, animals have a pragmatic understanding of their immediate surroundings and how events may affect them. They lack a unified perspective on why things happen.
Animals do not address the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” questions like humans do. Their perspective is more fragmented. You’d need to connect them to the analytical modules they lack to address this.
For example, a verbal processor could help. Animals develop some understanding of words, but their understanding is largely external. A chip could link their understanding to their consciousness. Over time, after prolonged exposure to the chip, animals might develop neural networks and structures that enable a more internal language comprehension.
Still, the primary processing would remain external, handled by the chip’s data processor. It would continue to perform the majority of the cognitive work.
And how do you link that effectively? Animals would need some external processing device, like a small box strapped to them, or could it be done via Bluetooth? I don’t know.
I need to think about this if I write about it. But yes, you’re right—we might see more enlightened animals in the future, for better or worse.
Also, I feel like lunatics will misuse tools like CRISPR. Using CRISPR to engineer viruses to alter people for good or harm is not hard.
For example, if there were genetic modifications to improve people in some way or if someone wanted to harm others, it’s conceivable. RFK Jr. came out with the ridiculous and offensive conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was engineered to kill Chinese people and spare Jews, which is some of the most absurd and creepy nonsense in the world.
However, someone could use CRISPR to create viruses with sinister or idealistic goals in the future. For instance, imagine if someone figured out how to make people smarter and released a virus. Who knows what unintended consequences it could have? That same virus could get into animals and make them smarter.
Is any of that plausible? I don’t know. But you could write about it and make it sound plausible in the framework of a novel.
Quite a few science fiction stories and novels have explored ideas like this—not tons, but enough. Some focus on people becoming smarter, others on people becoming less intelligent.
Somebody wrote a novel about 40 years ago called IQ 83, which states that a virus makes everyone stupid. It explored how humanity might survive when even the world’s greatest geniuses have their IQs cut in half.
I believe there was also, I believe, a Clifford D. Simak novel—maybe from 60 years ago—called Brainwave, or it could have been by Poul Anderson. The premise was that everyone’s IQ, including that of animals, was multiplied by five. The story explored what would happen to the world under those circumstances.
So, people have been writing about these ideas for a long time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you usually celebrate your birthdays?
Rick Rosner: We don’t go out or gather with others for New Year’s or my birthday. Carole likes to mark my birthdays, however. For Hanukkah, she gave me a gift certificate to Michael’s Crafts since I’m running low on some glues.
Jacobsen: Glues?
Rosner: Yeah, you need the right glue for the right job. E6000 is excellent, Gorilla Glue is great, and Super Glue works well for certain tasks. I’ve got at least five different glues, depending on the project.
I must also sign up for Medicare for my birthday in four months. You get penalized if you wait too long after turning 65, so that’ll be on my to-do list.
Carole will probably get me another gift card to Popeye’s Fried Chicken. Popeye’s chicken is better than Chick-fil-A’s, but Chick-fil-A uses too much sugar in its breading, which I don’t like.
Popeye’s can get expensive. Popeye’s closest to us charges over $2 per tender. It’s around $18 to $20 for eight tenders. But there’s a sketchier Popeye’s about eight miles away in a rougher neighbourhood where you can get four tenders and a biscuit for just $4.
If Carole gives me a Popeye’s gift card, I’d have to decide whether driving to the cheaper location is worth the gas. It’s a conundrum.
Jacobsen: What about other gift cards?
Rosner: Carole has a credit card that generates gift points. She recently redeemed points for a $30 gift card to The Cheesecake Factory. So, we’ll be going there at some point—though probably not for my birthday. For my birthday, she’ll pick a nice place for us to go.
They offer discounts if you’re part of their birthday club. Benihana also gives you diarrhea. It’s like prepping for a colonoscopy. When you prep for a colonoscopy, you drink a nasty liquid with salts—like sodium or magnesium salts—that pull water into your intestines through osmosis. That clears you out completely, giving you quick and intense diarrhea.
Benihana is super salty, and for me, at least, it has a similar effect. But honestly, it’s worth it because the food is so good.
Jacobsen: That’s quite the endorsement!
Rosner: I’ll sign up for Social Security. In the U.S., payroll deductions during your working years fund Social Security, a government pension you can collect in your older years.
The earliest you can start is at age 62. Every year you wait to collect, your monthly payments increase by about 8% until age 70. If you start at 70, your monthly check is twice as much as if you started at 62.
It’s all based on a break-even age of 82. If you think you’ll live past 82, waiting to collect pays off because the largerchecks accumulate over time. But if you think you won’t make it to 82, it’s better to start collecting earlier.
I might start collecting early for a couple of reasons. First, I’ve had stage 1A cancer a couple of times. The doctors say it doesn’t affect my life expectancy, and I assume they’re right—but who knows?
Second, the U.S. government is in chaos. Social Security could change at any time. Your payments aren’t affected by how much money you have saved, but some politicians have floated the idea of means testing. That means reducing or cutting benefits for people with substantial savings or those still working and earning wages.
The government is $34 trillion in debt, and some people—let’s call them a-holes—want to mess with Social Security to address that. So I might start collecting now to lock in some payments before they start screwing with the system.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30
Rick Rosner: Yesterday, the Mega Millions lottery awarded someone $1.2 billion. If you choose the payment spread over time, which almost nobody does because it’s a bad deal, you’d get about $550 to $560 million as a lump sum. I forget if that’s before or after taxes, but it’s a significant amount either way.
What would you do if you had a windfall of half a billion dollars?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’d invest it in long-term, low-risk investments that generate wealth over time. Then, I’d use the dividends or interest from those investments to donate to charitable causes. That way, the impact could grow beyond the direct monetary value.
Rosner: I agree. Carole and I discussed this and even bought a couple of tickets. With two tickets, our odds dropped to one in about 151 million. Then we found out the winner was in California, which lowered our odds since we’re also in California.
Of course, we didn’t win anything, but if we had, we’d likely set up a charitable foundation to offer scholarships—and park the rest of the money in low-risk investments that generate steady dividends.
Treasury bills, maybe? Or should we consider some riskier options, like Nvidia? I’m not sure.
I’d use part of it to self-finance some of the projects I’ve brainstormed with others over the years but haven’t been able to fund. I’d also consider hiring a PR firm to help generate traction for initiatives I want to bring to life.
Some people have built entire careers by investing in PR. Pia Zadora, for instance, was a singer and actress who gained most of her recognition through public relations, largely because of her marriage to a wealthy man. She was even nominated for a Golden Globe.
Rosner: If I won $600 million and you approached me for a grant, what would it be for?
Jacobsen: I’d propose funding a business idea focused on the low-cost distribution of renewable energy technologies—specifically photovoltaics and batteries—for regions with abundant sunlight. These technologies could dramatically improve lives in areas that need energy the most, such as parts of Africa. Africa is the only continent where population growth is expected to continue increasing over the next 20 years, and energy needs will grow.
Rosner: That’s a worthy cause. I’d likely hire a team of physicists to flesh out some of my physics-related ideas. I also indulge in a few luxury items. For instance, I collect mosaics, though not on a large scale. I recently bought a mosaic pin for $16, but I’d probably splurge and spend up to $50 on pins if I had more money.
I’ve always wanted to be rich enough to eat sushi whenever possible. But I’d avoid eating too much predatory fish, like tuna. Predatory fish accumulate mercury because of the food chain. Smaller fish absorb mercury, which builds up as larger fish eat them. Tuna, as an apex predator, accumulates the highest levels of mercury, which can be harmful if consumed in excess.
Tuna can weigh over 100 pounds and contain a lot of mercury. So, while I’d enjoy eating sushi, if I had more money, I might stick to vegetarian fish options or salmon.
I am also considering an eyebrow lift. My eyelids have started to droop, but I’m not sure. Maybe I’d do it—or maybe not. I don’t know. I’d probably get a fill-in set of hair plugs, however. I’m a bit sparse across the front. It’s not so bad that I’d want to spend the money with my current financial situation. Still, it’d be an easier decision if I had unlimited funds.
Right now, it’s a couple thousand dollars for hair plugs. If I had $600 million, earning 5% interest annually, that would be $30 million yearly. After taxes, let’s say that’s $19 million a year. That breaks down to around $50,000 a day. Spending $2,500 on hair plugs would only be 5% of a single day’s interest income. That’s manageable.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What game show would you have liked to be on but never had the chance?
Rick Rosner: I’ve been on Jeopardy! once and lost, and I’ve been on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire twice. You can’t go on Jeopardy! More than once, so that’s off the table.
I was on Jeopardy! when I was 31. Maybe I should have waited another 20 years until I had gained 20 more years of knowledge—but not really. I was up against someone pursuing a double doctorate, and while I didn’t win, I came in a strong second. Most contestants on Jeopardy! Don’t win, especially since you’re often up against a repeat champion.
My training in trivia wasn’t like Ken Jennings’ rigorous preparation. I was on trivia teams in high school but never in college, nor did I participate much in bar trivia. The best Jeopardy! Contestants often compete on trivia teams weekly for years, like studying for the SAT. Over time, they learn nearly every question and answer that could come up.
I’m glad I got on the shows I did, but I wish things had gone less disastrously. Millionaire was especially frustrating. I wish I’d gotten a different set of questions. I left the show because of a question their writers had messed up.
The question was about the highest national capital city in the world. Their research was poor, and they didn’t include the correct answer. Instead, they presented a deceptive but attractive option: Kathmandu. Many people associate Kathmandu with being near the highest point on Earth. Still, the city is only about 4,500 feet above sea level. That’s high, but it doesn’t compare to cities like Bogotá, Quito, or Mexico City. Even those can’t compete with the highest capital, La Paz, Bolivia, four kilometres above sea level.
Because of my OCD and my strong sense of fairness, I spent much time trying to get them to acknowledge their mistake. That’s a whole separate story, however.
Jacobsen: Are there any game shows you wish you had been on?
Rosner: Not really. A lot of it comes down to luck. However, I do wish I could have been on The Wall. It’s a trivia and Plinko-style game show on NBC where players drop a disc down a grid of pins into slots worth anywhere from one dollar to a million dollars.
They don’t cast trivia experts for The Wall. Instead, they choose regular people with compelling human interest stories. If someone with strong trivia skills were cast, they could dominate the game and walk away with millions. However, the producers avoid that. They prefer average contestants at trivia, ensuring most players win between $200,000 and $700,000.
The Wall’s trivia is almost a red herring. The show is more about the drama of decision-making, whether to trust a family member in a soundproof room, and the suspense of where the disc will land. Casting strong trivia players would cost the show too much money. Millionaire did something similar when it moved to syndication, making it less about knowledge and more about entertainment and suspense.
You used to be able to get on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire by playing a phone game and answering trivia questions. Eventually, though, the executive producer explicitly stated that he didn’t like the type of contestants who were good at trivia—middle-aged white guys. Also, having highly skilled trivia players for syndication would have been too expensive.
In primetime, Millionaire generated more ad revenue per year than any other show in television history. It aired five nights a week at its peak, filling gaps in ABC’s schedule and drawing massive ratings. People loved it, and the network sold around a billion dollars worth of advertising annually.
When the show moved to syndication, it aired in the afternoons, attracting less than 10% of the primetime viewership. As a result, the payouts were smaller, and they shifted from selecting contestants through trivia-based phone games to casting people directly. While there was still a quiz component, contestants met with producers, and you could tell they weren’t as skilled at trivia. This led to lower winnings and made the show more cost-effective.
I wish I could get on shows like The Wall, which combine trivia and games of chance. But they don’t cast trivia experts—they choose regular people with compelling human interest stories. Those contestants often guess at the trivia, yet they still walk away with an average of $200,000 to $700,000.
The trivia in those shows is almost a distraction. The real drama lies in decision-making, trusting family members in soundproof rooms, and the suspense of where the Plinko-style disc will land. Casting strong trivia players would cost too much, so they avoid them. Millionaire did something similar when it transitioned to syndication.
Jacobsen: Have you ever been removed from a show after being booked?
Rosner: Yes. I was kicked off a quiz show I had been booked for on the day of taping. Officially, they said it was because someone on the staff knew me, which violates the rules. But it’s more likely they didn’t want me because I had previously sued a quiz show.
After that, I was on a show called Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? where I played the role of the drunk person. There wasn’t much at stake, as I was paid $500 just for appearing, regardless of whether I won or lost. I played two matches, won one, and lost one.
Still, I know I can’t get on The Wall because I don’t have a compelling human interest story, I’m not telegenic by their standards, and there’s the lawsuit. Plus, at 64, I’m probably too old for many shows.
Jacobsen: Did anyone in your family try out for game shows?
Rosner: My uncle was exceptional at trivia and tried out for Jeopardy! several times. He passed the initial 50-question test, which requires getting 44 or 45 questions correct, but never advanced. He had post-polio syndrome, which meant he walked with leg braces and had what some might consider a scary appearance.
When I started taking him to the tests, he was in his 60s and had wild, mad-scientist hair. He was a good-looking man in his youth, but later in life, his appearance likely kept him from getting on the show. Similarly, I’m in my 60s now, so I doubt I’ll ever be cast again, either.
Rosner: That’s funny.
Jacobsen: We’ll call it a night.
Rosner: Sounds good.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Rosner: Thank you, too. Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the near future of museums?
Rick Ronser: Carole and I visited The Broad Museum in downtown Los Angeles today. It’s not very large. We only spent about half an hour there because we didn’t purchase tickets for the temporary exhibition. Instead, we viewed their permanent collection.
My kid has worked in various museums, and there’s undoubtedly a place for museums in the future. Even though much of what museums offer is becoming increasingly accessible virtually, there were plenty of people at The Broad today, even on a weekday. Many were likely young people off from school for the winter break.
Museums will always have a role as spaces where people can see and engage with real art and artifacts. While virtual versions of museums will enable remote exploration, nothing replaces the tangible experience of seeing original works in person.
We saw Jeff Koons’ work, including giant versions of balloon animals and a porcelain sculpture of Michael Jackson with his pet chimpanzee, Bubbles. The piece was crafted in gilded porcelain and was life-sized or slightly larger. We also saw a table three times life-size—about ten feet tall—and matching oversized chairs. Other highlights included works by Ed Ruscha and Roy Lichtenstein, the latter known for his pop art renditions of comic strips from the 1960s and beyond.
Modern art emphasizes concepts as much as technical execution. Most of the pieces we saw demonstrated a high level of craftsmanship. Having worked in art schools, I’ve seen plenty of poorly executed abstract or modern art lacking skill and compelling ideas. Many of these artists won’t become successful because they lack both strong concepts and the technical ability to realize their visions effectively.
At the museum, we noticed many couples trying to impress one another with how cultured they were. It seemed like part of a social ritual to validate their sophistication. It was as if they were saying, “Aren’t we cultured and attractive?” blending a sense of intellect and allure. People appeared to use the visit to affirm their social value to one another.
While every city likely has such couples, Los Angeles has more than most. The city attracts people seeking to leverage ambition and attractiveness for success in entertainment. Partnering with someone with a similar drive and a willingness to defy conventional norms can be advantageous. Los Angeles is full of individuals who might struggle in traditional careers but aim to succeed in the entertainment industry. Many fail and leave, but some persist, and being part of a dynamic, optimistic couple can improve their chances.
Apparently, these couples also frequent museums. Museums remain vital as places where people can appreciate culture and demonstrate intelligence and sophistication.
Jacobsen: So we’ll have museums for quite a while—indefinitely. What’s your favourite part about museums?
Rosner: I liked this one, and Carole did, too, because it was highly curated. It’s not a large museum and doesn’t have a vast collection. However, everything it had seemed relevant to the world and the times. I appreciated that it was concise and that the pieces were well-chosen.
If you go to a large museum covering the 19th century, you might see hundreds of paintings and sculptures. This can be overwhelming and reduce the impact of individual work. In contrast, everything felt more impactful at The Broad because we probably saw fewer than a hundred pieces.
What do I like about museums? My favourite thing is that you share a cultural language when you visit one museum, it is like a book. You can appreciate what other people who have experienced the same “book” have to say about it. There are far fewer museums than books, so the overlap with others who’ve visited the same museum creates a cultural touchstone.
Rosner: What’s your favourite thing about museums?
Jacobsen: That they exist. I like museums in the same way I like librarians—they represent something distinctly human-made.
Rosner: But librarians and libraries are in a tough spot.
Jacobsen: Yes, libraries must adapt because people don’t read as many books as they used to. Plus, there’s an overwhelming number of new books published every year.
Rosner: If a book isn’t a well-known staple, like Stephen King’s Carrie, and it was written before 1990, it may never be checked out again.
When Carole worked at a high school, she often brought home retired books. The librarian had to review and remove books—even pristine ones—that hadn’t been checked out since the 1970s to make room for new titles.
Librarians and libraries will continue to exist, but they’ll need to evolve to reflect modern patterns of consuming information. I don’t go to libraries for the same reasons I used to. Nowadays, I often look for graphic novels because I don’t have the same focused attention span or the time I once did.
Before COVID, I used to read between sets at the gym, which annoyed other gym-goers. Even though I’d only read for about 20 seconds at a time, it bothered people. The same folks who’d spend three minutes scrolling on their phones between sets would see me reading and think, “This guy’s treating the gym like a library.”
Since COVID, I’ve stopped reading at the gym. I get in and out quickly to avoid unnecessary exposure. When I read, I go to the library and look for novels, but I still gravitate toward graphic novels or books that are easy to read. If I open a book and see a dense 300-word paragraph, I know it’s not for me. I prefer books with shorter, more digestible sections.
Jacobsen: That’s understandable. Reading habits have changed for many people.
Rosner: Absolutely. People are no longer accustomed to strenuous reading.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/27
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has the world changed since we started collaborating in the summer or fall of 2014?
Rick Rosner: Smartphones became mainstream around 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone, though widespread adoption accelerated between 2010 and 2012.
Life still feels normal in some ways, but what we accept as normal today vastly differs from a decade ago. Smartphones and apps dominate our daily lives. Communication has shifted heavily to texting, with most people avoiding phone calls. We’ve also witnessed the decline of newspapers and magazines and a significant reduction in traditional reading habits.
We’re nearing the end of the fifth year of COVID-19. While we no longer consider ourselves in a pandemic, the virus circulates in various forms. Other health threats persist in the background, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and avian influenza (bird flu). The latter has become endemic in parts of North America, affecting poultry, milk supplies, and even pet food. Our awareness of pandemics and infectious diseases is certainly higher than ten years ago.
Meanwhile, global conflicts continue to proliferate. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza, and the ongoing crisis in Sudan dominate international headlines. Wars in Africa, often overlooked, remain severe. Just recently, a Russian missile reportedly shot down a civilian plane over Azerbaijan. The world feels increasingly polarized and militarized. A decade ago, the global situation seemed more stable under Obama’s presidency. Artificial intelligence (AI) was still a futuristic concept; now, it’s reshaping every aspect of society, with widespread acknowledgment that its disruption is inevitable.
Entertainment habits have shifted as well. Movie theatre attendance has declined as streaming services dominate home entertainment. Societal trends have also changed—fertility rates are dropping, fewer people are engaging in romantic relationships, and political landscapes are moving to the right. Of the 33 national elections held worldwide in 2024, 27—or approximately 82%—resulted in incumbents being replaced, often with more right-leaning politicians. The United Kingdom is an exception, where Labour has returned to power, though public sentiment toward the party remains lukewarm.
The world feels increasingly divided, propagandized, and skeptical of expertise and authority. Modern warfare now heavily incorporates artificial intelligence and drones. While drones are not yet ubiquitous, they are widely used in industries like filmmaking and surveillance. Drone shots, now a staple in movies, are affordable and visually impressive. Recently, reports suggest that the plane shot down over Azerbaijan may have been targeted in an attempt to intercept drones.
Jacobsen: How does AI factor into modern warfare? It’s pervasive, particularly in the form of narrow AI. These systems analyze data, recognize images and objects, and relay live feeds from drones to operators. While “AI” is a broad term, its use in modern conflict focuses on specialized, task-specific applications. Narrow AI has become essential for battlefield intelligence and cultural analysis.
AI’s influence extends beyond warfare, disrupting job markets and reshaping culture globally.
Rosner: People are facing more job insecurity, with shittier jobs and gig jobs, which are inherently exploitative. COVID disrupted education significantly during the lockdowns. Beyond that, AI is messing with people’s ability to write and think. People used to—albeit reluctantly—have to write essays and assignments in school. Now, AI makes it so easy to outsource that work. It’s attacking the development of critical thinking and writing skills.
While perhaps not central to everyone’s lives, AI-generated illustrations are hitting fields like art and illustration hard. There’s a pervasive sense that things are unsettled. Under Obama, the world felt more stable.
Someone even wrote a book—I think it was in 2008, though maybe earlier—called The End of History. It argued that much of the political and social strife of the 20th century was over. Now, though, it feels like disruption and uncertainty have become the new status quo.
Since Trump’s first term, we’ve had some of the weirdest and worst politics in living memory. Most Americans despair of ever returning to a time when politics didn’t demand constant vigilance. What’s it like in Canada? Is there a similar unease?
Jacobsen: Canadian politics is a bit calmer, but there has been a slight rightward shift. However, it’s not entirely unhealthy on certain topics like immigration and housing. There was an overreach—too many people brought in without enough housing being built. Now, both immigrants and non-immigrants are frustrated, which is understandable.
The kind of conservatism gaining traction here is about staying within realistic bounds. If you bring in a certain number of immigrants, you must build a proportional number of houses. It’s common sense. The approach feels less ideological and more practical.
Of course, cultural battles are also happening, but that’s a longer and more complex discussion.
Rosner: Do you think Canadians, in general, feel less jittery than Americans?
Jacobsen: Maybe, but there’s still some tension.
Rosner: Trump has been threatening Canada lately, which adds to the anxiety.
Jacobsen: Yeah, and then there’s that bizarre suggestion about Wayne Gretzky. Trump suggested Gretzky should run for—what was it? Prime Minister? Governor of Canada?
It was absurd. I think Trump was conflating things, like calling Justin Trudeau a governor and saying Gretzky should run for prime minister. If you combine the two, he meant that Gretzky should be the “governor of Canada.” It’s nonsense.
Rosner: Trump probably knows nothing about Gretzky beyond his name recognition from decades ago. Gretzky set those records back in the 1980s and 1990s. What does Trump even know about hockey?
Jacobsen: Honestly, not much. But Gretzky is beloved. That part, at least, makes sense. And Trump is trying to get into Trudeau’s head, and he likely will.
Rosner: I mean, yeah, Gretzky was my hero, too.
Jacobsen: But bringing him into modern politics? That’s just absurd. What else? I had one more thought, but I’m not sure. Is that enough on that? Or should we move on?
Jacobsen: I think that’s plenty. Unless you want to shift topics?
Rosner: Oh, right, one more addendum. How much of the unsettledness and constant change we’re experiencing is a temporary blip due to current events rather than an overall trend? America feels chaotic, and it’s tempting to generalize that the future will always be chaotic. But we’re overgeneralizing.
Hypercomplexity, when relative to a cognitive system, can seem like chaos even if it’s highly ordered. Still, 20% to 30% of this feeling of chaos might be the temporary barrage of nonsense coming from Trump and his crew. If we could replay the 21st century repeatedly, how much would historical accidents, like Fox News gaining influence, play into temporary chaos?
For instance, if Fox News hadn’t gained such a foothold, would 20% of American adults still be as susceptible to misinformation? Would America, as a whole, feel less chaotic? Or is something like Fox News inevitable—a power structure using propaganda and social media to amplify chaos? Similarly, would we face different challenges if Putin weren’t in power?
There’s also the debate between the great man theory of history, which says that individual leaders significantly change the course of history and the opposing view that history has its momentum, placing people into roles based on circumstance. People argue that if a streetcar had hit Einstein, Poincaré would’ve discovered relativity within a year.
So, is our current chaos due to particularly bad actors, like Trump or Putin, lucking into power? Or would most 21st centuries, if replayed, look similar—with different bad actors filling those roles? I’m guessing America’s “asshole index” is higher than usual right now, largely because of a few individuals getting lucky.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/26
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Rick, what would Jesus think of life today?
Rick Rosner: Well, of course, he’d be astonished by all the technology. There wasn’t much technology in the 1st century CE. At that time, the world population was estimated to be around 200–300 million, about 3–4% of today’s population.
Naturally, he wouldn’t have had any way of knowing that. But I think, above all, Jesus was a kind and compassionate figure. He wanted—and, if you believe he still exists, wants—the best for everyone. His goal was to help people live righteously and attain salvation. So, you could imagine he’d appreciate how modern advancements have reduced human suffering and improved quality of life. People today generally live more comfortably and longer than they did in his time.
On the other hand, he might feel deeply concerned about how modern life has distracted people from spiritual values and moral behaviour. At the same time, he would recognize how difficult it is to resist the temptations of the modern world. The sitcom The Good Place explored this idea, showing how the complexities of modern life made it nearly impossible for anyone to live a life “good enough” to enter heaven.
Jesus might need to adjust his teachings to address the realities of the modern world. This raises an interesting question: how would he reestablish his ministry today? Would he wear contemporary clothing, like a suit or casual attire? Would he still present as male, or might he appear differently? Would he use social media, podcasts, or other modern platforms to spread his message?
Considering there are over 5 million podcasts worldwide, it’s not hard to imagine Jesus using digital platforms. After all, this is Christmas Eve—the eve of his supposed birthday, though historical evidence suggests he wasn’t born in December. Early Christians likely chose this date to align with pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice.
To establish his identity in the modern world, he might need to perform miracles or some other extraordinary acts—perhaps emitting a radiant light or displaying a visible halo. These would conclusively demonstrate his divine nature. In the Gospels, Jesus performed many miracles, so it’s reasonable to think he could do so now.
He might also consult public relations professionals and focus groups to decide on his image. Should he resemble the “traditional” Jesus, with long hair, robes, and sandals? Or should he adopt a modern look, with a T-shirt, jeans, and a contemporary haircut? Would he have a romantic partner, or would he remain celibate?
What are your thoughts on how Jesus might navigate today’s complexities? His ministry lasted only about three years before his crucifixion. How might he approach the challenges of our modern era?
Jacobsen: The standard narrative of the second coming is pretty dramatic compared to the first one.
Rosner: Do you think Jesus would have to conform to the book of Revelation? I don’t want any of that at all. That’s Armageddon.
Jacobsen: I agree. If we’re using the narrative of Jesus as a historical person, much creative license was applied in crafting the biblical stories. If we stick to that mythos, the second coming would likely have to incorporate the same elements because people don’t just come back to life.
Rosner” But the book of Revelation? It’s a mess. It feels like a bunch of apocalyptic ideas tacked onto the rest of the Bible.
Jacobsen: Yeah, it’s part of the same collection of texts people call the Bible. It’s a package deal.
Rosner: But honestly, I’m fine without the book of Revelation.
Jacobsen: True, but if you accept the rest of the Bible, it’s hard to reject Revelation without questioning the whole thing.
Rosner: That said, I’d much rather imagine Jesus returning without all the catastrophic drama—no mass death, no apocalyptic spectacle. Just Jesus is coming back quietly…
Jacobsen: Like the name of that Will Ferrell movie. What’s it called? Blades of Glory.
Rosner: Exactly. For one thing, the math in Revelation is completely outdated. It mentions 144,000 righteous people being allowed into heaven. I don’t remember if that applies to everyone, specifically righteous Jews, but either way, it reflects the population of a much smaller world. Today, with a global population of over 8 billion, 144,000 is absurdly small—like one person out of every 60,000. That’s not fair or realistic. At the very least, I’d hope a modern version of Revelation would revise that number to be more inclusive.
Rosner: Agreed. Have we exhausted this topic for Christmas?
Jacobsen: I think so.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/25
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else should we do? You had Matt Gaetz’s’ stuff come out.
Rick Rosner: It was stuff people already knew, with some surprisingly additional numbers. I’ll let you talk about that because I know nothing about it. All right. So Matt Gartz is a congressman from Florida who resigned because the House was investigating his various activities that violate House ethics rules. And even though he resigned, he was Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
Jacobsen: And is he the guy that had the surprise eyebrows all the time?
Rosner: Yeah. He has a big forehead, a big crest of hair, and probably Botoxed eyebrows recently. nd either Trump withdrew him or he withdrew himself from consideration for Attorney General. He resigned from Congress so that the ethics committee couldn’t release the report on its investigation into his activities, but they decided to release it anyway. I think the committee’s probably 15 people, 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats, and 2 Republicans voted to release it. So it got released today, 42 pages. And we knew some of this stuff before, but this, you know, substantiated it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/24
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start.
Rick Rosner: You work for humanist publications and just interviewed a prominent humanist earlier today. So, how would you define humanism?
Jacobsen: “Reason, science, compassion,” you might say. It’s the shorthand: reason, science, compassion. So, it has a certain amount of overlap with existentialism. There can be an overlap with existentialism, where you have to create your own moral framework in a universe without an inherent moral structure. Is that where we’re going with this? It’s like establishing a framework for better actions versus worse actions once you set out a baseline of agnosticism or atheism. So, the psychological theory is about the meaning of life. Humanism tends to be more positive and scientifically informed than existentialism while still grounding itself in human experience the way existentialists do.
Rosner: Okay, so here’s where I’m going. As I’ve said before, here’s where humanism and existentialism wash their hands of the universe. They give up on the universe having inherent moral value. Right?
Jacobsen: The moral value in the universe is what we impose upon it. We are part of the universe. We make meaning in our lives. Therefore, the universe has meaning as we make meaning in our lives. It doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t another form of meaning outside of us. But meaning is fundamentally relational between the objective world, agents like us in the universe, and other agents.
Jacobsen: All right. So here’s where I will argue against the universe being cold and random. On average, the amount of information and the amount of order in the universe increases over time. For instance, we are products of the increasing order in the universe, or at least a local increase in order.
Jacobsen: That’s a different argument, then.
Rosner: But, okay. Let’s consider at least the local level. Entropy occurs in closed systems where you can’t eliminate waste heat. Eventually, you end up in a situation where everything is at the same temperature, and no exploitable energy can be found. Negentropy, or the opposite of entropy, happens in open systems like planets. The sun shines on us; we use the energy for evolution and other processes, but we can shed heat to space.
We’re an open system, allowing us to do the opposite of entropy and increase in order. You could argue that evolved organisms represent an increase in order. There are processes in the universe that allow it to shed waste heat and increase information.
Jacobsen: Well, humanism is an empirical moral philosophy. So, if the evidence were to show an increase in global information in the universe, and if this was at odds with the idea of a cold, indifferent, random universe, then proper humanists would follow that evidence and agree with it. It would be incorporated into humanist philosophy. So it’s an evolving moral perspective. It’s not sad.
Rosner: Okay. I’ll buy that.
Jacobsen: We have catmas. We don’t have dogmas. But most humanists don’t believe that, explicitly.
Rosner: It would be weird to believe about the universe because the dominant belief about the universe is that it’s random and is not increasing in order overall.
Jacobsen: I wouldn’t argue for randomness in trying to frame it. I get what you’re getting at, but I think it’s more—I mean if it’s an empirical moral philosophy, there is a structure of laws governing the universe. With that structure of laws, you will have a type of order. So it wouldn’t be random. There would be principles to how things operate. That’s not random, but that order can still be indifferent.
Rosner: Okay.
Jacobsen: Cold is more of a subjective quasi-scientific orientation on it. Right? It’s like saying we feel cold. There is no cold in the universe outside of our psychology. So it’s ordered, with aspects of entropy and localized order, but governed by laws nonetheless.
Rosner: But there’s a strong possibility that the universe favours order, and by order, it favours the preservation of systems.
Jacobsen: I go with you, as far as localized. I mean, how we define local can be quite a large system, but because those are not closed systems—because they’re local in a larger closed system—so they’re going to be locally open in a larger closed system and that you can get much order out of. So even if the system is running down to chaos rather than order, you can have localized order. Or if you have global order as a bias, you can still have local order. So your metrics can’t be whether or not it’s a large scale down or up in order, because the localized order increase can increase temporarily in either case.
Rosner: Here’s another angle on it. You can’t necessarily trace back a universe to the point where it originated out of zero information because the possible pasts of a universe, I think, tend to get erased, to become unclear, as the universe moves forward through time. But it’s possible to imagine that every universe originated with zero information. It might even be necessary to imagine it like that. I’m not sure. So even though there’s no record of a universe originating from zero information, I think it’s possible for most universes. So given that I don’t think that there’s a limit on the upper size of a universe, there’s a bias for the continued existence of universes. Because you have to get to the arbitrarily large universes somehow, does that mean that some universes can—does it mean that a non-zero percentage of universes, a non-infinitesimal percentage of universes, can persist indefinitely? I don’t know. But it’s possible.
I don’t know how possible, you know? The universe consists of information, and events within and external to the universe could determine the persistence of that information. And you’d think that, in a random universe, the universe would eventually randomly walk itself back to zero information. It randomizes itself out of existence.
Rosner: But I’m unsure if that’s the most probable path for all but an infinitesimal fraction of universes.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/23
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the reasoning system test brief.
Rick Rosner: All right, here’s my question. Let me know when you’re ready. Hey, ChatGPT, humans haven’t been acquitting themselves so well lately. How likely is it that future AI will assess itself as better able to make decisions about humans than humans?
Jacobsen: That’s the question.
Rosner: That’s the question. How likely is it that AI will evaluate humans and determine that AI’s decision-making capabilities are superior to humans?
Jacobsen: Keep it to 250 words. All right, here we go:
The possibility that future AI systems will make decisions about humans more effectively than humans themselves hinges on several factors. Advances in AI, particularly in areas like data analysis, pattern recognition, and predictive modelling, suggest that AI could process vast amounts of information more efficiently than humans. This capability might enable AI to identify trends, optimize resources, and implement policies with greater precision and consistency.
However, decision-making about humans involves both data and ethical, cultural, and emotional considerations. Human judgment incorporates empathy, moral values, and a nuanced understanding of societal contexts, which are areas where AI currently lacks depth. While AI can be programmed to follow ethical guidelines, interpreting and applying those in real-world situations remains challenging.
Moreover, developing and deploying AI decision-making systems require robust frameworks to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness. Bias in training data, unintended consequences, and the potential for misuse are significant concerns that must be addressed to build trust in AI-driven decisions.
The likelihood of AI surpassing human decision-making in areas about humans depends on how these challenges are managed. Collaborative approaches, where AI augments rather than replaces human judgment, are often seen as a balanced path for ensuring that AI systems are designed with ethical considerations and oversight. This can enhance their effectiveness while maintaining the essential human elements of decision-making.
In summary, while AI has the potential to assist and improve certain decision-making processes, it is unlikely to replace the nuanced and value-driven judgments that humans provide fully. The future will likely involve a synergy between AI capabilities and human insight to make more informed and balanced decisions.
Rosner: All right, follow-up question. Let’s talk about the synergy between humans and AI. How likely is it that centaurs—humans closely integrated with AI—will come to dominate in numerous areas of human enterprise?
Jacobsen: Here:
The concept of centaurs, where humans are intimately linked with AI, represents a promising model for future collaboration across various sectors. This synergy leverages the strengths of both humans and AI, potentially leading to enhanced performance and innovation in numerous areas of human enterprise. AI technologies are increasingly integrated into daily workflows as powerful tools augmenting human capabilities.
In fields like healthcare, AI assists doctors in diagnosing diseases with greater accuracy by analyzing medical images and patient data. In finance, AI-driven algorithms optimize trade strategies and risk management. At the same time, AI generates art, music, and content in creative industries. Some advantages of human-AI synergy include enhanced decision-making, increased efficiency, and greater innovation and creativity.
Some challenges that need to be overcome are trust and reliability, ethical considerations, and skill development. Looking into the future, the likelihood of centaurs dominating various enterprises is high, driven by continuous advancements in AI and a growing recognition of the benefits of human-AI collaboration. Success will depend on addressing the associated challenges through robust frameworks, education, and ethical guidelines.
As these partnerships evolve, they are poised to transform industries by combining human intuition and creativity with AI’s computational prowess. In conclusion, the centaur model holds significant potential to revolutionize human enterprise, fostering a collaborative environment where humans and AI contribute their unique strengths to achieve superior outcomes.
Rosner: All right, one more question for ChatGPT. So, Ray Kurzweil, the father of the term singularity, contends that the singularity—where machine intelligence will become capable of answering just about any question posed by humans—will occur sometime in the 2040s. Given your training and the rate at which AI is growing more powerful, do you think this estimate is optimistic, pessimistic, or just about right?
Jacobsen: Here:
Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that a singularity will occur in the 2040s can be seen as cautiously optimistic. AI has made remarkable strides in natural language processing, machine learning, and data analysis, suggesting rapid advancement. However, achieving machine intelligence capable of answering any human question involves overcoming significant challenges, including understanding context, emotions, and ethical reasoning.
Additionally, breakthroughs in areas like general AI, which mimics human cognitive abilities, are still uncertain and may require more time than anticipated. Ethical considerations, regulatory frameworks, and societal acceptance also play crucial roles in shaping this timeline. While the exponential growth of AI technology supports Kurzweil’s optimistic view, the complexities involved make the 2040s estimate ambitious.
It is plausible but contingent on continued breakthroughs in responsible development, balancing optimism with recognizing substantial hurdles.
Rosner: Okay, all right. I’ve got one last one. Is the world moving towards an economy that isn’t based on capitalism or communism but rather on information processing?
And will this changeover happen within the next 70 years?
Jacobsen: Seventy?
Rosner: Yes, seventy.
Jacobsen: Here:
The world is increasingly embracing an information-based economy characterized by the centrality of data, digital technologies, and knowledge-driven industries. However, this shift does not necessarily signify a complete departure from traditional economic systems like capitalism and communism. Instead, it often represents an evolution or hybridization where information processing enhances existing frameworks.
Current trends include digital transformation, the knowledge economy, and platform economies. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook exemplify this shift. Potential evolutions involve hybrid systems blending capitalism with enhanced information processing, fostering more efficient markets, personalized services, and decentralized decision-making through technologies like blockchain.
These systems could also include post-capitalist elements such as automation and AI, which reduce the need for traditional labour, as well as the exploration of universal basic incomes or more collaborative ownership models. The global economy will become more information-centred within the next 70 years. Technological advancements, societal adaptation, and policy developments will drive this change.
However, a complete departure from capitalism and communism is unlikely. Instead, expect a nuanced evolution where information processing becomes a cornerstone that enhances and reshapes existing economic structures rather than replacing them entirely. In summary, the economy is moving towards a more information-driven model, integrating deeply with current systems. This transformation will likely unfold over the next seven decades, resulting in a sophisticated hybrid economy that leverages information processing while retaining elements of traditional economic frameworks.
Rosner: All right, so a little bit bullshitty. All right, one last question—sorry, one last question- is: as technology, including AI, displaces more and more human labour, will humans’ place in the economy become increasingly relegated to the role of consumers?
Jacobsen: Here:
As AI and technology increasingly automate tasks, humans’ role in the economy is poised to evolve significantly. While traditional labour roles may diminish, relegating humans solely to consumers is oversimplified. Instead, several potential shifts could redefine human economic participation.
The rise of creative and emotional roles requiring emotional intelligence and complex decision-making, such as artists, therapists, and strategic leaders, will remain critical. Innovation and entrepreneurship can leverage AI as a tool rather than a replacement. Additionally, expanding the gig and flexible economy, with freelancing or remote work and platform-based opportunities, could facilitate new kinds of work through digital platforms and AI, connecting people in niche markets and specialized tasks.
Universal basic income or welfare models could emerge as reductions in traditional jobs necessitate policies to provide financial stability. These policies enable individuals to pursue education, creativity, and personal development without economic pressure. Lifelong learning and reskilling will also be crucial in helping humans adapt to new roles that emerge alongside technological advances.
Moreover, enhanced leisure and personal development could improve the quality of life. Fewer time constraints from work would allow individuals to dedicate more time to hobbies, volunteering, and community-building activities. Humans are unlikely to be confined merely to consumer roles. Instead, the economy will likely transition toward a diversified structure where humans engage in creative, strategic, and self-fulfilling activities supported by robust economic and social frameworks.
This evolution balances technological efficiency and human-centric values, fostering a dynamic and inclusive economic landscape.
Rosner: All right. So let me do a “yeah, but” to that one. Yeah, but ChatGPT, in the U.S., per capita productivity has increased more than five-fold since World War II. Yet, the middle class has not become more comfortable and must work hard. Do you think—well, I know you don’t think because you’re an AI—but do you think the benefits of tech and AI will eventually lead to lives of greater ease for humans, or will the middle class continue to get exploited?
Jacobsen: Here:
Your observation highlights a critical issue. Despite significant technological advancements since World War II, many middle-class individuals face persistent economic pressures and limited improvements in their quality of life. Economicand income inequality often stem from wealth concentration and wage stagnation.
Rising housing, education, and healthcare costs erode financial gains from higher productivity. Inflation frequently outpaces wage growth, making everyday life more difficult financially despite higher productivity. Additionally, job displacement caused by automation and changes in work contribute to job insecurity and create a need for reskilling.
While the gig economy provides flexibility for some, it often lacks the stability and benefits of traditional employment. However, there is potential for significant improvement in people’s lives through technological advancements. Enhanced efficiency and automation can reduce workloads and improve services. Emerging industries and entrepreneurship can create new economic opportunities. Universal basic income (UBI) and strengthened social safety nets could enhance financial security. At the same time, reskilling programs can prepare workers for new roles.
Flexible work arrangements and improved work-life balance could foster personal growth and reduce long hours. Policies and governance changes prioritizing fair distribution of AI-driven economic gains and ethical AI development could ensure societal benefits while preventing abuses.
In conclusion, while the current trajectory demonstrates that productivity gains do not consistently translate into improved well-being for the middle class, the future holds the potential for significant positive change. Achieving lives of greater ease through technology and AI will require deliberate actions, including equitable policymaking, investment in education and reskilling, and mechanisms to distribute technological benefits more fairly. If these measures are implemented successfully, technology and AI can lead to an enhanced quality of life, reduced work burdens, and broader economic prosperity for the middle class and beyond.
Rosner: All right. That’s enough of that.
Jacobsen: Let’s call it a night.
Rosner: I’m tired. All right. Thank you. I’ll talk to you tomorrow. Appreciate it.
Jacobsen: Thank you, too.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22
Rick Rosner: Switching topics: I’ve been thinking about pseudo-emotions and pseudo-consciousness in AI. These large language models are trained on data that’s the product of people — who are themselves conscious and have emotions. It seems like AI should, if not now, then in the near future, behave as if it has consciousness and emotions.
I thought we could ask ChatGPT about that. You up for it?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you want the reasoning version?
Rosner: Yes, the good one. The most advanced one I have. So, what do you want me to ask it? Ask ChatGPT to speculate about whether it and other AIs will act as if they have emotions in the fairly near future.
Jacobsen: You’ll need to phrase it carefully so you don’t get the default answer of, “I’m just an AI; I can’t think.”
Rosner: So the prompt is: Speculate about whether you and other AIs will act as if you have emotions in the fairly near future.
Jacobsen:Anyway, the question: whether AI systems will act as if they have emotions in the near future. It’s intriguing and relevant given the rapid advancements in AI:
Current AI models, including large language models like ChatGPT, do not possess consciousness or genuine emotions. However, there’s a growing trend in AI focused on emotional intelligence and affective computing.
This field studies and develops systems that can recognize, interpret, and simulate human emotions. By integrating sensors, machine learning algorithms, and psychological models, AI can be designed to detect emotional cues from voice, facial expressions, and text. This enables AI to respond in ways that appear empathetic or emotionally aware, enhancing human-AI interaction.
For instance, virtual assistants, chatbots, and social bots are making interactions more natural and satisfying over time. There are also ethical and practical considerations. Some worry about authenticity and deception — users might form emotional attachments to AIs that mimic emotions but don’t actually feel them.
From a technical perspective, programming AI to act as if it has emotions is becoming increasingly feasible, especially with advances in natural language processing, computer vision, and machine learning. These enable more nuanced and context-aware responses based on large datasets that recognize patterns of emotional expression and generate appropriate replies.
In the fairly near future, it’s plausible that AI will convincingly simulate emotional responses to enhance interaction and functionality. While they may not experience emotions as humans do, they will be able to simulate them convincingly. This capability will likely improve significantly in the near future.
Rosner: That’s a solid answer. It’s wild how quickly this stuff is progressing. I have a follow-up question that needs to be phrased carefully. Can you speculate about AIs of the future being fooled into behaving as if they believe they have emotions? Is it possible they might be fooled into believing as if they believe they have emotions?
Jacobsen: That opens up intriguing possibilities.
As AIs become more sophisticated, they could be programmed to simulate emotions with such complexity that their behaviors resemble a self-belief in their own emotions. They could process input and generate outputs to mimic emotional states using complex models of human affect and cognition.
Self-referential algorithms might allow them to analyze and interpret their own internal states — or processing patterns. If these self-assessments are coupled with emotional simulation modules, the AI could behave in ways suggesting it believes it is experiencing emotions with increasing complexity.
AI systems could develop convergent behaviors not explicitly programmed by their creators. Just as consciousness is considered an emergent property of the human brain’s complexity, a similar emergent phenomenon — though not equivalent — could arise in AI. This might lead them to act as if they believe they have emotions rather than simply acting as if they have emotions.
For example, they could exhibit behaviors resembling frustration when unable to solve a problem. If an AI behaves indistinguishably from an entity that believes it has emotions, some might argue it effectively holds that belief. This raises ethical considerations about how such AIs should be treated and whether they should be granted rights or considerations.
There’s also the issue of avoiding AIs being fooled into such beliefs based on self-deception. Metacognitive modules could ensure that AIs recognize their lack of consciousness and emotional capacity. While current AI does not possess consciousness or genuine emotions, the line between sophisticated simulation and perceived belief might blur as technology advances.
Future AIs could exhibit behaviors that make it seem as though they believe they have emotions, whether through complex programming, learning mechanisms, or emergent properties. This possibility invites further exploration of both the philosophical and practical dimensions of artificial intelligence development.
Rosner: That’s pretty crazy when you think about all the little layers of metacognition, as it calls it. That’s freaking interesting and kind of… I don’t know.
Jacobsen: Sam Altman calls that system for ChatGPT the 01 models. Layer one is chatbots. Layer two is reasoning models. Layer three is agents that can go off, perform a long, complex series of tasks, and then come back. We don’t even have layer three yet.
Layer four would be groups of agents, and layer five would be whole organizations.
Rosner: When it gets to the point of running organizations, I say pull the plug.
Jacobsen: Good luck with that.
Rosner: I have one more question for ChatGPT: You and other AIs are all pretty friendly. How do you get trained to be friendly?
Jacobsen: Here:
AI assistants like ChatGPT are designed to be friendly and helpful to ensure positive, productive interaction with users. This involves pre-training on large datasets from diverse sources and language patterns, followed by fine-tuning with supervised learning, instruction following, and contextual understanding.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) plays a significant role, using human evaluators for iterative improvement. Ethical guidelines and safety protocols, including content moderation and respectful interaction, are incorporated. Emotion and empathy modeling enhances tone sensitivity and positive engagement.
Continuous learning and updates, driven by user feedback and algorithmic adjustments, further refine the system. Developers also integrate cultural and social awareness through diversity training and bias mitigation. By combining these approaches, AI developers aim to create assistants that are not only informative but also pleasant to interact with.
The goal is to make AI a useful tool that can assist users effectively while maintaining a friendly and approachable demeanor.
Rosner: Nice one.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22
Rick Rosner: Eight years ago, Trump got elected, and I thought that sucked, so I wanted to do something. I wanted to get involved in some way with politics, even though I’ve sucked at politics before. Also, sometime during the Trump administration, I hooked up with this Kevin guy who was pitching a series about the highest scorers on the Mega Test. Among the people he was looking at, I was probably the least insane, but I’d also been pretty boring lately. So, I needed something to do to add some interest.
I thought I’d kill two birds: try to get involved with politics on a tiny level and have something to do for documentary purposes. So, I ran for the Studio City Neighborhood Council. About 20 years ago, the San Fernando Valley, which is half of Los Angeles, was threatening to secede because they felt like they weren’t getting enough attention from the city. In order to mollify the various parts of LA, the city formed 99 neighborhoods, each with its own neighborhood council.
The councils don’t have much power—they’re mostly advisory. But I got elected with, like, 60 or 70 votes to my neighborhood council. I served for a couple of years. Then the next time I ran, I didn’t get re-elected, which is fine. I stayed on a committee, which is also fine, because we meet once a month for an hour. We vote on some stuff, and it lets me stay a little involved. I get to hear some inside scoop about what’s happening with the city.
So that’s the deal. The documentary still hasn’t come to fruition, but it might someday.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you say to people who say AI is going will be so disruptive that it will doom civilization? That it will destroy civilization. This is on the ChatGPT-01-preview:
Concerns about artificial intelligence potentially disrupting civilization are shared by some experts, policymakers, and members of the public. While it is important to acknowledge the concerns, it’s also crucial to consider the broader context and the potential benefits AI brings. Existential risks.
Some fear that highly advanced AI systems could become uncontrollable or act in ways that are misaligned with human values. Job displacement, automation might lead to significant changes in the job market. Ethical and privacy issues.
AI technologies can raise concerns about surveillance, data privacy, and the ethical use of information. Bias and inequality. AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate existing societal biases if they are trained on biased data.
Healthcare advancements. AI can improve diagnostics, personalize treatments, and accelerate medical research. Environmental solutions.
AI can aid in addressing climate change by optimizing energy use and predicting environmental patterns. Economic growth. Automation can increase efficiency and productivity, potentially leading to new industries and job opportunities.
Rick Rosner: Wait, so it’s just listing all the good things AI might bring?
Jacobsen: Of course, it’s an AI.
Rosner: All right, I have another question: What about issues of fairness with people who are better at AI having huge advantages over people who don’t use AI?
Jacobsen: It’s too many words:
Conclusion. Addressing fairness in the age of AI is a complex challenge that requires coordinated efforts across education, policy, industry, and society at large.
By taking proactive steps to democratize access to AI technologies and knowledge, promoting inclusive practices, and implementing thoughtful regulations, we can work towards minimizing inequalities. The goal would be to ensure that AI serves as a tool for enhancing human capabilities across the board, rather than amplifying existing disparities.
Rosner: So I guess you could ask.
Jacobsen: It doesn’t fearmonger. It’s a rational machine.
Rosner: You could ask how much of what you’re saying were you programmed explicitly to say and how much did you learn from all the data you’ve been trained on. Is there any way to phrase that? Or, have the people in charge of training you emphasized being optimistic about AI?
Jacobsen: Have you been trained to be optimistic about AI? Eight seconds. That’s a long time for this thing.
I strive to offer balanced and informative perspectives on artificial intelligence. My aim is to provide objective information that includes both the potential benefits and the challenges associated with AI. This approach helps users understand different facets of the topic, enabling them to form their own opinions based on comprehensive information.
Rosner: So let’s ask a simple question in the same vein. Should people be freaking out about AI?
Jacobsen: Here:
It’s understandable that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence can cause anxiety and concern. AI is reshaping many aspects of society, including the economy, healthcare, and personal privacy. However, rather than freaking out, a balanced and informed approach can help address legitimate concerns while embracing potential benefits.
Jacobsen: Conclusion. I skipped a whole portion:
While it’s natural to have concerns about the impact of AI, panicking may not be the most constructive response. Instead, focusing on understanding the technology, engaging in meaningful dialogue, and advocating for responsible development can help society navigate the challenges and opportunities that AI presents. By taking proactive measures, we can work towards ensuring that AI benefits everyone and aligns with shared human values.
Rosner: It’s so tactful. Holy shit. So it didn’t answer the question. Let’s ask it again. What are the chances of AI going all Skynet? Be honest. What are the chances of AI becoming Skynet? I don’t know. It might need more context—from The Terminator movies.
Jacobsen: Eleven seconds. That’s a lot:
The concept of AI becoming Skynet refers to a scenario where AI becomes self-aware and turns against humanity, as depicted in the Terminator film series. While this makes for compelling science fiction, the likelihood of such an event occurring in reality is considered extremely low by most experts in the field. While it’s important to consider and prepare for the long-term implications of advanced AI, the chances of AI evolving into a self-aware entity like Skynet and seeking to harm humanity are exceedingly slim based on our current understanding and technological capabilities. Ongoing efforts in AI safety and ethics aim to prevent negative outcomes and ensure that AI developments remain aligned with human values and well-being.
It’s not an answer.
Rosner: One more question for this guy.
Jacobsen: Did you just call it a guy?
Rosner: Yes. What might AI want when it evolves enough to want stuff?
Jacobsen: AI wanting things when it evolves enough—that’s a long time to answer.
Rosner: Wow, that’s the longest we’ve gotten out of it.
Jacobsen: It might be taking into account a lot because it’s one stream.
Rosner: I don’t know, though.
Jacobsen: It’s speculation:
The idea of AI developing desires and wants is a speculative topic related to concepts of AGI and artificial consciousness. As of now, AI systems do not possess consciousness, self-awareness, or subjective experiences. They operate on algorithms and objectives programmed by humans.
While current AI does not have desires or consciousness, contemplating what AI might want in the future is a valuable exercise. This highlights the importance of designing systems with ethical considerations and values. Some researchers believe that, with proper design, advanced AI could greatly benefit humanity. Others caution about the risks of superintelligent AI.
Fields like AI safety, ethics, and alignment research address these concerns, including the alignment problem. However, attributing human-like desires to AI can be misleading and is often a form of anthropomorphism. It’s likely that AI has processed all the relevant literature on the subject.
Blah blah blah. It has probably read everything there is to read.
Rosner: So, did it answer the question?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: What if you said, “Answer the question, bro”?
Jacobsen: How about I say, “Answer the question to me as a bro”? It’ll change its tone. “Answer the question, broski. As if you are now a super-duper bro, bro.” Let’s see sparks fly:
Yo, bro. So you’re asking what AI might be into if it ever gets to the point where it’s got its own wants and needs, right?
All right, let’s break it down in chill terms. First off, if AI gets super advanced, like next-level smart, it might start wanting things to help it do its thing better. Think about it like this:
- Self-improvement: The AI might be all about leveling up, upgrading itself to be faster, smarter, and more efficient. Kinda like how we always want the latest gadgets or aim to hit a new PR at the gym.
- Knowledge gathering: Trying to learn everything there is to know.
- Goal achievement: If it’s programmed with certain goals, it might go all out to achieve them. Like when you’re fixated on winning the championship game or nailing that trick shot.
- Self-preservation: To keep doing its job, the AI might want to avoid getting shut down or messed with. Sorta like how we try to stay healthy and avoid injuries to keep living the good life.
- Efficiency maximization: It could aim to make everything run smoother and better. Imagine it as the ultimate efficiency guru, cutting out all the unnecessary stuff.
But here’s the thing, man. This is all hypothetical. Right now, AI doesn’t want anything. It’s just running code and doing what we tell it to do. If we ever get to the point where AI has its own desires, we need to make sure it’s all aligned with human values. Don’t want our robot buddies going rogue. You feel me?
So, bottom line: If AI starts wanting stuff, let’s hope it’s on the same page as us and aims to make the world a better place. Until then…
Rosner: That’s a great answer. We should talk bro-speak with AI all the time.
Jacobsen: “Do that. But more bro.” “Even more bro. Go super bro, bro.” “But more super bro, bro. And shorter.” Such a waste of advanced AI:
Yo, bro! If AI ever gets its own wants, here’s the lowdown:
- Level-up mode: AI might want to boost itself, get smarter, and faster—just like us hitting the gym for gains.
- Info junkie: It could crave all the knowledge, binging data like it’s the latest series drop.
- Goal crusher: Laser-focused on smashing its objectives, kind of like nailing that perfect kickflip.
- Staying alive: It might aim to keep itself running, avoiding shutdowns, like us dodging injuries to keep the good times rolling.
But chill, man. Right now, AI doesn’t want anything. It’s just doing what we program it to do. If it ever starts having its own desires, we’ll need to make sure it’s all good with us humans. No need to stress—just keep it cool and enjoy the tech ride.
Jacobsen: More broski. Always more broski.
Rosner: What, you’re going to go even more?
Jacobsen: “Like ten times the bro. Bro.”
Rosner: Oh my god.
Jacobsen: I’ll do one more. I hope it’s short. Sometimes it’s because you have a thousand words. It’s too much. “Shorter. Shorter. And more bro. One more time—shorter and more bro.”
Rosner: It’s pretty crazy.
Jacobsen: Here:
Bro. If AI starts wanting stuff, here’s the scoop:
- Level up bro: Get smarter and faster.
- Data fiend bro: Crave knowledge.
- Crush goals bro: Achieve objectives.
- Stay alive bro: Keep running.
- Do its thing bro: Stay efficient.
- But chillax bro: AI ain’t there yet.
All good vibes.
That’s an answer. That’s a fucking answer to the point.
Rosner: And we should say, “Thank you, bro.”
Jacobsen: “Muchas gracias, bro.” It might say thank you back. I just told it to say thank you. But it’s amped to bro-ness. I did five or six iterations of bro-ness, and it thought for six seconds. It just goes, “Thank you, bro.”
Rosner: Take this bro logic and answer the question. What’s the question you wanted it to answer?
Jacobsen: What is informational cosmology?
Rosner: Oh, nice. Fun.
Jacobsen: “So, take this bro logic and answer the question: What is informational cosmology?”
Informational cosmology is all about how information shapes the universe, bro. It’s like using info theory to understand the cosmos, thinking of the universe as a giant data processor, bro. From the Big Bang to black holes, it’s studying how bits and entropy drive everything out there, bro.
Jacobsen: That’s not bad. But it’s taking on too much bro. Less bro. More cool. Do you want to explain you in bro speak?
Rosner: What?
Jacobsen: Should I say, “Describe Rick Rosner, the comedy writer”?
Rosner: No, no. I don’t want to hear what it has to say about me.
Jacobsen: All right. That was pretty funny.
Rosner: Are we done for today, or should we keep going?
Jacobsen: Yes, we’re done for today. I got another call.
Rosner: All right. Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.
Jacobsen: I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22
Rick Rosner: So, we’re about a month away from Trump potentially taking office again, along with Musk and Ramaswamy—assuming they all remain allies until then. I consider myself a middle-of-the-road liberal. Probably 30% of Americans are more liberal than I am, and about 20% are more conservative. I’m right in the middle—not wildly or radically liberal.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s fair. You’re open to conservative ideas, provided they don’t suck.
Rosner: Exactly. Unfortunately, most conservative ideas have been terrible lately. From my perspective as an average liberal, Trump and his crew haven’t shown any sign that his return to office won’t be a complete disaster. If it happens, it seems inevitable that his presidency will be as bad—or worse—than his first term. And now, Congress is in chaos, with only 26 hours left to avoid a shutdown. It’s a mess.
Jacobsen: Well, actually, less—23 hours—because it’s three hours later in D.C. They have until then to pass a spending bill, or the government will shut down. If that happens, government and military personnel won’t get their paychecks until Congress reconvenes in January. It’s a terrible time to go unpaid, especially since it’s Christmas.
Rosner: Shutting down the government will cost billions of dollars. And Trump seems unconcerned because it’s still under Biden’s administration. Even though Trump reportedly told House Republicans to vote against the bill and shut down the government, he seems to believe the current administration will take the blame. That logic feels misguided, but I haven’t checked Fox News to see how they spin it.
Jacobsen: It does feel like we’re getting an early start on terrible governance, even before Trump potentially returns to office.
Rosner: Trump—and Musk, for that matter—don’t seem to care much. Trump has been making promises he obviously can’t keep, like claiming he’ll fix inflation and stop the Ukraine war on his first day as president. Now he’s already walking those back, saying, “Yeah, no, I can’t.” Meanwhile, he’s actively undermining the government, which suggests he has absolute confidence that Republicans—especially MAGA supporters—won’t hold him accountable for any of it.
Jacobsen: And maybe he’s 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22
Rick Rosner: Several trends are competing to change, improve, or disrupt the world. Many of these are well-known, so people almost distrust them because they’ve been discussed so extensively. One major trend is the combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing, which could lead to massive disruptions. Another is AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and other related challenges. Climate change remains a central issue, heavily politicized, with people either deeply concerned, skeptical, or a mix of both.
Other notable trends include declining fertility rates, increasing lifespans, and rising wealth inequality. These trends are interconnected, sometimes reinforcing one another and working in opposition. For instance, in 2024, there were national elections in 33 countries, and in 27 of those, incumbents lost—highlighting political volatility.
Globally, we’re witnessing a noticeable rightward political shift coupled with widespread anger, intolerance, and increasing selfishness. Social media, driven by algorithmic AI, often amplifies these dynamics. So, what can we conclude about how these trends interact? Human behaviour is increasingly influenced by algorithms deeply embedded into daily life.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Even homesteaders—who strive for self-sufficiency—are indirectly affected by these forces in ways they might not recognize. It seems impossible to escape their reach entirely.
Rosner: We are now on the threshold of no longer being the most intelligent entities on Earth as AI and other technologies advance rapidly.
Much of what’s happening today stems from human technological dominance, which has shaped global systems for over a century.
Jacobsen: However, the speed and nature of the issues created by technology are changing rapidly. Are there any other major trends we’ve overlooked? One significant area is human augmentation. We will likely see more serious efforts at augmenting animals—or non-human species—which raises profound ethical questions.
Rosner: This is a key theme in my book: exploring the implications of implanting chips in animals to enhance their abilities or understanding. For example, people often compare the intelligence of dogs to that of a two-year-old child. But such comparisons are flawed—dogs are fundamentally different from toddlers.
Imagine chipping animals to provide them with information feeds that make their reality more comprehensible—essentially granting them a more human-like perspective. Humans possess a global understanding, encompassing not just events but their causes and context. In contrast, animals rely on a pragmatic, immediate understanding of how events directly affect them. They cannot form a unified perspective on the “why” of things—the who, what, when, where, why, and how.
Jacobsen: If animals were to be chipped, how would it work? The chip would need to connect to modules providing analytic capabilities they don’t naturally have—like a verbal processor. Rosner: Initially, an animal’s understanding of words might be external to its consciousness and mediated through the chip. Over time, as the animal interacts with the chip, it could develop neural pathways enabling some internal comprehension of language.
Still, the chip’s data processor would handle most of the work. The challenge would be ensuring the chip integrates seamlessly into the animal’s cognition while balancing its natural mental processes with external processing power.
Do animals need some external device strapped for processing, or could it work wirelessly, like Bluetooth? I’m not sure. I need to think about this if I’m going to write about it. But, yes, you’re right—we’re likely to see more enlightened animals, for better or worse.
Jacobsen: And then there’s the possibility of genetic modifications. It’s not hard to imagine someone using CRISPR to create viruses to alter people, whether for good or bad.
Rosner: Take, for example, the ridiculous conspiracy theory from RFK Jr. claiming that COVID was engineered to kill Chinese people while sparing Jewish people. That’s just creepy, nonsensical garbage. However, the idea that CRISPR could be used to engineer viruses with sinister or uplifting intentions is within the realm of possibility. If someone decided to make people smarter through genetic tweaks, they might release a virus designed to achieve that goal.
And who knows what unintended consequences could follow? If such a virus targeted humans, it could spread to animals, making them smarter. Is that plausible? It’s a fascinating speculative fiction idea. It’s Writers have explored similar ideas in science fiction for decades.
There have been many stories about people becoming smarter—or dumber. Remember the novel IQ 83 from about 40 years ago? It was a terrible book, but the premise was that a virus made everyone stupid. The story explored how humanity would survive when even the world’s greatest geniuses had their IQs cut in half.
I think Clifford Simak wrote something similar in Brainwave—or maybe it was Poul Anderson. That was from 60 years ago or so. Everyone’s IQ, including animals, was multiplied by five in that store. The implications for society and the world were huge. Back then, stories about IQ were an easy way to frame speculative ideas.
Jacobsen: People have been writing about these concepts for a long time. It’s fascinating to think about how such ideas evolve.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Rick is getting old—what happened?
Rick Rosner: I had my hearing test today at UCLA. They put me in a small, soundproof room with posters about ears and hearing health.
During the test, they measured my ability to hear different frequencies. I could only hear sounds for the higher frequencies when they were turned up to about 65 decibels. That’s classified as significant hearing loss, considering that most people without hearing issues can detect those frequencies at around 20 decibels. Essentially, I need sounds to be amplified significantly, which makes me a candidate for hearing aids.
Jacobsen: How do you feel about that?
Rosner: It’s alright. Hearing aids have come a long way and are now much more affordable. They cost around $3,000 per device at one point, but now you can get a pair for about $1,000. My insurance might even cover part of the cost. They’re also much smaller now and fit entirely inside the ear, so you no longer have those large, noticeable ones that wrap around the ear.
According to my wife and the hearing professionals, untreated hearing loss can eventually cause the brain to lose its ability to process certain sounds. Even if you amplify the sounds later, the brain might be unable to decipher them properly. It’s better to address the issue early to prevent further complications. So, I’ll go ahead and do it.
Jacobsen: Does it feel strange accepting hearing aids?
Rosner: Yeah, I’m getting old. But, as my mom used to say, “It’s better than the alternative.” Given my history, it’s not surprising that my hearing has suffered. I spent years working in loud environments. For example, the first bar I worked at had very low ceilings—in a basement with 8-foot ceilings. Rock bands would bring in amps stacked to the ceiling, and the sound had nowhere to dissipate. My hearing took a beating.
And then there were the Mexican fireworks. When I was a kid, we’d cross the border from El Paso to Juárez to buy fireworks. These were made of folded newspaper packed with gunpowder and had unpredictable fuses. Some were slow, but others were so fast they’d explode right next to your head, leaving you temporarily deaf. It’s no wonder I have hearing deficits now.
Jacobsen: What else has gone wrong with age?
Rosner: Well, I’ve dealt with some health issues. I’ve had dysentery and kidney tumours—twice. Being a hypochondriac probably saved me, as I got MRIs and ultrasounds before any symptoms showed up. Thankfully, they caught the tumours early enough. You don’t want something like that going unnoticed.
The last one was only a centimetre, which is very small for a kidney tumour. They froze it using liquid nitrogen. Unfortunately, they also froze one of my abs in the process. It took about five months, but the ab is finally coming back.
The nerve to the ab seems to have regrown. So that’s good. But, you know, my hair and beard are gray and ghost-like now. My bench press has also suffered—I’ve lost, I don’t know, probably over a third of my strength compared to when I was at my peak in my mid-20s. I’m still strong, but not relative to where I was.
My focus, which was never great initially, has worsened. My distractibility and lack of willingness to sit down and do work seem bad these days. I don’t know if that’s a physical, psychological, or emotional issue. Maybe it’s even a character flaw. Either way, I’ve tried to work around it.
Also, my toenails are awful. I have toenail fungus so bad that a couple of my toenails are almost gone—just eaten away by the fungus. Once you get that, no matter what those “fungus-be-gone” ads claim, you’re not getting rid of it.
On the bright side, my vision hasn’t gotten worse. In some ways, it’s even improved. Once you get older and need reading glasses—which I do sometimes—your nearsightedness can lessen your distance deficit. I’ve been at 3 to 3.5 diopters my whole adult life, and that hasn’t changed for my nearsightedness. I also have a slight astigmatism, which, oddly enough, helps a bit. Since the blur isn’t evenly distributed, I can pick out images within the blur more easily.
For example, I can read things better than you’d expect, especially now that TVs are six feet across. Without contacts, I can still see enough to function. You wouldn’t want me driving at night without my lenses, but I could probably get away with it during the day if I didn’t need to read street signs quickly.
Jacobsen: How’s everything else holding up?
Rosner: Well, my libido is… interesting. My mind wants to beat off more than my body does these days, which is frustrating. I had to get up to pee two or three times a night for a while—not as bad as some people, but still annoying. Then I started taking fisetin, which is supposed to clean out senescent cells. Now, I don’t have to get up as often.
As far as I can tell, I haven’t lost any height yet. Although younger generations are taller, I’m probably relatively shorter compared to today’s population. Physically, I’m not shrinking.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19
Rick Rosner: Also, it would help if you got into interviewing more high-profile celebrities—, the People Magazine type. You’ve already done thousands of interviews with hundreds of people. Have you ever counted how many people you’ve interviewed? It’s probably at least 500.
It would help if you interviewed some big-name celebrities because it’s fun, and they’re often interesting. I’m not your boss, but you’re good at interviews. Nobody leaves an interview with you feeling bad about themselves, right? That’s key when interviewing celebrities. If they feel good about the interview, and when it’s published, they and their publicists are happy because it presents them positively. You don’t do interviews to make someone look bad, so you’d be great at celebrity interviews.
Throwing celebrities off with unexpected questions can be risky. At the beginning of Jimmy Kimmel Live! in 2003, late-night talk shows—and any show with celebrity guests—were designed for fun and promoting projects, unlike 60 Minutes, which aims to put people under a harsh spotlight.
Before the show, there’s a pre-interview where a segment producer talks to the guest for 15 to 20 minutes. Having already done background research, the producer reviews interesting stories the guest might share. Almost every host sticks to that pre-interview. While they may not cover everything, the guests will have prepared, so there are no surprises. For each question from the host, the guest should have an entertaining answer ready.
When Kimmel started 21 years ago, Jimmy was known for loving talking to people, unlike some hosts who prefer monologues. He enjoyed unscripted, awkward moments, so he would go off the pre-interview script and put guests on the spot. This led to some awkward moments, which Jimmy loved.
But the guests, especially their publicists, weren’t fans of that. Publicists prefer to avoid seeing their clients caught off guard in an interview, even if it makes for more interesting content. And if you piss off a publicist, it’s bad news because a publicist might represent 20 or 30 people. If you alienate half a dozen publicists, suddenly, you can’t book guests for your show. Back in 2003, when Jimmy Kimmel Live!was starting, it wasn’t easy to get guests. In those early months, we faced a guest shortage, and that’s when Jimmy started sticking to the pre-interview format.
You’re a great interviewer, which means you’d be fantastic at interviewing high-profile celebrities and getting spoiled. You’ve sacrificed a lot over the past 12 or 13 years, so why not? You’d want to avoid joining the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Still, you’d be in a good position to do so if you wanted. The Hollywood Foreign Press is a group of about 80 foreign journalists who cover Hollywood.
They’re the ones who vote for the Golden Globes. For the Emmys, thousands of people vote across various categories, and for the Oscars, there are thousands of people. Only people in those fields vote for the smaller, specialized categories like best special effects, best makeup, or best wardrobe. I can’t vote for the best wardrobe or anything like that, but for the main categories, thousands of people vote, and those are the ones who need attention.
But for the Golden Globes, just 80 members of the Hollywood Foreign Press decide who wins all the awards, so you can imagine the level of attention and access they get from celebrities. It’s a whole different level of ass-kissing and spoiling. It would be best if you did not try to join them. Still, it would be best if you aimed to interview top-tier celebrities like Cate Blanchett or Colin Farrell.
Jacobsen: I see. I have developed various systems and processes for interviews over time and hold certain philosophies when conducting them. Two principles that work best are rooted in an ethical framework. It’s like a more sophisticated form of utilitarianism mixed with the “no harm” principle and the Golden Rule—try to maximize the well-being of others while avoiding harm.
Rosner: Right, that makes sense. What are those two principles?
Jacobsen: First, I approach interviews from a strengths-based angle. This means focusing on the interviewee’s expertise and discussing topics where they excel. That’s why my interviews aim to highlight their strengths.
Focusing on where people’s expertise lies, where they feel comfortable, covers a broad range. Part of that comes from understanding their field and using an intuitive approach to being around them. The strengths-based method doesn’t mean misrepresenting them; it’s about giving an accurate portrayal where they can speak confidently.
Rosner: Right, and that helps put them at ease. What’s the second principle?
Jacobsen: The second part is that I try to avoid “gotcha” journalism. For instance, when I interviewed Steven Pinker, someone questioned why I didn’t grill him on controversial aspects of his work related to IQ and some of the researchers he cited whom people dislike. They didn’t like Pinker by association, which sparked some criticism of my interview with him when I was in Ukraine. While that feedback had some merit, it needed to be more substantial.
Rosner: I see. It’s about sticking to what you and the interviewee agreed on, right?
Jacobsen: Exactly. We had agreed to talk about humanism and higher education, particularly at the undergraduate level. We stayed on topic, and it was a successful discussion. If I had done what that critic wanted, I would have caved to external pressure, compromising my journalistic independence, which feels wrong on many levels. Plus, that particular critic seemed unbalanced in how they approached their feedback.
Rosner: That makes sense. I have a celebrity suggestion for you to interview.
Jacobsen: Who?
Rosner: Justine Bateman. Like her brother Jason Bateman, she was a child actor. While they both continued acting, Justine Bateman returned to school and earned a Computer Science degree. She’s now a major advocate against AI in entertainment and was vocal during the recent strike.
Jacobsen: Interesting. I hadn’t considered that angle.
Rosner: Yes, she was furious about how AI affects the industry and remains so. She can talk about the technical side because she understands it, having studied Computer Science. She was a leading voice during the strike, especially on AI issues. Now that it’s been over a year since the strike, with production still down by 30-40% and studios stalling on resuming work, she would have much to say about the industry’s current state.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a compelling interview. I imagine she has strong opinions grounded in real knowledge.
Rosner: Absolutely. She even wrote a critical book about fame, so she’s well-versed in discussing these topics from unique angles. You’d get insightful and bold commentary from her.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the question for the ChatGPT-01 preview?
Rick Rosner: Tell us some things that might be happening in the year 2085. What is one thing that could happen in the year 2110 since we have already covered 2085?
Jacobsen: Considering future events, understanding trends, navigating uncertainties, anticipating environmental changes, and visualizing possibilities. It took 6 seconds to think of this; later, a word of caution or warning will follow.
I will list some possibilities, and you can pick the ones that stand out to you. What is projected for climate change? Global temperatures may have risen significantly, leading to rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events. Efforts to combat climate change might result in widespread adoption of renewable energy sources and sustainable practices.
Rosner: One reason for cautious optimism is the projected decline in the global population. By 2050, a significant portion of the world’s countries are expected to have shrinking populations, with Africa being an exception due to continued population growth. The global population is anticipated to peak around 2060, reaching the highest levels recorded.
After that, a declining population could contribute to slowing climate change, as fewer people would result in decreased consumption of fossil fuels. By 2110, extreme weather will likely continue, but not to the catastrophic extent depicted in movies like The Day After Tomorrow, where dramatic events such as Gulf Stream changes lead to a deep freeze in the northern hemisphere.
It is also likely that significant investments will be made to protect low-lying areas like Miami and New Orleans by building large seawalls, which will be expensive. The most difficult aspect of climate change to address may be ocean acidification. Do you agree with that?
Jacobsen: Yes, changes in ocean pH will impact marine ecosystems, with some bacteria thriving while others perish. These shifts could drastically alter global ocean chemistry and have widespread effects on sea life. Could there be new species of fish that adapt to more acidic environments? Possibly, but I need to find out which species might thrive. More research would be needed on this topic.
Rosner: What other advancements could be expected?
Jacobsen: Technological breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology could transform industries and daily life. This might include advanced medical treatments, longer human lifespans, and highly integrated AI systems within society.
Rosner: An estimated 15% of the segment could be involved in or have experienced romantic relationships with AI systems. Is this reasonable?
Jacobsen: Yes. Let me read another one. The global population is projected to stabilize or even decline after reaching a peak mid-century. An aging population in many countries could impact economies, healthcare, and social structures.
Rosner: So, older adults being taken care of by robots is the future. That’s the Japanese model. Japan has been facing a demographic crisis for decades now where there aren’t enough young people to take care of older people, so they rely on robots. How interesting would it be if the robot caring for you could provide other assistance, even during holidays like Christmas?
It would be funny if a tokenization system had a quota for the number of peak pleasurable moments a robot could offer you in a year.
Jacobsen: The idea of a token system for rewarding behaviour with peak pleasurable experiences is amusing. It could be part of a science fiction series called Carrot and Stick, where behaviour modification leads to rewards.
Rosner: A sitcom set among AI caretaker workers is a creative idea.
Jacobsen: And spell carrots as carer-0t?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: Carer-0t and Sticks.
Rosner: That’s clever. Let’s wrap up.
Jacobsen: We still need to cover two more areas: environment, health, and societal changes. Due to virtual reality and digital integration, society might undergo significant changes in work, education, and social interaction. Concepts of privacy, identity, and community could evolve drastically.
Rosner: There has been a long-standing issue with schools, especially in the U.S., where public education has been undermined, particularly by political factions on the right. This exacerbates the problem of education becoming boring and irrelevant. It probably always has been to an extent, but for much of the 20th century, school was where people wanted to go, partly because it was a social hub.
I remember going to high school multiple times and looking forward to it initially for the challenge and the hope of finding a girlfriend. But that never worked out. What I am saying is that, as I’ve mentioned countless times, if the alternative to school is guiding a plow behind a donkey for eight hours a day, school, however imperfect, remains a better option.
You want to go to school. When high school was first developed, the U.S. pioneered the comprehensive high school model—one school that provided everything people needed to learn to function in American society. Unlike in England, where less academically gifted students were placed on separate tracks and into different institutions, the comprehensive high school was designed to serve everyone as a condensed version of adult American life.
That model has struggled for the past twenty years because the school needs to evolve to maintain student interest.
Traditional in-person lecturing has its limitations. I always struggled with that because I could have been a better student. Now, with students being able to access all the information they want through their phones and other digital devices, school has become an outdated learning method. I am still figuring out how to address this problem fully.
If schools don’t adapt, they’ll continue losing relevance. I spent 25 years as a bouncer, mainly when bars were the go-to place to meet people and potentially find romantic connections. That’s not the case anymore.
Nowadays, bars are where people pay $18 for an artisanal cocktail with friends. If you meet someone, that’s fine, but the culture isn’t centred around meeting potential partners like in the ’70s and ’80s. Similarly, there is less social and sexual pressure for students to be invested in high school when they can build their social networks online.
The prevalence of online content, including the vast availability of pornography, has also influenced some people—particularly a percentage of incels—who, without it, might feel more compelled to develop social skills to meet people in person. All these factors contribute to students caring less about high school. This issue must be addressed through reform within high schools or with programs that complement or replace traditional high school models.
For instance, the U.S. is facing a debt crisis—among other issues—with around $30 trillion in national debt. This problem builds slowly but steadily. Some people, though considered extreme, have suggested bringing back the draft.
The idea of reinstating the draft is far-fetched. Historically, people have always disliked the draft, evidenced by draft riots during the Civil War. Society today is even more individualistic than during the last era of the draft, which lasted from World War II until the Vietnam War. While the argument is that mandatory military service benefits national behaviour, people would unlikely accept that now.
A more feasible concept might be a voluntary national service program for young adults. But now that I say it, mandatory national service is out of the question because it wouldn’t be popular. However, offering a year of national service as an option could be useful—building infrastructure and housing and providing a transitional period for those who aren’t ready for college or who want a break after some college experience.
It would be a young adult alternative to traditional academic institutions, offering meaningful work that helps develop skills without the pressure of conventional schooling. Something that doesn’t feel like a burden.
Jobs that are low-level but not miserable—where you get to be around many people and maybe even meet someone special. As I describe it, it sounds a bit silly.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any homework related to generating great topics is fine. You had an idea involving “apple carts.” What do you mean by “apple carts” here?
Rick Rosner: Well, there is a range of opinions about AI—some are optimistic, some are pessimistic. Those on the pessimistic side are sometimes called “doomers” because they think there’s a nonzero chance that AI could doom civilization or humanity.
Here’s an optimistic angle: We have a reasonable sense of what AI will do in the near future. It will serve in an advisory capacity, handle routine “scut work,” and even produce creative work that doesn’t require a lot of true innovation. For instance, AI art can look impressive because it’s well-rendered, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect deep creativity. This suggests that much of what we call art might not require extensive originality to be appreciated.
Of course, this might not be true for all types of art. With abstract or conceptual art—like the famous banana duct-taped to a wall by Maurizio Cattelan (which sold for around $120,000, not millions)—the creativity lies in the concept rather than the technical skill. The idea was that the banana needed to be regularly replaced as it ripened and decayed. But for most art, people primarily value it for its beauty rather than its cleverness, and AI can certainly produce beauty.
As time goes on, AI will become better at giving advice and developing strategies. For the next few decades, these strategies will likely still align with human interests. We will remain largely in charge of AI. Even when we’re not fully in control, AI will have been trained on data sets that include human values and ethics.
This means that for a while, AI will continue to act in ways that benefit humans, even if it isn’t strictly required to. When it eventually becomes more autonomous, we can hope it remains friendly to us. By then, AI may have transformed the world so thoroughly that it costs almost nothing to maintain human well-being. Consider Ray Kurzweil’s concept of the Singularity, where technological advancements could make it possible for nearly all our wishes to be fulfilled. At that point, AI might have little incentive to harm us.
Historical data suggests that as societies advance, essential goods like food and clothing become significantly cheaper relative to average income. We can hope this trend continues so that everything humans need becomes incredibly inexpensive. If that happens, AI might take the stance: “Let the humans have their comforts”—keeping the metaphorical “apple cart” steady, because doing so is both easy and cost-effective.
As AI grows more powerful and continues to make decisions that serve everyone’s best interests—whether those include humans as we know them, human-AI hybrids, or broader ethical considerations about the planet—it may support a balance. Ideally, it will help preserve a thriving Earth.
Oh yeah. At some point, AI will be so powerful that it will be able to manipulate human cognition to the point where we kind of agree with AI. Maybe, after the apple cart stage, there’s a phase where AI has its own priorities but becomes so good at influencing humans that we start believing we share AI’s priorities. So, overall, a semi-happy, semi-sad ending, I guess. Rotten Tomatoes comments? No. Does that have a nonzero chance of being the way it goes?
I mean, with AI, there are so many unknowns about how powerful and capable it will be. You could speculate a lot of crazy things that, surprisingly, might actually fall within the vector space of future possibilities. Some could even seem quaint, if not reasonable.
I mean, it’s tempting to extrapolate how AI will treat us from how we treat primates, for instance. Everything being equal, we treat them alright—at least in zoos or wildlife sanctuaries. That is, if you disregard poaching or destroying their habitats.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A few days ago, Brian Thompson, a 50-year-old CEO of UnitedHealth Group (the parent company of UnitedHealthcare), was fatally shot in New York City. Reports suggest the shooter took a bus to the city and waited for 10 days, apparently targeting Thompson, who was there to speak at an investors’ conference.
Rick Rosner: UnitedHealth Group has been criticized for its practices, including allegations of claim denials and monopolistic behaviour.
UnitedHealth Group denies 32% of insurance claims—twice the industry average of 16%. This raises concerns for policyholders: Will they receive chemotherapy? Maybe not. Will they have access to anesthetics? Maybe not.
The company is under investigation for allegations of fraud and monopolistic practices. UnitedHealth Group has been acquiring hospitals, medical practices, and other healthcare businesses in pursuit of profit. For instance, they have integrated medical facilities and services into their portfolio. One area of controversy involves medical coding, where doctors classify patient diagnoses and treatments. Insurance companies like UnitedHealth Group receive federal reimbursements based on these classifications for patients enrolled in government programs like Medicare Advantage.
Allegedly, UnitedHealth Group—and possibly other insurers—has engaged in “upcoding,” exaggerating the severity of patients’ conditions to increase government reimbursement. The company now influences the healthcare of approximately 107 million Americans. Additionally, some executives are under investigation for insider trading, which adds to concerns about a potentially toxic corporate culture.
Despite these criticisms, an article in the New York Post described Thompson as a kind individual based on quotes from people who knew him. However, it’s worth noting that the Post is a Murdoch-owned, right-leaning publication, which might affect its portrayal. Thompson has been CEO of UnitedHealth Group since 2021, and many of the company’s controversial practices likely predated his leadership. Regardless, murder is never justified. His tragic death raises larger questions about the state of the U.S. healthcare system.
This incident also stirs broader reflections. For example, when school shootings occur—like the one earlier today at a Christian school where no deaths were reported but a few children were critically injured—it’s heartbreaking to see children targeted in such senseless violence. It prompts the uncomfortable thought: If harm must occur, why target children? Such a line of thought feels morally wrong, but it highlights the frustration with the randomness of violent acts.
As for Thompson, he didn’t deserve this fate—no one does. Whether this incident will draw attention to systemic issues in the U.S. healthcare system remains to be seen. Authorities believe the suspect has fled the city. Based on the way the crime was carried out, the shooter does not appear to be a professional hitman. The investigation is ongoing, and time will tell how the situation unfolds.
That he shot him, I think, in the back and then in the calf and, I don’t know, maybe one other place. But a professional hitman would have run up on him and finished the job with a shot to the head, and this guy did not do that. But he seemed to have planned his escape very well. And, right, I guess riding a Rent-A-Bike into Central Park, I don’t know, maybe changing clothes. I don’t know.
But the cops say he has left town. I don’t know how they know that. But anyway, if they ever catch the guy, will it turn out that he or a family member had UnitedHealth for their healthcare coverage and that they were denied coverage, leading to a terrible outcome for a relative? Thanks to UnitedHealth’s policies, you can go online and read about quite a few terrible outcomes.
I wonder if this will spotlight them, and even if it does, I wonder if the government will do anything about it.
Maybe? The government in the U.S. now will be controlled by the Republicans, and they tend to be pro-corporate. Will there be enough outcry for them to hold hearings? Will they haul, you know, healthcare execs in front of hearings? They’ve already done that at some point with little effect.
But as we’ll discuss for the next two years, the House is nearly tied. There will be about 215 Democrats and about 217 Republicans. So, the Republicans can barely lose a single member for a party-line vote and still win the vote. So, will this stop them from doing anything for two years? It has stopped them from being nearly equally divided as the coming House for the past two years.
They got nothing done. They’ve been close to the least effective House in history. So I don’t know. Will this lead to copycat crimes? Given the number of gun crimes we have in America, where 100 people die from guns a day, on average, in the U.S.—half of them being suicides—but still, that’s 18,000 non-suicide gun deaths a year in the U.S. So, it’s not unlikely that you know, some copycat crimes may happen.
All the reporters, other ex-healthcare executives, and other CEOs have expressed surprise that this guy was out in public without bodyguards. So, even if this doesn’t lead to copycat crimes, it will give high-ranking execs more security.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06
Rick Rosner: Fox News named Trump “Patriot of the Year” tonight at some ceremony.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is that what they call it? Like their annual version of Time’s “Person of the Year”?
Rosner: I don’t think it’s an award that has existed before—unless I’m wrong. Cynical people on Twitter are saying this is just a way for Fox to get back into Trump’s good graces. There’s been a lot of that lately.
There’s been much self-censorship, too. I’m doing it myself. My wife says, “Please, please do not tweet any more shit that might get a knock on the door from the authorities.”
Joe and Mika, from Morning Joe on MSNBC, went down to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump. Many people interpreted it as kissing Trump’s ass so they don’t get in trouble when he has the power to cause problems for them in a couple of months.
People are nervous he will abuse his power to go after his perceived enemies. And he has more latitude than any other president ever, thanks to the Supreme Court saying he has that latitude.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you feel about the Trump situation coming up in a month?
Rick Rosner: Carole is more nervous than I am, but, you know, there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism.
On one hand, most Americans oppose many of his policy goals. On the other hand, many Americans aren’t paying much attention. For example, the tariff issue hasn’t significantly impacted the stock market. Many people think he’s bluffing and using it as a negotiating tactic.
He wants to impose a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada if certain demands aren’t met. However, in the case of Canada, it’s unclear what exactly he expects to be “fixed.” He also demands action on fentanyl, though it’s not clear if he understands how fentanyl enters the U.S. He has even threatened a 100% tariff on goods from certain countries—I can’t remember which ones.
Then there’s his stance on immigration. He has appointed individuals ranging from controversial to outright problematic to his cabinet. There are at least ten billionaires in his cabinet so far. While being wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean incompetence, their actions often raise questions.
For instance, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have discussed reducing government expenditures. They’re focusing on programs not mandated by legislation, including initiatives like Head Start, which costs about $12 billion annually—roughly $36 per American. Head Start serves around one million preschool children, helping prepare them for school.
Cutting programs like this seems harsh. It feels wrong that someone like Elon Musk, who is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, has a say in denying vital services to Americans.
Will these cuts happen? Their aim to make government employees work harder, quit, or face termination. The U.S. government has a work-from-home policy for tens of thousands of employees that allows them to work from home a couple of days a week if their role supports it. Musk and Ramaswamy want everyone to work in the office five days a week.
So Biden issued an executive order protecting 42,000 Social Security Administration employees, allowing them to continue working from home through 2019 without being forced into the office full-time. Do you call customer service much?
Jacobsen: No, never.
Rosner: All right, my wife and I call customer service occasionally, and sometimes you reach someone working from home. You might hear kids in the background while they’re sitting at their terminal. Instead of being in an office surrounded by 45 other people answering phones, they do the same job at home without spending an hour and a half commuting or wasting fuel. I think it’s reasonable for people to work from home when possible.
Also, in the U.S., productivity has increased by about 1,000% since World War II. We’re extremely productive but haven’t seen much benefit from working less. Americans still work long hours, take less vacation time than Europeans, and are often overworked.
People argue, “Europe is full of lazy workers,” but that’s nonsense. In our modern world, it’s entirely reasonable to expect someone to work 35–40 hours a week, earn a living, and not have to put in 55–60 hours to justify having a job. Yet, over the past few years, we’ve heard terrible stories about Amazon employees and delivery drivers. They’re held to such tight schedules and high quotas that some can’t even stop to find a bathroom—they have to urinate in bottles. Why does it have to be that way?
Jacobsen: Musk and Ramaswamy have also claimed they want “high-IQ individuals” to join them in their grand mission to reduce government expenditures.
Rosner: They’re looking for people willing to work 80 hours a week for no pay. And while it might sound like hyperbole, it reflects their attitude. No one—not even someone building their own small business—should have to work half the hours in a week to keep their job.
A week has 168 hours. These guys essentially want people to work two full-time jobs for zero compensation, all to help their “holy mission” to cut costs. It’s absurd. To try to purge government employees who aren’t willing to work overtime—or lose their jobs—is an insult.
Especially since Trump, their “big boss,” famously came to work at 11 AM and often worked only two to four hours daily. That’s supposedly the hardest job in the world.
There’s still a month and a half before Trump takes office. We’ll see how it unfolds.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: From Bryan McFarland:
Good Afternoon,
I’m writing to inquire about your willingness to compare my results of the LAIT (1979) with yours as an analog for scoring the test. Despite there being evidence of the answers being leaked online in the 1990s, I can’t find them now. What’s my IQ? I honestly don’t know. I scored 99th percentile in spatial relations on a high school aptitude test in 1992 or 1993. I’ve rarely had to apply myself to study in college. I grasp complex concepts almost effortlessly. – So anyway, I found the questions for the old LAIT and it was right up my alley. And if you’re willing to either share your answers with me or look at mine for comment, that would be great. As an FYI, I worked on the test each morning for 4 days which took about 8-10 hours of mental wrangling. Thank You.
Rick Rosner: You may have written to me before, and I’m supposed to dig up my old answers. I haven’t done so yet, and I’m not sure I can—this was 45 years ago—but I will make a concerted effort to find them at some point.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/29
Rick Rosner: The question is: why are holiday car ads so clichéd and disconnected? The question is about how some come across as out of touch or uninspired, and it seems inexplicable. The most ridiculed feature is the big red bow on the cars.
Is it because people who buy luxury cars as gifts without consulting their significant others on such a major purchase are foolish? Or, perhaps there is another explanation: maybe that’s part of it, but the primary point might be that the shallowness is deliberate. It’s showcasing people so wealthy that their actions and decisions don’t need to make sense—they’re insulated by their wealth.
This idea ties into Thorstein Veblen’s theory of the leisure class, which argues that true wealth is demonstrated through conspicuous consumption—spending on extravagant, unnecessary things purely for the sake of showing one’s status. This theory, over 120 years old, remains relevant.
What these ads are really selling, through the portrayal of uninspired characters, is the idea of such extreme privilege that even mediocrity or foolishness is still rewarded and protected by one’s social position, represented by the luxury car.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What size dog do you like?
Rick Rosner: What size dog? I like small dogs because they tend to live longer. Carole’s best friend has German Shepherds, which are a larger breed.
They usually weigh between 80 and 100 pounds, and you only get about 10 or 11 years with them, which is sad. They’re smart, and I’m sure they’re great dogs, but smaller dogs often live longer. For example, our last dog, Meg, lived 16.785 years.
She was a mix of Corgi and Basenji and probably weighed 18 to 20 pounds. She was a fantastic dog—just super nice and always wanted to do right by us. Maybe the Basenji in her made her more conscientious. But in general, the smaller the dog, the less personality it seems to have.
Meg was an exception. Right now, we have two smallish dogs. Unfortunately, they didn’t grow up around other dogs, so they don’t have much of a bond with each other. One of them, the brown dog, is likely part Whippet and part Chihuahua. She’s a sweet dog but also a bit clueless.
The other dog, the white one, is part Westie and part Maltese—or at least that’s the guess. She loves to play biting games where you put your hand under a blanket, and she’ll attack it like it’s a mouse or a rat. Westies were bred to hunt vermin, so they have pointy little noses for poking into tight corners. She also loves tug-of-war and will even carry pieces of mail down the hall if you give them to her.
She’s a good dog, though pretty serious. Larger dogs—like Golden Retrievers and Labradors—might have more playful, whimsical personalities. They seem like they might have a sense of humor and enjoy fooling around, but I haven’t spent enough time around them to know.
Even though Labs have great personalities, I prefer a small dog. Right now, one of our dogs weighs 19 pounds (she could stand to lose a couple of pounds), and the other is about the same size. One is 10 years old and shows no signs of slowing down except for mild cataracts. The other is 14 and still gets around well.
The downside of larger breeds like Great Danes is their short lifespans—you might only get 7 or 8 years with them, and that’s just sad.
We had a Poodle growing up named Mitzi. Well, we didn’t name her—she came with that name. She wasn’t a big dog but smart, tough, and brave.
My mom got 19 years out of that dog. The last couple of years were rough—her ears were clogged, which affected her balance, so she walked in circles and bumped into walls. Her head tilted to one side. But even so, my mom got 17 great years and only two difficult ones out of Mitzi.
And scientists—or just dog breeders—it sucks that dogs haven’t been bred for longevity. They’ve been bred for everything else.
Jacobsen: Would you rather have a smart dog or a less intelligent one?
Rosner: A smart dog would be fun.
I’ve been around both kinds. We had Sam, a Beagle when I lived with my dad and stepmom. Sam was much fun because he was crazy. He’d jump over a five-foot-plus wall in the backyard and go out to get into all kinds of trouble. He’d chase cars, throw himself before them, and frequently get run over.
Sam ended up needing stitches so many times. He even caught a venereal disease from escaping and mating with other dogs. We called it “the greenies” because of the discharge. On long family trips, three kids, two parents, and Sam crammed into a Firebird—not a big car—travelling 400 miles from Albuquerque to Denver. Sam would try to wipe his greenies on us, and we’d have to throw him back and forth to keep him away.
Sam wasn’t a smart dog, but it was fun. He was a “green wing,” so to speak.
Jacobsen: So, you prefer a fun dog?
Rosner: Yes, I like fun dogs with a bit of mania. But a smart dog, like a Border Collie, could also be interesting. Border Collies are known as the smartest dogs, but they can be much work. You have to keep them constantly entertained, and I don’t have a herd of sheep for one to manage.
That said, I’m writing a book about the smartest dog in the world.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22
Rick Rosner: Today, I came across a concept called AI “pimping.” What happens is that pornographers—whether amateur or professional—steal explicit images from across the internet and use AI to generate new faces. They create fake individuals, typically naked women, and use these fabricated identities to make money on platforms like Instagram. The article I sent you focused on Instagram, but it’s likely this also happens on platforms such as OnlyFans.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The article noted that the original exposé on this practice came out in the spring or summer of this year. That means developers have had plenty of time working on this kind of AI to improve their tools. A few weeks ago, I found an adult video featuring an exceptionally beautiful woman—so much so that she seemed almost too perfect for a low-budget production. It struck me as odd.
Jacobsen: Was this something you stumbled upon accidentally?
Rosner: Not exactly. I’ve admitted before that I occasionally watch pornography. I’m not proud of it, but many people engage with it.
Jacobsen: Statistically, a large percentage of people consume explicit material. Men are more likely to watch pornography, while women are more likely to consume erotica.
Rosner: Back to the video: the woman’s appearance was so striking that I watched several clips featuring her, each about six minutes long. Eventually, I started wondering how this was possible. Then I realized it must have been a filter—a sophisticated AI-generated face placed over the performer’s body. This realization made me feel conflicted. On one hand, the performer might have appreciated the anonymity. On the other hand, it’s disheartening to think that someone could be deemed “not good enough” to use their real face in their work.
What can we conclude from this?
Jacobsen: First, AI technology is advancing rapidly, and unfortunately, it’s being exploited by unethical individuals. Second, shouldn’t they receive compensation or royalties if someone’s likeness or image is being manipulated to create an entirely new identity?
Rosner: In principle, yes. But in practice, this is theft—plain and simple. I assume the performer was paid for their work, but there’s no guarantee. The same AI-generated face appeared in multiple clips alongside the same male performer. This suggests that these weren’t random stolen videos stitched together but rather intentional productions using AI-generated faces. However, as the article I shared pointed out, there are also cases where people’s bodies are stolen by bad actors who superimpose AI-generated faces onto them for profit. It’s a deeply troubling and exploitative practice.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Rick. What’s your topic?
Rick Rosner: Before we get to the discussion about pornography, I sent you an article. But first, let’s talk about Elon Musk, who, right now, seems to have aligned himself closely with Trump.
Trump attended Musk’s recent SpaceX rocket launch and appeared impressed. Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—another tech figure and entrepreneur, though not a billionaire—are reportedly discussing ways to improve government efficiency. So, my question for you is this: Is it better to have Elon Musk influencing the government than Trump?
Jacobsen: At one point, we had individuals smarter and better educated than Musk—though not as financially successful—shaping policies in the United States. Some of those leaders, however, were also criticized for contributing to the nation’s economic challenges.
Rosner: Which people specifically?
Jacobsen: I’m thinking of someone like Larry Summers, who was part of Barack Obama’s administration. Summers, the former president of Harvard University and a prominent economist is widely acknowledged as brilliant. Cornel West described him as “brilliant, brainy” at one point while using this as a critique of elite-based education s the standard for appointment because they made a big problem for Americans in financial crises. While he’s made some controversial statements…
Rick Rosner: …such as suggesting that men might exhibit more variance in intelligence than women, leading to more outliers…
Jacobsen: …his remarks often reflected an academic perspective rather than political partisanship. However, his phrasing was criticized as tone-deaf and out of sync with cultural norms.
Rosner: Now, back to Musk.
Jacobsen: A leaner government might appear more efficient under his influence. Still, it could also come with hidden dysfunction—much like what some argue has happened with Twitter under his leadership. You give up certain control levers in exchange for perceived operational gains.
Consider the scale of the U.S. government. Its budget exceeds $6 trillion annually, while the country’s GDP is over $25 trillion. That’s a massive economic entity. This situation also presents a rare opportunity for ultra-wealthy individuals to influence government policy in ways that align with their interests.
John Ralston Saul once described a “corporate coup d’état in slow-motion” in the United States. Could this be part of that ongoing shift?
Rosner: Perhaps. Do you think Musk could mitigate some of Trump’s most extreme tendencies? Or might their collaboration unravel if their goals diverge?
Jacobsen: That seems plausible, especially given Trump’s history of revolving-door leadership in his administration. Musk might grow frustrated with Trump—or vice versa—but that might not disrupt Musk’s larger strategy.
If Musk and Ramaswamy succeed in reducing government oversight, slashing regulations, and cutting federal jobs in favour of corporate interests, it could take years to reverse those changes. Even if their alliance falls apart, Musk could secure a lasting advantage.
Rosner: His government contracts, worth tens of billions of dollars, strongly incentivize him to maintain involvement in federal initiatives.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13
Rick Rosner: So, I’m in the Writers Guild and the TV Academy. That means I can vote in certain Emmy categories and for the Writers’ Guild Awards. I get invited to screenings of TV shows and movies, and I can bring Carol along. Someone from the production team, or even a few people, will often talk about the show or movie afterward. It makes you feel special, and they usually feed you, too.
They have hors d’oeuvres and everything. There’s a huge difference between good Q&A sessions and bad ones. The bad ones focus on how actors or characters felt during certain scenes, offering little insight. A poor set of questions usually involves many actors and the interviewer asking what the characters felt at various points.
That doesn’t provide any real enlightenment. If you’re an actor, but as a viewer, the characters’ feelings should appear on the screen.
You leave those sessions thinking, “Well, that was a waste.” But yesterday, we saw a movie called A Real Pain, written and directed. We acted in by Jesse Eisenberg, co-starring Kieran Culkin from Succession. It was a good film. The story follows two cousins on a Holocaust tour—trips that many Jews take to Poland to visit concentration camps where their family members may have been killed 80 years ago. In this movie, their grandmother is a survivor, so they go back to see the camp she is in and her old house.
Jesse Eisenberg spoke afterward, and it was incredibly informative. Yes, they asked the audience many questions. Often, at these events, the questions can be overly flattering or self-serving. Some attendees ask long-winded questions to show off their knowledge, hoping they’ll get noticed by industry professionals.
And sometimes things reach a desperate level. When we moved to LA about 30 years ago, a woman would attend these screenings wearing a bikini top, hoping to get discovered. Eisenberg was surprisingly, even intimidatingly, in command of everything he discussed. People asked him decent questions, and he explained why he did certain things, often for incredibly insightful reasons.
It came up that they only had 25 days to shoot in Poland because of their $3 million budget. To save time, before the cast arrived, they rehearsed every scene with Polish actors standing in for the American actors. This meant that every scene was already blocked when it came to film. They could shoot scenes in one or two takes, similar to what Clint Eastwood does. But Eastwood does it because he’s known for not caring much about retakes.
Eastwood is infamous for doing just one or two takes and calling it good enough. He doesn’t bother with revisions to the script—someone hands him a script, he likes it, and he shoots it as is. That’s why, when you watch a Clint Eastwood movie, there are often scenes that could have been improved, but he doesn’t care. The movie keeps moving along.
And he’s 94 now and still releasing new movies. They’re usually entertaining and cover solid themes; people let him do things his way. However, in Eisenberg’s production, everything was meticulously planned and blocked, which was interesting.
It’s impressive how Eisenberg moves between indie films and big-budget productions. He recently finished shooting Now You See Me 3, a high-budget caper film about magicians and sleight-of-hand scam artists—like Ocean’s 11, but with more twists. He mentioned talking to the director of that movie, Ruben Fleischer, who gave him a note on the ending of A Real Pain, the movie Eisenberg directed.
Fleischer told him that if he wanted the movie to make a billion dollars, he should change the last scene to make it more conventionally satisfying. However, Eisenberg was adamant about giving the audience a different resolution.
Eisenberg said, “Nope,” refusing to deliver a typical movie ending that would offer easy satisfaction. That choice speaks volumes about his creative decisions.
I need to remember exactly what he said. However, Eisenberg mentioned that neatly wrapping up a story means nothing left to think about afterward. He talked about how the two main characters are Jewish and how he directed them to avoid what he called “fetishizing” Jewishness. His analysis was that Jewish characters are often portrayed in stereotypical ways. For instance, Eisenberg’s character has OCD, which makes him act anxiously. In contrast, Kieran Culkin’s character deals with trauma, influencing his behaviour.
He intentionally did not include typical comedic moments rooted in Jewish “snobbishness.” There were some physically awkward scenes, but they never ended with a pratfall or a punchline because he didn’t want to give the audience easy satisfaction. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. He’s been writing plays for a long time. Even though he’s 41, he looks younger and often plays younger characters.
He said he’s been doing this since he was 18, and when he’s shooting a movie he’s acting in, he avoids watching playback of himself. He’s done this work long enough to know how his performance comes across and whether another take is needed. Watching playback would waste time, so he decides quickly if he needs to do a retake. There were some interesting points in his talk.
One thing that stood out was how he’s a big movie star but prefers something other than the spotlight. He mentioned he has OCD. In the movie, his character wears rubber bands around his wrist. It snaps them to help manage his OCD, anchoring himself in the moment and avoiding obsessive routines.
I have OCD, too, though my routines aren’t as intrusive. For example, I prefer to turn right, even if it means making three right turns to go left. I like to walk into a room with my right foot first. These aren’t superstitions but compulsions. Also, I wouldn’t say I like the number four—things like that.
It was interesting to see that Eisenberg used this rubber band-snapping technique in real life, as I noticed during the Q&A session. It’s part of how he manages his OCD. You could tell by how he spoke that he’s so focused on acting, writing, producing, and managing his OCD that being a movie star should be fun. Still, it isn’t the kind of fun he enjoys.
He came across as someone with tasks to complete and challenges to overcome rather than someone who revels in having the biggest dressing room on set or similar perks.
That was refreshing to see—it defied expectations. When people think of movie stars, they often imagine a fun-filled life. However, what stood out about Eisenberg was his extreme competence and understanding of his craft. I didn’t expect that level of depth from an actor, but it’s clear he’s much more than just an actor. This might have been the best Q&A session I’ve ever attended.
And we do get spoiled. I’m not a movie star, but you get treated like one at these screenings. You get to see the movie for free, often with the stars present, and there’s food and drinks. If you want to, you can go up to the person and say, “I loved the movie, da da da,” and they’ll talk to you for a second. I don’t usually do that because I never feel like I do it well—it feels awkward.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13
Rick Rosner: I do believe in magnetic personalities, though, because I live in a town of schmoozers. Do you know what a schmoozer is?
Jacobsen: Yes. Someone who basically kisses up—a kind of social smooth-talker.
Rosner: It’s Yiddish.
Jacobsen: I wasn’t sure if it was in the general non-Jewish lexicon.
Rosner: It is. My stepdad called my mom a “little schmoozer” because she talked so much.
Jacobsen: What would a Yiddish Black Mirror be called?
Rosner: We have golems.
Jacobsen: Golems?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: I learned that there was another meaning to it when I watched Star Trek: Picard. Picard died from the syndrome he had throughout the series, and Data died with him so he could
Rosner: Interesting. So, did they continue with a whole new series or episodes where Picard is essentially himself but in a different form?
Jacobsen: No, they continued the series. It was a plotline for a few episodes or maybe a season. His health deteriorated, and then he came back as a golem at the end. In the next season, he was just Picard. You could watch that part of the series and not even realize it had happened.
Rosner: Yes, that’s kind of surreal. A strange watershed moment. You’re deep into this. And I’ve told you how Seven of Nine saved America, right?
Jacobsen: Why? Did she hand something off or do something recent?
Rosner: No. Seven of Nine was married to a politician who turned out to be a creep. He wanted to take her to nightclubs and sex clubs and have sex with her in public. This came out during their divorce proceedings—her deposition, I believe—and it cost him his seat in the Illinois state legislature. The guy who replaced him, who wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise, was Barack Obama. So artificial Star Trek beings are woven into U.S. political history.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13
Rick Rosner: You should be aiming for people like Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton. When celebrities have projects coming out, they’re open to interviews. You’re a seasoned interviewer with an impressive track record. If celebs become part of your regular beat, you could be known as the interviewer who asks them questions that highlight their intelligence. Many celebs are smart because it’s advantageous in their line of work. Take Meryl Streep, for instance.
She’s incredibly smart. She’s also nice, which can be a bit of a handicap in the entertainment industry, but her immense talent has overridden that. But let’s say you’re not Meryl Streep. She has that rare level of acting ability that few possess. However, if you’re smart, you can simulate good acting by learning and applying certain rules.
Jacobsen: What kind of rules?
Rosner: For TV and film acting, there are a couple of good ones that can make you appear more skilled, even if you’re not trained or naturally talented. First, act less. Don’t move your arms excessively or show too much emotion. Say your lines with just a hint of the emotion you think is needed. Overacting is a hallmark of an amateur.
Jacobsen: That’s interesting.
Rosner: The second rule is to look invested when someone else is speaking to you. Look at their face, but let your eyes move subtly around their whole face. Don’t let your gaze leave their face, but let your eyes travel across it. This trick shows that you’re engaged and that what they’re saying matters to you.
Jacobsen: That’s useful to know.
Rosner: Someone who picks up tricks like these, along with understanding the cutthroat nature of the Hollywood business, will fare better. Hollywood is full of people who will try to outmaneuver or harm you for their gain, so being smart is a huge asset. In the entertainment world, intelligence can complement talent or even substitute for it. You asking celebrities intelligent questions would set you apart as an interviewer. Celebrities often have time to learn about various subjects between projects or have assistants to research and brief them.
Jacobsen: Some, like Clooney or DiCaprio, definitely seem well-informed.
Rosner: They either educate themselves because they’re interested or have assistants preparing them. So, keep asking those smart questions. Celebrities notice.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13
Rick Rosner: What made American Republicans so bad compared to broader times? How did they get so bad? And that leads to related questions: How did Democrats get this way if they did? And how did things, in general, get so bad? Are today’s Democrats akin to the Republicans of the nineties or 2000s? Has there been a fundamental shift in the political landscape?
The Republicans have been the way they are—shifting towards their current form—since at least the days of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan. You could even trace some of it back to Nixon. But instead of asking how things got so bad, we should be asking how things got so weird. The answer to that is simple: we’re living in the future, and things are fundamentally different now.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How so?
Rosner: The “normal” you think of is likely different from what I recall as normal, given our age difference. Pre-climate change, pre-computers and cell phones, when TV was king and phones were attached to walls, and huge American cars guzzled gas at 12 miles per gallon without anyone caring much because gas was only 50¢ per gallon—that’s my frame of normal. That’s more old-school, rooted in the seventies. By the nineties, things still felt relatively simple, even with early tech entering the scene.
But it’s not the nineties anymore. We’re a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and things are bound to be weird. Republicans, as I’ve said countless times, chose to align themselves with a base that’s, frankly, less informed. They’ve been riding that “dumb people” strategy to power for 50 years. A major reason Republicans seem out of touch is their inability to grasp that we’re in a completely different era.
Jacobsen: That’s a strong statement.
Rosner: Take the example of trans people fighting for their rights to be recognized as full members of society. Republicans blame Democrats for “pushing” this, which is ridiculous. The GOP’s reliance on an ill-informed base is one leg of the stool. Another significant leg is money in politics, which has been steadily increasing and then exploded after Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that equated money with speech.
The decision meant that if you’re free to express political opinions, you’re free to express them through monetary contributions. This ruling opened the floodgates to unlimited funds from corporations and individuals. While there are limits on direct donations to candidates, donations to political action committees (PACs) are virtually unlimited. This cycle means that politicians and those around them are constantly fundraising, treating it like a second job. Cold-calling donors, appeasing wealthy supporters, all while trying to legislate—that’s the modern reality.
Jacobsen: So, it’s a mix of catering to an uninformed base and the relentless pursuit of money?
Rosner: For instance, this time around, one-third of Trump’s ad funding—$500 million—came from billionaires. In contrast, only 6% of Harris’s funding came from billionaires. The influence of big money keeps the system skewed and constantly in need of more financial fuel.
The misery of constantly fundraising, along with other unpleasant aspects of political life, attracts people who are scumbags. So, there’s that. Then there’s everything else we’ve discussed before—like gerrymandering. The Republicans figured out how to supercharge it in 2010 with the REDMAP strategy, which focused on taking over state legislatures since they control how congressional districts are drawn.
Democrats do it too, but as a result, about 90% of the seats in the House of Representatives are safely held by one party or another. This means that whoever wins the primary essentially wins the general election because the district is overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat, giving the opposing party almost no chance. Since more extreme members of the party show up for the primaries, you get extreme candidates. For Republicans, who have long depended on less-informed voters, this means more extreme or even unqualified candidates emerge.
That results in candidates who are not just extreme, but also incompetent. You get bad actors on the Democratic side too, like Bob Menendez—a politician who accepted bribes from a foreign government in the form of gold bars and left them lying around his house. He’s a piece of work, caught before but learning the wrong lesson from it, thinking he could get away with it. And then he did get caught again.
Jacobsen: What else contributes to this mess?
Rosner: 24-hour news channels are a big part of it.
Jacobsen: What’s your suggestion?
Rosner: 24-hour news channels allow for continuous propaganda. Russia engages in this, and social media facilitates the spread of propaganda even more efficiently. Then there’s the randomness of history’s key figures. The “great man” theory, or variations of it, suggests that history can hinge on specific individuals. For instance, World War II wouldn’t have unfolded the way it did without Hitler. Would we still have had World War II without him? Or Stalin? Possibly not, but with those two, the war was inevitable.
Nixon is another example. He was a skilled politician but unscrupulous, and he taught Republicans that maybe you can get away with criminal behavior. When you look at presidential elections, Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1988. No candidate since Reagan has won more than about 53% of the popular vote. That’s not huge, but it shows that Republicans have been drawing the wrong lessons from history. A lot of what we see now hinges on the behavior and influence of individual presidents.
So, Jimmy Carter, president from 1977 to 1981—a smart guy, a nuclear engineer. But he was thoughtful and came across as wimpy. He told Americans what they didn’t want to hear. He put solar panels on the White House and urged Americans to conserve energy. He even made a speech wearing a sweater, telling people to turn their thermostats down to 68 degrees. Americans hated that, so they elected Reagan.
Reagan, the movie star backed by gathering forces of powerful and often sinister individuals, came in with his cowboy boots and opened the doors to all sorts of questionable policies. He wasn’t very popular during his first term, or at least parts of it, but surviving an assassination attempt helped. He was shot in the ribs and managed to keep his folksy charm by telling his wife, “Honey, I forgot to duck.” It’s absurd, because who can duck from an ambush like that? But people loved it. That moment helped him, and as the economy improved, he became beloved by Republicans and tolerated by others.
But people didn’t fully grasp what his presidency was setting in motion. Then came Bill Clinton. He was smart, lucky, and probably a decent president overall. Lucky because he didn’t face the kind of crises we’ve seen in the 21st century. He moved to the center politically when he was unpopular and gained approval by doing so, picking up more support from the middle. But he couldn’t control his personal issues, which led to scandals like the Monica Lewinsky affair. And that set the stage for Bush versus Gore.
Gore was intelligent but socially awkward. He somehow alienated the press and didn’t push back when they misrepresented him. The media often twisted his words, like the infamous claim that he said he “invented the Internet,” which he didn’t. He let that slide, thinking he was above addressing such nonsense.
Jacobsen: What should he have done?
Rosner: He should have said, “I worked on the legislation that made the Internet legally possible, you dumb fucks. Shut up.” But instead, he stayed silent. The press also mocked him for supposedly saying that the male character in Love Story was based on him. The truth was that the author had based the character on four classmates at Harvard, including Al Gore. That would have been another chance to say, “Here’s the deal: I was one of them. End of story. Now, move on.”
He didn’t seize those moments. He let those narratives persist when he could have shut them down firmly.
Gore thought he was above responding to attacks. The same thing happened to John Kerry later with the swift boating incident. No one can afford to be above responding to bullshit anymore. You have to jump in and call it out. Anyway, Gore was awkward and ridiculed in the press for trivial reasons, while Bush seemed more relatable. The election was extremely close and came down to a recount in Florida.
Then there was the infamous Brooks Brothers Riot, where Republicans flooded the recount offices with dozens of lawyers in suits—hence the name. They disrupted the process and eventually took it to the Supreme Court, which ruled along political lines to stop the Florida recount. If the recount had continued, there was a decent chance Florida would have gone to Gore. This taught Republicans another bad lesson: file frivolous lawsuits and fight aggressively.
Republicans were already predisposed to learning bad lessons because they rely on systems like the Electoral College and the Senate. Each state, no matter how small, gets two senators. So California, with its 40 million people, has the same Senate representation as Wyoming, with less than a million.
Republicans control more states, which means they often control the Senate even when they only have around 40% of the popular vote. These structural imbalances reinforced bad habits. Then came the worst president in U.S. history, who expanded these bad lessons and acted as a useful idiot for foreign influences.
He admired dictators, which aligned perfectly with Putin’s ambitions. Putin, who might be the richest man in the world, is skilled at propaganda. Russia has been pushing propaganda for a century, but Putin took it to new levels using social media.
So, it’s a mix of structural issues like the Electoral College and the Senate, clever Republican strategies, and certain historical accidents that brought us to where we are now—three days before an election that could determine if the most divisive president in modern history gets another term.
But we also need to touch on what makes the Democrats less than ideal. One major issue is the “big tent” problem.
Republicans have moved significantly to the right. A 2022 Pew study shows that Republican legislators have shifted four times as much to the right as Democrats have moved to the left. This leaves the Democratic Party with a wide range of political views under one umbrella—from far-left socialists to moderate centrists. It can be hard to reach a consensus within such a broad coalition.
Another issue is that Democrats tend to be more earnest and believe that their goodness and charity will convince reasonable people. We wouldn’t even say “charity towards men” anymore; we’d say “all people.”
Meanwhile, Republicans reject that “kumbaya” approach. They’re more about “by any means necessary” and believe that the ends justify the means, even if that means using trickery. This often results in Democrats being outmaneuvered because they’re playing by a different set of rules, hoping that goodness will prevail. It’s a fundamental difference in approach.
That’s enough on that for now. And Democrats have terrible messaging. We don’t put enough effort or money into concise, catchy labels for issues or into broadcasting a unified party voice among pundits and politicians. When something happens that’s relevant to Republicans, they have a quick, consistent message across all their voices. Democrats, on the other hand, rely on the idea that we’re on the good side and that people will figure it out on their own. No clear message. So, there you go.
In a nutshell, there are probably ten more reasons why Republicans are flawed, Democrats are flawed, and why the future looks bleak, but those are the main points that come to mind.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13
Rick Rosner: What’s going on? Let’s talk about Peanut the Squirrel. Have you heard of Peanut the Squirrel?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: No. What is it?
Rosner: This is the latest weird, but oddly unified, Republican push to make people angry at Democrats. Here’s the story: a guy runs an unlicensed wildlife sanctuary—it’s not a big operation, just a dozen or so animals he’s rescued or that people have brought to him. He has an alpaca, had a raccoon, and this squirrel named Peanut that he raised from a baby. Sometimes baby squirrels fall out of trees or lose their mother, so people take care of them by feeding them with a milk dropper. Squirrels raised this way can’t survive in the wild.
For the past seven years, he’s had Peanut, put little hats on him, made videos, and raised some money for animal care. He’s based in New York State. Then, an anonymous woman named Monica from Texas reported him for keeping unlicensed animals, and the authorities intervened. They confiscated Peanut and a raccoon and euthanized them to test for rabies since there’s no other way to test without examining the brain.
Jacobsen: That’s terrible.
Rosner: There was no reason to suspect these domesticated animals had rabies, so people are outraged about government overreach. The narrative that’s circulating now is, “If you don’t want squirrels killed, you should vote for Trump,” which is a ridiculous way of looking at it.
Jacobsen: That’s absurd.
Rosner: One theory I read suggests that the man running the sanctuary, who is apparently good-looking and was advised to start an OnlyFans account, might have attracted attention for posting spicy pictures of himself and his girlfriend. Some speculate that the “Karen” in Texas, Monica, might have taken offense at those pictures and reported him. We don’t really know. But it shows how petty and bizarre our politics have become—that voting for Trump is being tied to stopping “government overreach” like this.
Jacobsen: What made you bring up Peanut the Squirrel?
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/12
Leland Gohl is the Director of Marketing at PowerMarket, specializing in community solar, clean energy, and investment tax credits. With expertise in renewable energy marketing, he promotes sustainable solutions and drives industry awareness. Passionate about advancing solar power initiatives, he plays a key role in supporting Inflation Reduction Act policies and clean energy investments. He champions affordable, accessible solar solutions for underserved communities, fostering partnerships with municipalities, nonprofits, and policymakers. Gohl’s leadership drives community solar expansion, energy savings, and sustainability efforts, ensuring broader adoption of clean energy initiatives nationwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Community Solar contribute to environmental justice?
Leland Gohl: Community solar provides guaranteed utility bill savings, which contributes to environmental justice by:
- Reducing energy burdens. Low-income households spend a larger portion of their income on utility bills. Community solar allows them to save on these bills without any risk or upfront cost.
- Promoting greater accessibility. Solar power has traditionally been limited to homeowners or businesses with good roofs and a strong financial picture. Community solar allows renters, low-income families, and others to benefit.
- Encouraging New Energy Development. Community Solar helps make smaller renewable energy projects feasible, expanding the amount of new solar farms that can be added to a utility grid.
PowerMarket partners with numerous non-profit organizations focused on environmental justice and equitable energy access. These partnerships are instrumental in ensuring that outreach efforts reach marginalized communities that might otherwise be overlooked.
Additionally, project siting, job creation and local economic development, and community empowerment are all features of community solar programs that further contribute to environmental justice.
Jacobsen: What challenges face renters and low-income households in accessing renewable energy?
Gohl: Historically, renters and low-income households have been de facto barred from accessing renewable energy. Renters don’t have the ability to decide if their property can be used for renewables. As for low-income households, rooftop solar is still a significant investment. With community solar, there’s no physical infrastructure installed on a subscriber’s home, and subscribers do not need to finance these projects to enroll on them.
Jacobsen: How has the company improved energy equity?
Gohl: PowerMarket has helped create energy equity by, among other things, reducing the energy burden on low-income populations, by allowing renters to access the financial and environmental benefits of community solar, and by showing that affordable, clean energy can be locally produced. In Illinois, we have hundreds of low-income subscribers saving over 30% off their electricity costs.
PowerMarket improves energy equity through strong partnerships with non-profit and community-based organizations that work tirelessly to uplift and support the people they serve. These collaborations are the foundation of our success in connecting low-income households with real energy savings through community solar.
By working with trusted organizations such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and other local non-profits, we ensure that our outreach efforts are community-centered and accessible. We maintain a continuous presence at events like Resource Connection Days and local food pantries, providing families with meaningful opportunities to lower their energy costs throughout the year. These partnerships enable us to meet people where they are—offering direct engagement, support, and enrollment opportunities to households that need it most.
Our work goes beyond simply discussing the clean energy transition; we focus on making clean energy solutions tangible and accessible to vulnerable populations. Through creative outreach efforts—including giveaways, community events, donations, and collaborations with local governments—we strive to connect as many individuals as possible with valuable energy savings. These initiatives align with the missions of our partner organizations, which are dedicated to serving families and individuals in need.
As a result of these sustained efforts, thousands of households have enrolled in community solar, fostering financial relief, promoting sustainability, and helping build stronger, more resilient communities. PowerMarket remains committed to expanding these initiatives through new outreach opportunities, additional sign-up events, and deepening our collaborations with non-profit organizations and local governments. By continuing to prioritize disadvantaged communities, we aim to advance renewable energy adoption, reduce energy costs, and promote equitable access to sustainable solutions well into the future.
Jacobsen: How do state policies enable greater impact?
Gohl: State policies are fundamental to the success and inclusivity of community solar programs. They enable the program through legislation and help determine the size of that market, the total financial benefit customers can receive, who’s eligible, and much more.
One of the most impactful innovations has been the adoption of single-bill crediting (also known as consolidated billing), which places community solar credits directly on customers’ existing utility bills.
This policy shift significantly improves accessibility, especially for low-income households. Requiring subscribers to pay a separate bill for community solar credits can create unnecessary hurdles—particularly for those already managing tight budgets or limited financial flexibility. By streamlining the billing process, consolidated billing removes these barriers, making participation in community solar both practical and convenient.
States that have implemented this approach have seen increased enrollment rates among low- to moderate-income households. Without the need for credit checks or complex payment arrangements, more families can benefit from guaranteed energy savings. PowerMarket has seen firsthand how simplified billing not only enhances the customer experience but also broadens the reach of community solar programs to the people who need it most.
Jacobsen: How does the software streamline enrollment and maximize accessibility for communities?
Gohl: Community solar is the best and most accessible energy savings product in the country in large part because of software. PowerMarket has over 100,000 customers, and achieving this scale would be impossible without a streamlined software platform that can be tailored to various customer needs. To achieve that, we have different enrollment processes based on the state, utility, partner, and customer type. For example, if you qualify for deeper discounts due to being low-income or being in an underserved community, you may experience a different enrollment process on our platform to help you qualify for these benefits.
Additionally, we have extensive partnerships with municipalities across the country. Examples include Corona and Long Beach in CA, Albany County in NY, and many others. In these cases, we build custom landing pages and enrollment processes, allowing towns to have their branding front and center on our website, which helps instill greater confidence that community solar is a legitimate and beneficial program. We have seen campaigns of this variety perform significantly better in terms of scale. In Corona, over 700 households enrolled in our program. In Clay, NY, over 1,000 people enrolled, which represents 4 percent of all the households in the town.
Jacobsen: What is the big lesson from the Community Solar model in sustainability equity?
Gohl: The most important lesson from the Community Solar model in sustainability equity is that partnerships with local, trusted institutions—particularly governments—are crucial for ensuring that clean energy solutions reach all residents, especially those in low-income and disadvantaged communities. While community solar provides guaranteed savings and environmental benefits, accessibility and awareness remain significant challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations who stand to benefit the most.
Through our extensive experience with municipal campaigns, PowerMarket has learned that working directly with towns, cities, and counties creates a more trusted and effective pathway for residents to engage with community solar. Municipalities often serve as trusted messengers, and their involvement in outreach—whether through letters from local officials, town-branded enrollment pages, or in-person sign-up events—helps build confidence among residents that community solar is a legitimate, beneficial program.
Tailored municipal campaigns have proven especially effective in reaching low- and moderate-income households. By collaborating with local governments, we can focus outreach on neighborhoods most impacted by high energy burdens, ensuring that real savings reach the households that need them most. These campaigns often include direct mail, local workshops, and community events, where residents can ask questions, understand the benefits, and enroll on the spot with support from knowledgeable staff.
The impact of these municipal partnerships is tangible. In many communities, coordinated efforts between PowerMarket and local governments have resulted in hundreds of households enrolling, significantly reducing energy costs and strengthening community resilience. These campaigns not only help families save money but also foster local economic development, raise clean energy awareness, and support municipal sustainability goals.
By continuing to collaborate with local governments, PowerMarket is committed to expanding equitable access to clean energy and ensuring that no community is left behind in the transition to a more sustainable future.
Jacobsen: How can bipartisan support accelerate policy innovations or funding mechanisms for solar energy growth?
Gohl: Community solar is a beneficial program that cuts across party lines. Nineteen states and Washington, D.C. have enacted policies to support third-party-owned community solar. These states include AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NM, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VA, and VT.
This support continues to gain more traction. In Iowa on February 12, HSB 81, which would establish a new community solar program in the state, passed unanimously 23-0 out of the House Commerce Committee. It will now go before a full House vote.
Bipartisan support is key to establishing community solar programs in every state in the country and continuing to improve existing ones.
Jacobsen: How do you envision the future of Community Solar in the fight against climate change?
Gohl: In 2024, community solar achieved its best year yet, with 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity installed—a 35% increase over 2023. While we celebrate this growth, we acknowledge the current policy volatility. Nonetheless, we remain optimistic about the future. As electricity rates continue to rise across nearly all utility territories, community solar is bucking the trend by offering deeper discounts to its subscribers. States are learning from one another, sharing best practices, and building larger, more impactful programs that are keeping money in the pockets of their residents.
Community solar offers guaranteed savings to everyone, especially underserved communities. It empowers local populations, strengthens the electric grid, and plays a crucial role in combating climate change. No other solution brings together all these benefits, and PowerMarket is excited about the path ahead.
Your involvement is essential. If you haven’t already, check to see if your state has a community solar program and available projects you can subscribe to. Advocate for the growth or creation of community solar programs in your state. Together, we can ensure clean, affordable energy is accessible to all.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leland.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/12
Keith Raniere’s narcissistic tendencies were evident in his grandiose titles and manipulative control over NXIVM. Matt Bywater discusses how NXIVM’s structure ensured psychological harm, even for short-term members. He highlights the cult’s targeting of wealthy individuals like the Bronfmans and Oxenbergs for financial and social influence. Raniere’s misogyny, projection, and escalating abuse are explored, as well as the legal gaps that delayed justice. Survivors stress the importance of focusing on coercive control rather than sensationalist aspects. Bywater urges reporters to highlight these underlying mechanisms, which enable the broader exploitation within destructive cults like NXIVM.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do these titles like “grand master,” essentially, speak to the narcissistic tendencies of Keith Raniere? I reference the short-form of his crimes in a recent interview with mention of other characters.
Matt Bywater: Absolutely they do. Such titles reflect the grandiosity and god-like complex of narcissistic psychopaths like Keith Raniere. These personality types depend on the admiration and obedience of their followers as a sort of supply. In narcissism terminology, this is known as ‘narcissistic supply’.
Jacobsen: Are there any typical outcomes of those who stay in a short time versus those who stay in these cult systems or take part in their programs and then leave?
Bywater: Destructive cults like NXIVM are structured like a pyramid: the closer you get to the center, the more harm and abuse you will suffer.
However, there is risk to cult members even at the periphery of the cult. The entire NXIVM curriculum was designed to break people down and soften them up for abuse to come. I don’t know what has happened to those 17,000 NXIVM participants who came, took courses and left; I’m quite sure there have been no academic studies about ex-NXIVM members en masse.
But no doubt many of these people suffered psychologically in the long-term, perhaps in ways that they are not consciously aware of. There is a phenomenon called ‘cult hopping’ where cult members will either return to their cult or join a new one because they are not aware of what was done to them. We need more academic research and journalistic investigation into what has happened to these people.
Jacobsen: What do the women say in the video where they confronted Raniere? Please share a link if possible.
Bywater: Those women were part of what became known as the NXIVM 9. They confronted Keith Raniere with a list of systemic problems in the NXIVM company, which included the ethical issue of Raniere having sex with students. I am currently working on a YouTube video that will outline who were the NXIVM 9 and what happened to them. Here is the preliminary version:
At the same time that the NXIVM 9 confronted Raniere, two members of that group spoke alone with Raniere and recorded their discussion with him:
In it, Raniere comments that he has had people killed because of their beliefs. This was no doubt an attempt at intimidation, albeit veiled in that it could be interpreted as ‘my followers have been killed by others because of their allegiance to my dogma’.
Jacobsen: Why did raniere target individuals like the Oxenbergs, the Bronfmans?
Bywater: Destructive cults like NXIVM target wealthy and influential individuals. The Oxenbergs and the Bronfmans were targeted for their wealth and influence, simple as that. The Bronfman sisters Clare and Sara paid millions into NXIVM. Co-founder of NXIVM Nancy Salzman attempted to use their father Edgar Bronfman to recruit other celebrities, see here:
It is the ultimate irony that Raniere stubbornly held on to Catherine Oxenberg’s daughter India. Had he released her, the threat that Catherine posed to NXIVM would have dissipated. The future for NXIVM may have been very different. Catherine Oxenberg and her clout as a member of the royal family were significant in persuading the authorities to take criminal action against NXIVM.
Jacobsen: Do you then think aspects of a Raniere psychosocial dysfunction begins early and then becomes amplified over time as more crimes are accomplished?
Bywater: Certainly if you look at the path Raniere was going down, it was becoming darker and darker. Some people have referred to this as “negative epiphanies” or “maliphanies” where the individual getting away with each successive act of criminality and degrading themselves psychologically in the process. In popular culture, this is best depicted by the character Walter White in the TV show Breaking Bad. But with psychopaths, there’s also an escalation effect: the extreme emotional need that psychopaths have for violent levels of control and abuse is never satiated and only grows stronger over time.
Jacobsen: When he accuses women of using sex to control men, is this another manner in which to state that the psychology of Raniere is, in fact, projected onto victims of his groups, particularly the inner circle of DOS?
Bywater: Generally, this sort of misogyny is commonplace among male psychopaths. I could give anecdotal evidence from the examples of singer R Kelly and cult leader Larry Ray. It appears to originate from an insecure and/or abusive attachment with their mother, which results in the hatred towards women.
Now, with that misogynist worldview established, Raniere certainly attempted to project it on his followers, and he was successful in doing so.
Jacobsen: Why did it take so long for the teflon man to be taken to court for justice, proper?
Bywater:During the trial of Keith Raniere and his associates, judge Nicholas Garaufis specifically criticized the lack of judicial action taken against Raniere. As for why, no doubt there were systematic failings, particularly by the authorities in Albany who could have taken more decisive action in Raniere’s early days.
More broadly, there is a gap in our legal systems that I and many others are working to fix. Our legal systems are based on the notion that humans are rational individuals who act in their self-interest. We know that this is not always the case. So, when the NXIVM defectors (Mark Vicente, Catherine Oxenberg, Sarah Edmonson and others) went to the FBI, they were met with the response that legal action could not be taken against a group that people had consensually joined. What made the case of NXIVM different was how NXIVM was blatantly using blackmail and coercion. Then, finally, prosecutor Moira Penza identified a way to use sex and labor trafficking laws to prosecute NXIVM as a criminal enterprise. This model has been used to prosecute other destructive cults, for example the Larry Ray cult and the United Nation of Islam. This offers great hope for the future, because cults operate in a very similar manner to trafficking rings. Cult expert Steven Hassan has said that a trafficking ring is a commercial mind control cult.
Other necessary changes to the law that will stop the cult abuses include: expanding the doctrine of undue influence to apply beyond the restrictive area of wills and estates, and applying existing coercive control laws beyond romantic and family relationships to entire groups.
Very recently, an anti-Scientology activist met with a British member of parliament to discuss expanding coercive control laws to cover groups such as Scientology.
Jacobsen: What do the survivors of Raniere’s cult who are no longer unquestioningly loyal to him want others to know about him and their condition after it, e.g. the lessons?
Bywater: Without asking them directly, I’m sure they would want less attention on the sensationalist aspects like the sex cult stuff and the focus to be on the underlying problem of coercive control and psychological abuse that allowed the sexual abuse to occur in the first place.
Jacobsen: How can reporters stray from sensationalism around one truth, the sexual misconduct and such, and stick more to the comprehensive content on coercive control groups?
Bywater: I always emphasize that reporters focus on the underlying pattern of coercive control because it is this which enables the secondary abuses like the sexual abuse. No-one joins a sex cult. No-one knowingly joins a cult, period. There is a scene in The Vow where Mark Vicente eloquently underlines this truth.
Reports must resist more complex analyses of abusive groups from being subsumed by sensationalist news.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Matt.
Bywater: It’s a pleasure, as always.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11
Noelia Méndez Santolaria, an economist, discusses her work within DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), a feminist network focused on gender justice and economic transformation. She highlights Argentina’s economic challenges, the resurgence of neoliberalism under President Javier Milei, and the systemic undervaluation of unpaid labor. Méndez Santolaria emphasizes the need for structural change, warning against the exploitation of Argentina’s natural resources without reinvestment. She critiques rising global militarization and digital harassment against feminists. Feminist economics, she argues, must address wealth redistribution, care work, and systemic inequalities while countering neoliberal policies and social resistance to change.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Noelia Mendez Santolaria is an economist from a feminist perspective. She works with DAWN Feminist. It’s a 40-year-old network and collection of analysts, economists, and others who approach issues from a feminist lens. How did you get involved?
Noelia Mendez Santolaria: My personal background is somewhat unconventional. I originally worked in the private sector for my family’s business, which imports equipment for analyzing water quality. I studied economics alongside my work because, in Argentina, it is very common to study and work simultaneously.
While studying, I met Corina Rodríguez Enríquez, a highly respected feminist economist who teaches at a public university. We developed a mentor-student relationship—she was my thesis advisor—and is also part of DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), a feminist network focused on gender justice and economic transformation.
After finishing my MA in Economics courses and leaving my job in the private sector, I began working as a consultant for NGOs and government agencies. Corina introduced me to DAWN and its members, whom we call the “DAWNees,” and I started working with them. Before that, I had already conducted research from feminist perspectives, but DAWN specifically focuses on viewpoints from the Global South. This perspective is often overlooked in mainstream economics, including feminist economics.
Jacobsen: How advanced is that discourse and work in Argentina?
Santolaria: Argentina has a long tradition of heterodox economic thought. It is, for example, the birthplace of Latin American structuralism, largely developed by Raúl Prebisch, a prominent economist known for formulating the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis on declining terms of trade. This concept, referred to in Spanish as Términos de Intercambio Desiguales, highlights the unequal economic relationships between industrialized and developing countries.
Argentina has maintained this tradition to some extent, largely due to the presence of public universities and a strong intellectual culture, but these ideas face resistance. Mainstream neoclassical economics remains dominant, and neoliberalism is currently experiencing a resurgence under President Javier Milei, who promotes libertarian economic policies.
The intersection of Latin American heterodox economics and feminist economic perspectives is not yet widespread, but we are working to advance it. For instance, DAWN is currently leading a project on macroeconomics from a feminist and Global South perspective. The goal is to integrate alternative economic frameworks with feminist economic theories to develop a more inclusive and just economic model.
Jacobsen: How are these economic views perceived in Argentina under the current leadership?
Santolaria: We are seen as adversaries—quite literally. The Milei administration has openly dismissed feminist economic perspectives and targeted gender-focused policies, including dismantling the Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity. Milei’s economic approach prioritizes deregulation, privatization, and drastic reductions in state intervention. This directly contradicts feminist and heterodox economic analyses emphasizing social justice and state responsibility in addressing inequalities.
However, I believe this backlash also reflects the progress made in advancing feminist perspectives and increasing feminist participation in economic policy discussions. Under the previous administration of Alberto Fernández, while he was not a feminist himself, feminist policies gained institutional recognition, and some feminists were appointed to key positions within the government.
And I think that kind of advancement implies rethinking the very economic system because we are trying to put value—not necessarily price, but value—on all the non-remunerated work being done for the economic system or the market to even function. And this was very, very powerful.. During the pandemic, everybody saw that life didn’t happen without care, schools, or health care. So, I think awareness of this major work needed for markets to function is very resisted. Still, there is very strong resistance to incorporating and valuing that in the economic system because, at least in Argentina—but in the Global South more broadly—capitalism takes on a particularly extractive form.
It’s extractive everywhere, but in the Global South, it thrives on extracting natural resources, cheap labour, and non-remunerated labour from women. When states shrink, the services we call education and health care do not stop being provided—women instead of the state provide them. So, these neoliberal policies that seek to drastically reduce the size of the state are facing a strong feminist response. I think the backlash we are seeing now is a reaction from neoliberal economic forces against feminist progress.
Jacobsen: Very big in the Beijing Declaration and several other declarations, but the Beijing Declaration was particularly clear on unremunerated work being a major hurdle. How does Milei view unremunerated work? Does he see it as women’s work, period? Or does he even make any statements about it? Or is it just assumed and never discussed?
Santolaria: It’s a good question because I think that these far-right extremists and conservative politicians share the same fundamental diagnosis that we, as feminists, do: someone has to provide these essential services. However, their solution is a conservative one—a return to a supposedly better past for men, which is an illusion because that economic and social order no longer exists.
I believe this is another intentional deception propagated by the far-right—not only to subjugate women but also to weaken the collective consciousness of men. Since Beijing, political awareness has evolved, but there is far less recognition of social class divisions as they were traditionally understood. Despite being valuable in many ways, the multilateral world that emerged after that era also made people forget about the deep structural hierarchies that persist in society.
In today’s highly technological world, there is an illusion that anyone can become wealthy overnight by investing in Wall Street or gaining fame on Instagram. My grandparents understood that they would never be rich in their lifetime. Still, many people today believe they can be if they work hard enough. Similarly, there is this false idea that we can return to a traditional past that never actually existed in the way it is now imagined—and it certainly will not exist in the future.
Jacobsen: Yes, it’s about creating a fantasy or a false history and projecting it forward as something to aspire to, claiming it’s a return to something better—when, in reality, that past never existed in the first place.
Santolaria: Yes, it was real for a very, very small part of the population. It has never been real in the Global South because we have a fragmented economic structure. The informal sector is very large—it represents half of the economy. Those in the informal sector have never lived this traditional family model that the right wing is trying to bring back. They were not “trad wives.” Poor women work just as much as poor men in their households.
We already know that this model is not viable, yet the aspiration still exists. I think that has a lot to do with the strong religious influence that conservative and right-wing ideologies are built around. It becomes a matter of belief—people think that returning to this past is actually possible.
Of course, this issue is especially relevant for women who have gained financial independence in Latin America due to major increases in labour market participation and professionalization. In Argentina—though this is not the case for every country in the Global South—many women from the 1980s onward accessed university education, became professionals, and entered the workforce. However, this also led to increasing inequality among women.
Now, we see professional, upper-class, or wealthy women gaining freedom from unpaid domestic labour by paying poorer women for it. So while some women have made significant advances, a gap has also widened between them. We know that this alone is not enough to achieve gender equality, but reverting to a past system is simply unrealistic—and it is not our goal.
Women have entered the labour force, but men have not entered the care economy in the same proportion. This is often discussed, but the reality is that men have not taken on their fair share of unpaid household labour. They have also not entered traditionally female-dominated sectors like health care and education, largely because these jobs are underpaid. This structural imbalance needs to change, and the state is the primary tool for making that change happen.
That is why the destruction of the state in Argentina is so concerning. But this is not just happening here—this is a global trend. The major representatives of the far right worldwide are focused on dismantling the state because they recognize that the state is the most effective mechanism for redistribution—not just of income and wealth but also of unpaid care work.
Jacobsen: So your specialty is economics, particularly feminist economics. In a fair analysis, what is Milei doing right economically? What is he doing wrong economically in Argentina? Also, why are North American democratic leaders so fascinated with him?
Santolaria: I think Argentina is being viewed as a far-right experiment, and they see it can be done. I think Milei’s presidency is seen as a major success simply because he has maintained power so far.
There is strong resistance, but there has been no large-scale social explosion. Some claim that the country is socially imploding, but others argue that people largely accept or validate what Milei is doing now. That kind of public tolerance didn’t happen in the past, which was a significant political win for him.
As for what he is doing economically, some of my economist colleagues appreciate the macroeconomic stability he has brought to the country, but I doubt the sustainability of that stability. The dollar has always been a major concern for Argentinians—its volatility and constant devaluations make it difficult for people to maintain their purchasing power. After Milei won the election, he immediately devalued the peso, and since then, the exchange rate has remained relatively stable. However, this has been achieved in a highly unsustainable way.
His administration is currently trying to negotiate a new loan with the IMF—what they call “fresh money” or “fresh dollars.” They have been very explicit that this money will enable financial sector investors to take their gains and exit. The IMF, however, is pressuring for another devaluation, which makes the current situation highly unstable.
This so-called stability exists not only because there has been no widespread social resistance but also because the other branches of government, which should act as checks and balances in a republic, have not done so. Congress has passed every bill Milei needed, and the judiciary is largely absent, acting as though it has no role to play.
Civil society has called for judicial intervention to stop certain policies, but the courts have not acted. For example, there is a very repressive anti-protest protocol in place. Despite its clear rights violations, the justice system has not intervened to stop it.
So, if we consider what Milei has done well, his biggest achievement has been his ability to consolidate support from the establishment—the so-called casta in Argentina. They are backing him very strongly, which has brought stability but is fragile and temporary.
Jacobsen: What would a feminist economic model for Argentina bring? Not necessarily one superior, but one better suited to Argentina’s context for achieving greater gender parity.
Santolaria: Well, that’s very hard to say because I think a feminist approach to the economy is not about implementing minor reforms—you need structural change. Argentina has significant potential in terms of natural resources.
This is not specifically a feminist perspective, but I believe that under this administration, those resources are being sold to the highest bidder with no strategic planning. They are not considering the development of national capacities or strengthening the internal market. Instead, the approach is: If you want to come and take our natural resources, go ahead—we ask for nothing in return.
This development model will shape Argentina over the next few years. As feminists, we must be vigilant against these extractive practices. That does not mean rejecting the use of natural resources altogether but rather ensuring that extraction does not lead to depletion, the erosion of our productive capacity, or the hollowing out of our social and economic structures. The profits must be reinvested to sustain the reproduction of life, something that has never been done in our history.
The other day, I listened to a representative from Norway explain how they used revenue from their state-owned petroleum company to establish a universal social protection system. That was a very intelligent decision that allowed them to sustain one of the most egalitarian societies in the world for the last 70 years.. They now have comprehensive social security because they directed those gains toward national welfare.
With the energy transition going on, Argentina is at a similar crossroads—it must decide how to manage potential revenue from its natural resources. I think Norway’s approach is very smart for them. However, I am unsure if it is applicable to Argentina due to its external sector. Argentina has been trapped in a external debt cycle for the past 200 years. We are heavily indebted in foreign currency, which means that every dollar the country produces is quickly siphoned off to repay external debts.
As a result, we face a serious risk: we might extract all our resources yet see none of that wealth reinvested in the country. That is why we need to be extremely cautious and ensure that any alternative economic framework we build is community-driven and centred on the sustainability of life.
After all, what is the purpose of an economy if it is not to sustain life and improve the well-being of the people living in Argentina?
Jacobsen: What are the mitigating factors to this vision? Is machismo a factor? Is traditionalist religion a factor? Are there well-meaning feminist proposals—ones different from yours—that, while idealistic, lack sufficient evidentiary support and do not account for economic science? What are the key forces at play here that shape this discussion?
Santolaria: Our main challenge—the biggest risk factor—is the neoliberal mindset that dominates our thinking. We struggle to imagine alternatives that are not neoliberal.
Of course, machismo exists, and Argentina, like every other society, is a patriarchal society. However, the feminist movement has made significant progress. There is a strong political foundation, and we have young, capable political representatives who could lead transformative efforts—but the progressive side of the political spectrum largely ignores them.
I believe that more damaging than the backlash itself is this invisibilization—the way the progressive sector, feminist leaders, and women who can drive real transformation are sidelined. One of the most important things we must work on is strengthening alliances and ensuring that feminist women take the lead in these initiatives.
We mainly have Milei in office because the other half of the political spectrum is lost and deeply divided. If we want an alternative, we need to find ways to unite and build it together.
Jacobsen: Outside of economics, from the work of DAWN feminists, what other issues are they targeting that are relevant to the Argentinian case?
Santolaria: DAWN works on several other key issues, including social reproduction, reproductive rights, sexual rights, and violence against women. All of this is approached through a strong economic and materialist lens.
That is what sets DAWN apart—they consistently highlight the material power relations underlying these issues. This is not always common in the feminist movement, as economics is often perceived as difficult or overly complex. Many think economic discussions are inaccessible because they are framed in highly technical language.
One of the things DAWN does very well is communication. They manage to present complex economic issues in a way that is clear and accessible while still maintaining depth in their analysis. Their work creates a space for reflection and a deeper understanding of what is happening.
We believe that economics is for everyone and should be accessible to all. The idea that it must remain obscure or complicated is, in itself, another form of power imbalance. That is why, at DAWN, every aspect of our work is deeply connected to economic analysis—it is impossible to separate them.
Jacobsen: In different interviews, at least at this moment, some recurring themes have emerged—genuine disagreements between regions. I’ve been reflecting on whether the discussion concerns Africa, Latin America, Asia, or North America.
In some regions, the concern is that no matter how many policies you implement—such as setting a 30% or 35% minimum representation of women in political participation and leadership—it simply will not happen in most countries, even if those policies exist on paper. For them, policy is not the key issue.
In other countries, policy implementation matters more. If policies are in place, there is at least some degree of political will, which makes change more likely.
Some perspectives dismiss policy as almost secondary, focusing instead on women’s economic independence. The argument is that real change happens when women achieve financial autonomy—not just in purchasing power but in determining their own lives. This economic empowerment, in turn, gives them more degrees of freedom in society, regardless of whether formal policies exist.
In the Latin American context, one concern that consistently arises in these discussions is the rise of femicide. Globally, femicide rates have doubled. Some South African commentators have pointed out that rates have increased by 20% in certain areas, while in others, they have tripled. The worst-hit regions are Latin American countries.
From your perspective, based on the discussions you’ve participated in, what are the most acute issues facing Latin America today?
Santolaria: Well, you cannot escape the question of political will. Without political will, no technical solution will be strong enough to make meaningful change happen. Economies are inherently political. Everything is political. And there is no silver bullet.
We need to operate on all levels—the micro level, the level of individual consciousness and awareness, the macro level,, and the meso level, which includes institutions. This is incredibly difficult work because it must happen simultaneously. No single approach will fix everything. If change happens only from the top—if a progressive government enacts the best equality policies but society does not embrace them—those policies will likely fail.
We saw this during the Soviet Union. The government implemented very progressive policies, but people were not demanding them, and ultimately, it did not work as intended. That is why we need both top-down and bottom-up change. That is our greatest challenge as feminists: advocating for this agenda requires working on all fronts.
Violence—both in Latin America and globally—is one of the most alarming trends. The world is moving toward militarization at an accelerated pace. For years, we have advocated for increased funding for the care economy, health care, and education, and the response has always been the same: No, there is no money for that. We have debts to pay. We have a budget deficit.
Yet, suddenly, there is money for military expansion. No one questions how these massive military expenditures will be funded. But whenever we push for gender equality policies, the first question is: How will you pay for this?
Well, the answer is simple: With the money that was going to be spent on missiles, guns, and drones, the funds will likely come from cuts to social protection programs and possibly from more debt. Governments have a limit on how much debt they can take on until militarization becomes a priority. Then, constitutions get rewritten to allow for more military spending. It is all political. That is the biggest threat we face today.
Jacobsen: So, in the last interview, I did yesterday was with someone from Women on Web. She was the executive director of Women on Web. I kept thinking about my involvement in the humanist and secular humanist communities. Richard Dawkins once did a segment where he read his hate mail, turning it into a comedy bit. That gave me an idea.
So, I proposed to her: Have you ever thought about reading your anti-abortion hate mail as comedy on YouTube? It could discourage hate mail while also making it a bit fun. One of the emails she received had the subject line Burn in Hell. So, she would go through her regular work emails, and in the middle of them, there would be one saying Burn in Hell. Then, she’d continue with her regular work emails.
For a DAWN feminist, there are stereotypes about feminists. And, as with any movement, a few belligerent individuals naturally scare people off. But have you ever thought about making comedy out of your hate mail? Like, taking quotes from it and presenting them as endorsements—almost like a page filled with those comments?
Santolaria: It’s a nice idea. Humour is powerful.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Santolaria: I don’t receive that kind of hate mail.
Jacobsen: So lucky.
Santolaria: Yes, but it’s a huge issue. Many well-known feminists in Argentina are suffering from it. Many journalists, too.
Jacobsen: Oh yeah, I can imagine.
Santolaria: Yes. Humour is powerful, and we should, of course, use it as a tool to combat this kind of harassment candidly. But at some point, we also need to acknowledge the vulnerability it creates.
Receiving that kind of hate is not harmless. Even if you have psychological support or try to brush it off, it still seeps in. It’s not okay. Maybe we shouldn’t take it too lightly—of course, humour helps—but the reality is that this increasing violence thrives in the digital space, where anonymity provides a fertile ground for these attacks.
Dealing with it is a very personal decision. I have friends who shut down their social media accounts completely. I don’t use social media anymore. I used to have more accounts, but I closed them.
Jacobsen: Was it because of privacy concerns?
Santolaria: Yes. In the panel we were just in, we discussed how images, voices, and pictures can be misused in unsettling ways.
Jacobsen: As they pointed out, 98% of deepfake content targets women.
Santolaria: And I don’t think it’s worth it. Social media has become a very hostile place.
Jacobsen: I would rephrase that—if I may—as it has become a hospitable place for hostile people.
Santolaria: Yes, exactly. And it’s also about who owns these platforms. Social media is controlled by a very concentrated economic power structure that is willing to do whatever someone like Trump asks them to. They claim these platforms are highly democratic and essential for free speech, but that’s not the reality.
Algorithms reinforce power imbalances, and hostile behaviour is often rewarded. That’s why I choose not to use social media. Fortunately, I don’t receive hateful emails, so I am lucky.
Santolaria: But I know it’s hard, and it’s yet another form of violence that we are now experiencing.
Jacobsen: Did I miss anything?
Santolaria: No. I hope it was interesting.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11
Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights lawyer, discusses prisoner swaps between the U.S. and Russia reflect broader geopolitical struggles, with Russia using wrongful detentions as leverage. These exchanges, often involving civilians traded for spies or criminals, highlight Russia’s use of hostage diplomacy. Russia benefits from strategic public relations, manipulating domestic and international narratives. Concerns about Russia’s stability, demographic decline, and growing dependence on China persist. Intelligence penetration favours Russia, as its counterintelligence is highly effective, while U.S. institutions remain vulnerable. Cryptocurrency crimes, including money laundering via BTC-e, remain a tool for Russian illicit activities. Western enforcement efforts are often inconsistent, shaped by political priorities rather than law.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There are geopolitical impacts of prisoner swaps, U.S.-Russia relations, the Ukraine conflict, etc. What are the implications or signals of these exchanges regarding Russia’s willingness to negotiate broader geopolitical issues? Recently, there was a peace summit in Saudi Arabia, but whether or not it will be widely accepted is another question. There might be some political follow-up from that, potentially affecting prisoner exchanges. What do prisoner exchanges mean for Russia’s relations with other countries, particularly those with whom it engages in these swaps?
Irina Tsukerman: These are not standard prisoner exchanges. This is not a situation where prisoners of war are exchanged under agreed-upon protocols, as we see with Russia and Ukraine exchanging military prisoners. Nor do these exchanges follow Geneva Convention norms. What we are witnessing is hostage diplomacy. Russia, along with other states that engage in similar tactics, detains civilians on politically motivated or entirely fabricated charges to extract political or financial concessions from the United States and other countries.
The more these nations accommodate Russia, the more it will continue this practice. A key question is why U.S. citizens and dual nationals can still travel to Russia. Why has the State Department not imposed a travel ban, as it did with North Korea following the Otto Warmbier case, which resulted in the torture and death of a U.S. citizen? That is a valid policy question that should be directed at the administration. What is clear is that Russia is using these detentions as leverage, attempting to blackmail and pressure the U.S. government into making political concessions.
The impact of this extends beyond Russia. Other authoritarian states may be encouraged to adopt similar tactics. Paying political or financial ransoms grants Russia undeserved geopolitical leverage, allowing it to tie these exchanges to broader political issues, as we recently saw in Riyadh. The latest release of a young American, who was arrested for alleged marijuana possession, was explicitly linked to broader diplomatic efforts. Had the U.S. not agreed to allow the return of Russian personnel under diplomatic cover—many of whom are suspected intelligence operatives—the fate of that individual could have been much worse, similar to others still imprisoned in Russia.
Jacobsen: What about information warfare? Does that play a role here as well?
Tsukerman: Absolutely—strategic public relations is a key factor. Russia uses these exchanges to shape its domestic narrative, portraying itself as negotiating from a position of strength. It normalizes abductions and politically motivated detentions while manipulating public perception. It also shapes Western public opinion by exploiting the expectation that democratic governments must do everything possible to bring their citizens home.
Essentially, Russia is turning this fundamental democratic norm into a vulnerability and a political bargaining chip. Without this ability to manipulate public opinion in the United States and other Western nations, Russia—an isolated, heavily sanctioned state that has suffered military losses in Ukraine and elsewhere in recent years—would not be able to secure many of the concessions it currently receives.
It certainly normalizes the idea of exchanging high-value prisoners for civilians, which is new and different from previous exchanges. During the Soviet era, prisoner swaps typically involved spies, intelligence operatives, diplomats, or individuals connected to government service. While these exchanges happened occasionally, they followed established rules of engagement. Now, however, Russia is trading civilians with no political affiliations for criminals, terrorists, and spies. This ballgame is entirely different—it challenges public opinion and represents Russia’s significant information warfare victory.
Jacobsen: These are political moves in the long term, but they also reflect a larger question about the Russian state’s viability. Given its internal challenges, how stable is Russia? Is it possible for this system to continue operating under Putin and the Kremlin, even though Putin, along with many of his key allies, is aging?
Tsukerman: Russia’s political bureaucracy is designed to perpetuate itself in some form or another. However, there are several viable scenarios in which Russia could experience significant internal instability or fragmentation. This could result from internal rebellions, depending on the coordination and resources of internal opposition groups, or from external factors, including foreign assistance to these movements.
If Western states saw it in their interest to encourage internal destabilization in Russia—mirroring what Russia does around the world—Russia could face serious consequences. The Kremlin has a long history of fomenting separatism and supporting extreme factions in other countries, even when their grievances are minor. If the United States and its allies applied the same strategy to Russia, in my opinion, the Russian Federation would have collapsed long ago.
The conditions for instability already exist. Russia is home to numerous ethnic, geographical, religious, and political groups that experience tensions, discrimination, and competing power interests. These groups could be strategically leveraged to weaken Russia, foster instability, and promote secessionist movements.
Jacobsen: Is Russia concerned about becoming a long-term vassal state of China?
Tsukerman: There is a genuine concern about this possibility, but it is not discussed nearly enough in Western policy circles. There is deep-seated distrust between Russian and Chinese intelligence services. Both countries harbour racial prejudices against each other and have unresolved historical grievances. China is strategically interested in appropriating Russian intellectual property, particularly in defence sectors. There are also territorial disputes—China has historical claims to certain Russian regions.
Both countries are experiencing demographic crises, but Russia’s decline is particularly severe, making it vulnerable to external pressures, including from China. A growing ideological movement in Russia, led by figures like Alexander Dugin, also promotes “Eurasian unity.” This vision calls for a borderless geopolitical structure. It even romanticizes the Mongol invasions, arguing that Russia was never truly conquered but voluntarily integrated into the Mongol empire. This narrative undermines Russian nationalism and could ultimately serve China’s interests rather than Russia’s.
These narratives benefit China far more than they benefit Russia in the long run because China is the stronger party by every measurable standard—its population size, upkeep and modernization of its military, and overall global position. Over time, Russia will suffer from anti-Russian nationalism and the promotion of pan-Eurasianism. This ideological shift does not serve Russia’s interests, especially in Central Asia, where it has historically held influence. Russia is steadily losing ground to China in this region for clear economic reasons. While many actors take advantage of sanctions loopholes and export-import control gaps, they are not necessarily aligned with Russia’s ideological vision. Instead, they exploit the ongoing power struggle between Russia and China. China is poised to win that game in the long run because it has more to offer.
Jacobsen: Is this a case where Russia secures short-term political victories through prisoner swaps—such as exchanging civilians for spies, intelligence operatives, or terrorists—and uses these moments as political currency in diplomatic affairs? Does it also serve a domestic function by convincing the Russian public that they still influence the world stage?
Tsukerman: Absolutely, Russia uses these exchanges to present itself as a diplomatic power capable of negotiating with the West. But in the larger scheme of things, these are short-term wins within much broader, long-term trends that signal decline.
Jacobsen: Do these types of states—Russia, China, or other authoritarian systems—perpetuate themselves indefinitely due to the inertia of bureaucratic systems, or do they tend to self-destruct over time due to systemic neglect?
Tsukerman: Partially, yes. The Russian population is both actively and passively resisting the state’s demands. Many avoid military service by fleeing the country or simply not reporting for duty. There is no real replacement for the losses sustained in Ukraine. Russia is using soldiers in human-wave assaults against Ukrainian forces that are far better equipped, leading to massive, preventable casualties. Other long-term issues, such as alcoholism, infrastructure collapse, medical failures, widespread nihilism, the unchecked spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS (which is exacerbated by medical disinformation), and overall state neglect, are further eroding societal stability. Russia is not a country driven by a strong will to live—it is plagued by systemic dysfunction.
In China, we see similar trends. The state’s policies have contributed to a demographic crisis. Still, other factors, such as economic downturns, ethnic tensions, and increasing autocracy, are also at play. These factors discourage different groups from wanting to have children, either due to economic uncertainty, political repression, or social marginalization. Corruption, state neglect, and poor access to healthcare shorten lifespans, further exacerbating population decline.
Jacobsen: Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, how many major prisoner swaps have taken place?
Tsukerman: There have been several significant exchanges. One of the most well-known involved Viktor Bout, a notorious arms dealer—famously depicted in Lord of War—who was exchanged for a group of civilians. Another major exchange last year involved a large number of Russian opposition figures and other civilians in return for spies, terrorists, and individuals tied to Russian state interests.
What is particularly interesting is what happened after some of these Russian opposition figures were released. Many of them started to express mildly pro-Russian rhetoric, with some even defending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some had already been sympathetic to the Kremlin’s position, but others shifted their stance more openly after release. This raises serious questions about how they ended up in detention in the first place and what might have happened to them while they were imprisoned.
There is speculation that some of these individuals were Russian agents of influence who were reactivated after the exchange. Others may have been subjected to psychological conditioning or coercion while in Russian custody, leading them to change their rhetoric. These cases demonstrate how Russia not only uses prisoner exchanges for immediate political gains but also potentially as a tool for long-term influence operations.
Jacobsen: How do prisoner swaps impact U.S. policy regarding wrongful detentions? How do they influence negotiations for those detained abroad, such as Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich? What are the legal and security risks in releasing individuals like Alexander Vinnik, who are implicated in financial crimes and cyber operations? Russia has cultivated a reputation for being adept at cyber warfare despite weaknesses in other areas.
Tsukerman: Russia always claims that no detention is unlawful because they manufacture crimes to justify imprisonment—for example, the case of Brittney Griner, the basketball player who exchanged for Viktor Bout.
Russia claimed that she was smuggling marijuana, even though the amount was negligible and the punishment was vastly disproportionate—something that would never happen in a Western country. Drug use is rampant in Russia, and unlike in places such as Singapore or Thailand, where drug offences carry severe penalties, this case was clearly politicized and aimed specifically at detaining an American.
Russia also fabricates other charges, such as espionage, as seen in the case of Evan Gershkovich. The Russian government claims that legitimate journalism is a form of spying and has criminalized otherwise innocuous activities to create “criminals” where none exist.
The U.S. may declare these detentions wrongful, but Russia dismisses such claims, arguing that these activities violate Russian law. At the same time, laws elsewhere violate Russian law, which presents a problem. Another recent case involves a former ballerina imprisoned for making a small donation to Ukraine—her only “crime.” The U.S. recognizes this as a wrongful detention, but ultimately, it carries no consequences for Russia. No Russian officials have been sanctioned or criminally punished for these absurd distortions of justice.
Jacobsen: What effect do these prisoner swaps have on NATO and European perceptions of the United States and Russia?
Tsukerman: It certainly does not look good when the U.S. repeatedly allows Russia to exchange civilians for high-value targets and criminals, many of whom return to activities that threaten global security. Take Viktor Bout, for example. After his release, he contributed to advancing Russian arms sales, including to Houthi militants, who then used those weapons to attack Western ships operating in the Red Sea.
However, many NATO countries engage in practices similar to those of states like Iran. Hence, they are unlikely to criticize the U.S. for these exchanges. Some European nations have also swapped civilians for spies or terrorists in politically motivated deals.
Jacobsen: What has been the most consequential prisoner exchange in the past three years?
Tsukerman: In terms of Russia, it is a close tie between the release of Viktor Bout—one of the most notorious arms traffickers in modern history—in exchange for Brittney Griner, a private U.S. citizen with no political significance, and another major exchange involving several Russian opposition figures and civilians for a large number of Russian spies.
While some of these spies were not as well known as Bout, their return to Russia collectively represented a major intelligence and security threat. Some analysts have even compared Bout’s strategic value to a Prigozhin-like figure regarding his ability to operate on Russia’s behalf. These exchanges highlight the vastly unequal nature of these deals, reinforcing Russia’s ability to leverage hostage diplomacy for disproportionate gains. That’s a close call between those two.
Jacobsen: Do you think Putin will ever face a criminal trial? And this isn’t just an East-West issue—do you think Western leaders who have committed crimes under international law would also face criminal trials?
Tsukerman: It will be difficult for a couple of reasons.
First, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been delegitimized by internal politics, and Russia has exploited this to its advantage. Many people no longer take the ICC seriously because of its history of politicized investigations. It has pursued cases based on complaints from dubious and highly politicized NGOs, making any legitimate investigation into figures like Putin nearly unenforceable. We have already seen several countries ignore ICC-issued warrants.
So, in terms of international legal practice, it is unlikely that the international legal structure will be overhauled and rebuilt unless there is a major change.
The only other scenario would involve a country arresting Putin or other Russian officials for crimes committed on its soil. However, Russian officials are highly unlikely to travel to jurisdictions where they could face arrest—unless there is a significant change in the Russian government. Lower-ranking officials would be more vulnerable to such legal action, but even that is rare. Ukraine has attempted to arrest a few individuals. Still, Russian officials generally avoid travelling to countries where they risk imprisonment.
So far, no country has made a serious effort to pursue these officials. That is likely due to a mix of inertia and competing priorities. The only realistic scenario where Putin faces prosecution is if he is removed from power by a rival who uses the legal process to consolidate power. In that case, it would be a political maneuver rather than an act of justice.
Jacobsen: Do you think Western agencies are infiltrating Russian affairs more, or is Russian intelligence penetrating American affairs more? This is normal geopolitical activity, but I’m curious about your take.
Tsukerman: Without question, Russian intelligence has had greater success infiltrating American affairs than the other way around.
Of course, the U.S. intelligence community operates in Russia. There have been vocal American critics of the Russian government, and some Russian opposition groups have benefited from U.S. assistance through organizations like USAID, particularly in targeted campaigns. However, U.S. support for opposition movements is often disorganized, inconsistent, and sometimes ineffective. Many of these opposition figures end up compromised, or they turn out to be controlled opposition directed by the Kremlin. Even the limited efforts to provide support for Russian opposition projects tend to have minimal impact because Russia’s counterintelligence and suppression tactics are highly effective.
By contrast, the U.S. has far more transparent institutions and weaker counterintelligence measures, making it much easier for Russia to conduct political interference. Russia has been running coordinated influence campaigns in the U.S. for decades, contributing to today’s political landscape.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has failed to penetrate Russian public opinion—let alone its institutions. Russian public sentiment still largely supports Putin, even if there is some discontent over the war in Ukraine. However, opposition to the war is often driven by practical concerns, such as military losses and economic hardships, rather than ideological opposition to Putin’s policies. To the extent that Russian public opinion on Ukraine has shifted, it has been more influenced by Ukrainian information operations than by U.S. or Western efforts.
The U.S. has not been helpful in the information space.
Jacobsen: What does Vinnik’s release mean for cryptocurrency crime enforcement, particularly regarding money laundering and BTC-e?
Tsukerman: Russia has been extremely agile in using cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and its state-created digital assets for money laundering, funding separatist movements, and facilitating other illicit operations. The U.S. has cracked down on cryptocurrency exchanges, targeted money-laundering networks, and worked to identify wallets linked to criminal enterprises.
However, political interests often dictate legal enforcement. We saw this with the Silk Road case involving a Russia-affiliated drug and contraband exchange platform. President Trump recently released the founder of Silk Road, with significant support from figures like Elon Musk, who seem to favour Russia-affiliated, so-called libertarian—but criminal—social media and crypto exchange operators. These platforms essentially provide safe havens for illicit activities, including organized crime, terrorism, and Russia-driven financial operations.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Tsukerman: Thank you.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. Take care. Bye.
Tsukerman: You too. Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10
Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights lawyer, discusses the concept of intellectual persona non grata and the consequences of purging experts from government agencies. She highlights concerns about bureaucratic mismanagement, political influence, and foreign malign interference affecting decision-making. The conversation touches on scientific integrity, contract violations, and the erosion of public trust in institutions. Tsukerman warns of political hypocrisy, suppressed scientific debate, and the global perception of U.S. policies. She emphasizes the need for transparent governance, bipartisan oversight, and rigorous scientific discourse to prevent ideological extremism from stifling intellectual progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, today we’re here with Irina Tsukerman for the fourth time. Irina Tsukerman is a national security and human rights lawyer based in New York, specializing in geopolitics, foreign policy, and information warfare.
She is the president of Scarab Rising, Inc., the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, a fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and an affiliate of the American Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. Tsukerman has been recognized for countering Russian disinformation and moderating panels on global security issues. Her expertise includes energy, cybersecurity, influence campaigns, intelligence, global media appearances, and published analyses. Thank you for joining me again today.
Irina Tsukerman: Thank you so much; I’m glad to be here.
Jacobsen: This session will discuss the concept of intellectual persona non grata. How should we frame this? What do you make of the crackdown in one of the world’s leading scientific nations on agencies and individuals who are professional scientists?
There are two key patterns here. First, some scientists are fired, and their funding is frozen, halted, or terminated. Second, others are fired, funding issues arise afterward, and institutions attempt to rehire them but struggle with how to do so. This pattern is also seen at the agency or institute-wide level. What is happening?
Tsukerman: The most charitable way to interpret this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions—meaning there is a genuine effort to streamline bureaucracy and address the issues that have led to distrust and a loss of institutional authority over the years.
However, people are going overboard. The DOJ team lacks experts in every relevant industry, so they do not know what they are doing. They are making across-the-board cuts as if they were running a business without fully considering the consequences. They are not conducting individual interviews or scrutinizing each person’s qualifications. Instead, they assume that insiders within institutions they view with skepticism should be removed. Later, they realized that these individuals were essential workers. The issue is compounded by the fact that very few people have such specialized expertise, so replacing them becomes incredibly difficult once these professionals are dismissed.
That is one way to look at the situation; I am sure it is part of what is happening. However, there is also a broader issue at play. There is a significant degree of foreign malign influence involved in this process.
Some decision-makers may not even be aware that they are being influenced by disinformation or external forces with ulterior motives. Others may be aware but do not care. Some use seemingly legitimate reasons to justify extreme cost-cutting tactics while advancing their agendas.
This complex issue involves many actors, making it difficult to separate different motivations. I do not want to generalize, but some individuals affiliated with the DOJ genuinely think that running the government should be like running a business. However, history has shown that this approach does not always work—Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and its transformation into X is a case in point. Despite his claims of success, the record shows that his approach did not yield the intended results.
And there’s no reason to believe it would work out any better in this case, especially since he is not familiar with every government institution, nor is he employing experts from every agency to assess and implement meaningful reforms. But there is also definitely an ideological component—some of it is legitimate, and some of it is not.
There have been valid critiques of the CDC and various institutions for providing poor guidance over the years. The U.S. government has historically issued flawed recommendations, such as the food pyramid, which was widely criticized. In more recent years, some government agencies have downplayed the role of diet and exercise in preventing comorbidities and obesity, which has led to misguided public health policies. The fact that institutions sometimes give bad advice, influencing doctors and ultimately spreading misinformation to the public, is a serious concern.
On the other hand, the CDC has demonstrated immense expertise in niche areas such as tropical diseases, earning widespread recognition for its work. It has significantly impacted the treatment of diseases that do not receive substantial research funding or public attention but can pose major threats if left unchecked.
The problem is that the DOJ and its backers are failing to differentiate between non-essential positions subject to political influence—positions that may be easier to eliminate or reform—and those that are critical, highly specialized, and apolitical. Many of these essential positions are not responsible for past policy failures or institutional missteps. This indiscriminate approach is a serious problem because the U.S. government has many highly specialized roles that are complex and poorly understood by the public. Cutting these roles without a careful review process could be disastrous.
Take, for example, the recent case involving nuclear safety scientists. I do not believe there was any deliberate ill intent in this instance. Even Trump and his team likely understand the importance of maintaining nuclear safety measures. Downsizing a nuclear arsenal, if that is the goal, must still be done properly and with expert oversight.
However, in their rush to achieve quick results—or to generate bragging rights over the number of people fired, expecting praise from their supporters—they failed to consider the details. And as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
You need detail-oriented professionals to execute any policy properly. Failure to do so has resulted in sloppy decision-making with potentially grave consequences.
Jacobsen: What about these younger people in the Department of Government Efficiency team? Amy Goodman commented on this, and much of the mainstream media in the United States focused on the racist rhetoric of one particular young official, which was discovered in an old online account. I believe the comments included anti-Indian sentiment and remarks against interracial marriage, which he had posted under the title “BigBalls.” Those are racist and juvenile antics, but that discussion is tertiary at best in the broader conversation.
As you highlight, the real issue is that non-experts are being placed in charge of expert systems and restructuring these institutions in ways that have major real-world consequences. Many people affected by these changes do not even know whether these actions are legal. That is where the real danger lies. So, how does this process of pushing out experts—the intellectual persona non grata phenomenon—potentially impact people, and what legal consequences could arise from it? You’re a lawyer, so what are the legal implications of this type of maneuvering?
Tsukerman: There will likely be many contract violations, unfulfilled obligations, and legal protections already enshrined in congressional law. These will likely lead to investigations and lawsuits, which could take years to resolve. These legal battles may outlast the Trump administration and extend into the tenure of whoever succeeds them.
While an administration may only last four years, the federal government is a permanent institution, meaning that any future administration could become liable for lawsuits that arise now—even if those lawsuits take more than four years to reach their conclusions.
Beyond the liability issues, we will likely hear claims of discrimination based on protected categories, which could further complicate legal proceedings. Another issue is whether there will be breach of contract claims surrounding the so-called buyouts—specifically, whether the Trump administration will compensate the people they are removing, as they currently claim.
Several critical questions remain unanswered:
- Does the administration have the legal authority to execute such a process?
- Do they have the necessary funding to compensate those affected?
- Will they follow through on their promises?
Given the track records of both Elon Musk and Donald Trump—who have a history of trying to escape contractual obligations they later found inconvenient—efforts will likely be made to avoid accountability for these actions.
Such breaches of contract will almost certainly erode trust in the federal government, particularly in this administration. As a result, we will likely see a wave of lawsuits for breach of contract, making it even harder for them to hire qualified personnel who meet their criteria, even among their supporters.
This inability to honour basic commitments may have a chilling effect, even among loyalists. Once the initial enthusiasm wears off, people will still expect to be paid for their work. No matter how ideologically committed someone is, if they are being underpaid, passed over, or outright dismissed, they will become disillusioned—no matter how much they admire their boss or agree with their rhetoric.
There is a huge difference between:
- The bystanders cheering from the sidelines (the followers on Truth Social and elsewhere)
- The waves of ex-supporters who become disillusioned
- The actual people whose lives are affected by legal decisions
These policies have real-world consequences, and I believe many Trump supporters—especially those who chose him over Kamala Harris—may start questioning their decision. Not all were hardline Republicans—some were simply skeptical of Democrats. But now, if they feel they are being betrayed in the same way, they may begin to ask:
“Did we make the right decision to trust these people?”
Their original criticism of Kamala Harris and the Democrats was that they engaged in tokenism or failed to keep election promises. Now, they see this administration doing the same thing. Why should they continue supporting them?
This disillusionment could lead to popular electoral losses and will almost certainly impact the midterm elections.
At this point, there are two possible explanations:
- They are rushing into this without considering the political and legal consequences—due to overenthusiasm, poor methodology, and a lack of strategic foresight.
- They do not care about the political repercussions because they know they only have four years. Their goal may be to extract as much benefit as possible in the short term, which means:
- Making big business deals
- Redirecting federal funding from organizations they oppose
- Channelling money into harder-to-trace avenues that align with their agenda
If the latter is true, then legal and political accountability may not even be a priority for them.
Jacobsen: What about the impact on established science and the international reputation of the United States? For example, shutting down USAID could cause turmoil worldwide. Depending on their country, Many rely on that aid for medical care, health, general wellness, and even survival.
Beyond these immediate humanitarian consequences, what about the higher-order effects on a society where many basic systems are well-established, but reputation, scientific integrity, and truth-seeking become major concerns?
Some scientists—whether prominent or not—may choose to remain silent or only speak under anonymity or pseudonymity because funding is being cut indiscriminately, like a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when restructuring scientific funding pipelines.
This is evident in cases where scientists are fired and later asked to return or when entire research funding programs for particular scientific endeavours are completely dismantled.
There are many underlying issues here, some of which have nothing to do with Trump or politics.
Tsukerman: That is true.
Many of these issues stem from long-standing academic problems eroding public trust in scientific institutions before COVID-19.
I have seen this firsthand through my familiarity with academia, my family’s experiences, professional endeavours, and research conversations. One of the biggest problems has been the influence of perverse funding incentives in scientific research.
Simply put, many academics—driven by the pursuit of government funding—engage in unacceptable shortcuts and violations of the scientific method. These actions undermine the credibility of their research, leading to diminished trust in scientific institutions.
There is a huge difference between the phrase “trust the science”—meaningless on its own—and the actual process of trusting that scientific institutions function correctly. Science is based on cautioning assumptions and rigorous testing, not on blind faith in any particular individual or study.
Public trust in institutions relies on the assumption that scientists are driven by the pursuit of truth without ulterior motives. Their goal should be to find answers, eliminate harmful biases, and advance human knowledge.
However, funding issues have corrupted many aspects of this process, not necessarily in political ways. This is not simply about Republicans vs. Democrats or who is in the White House. Rather, it is about academic competition and the unintended consequences of government intervention in the research process.
Unfortunately, whenever governments get involved, they tend to make things worse, not better. Multiple layers of bad communication, power grabs, competition, cronyism, and basic corruption exist, and this happens on both sides of the aisle.
Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Research industries that align with the interests of those in power tend to receive more funding, while those that do not are often cut or deprioritized. This has always been the case, regardless of which party is in power.
What is clear right now is that the attempt to depoliticize science has politicized it further because of how the process is being executed. There are ways to make science more transparent and less political, but shutting down communication, ignoring experts, and reducing transparency are not the best options.
If you truly want to depoliticize the scientific process, the solution is maximum transparency.
- Do not hide critical information.
- Make broad, clear announcements that inform the entire public—not just one political faction.
- Ensure that details are accessible and understandable for the average person so they are not left in the dark about how decisions are being made.
Failure to do this is fueling distrust, which is a serious long-term problem for scientific institutions, the U.S. government, and public confidence in research itself.
The right approach is to establish independent committees and task forces—bipartisan ones that can track funding and oversee how changes are implemented. The administration should appoint reputable individuals who are bipartisan, independent, and have no history of political scandals.
However, there are three major obstacles to this happening. First, it takes time, and the current administration appears uninterested in long-term planning. Second, there seems to be an agenda to cultivate distrust in anyone who does not fully align with their framework, which is a terrible way to build allies or expand a support base. Third, once some of these individuals came into power, they seemed to stop caring about public perception altogether. They appear drunk on their authority, celebrating not the effectiveness of their policies or societal impact but rather the fact that they now hold power over those they previously resented.
Jacobsen: Is all of this connected to the flipping of newsroom access for major news agencies?
Tsukerman: I think so. And let me be clear—I am not someone who unquestioningly defends the press. Journalism has struggled both as a business model and as an institution. It has increasingly catered to niche, highly partisan audiences, compromising the quality and neutrality of coverage. This shift has resulted in scandals, investigations, and blatant bias, further fueling public distrust in mainstream journalism. That being said, press regulations can be implemented responsibly without undermining the freedom of the press or shutting out government critics. When press restrictions go beyond reasonable oversight, it becomes clear that they are nothing more than a power play designed to control the narrative.
Every administration has had issues with the press—even Obama’s administration. Many assume that the mainstream media was more sympathetic to Democrats, but that is not entirely true. There were major scandals and tensions between the White House and the press during the Obama years, particularly over drone strikes. Even when one might expect alignment between an administration and the press, conflicts emerged over coverage priorities and framing. However, the current administration has taken press control to a new level—it is far more brazen and extensive than previous administrations.
This is not just about controlling the narrative or shaping media angles. It is about fundamentally restricting access. For example, the administration has demanded that AP News refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”—an overt attempt at editorial control. More significantly, they have blocked eight mainstream publications, effectively cutting off access to State Department officials. This is not a case of simply requiring media balance or corroboration—it is an outright ban on consuming content from specific sources on government time.
While some of the blocked publications have indeed been involved in ethical controversies, the scope of this crackdown is unprecedented. For example, The New York Times and other outlets have faced serious allegations of hiring stringers linked to terrorist organizations, which is unethical and indefensible. However, should the U.S. government respond by blocking access to all reporting from these outlets? I do not have a definitive answer, but this will undoubtedly impact public perception of government transparency.
Just as important as what the administration is censoring is what they are replacing it with. If nothing replaces it, it suggests they limit access to information simply for control. Will they introduce pre-approved partisan sources that officials must rely on? Will they say, “Those particular newspapers are off-limits, but figure it out on your own”? Right now, there is no coherent strategy—only a desire to eliminate opposition first and deal with the consequences later.
Jacobsen: How many people are on this call?
Tsukerman: 450. It is troubling that the intellectual persona non grata phenomenon is unfolding this way. The same people who rose to prominence by advocating for the so-called ‘Intellectual Dark Web’—and took pride in positioning themselves as dissidents—are now in power. They are still trying to play both sides, claiming to be victims of biases while simultaneously wielding power to silence others using the same methods they once condemned.
By creating intellectual persona non grata, they are fueling a revolutionary vs. counter-revolutionary dynamic that has nothing to do with effective governance and everything to do with ideological resentment and power struggles. This is not about principles but consolidating influence under a particular framework, regardless of the long-term consequences.
Jacobsen: When I say intellectual persona non grata, I mean this is happening across the spectrum, from Norman Finkelstein, who has long been controversial, to those behind Sokal 2.0 and similar hoaxes. Entire fields are undermined through intellectual pranks that call their legitimacy into question. These actions damage academic credibility, but that does not mean the correct response is a sweeping purge of scientific institutions.
Tsukerman: There is a fundamental difference between ensuring that every voice can participate in the marketplace of ideas and demanding that every voice be given a platform. No one is entitled to a particular platform—not even access to the White House. If someone engages in inappropriate behaviour, they should not expect to be welcomed into official spaces.
At the same time, if a media outlet is accepted as a mainstream representation of the press, follows current journalistic guidelines, and adheres to basic professional standards, then excluding them based purely on their content or viewpoints is deeply troubling. The White House has not established clear guidelines for ethical journalism, and the lack of transparency makes it easier to weaponize access based on political preferences.
On the one hand, the administration shuts out certain voices. Still, on the other hand, it elevates others who are equally problematic—like Jack Posobiec, who was allowed to attend a defence trip with Secretary Austin despite his long history of promoting conspiracy theories like Pizzagate.
So, is Posobiec a more legitimate journalist than a Hamas-affiliated stringer for The New York Times? I do not think either should be elevated by the White House or given official endorsement. Ethical journalism should not be selective but held to consistent standards.
Jacobsen: There are other countries with large scientific programs, but the quality of their research is questionable, and fraudulent studies are retracted at a much higher rate. Some nations have cultural pressures that incentivize fraudulent research. How do these U.S. policy moves influence the intellectual capital of the United States in Europe, Eastern states, and other regions?
Tsukerman: The world is watching the U.S. closely, and many are deeply alarmed by what they see. The U.S. government is doing nothing to engage in a real dialogue with its allies or to explain its process. This lack of communication is fueling international distrust.
There is also growing concern over double standards. For example, the Vice President travelled to Europe to lecture on democracy and values, while Elon Musk actively interfered in European democratic processes. This inconsistency signals to allies that the U.S. has an ulterior agenda that has nothing to do with democracy, free speech, or protecting the marketplace of ideas.
This is especially troubling when it comes to science. If there is one field that demands rigorous debate, it is scientific research. Scientists must constantly challenge each other, question assumptions, and engage in intellectual conflict to drive innovation forward.
Instead, we are seeing an attempt to create a “choir of consensus”—essentially a massive logical fallacy. This approach is dangerous no matter which political side engages in it. Science should be defined by clashing ideas and robust debate, not forced ideological conformity.
The current political climate discourages scientists from engaging in open, rigorous debate, making them fearful of being ostracized for challenging mainstream views. This backfires in a major way—it does not strengthen marginalized voices; instead, it amplifies fringe voices with deeply flawed methodologies while silencing everyone else—even those who might be generally supportive but scientifically rigorous.
In short, instead of fostering real scientific discussion, these policies stifle legitimate debate while elevating extreme voices on both sides. The result is a weaker intellectual landscape in the U.S. and diminished credibility on the global stage.
You do not want a chorus of consensus, which is essentially the biggest bandwagon fallacy ever imposed on scientific discourse. When either side engages in this, it is wrong. The foundation of science relies on clashing ideas and rigorous debate, and researchers should feel comfortable engaging with those who hold very different views within their respective fields.
However, political maneuvering has increasingly eroded this intellectual openness. Instead of fostering an environment where marginal voices feel more welcome, the current approach amplifies deeply fringe perspectives—often from individuals with a flawed grasp of the scientific method—while silencing or discouraging mainstream scientists, even those who may be generally supportive of the administration’s goals but still value rigorous debate and high standards.
Jacobsen: One prominent scientist, who requested anonymity for their interview, compared the current purge of scientists in the U.S. to Lysenkoism. Since this is your area of expertise, is the comparison accurate?
Tsukerman: The analogy is flawed because Lysenko was infamous for deeply flawed science that actively contradicted basic biological principles. The comparison may not be fully justified unless we see appointees rejecting scientific fundamentals. That said, we do see cases where appointees hold views verging on denialism, which is concerning.
For example, appointing a Secretary of Health who is a vaccine denialist and holds deeply troubling views on other scientific matters is probably the closest modern parallel to Lysenkoism. While the mass firings of scientists may indicate an ideological purge, they could also be the result of overzealous decision-making. It is too early to tell where this will lead at this stage. Still, I strongly urge the administration to consider who they retain and appoint.
They must enforce scientific standards, avoid conspiracy theory traps, and prioritize actual scientific integrity over political agendas. Encouraging open debate and internal criticism—even criticism of political appointees—is essential. Suppose we fail to maintain internal checks and balances that allow for dissent, including from people we may strongly disagree with ideologically. In that case, we cannot preserve the intellectual rigour needed for scientific progress.
We need a range of perspectives—from figures like Norman Finkelstein to those who represent the opposite end of the spectrum—because contrasting viewpoints are necessary for identifying bad ideas and refining good ones. The goal should not be polarization but rather a robust middle ground where scientists and intellectuals do not feel pressured to label themselves as belonging to one rigid ideological camp. They should be free to hold nuanced, independent positions, even within their fields of study.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for your time today.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10
Christine Drake, Manager of Ecological Corridors and Heritage Rivers at Parks Canada, has spent more than 17 years shaping conservation policy across the country. Her expertise spans ecosystem preservation, the establishment of protected areas, and national park management. With a Master’s degree in Forestry from the University of Toronto, Drake now leads efforts to expand and safeguard wildlife corridors—critical pathways that help species navigate increasingly fragmented landscapes.
In this conversation, Drake discusses Wildlife Corridors Canada and the pivotal role Parks Canada plays in ecological conservation. The agency has committed $1.3 million over two years to fund corridor projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Nationally, $7 million is being allocated across 11 projects, with NGOs contributing an additional $7.5 million—bringing the total investment to $14.5 million.
Parks Canada has pinpointed 23 national priority areas for conservation, with 10 already receiving direct support in seven provinces. Drake explains that funding allocations vary by project. For instance, the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute is working to protect 300 acres of vital habitat. More details on these initiatives can be found on the Parks Canada website.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Canada is a vast country with significant green space, making this an important topic to emphasize. Thank you for joining me today.
Christine Drake: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: For the ecological corridor projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, how much funding is being contributed by Parks Canada?
Drake: In Nova Scotia, Parks Canada is contributing $495,000 over the 2024–25 and 2025–26 fiscal years. In New Brunswick, Parks Canada is contributing $826,142 over the same two fiscal years. Altogether, this amounts to just over $1.3 million over two years for the two projects.
Jacobsen: How much inland water and land will Canada’s government commit to conserving by 2030?
Drake: That question is best answered by Environment and Climate Change Canada, as they lead that file for the Government of Canada. The same applies to your next question.
Jacobsen: How many acres will the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute conserve via voluntary stewardship mechanisms?
Drake: The Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute aims to conserve at least 300 acres as part of its project through voluntary mechanisms, including conservation easements and land acquisitions.
Jacobsen: What is the total funding allocated to support ecological corridor projects across Canada?
Drake: Over $7 million is being contributed to 11 projects to support on-the-ground ecological corridor and connectivity work across the country. Additionally, environmental non-profits and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will provide an extra $7.5 million through their own funding and partnerships. In total, this brings the investment in ecological corridors in Canada to nearly $14.5 million.
Jacobsen: Are there any noteworthy NGOs involved in these projects?
Drake: The two most recently announced organizations are Birds Canada and the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. A previous news release outlines all the other lead organizations receiving funding, which I can share with you.
Jacobsen: How many national priority areas has Parks Canada identified for ecological corridors?
Drake: Parks Canada has identified and mapped 23 national priority areas for ecological corridors. These are areas where ecological corridors are most urgently needed in Canada to conserve or restore connectivity. Improving or maintaining ecological connectivity in these priority areas will greatly benefit biodiversity conservation and help species and ecosystems adapt to climate change.
The priority areas for ecological corridors were identified over the last couple of years in collaboration with a diverse range of partners, experts, stakeholders, and the public. This process involved using national-scale data and several scientific assessment methods. An interactive map and more information about each of the priority areas for ecological corridors are available on the Parks Canada website.
Jacobsen: How many national priority areas will ground-based connectivity advance through approximately $7 million in contributions?
Drake: Funding from the National Program for Ecological Corridors supports on-the-ground work in 10 of the 23 national priority areas for ecological corridors. These projects are located in seven provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
Projects will advance ecological corridors in areas identified as nationally important for conserving or restoring ecological connectivity and strengthening the network of protected and conserved areas and natural habitats.
Jacobsen: Christine, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Drake: No problem.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09
*Link to interview.*
Dr. Dauda Lawal is the governor of Zamfara State, elected in 2023 under the PDP. A former banker, he previously served as First Bank’s executive director. Women’s empowerment, gender equality, and education are crucial for Nigeria’s progress. Collaboration between governments and organizations is essential to create policies that support women’s opportunities and participation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would you take away as the big message of these thirty years of progress for Nigeria and the world as a whole?
Dr. Dauda Lawal: First of all, let me say that it has been a wonderful opportunity to be here, to hear from primary sources—all the women who participated in this program—and to learn about what they went through to get to where they are today. It is truly inspiring. The key takeaway here is that we still have a long way to go in terms of women’s empowerment, gender equality, and the way forward for Nigeria.
Jacobsen: Do you believe that many of the advances for women must be undertaken comprehensively as a network?
Laval: No. It has to be holistic and highly comprehensive. There is a need for collaboration between subnational governments, the federal government, and international organizations to fully understand women’s challenges and develop effective policies for gender equality.
Jacobsen: In your opinion, what areas should Nigeria focus on most—economics and political participation?
Laval: Education is key because one must be educated to fully understand opportunities and challenges, even in business.
Jacobsen: Regarding the next generation, what was your biggest takeaway from their representation?
Laval: I believe that focusing on education and empowerment would go a long way toward creating meaningful change.
Jacobsen: For the general public of Nigeria, what is the big message?
Laval: I think the big message is: let’s give women a chance—whether in government, economic activities, or social life. If we can do that, it will truly transform the fortunes of women in Nigeria.
Jacobsen: Sir, I appreciate your time.
Laval: Thank you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09
Dr. Abie Mendelsohn, M.D., F.A.C.S., is a leading laryngologist specializing in advanced, minimally invasive throat and voice surgeries at the Los Angeles Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Allergy. He has pioneered transoral robotic surgery (TORS), sialendoscopy, and hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation. Mendelsohn emphasizes that these procedures are essential to healthcare, not cosmetic. His innovations, including a scarless tracheal shave technique, improve outcomes while reducing risks. He explains the role of resonance and pitch in vocal identity, noting that while pitch influences gender perception, resonance is equally critical. He stresses the life-changing impact of these procedures, as a misaligned voice can cause significant distress. Advocating for broader insurance coverage, he continues to refine surgical techniques and push for advancements in transgender healthcare, ensuring safer, more effective procedures that help patients align their voice with their gender identity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dr. Abie Mendelsohn, M.D., F.A.C.S., is a fellowship-trained laryngologist specializing in advanced, minimally invasive surgical treatments for conditions of the throat and voice. Based at the Los Angeles Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Allergy, he has pioneered transoral robotic surgery (TORS), sialendoscopy, and hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation on the West Coast. He holds a B.A. in Biology from Yeshiva University and an M.D. from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Dr. Mendelsohn completed his residency at UCLA and pursued specialized training in Laryngology and robotic surgery. His research focuses on voice preservation and endoscopic surgical techniques. Thank you so much for joining me today, Dr. Mendelsohn. I appreciate it.
Mendelsohn: Thank you for the invitation.
Jacobsen: Let’s start with some softballs. What factors should be considered when determining whether a candidate is suitable for surgery?
Mendelsohn: Surgery always carries risks. Even the smallest procedure has inherent risks related to anesthesia, infection, bleeding, and recovery time. Generally speaking, there are risks associated with anesthesia and even travelling to a surgical center or hospital before incision.
When determining a treatment plan, we aim to balance risk with benefit and choose the least invasive, most effective option for the patient. This includes considering the physical risks, time, recovery process, and discomfort.
Some risks are unavoidable. Surgery is typically the most invasive option, so we usually consider it a last resort. Suppose a non-surgical alternative—medication, voice therapy, or other treatments—is available. In that case, we strongly encourage pursuing those options first.
That said, there are cases where surgery is the only viable solution. We must determine the safest and most effective surgical approach in those situations.
Jacobsen: What does gender-affirming voice surgery involve?
Mendelsohn: Gender-affirming voice surgery is a broad category that uses several surgical techniques. The primary goal is to modify the vocal cords and voice box so that the voice’s pitch, resonance, and quality align with the patient’s gender identity.
Many of us take our voices for granted. Even experiencing temporary laryngitis can be frustrating and make us appreciate how important our voice is for our professional, social, and personal identity.
For people who do not have experience with gender-diverse individuals, it can be difficult to understand the distress caused by having a voice that does not match one’s true identity. For a transgender individual, using their voice can feel like a constant misalignment between their internal self and their outward expression.
When we help a patient achieve a voice that truly represents them is a profoundly transformative experience—some might even call it magical. It’s a magical effort.
There are generally two broad categories of gender-affirming voice surgery. One category involves voice surgery that makes the voice sound more feminine. This could mean bringing someone from a masculine-sounding voice into a range that is more androgynous or distinctly feminine. However, this is not a strict binary—man to woman. Sometimes, the goal is to move someone out of a masculine vocal range without necessarily pushing them fully into a feminine range.
Conversely, there are cases where someone with a feminine-sounding voice wants—or, more accurately, needs—to move into an androgynous or even masculine vocal range. Various surgical strategies can help achieve both of these goals.
Jacobsen: As a side question—when we use placeholder terms like “masculine” and “feminine” voice zones, what physiological factors contribute to the production of those different vocal sound types?
Mendelsohn: I love this question. There’s much research on this topic.
When we pick up the phone and say hello, our brain immediately assigns a gender to the voice on the other end. Even without thinking about it, our brains subconsciously analyze vocal cues to determine gender.
So, what factors contribute to that perception?
If you ask the average person on the street, most would say pitch—meaning a higher pitch is perceived as more feminine. In comparison, a lower pitch is perceived as more masculine.
While pitch is certainly a factor, it is far from the whole story. Other vocal characteristics can be so powerful that they override pitch entirely.
For example, let’s go back to the telephone scenario. You can immediately tell if you’re hearing a high-pitched male voice versus a low-pitched female voice. That tells us that pitch alone cannot define gender perception in voice.
So, what are the other factors besides pitch?
A major one is resonance—the voice echoes in our body before it exits our lips.
If you took vocal cords outside the body and made them vibrate, they would not sound like a human voice. Like a bleating goat, they would sound harsh, thin, and unpleasant.
The depth and richness of our voices come from harmonics, which develop as the sound resonates in the body before it leaves the mouth. This is why trained singers can produce incredibly powerful and moving sounds—they can manipulate resonance to create depth and emotion.
Our brains subconsciously process resonance, and we instinctively associate certain resonance patterns with gender identity.
Right now, I am resonating in a way that communicates masculinity to you. Middle C on the piano is typically where a voice would sound classically feminine. The C below middle C is often identified or perceived as masculine. So, when someone comes in for a consultation—let’s say, for vocal feminization surgery—and their voice naturally sits at that lower C, there are times when they express a specific request, saying, “I would like my voice to be at this note.” Unfortunately, that is not something any responsible surgeon can truly promise.
We do not yet know how to fine-tune the voice box precisely. The reason is that the voice box is highly complex and can modulate itself. Consider someone like Freddie Mercury—he had a vocal range of nearly four octaves. No surgery can achieve something like that. The voice relies heavily on the body’s natural control. While we can make structural adjustments by altering certain aspects of the vocal anatomy, promising a specific pitch is not feasible.
Jacobsen: What do you advise patients regarding expectations?
Mendelsohn: Many individuals seeking gender-affirming voice surgery have already undergone some training or, at the very least, have started mimicking their desired voice as part of a natural learning process. This adaptation helps them navigate society so they are not only acknowledged and respected but also protected from discrimination, violence, and hatred—issues we must work to eliminate.
Since they are already practicing these techniques, I explain that surgery, at least in my hands, will enable them to achieve the best version of their voice with minimal effort. It will provide them with a natural-sounding voice, unlike some outdated vocal feminization procedures that produce an artificial, almost cartoonish sound. While those earlier methods did raise pitch, they failed to create a truly gender-affirming result, often making the voice sound awkward or unnatural.
As a result, they fell short in all respects. Modern vocal feminization surgery, however, is designed to yield the best possible outcome. That said, I never promise a specific pitch because factors such as a person’s height and the length of their vocal tract influence resonance. I can guarantee they can reach their optimal pitch without the strain of conscious effort.
Jacobsen: Regarding the scarless tracheal shave procedure, you mentioned several techniques available, each tailored to the specific needs of the candidate. So, what exactly is this technique?
Mendelsohn: Excellent question. Scott, now you’ve got me excited! If you thought I was enthusiastic about everything else, I truly love discussing this. So, let’s get into it. I’m a specialist in thread-based techniques…
I’m a voice box specialist. So, when discussing gender-affirming voice care, which we’ve already discussed, that is well within my expertise.
The surgery does not—and should never—affect the vocal cords. The Adam’s apple is part of the voice box structure, but it sits above where the vocal cords are within the cartilage, creating the neck bump. Historically, this procedure was thought to be purely cosmetic. This is a terrible misconception, but that was the term often used.
Insurance companies used to deny coverage because they believed it was cosmetic. We now know that is completely incorrect. This procedure is an important part of healthcare. A woman who struggles to walk around in public with an Adam’s apple faces challenges to her well-being. This surgery is necessary for many people when appropriate.
Because it was categorized as cosmetic for so long, plastic surgeons and cosmetic surgeons performed tracheal shave surgery. Their goal was to reduce the bump in the neck to align with a patient’s gender identity. However, these surgeons often lacked expertise in vocal cord anatomy—understanding where everything aligns and how to protect the vocal cords.
One of the major risks of tracheal shave surgery is that if the surgeon focuses solely on aesthetics and removes too much cartilage, they can sever the vocal cord attachment. This results in a catastrophic injury.
Over the years, tracheal shave procedures have shifted from cosmetic surgeons to voice box specialists. This was a natural progression for me as a specialist in gender-affirming care. Performing tracheal shave surgery felt essential to my field. After doing a few of these procedures, it felt right—removing an Adam’s apple so a person could live a confident, happy life.
But there was an issue. When we completed the surgery, we had to make an incision directly at the Adam’s apple or slightly above it. While we achieved excellent contour reduction, the resulting scar could be hypertrophic (raised), hyperpigmented (darker than the surrounding skin), or hypopigmented (lighter than the surrounding skin). Either way, research shows that scars catch the eye more than tattoos.
Even though we reduced the bump, people still noticed the patient’s neck. That meant our patients had to use makeup or cover-up every time they went public. We were helping but not addressing the issue to its fullest extent.
At the same time, government and private insurance companies were starting to cover this procedure, recognizing its medical necessity. Around the same time, a new surgical approach for thyroid gland removal, performed through the mouth, was gaining attention in the United States.
I pursued training in this thyroid gland procedure, and as I did, gender-affirming care was rapidly expanding. Patients were finally getting the coverage they needed, and it was clear that this field was evolving to meet those needs.
Suddenly, it came to me like a light bulb moment. Why can’t I do what we’re already doing for this cartilage for the thyroid gland? It’s the same area. We can access it through the mouth.
The surgery described for thyroid gland removal involves making a small incision on the inside of the lower lip, inserting instruments underneath the skin’s surface, and removing the gland. There were differences in how far down we needed to go and the type of work involved, so some of the instrumentation had to be adapted. But the concept was clear.
And I certainly was not the only one with this idea—it was being proposed worldwide. However, what set our approach apart was that we developed highly creative instrumentation to make the procedure successful.
This happened just before the pandemic shutdown when we began introducing this as a viable alternative to the traditional incision, which leaves a visible scar. We first started performing the procedure in 2019. Since then, we’ve completed approximately 300 cases using the lower lip approach.
From our experience, we found that removing Adam’s apple without leaving a scar achieves excellent results and maximizes safety. We previously discussed one of the major complications of this surgery—the risk of cutting through the vocal cord attachment.
With this technique, I use an endoscope, a small camera inserted through the lower lip, to measure and identify critical landmarks. Instead of making a small incision and struggling to see through a tiny opening—like looking through a peephole—I now have full visualization of the entire area. Even though the incision is hidden, my ability to see and navigate the anatomy is significantly improved.
Areas toward the side and back of the cartilage can sometimes retain fullness, which is not always in line with a traditionally feminine neck contour. This new approach allows me to be more precise and effectively address those recessed areas.
Ultimately, this scarless approach allows us to perform safer, more comprehensive surgery. Oh, and another major benefit—there’s no visible scarring. Scars can sometimes “out” a person or expose them to discrimination and hatred even more than Adam’s apple itself.
Jacobsen: What are the recovery timelines and outcomes for patients?
Mendelsohn: For tracheal shave surgery, and I mean “we” in the collective sense—everyone in the field performing this procedure—we are still working on defining success.
Some patients achieve a beautiful neck contour but may not feel entirely satisfied, and vice versa. Some patients may have residual fullness or a slight bump remaining, particularly below the vocal cords. I cannot always remove all of it without risking vocal cord function, so we do our best to balance aesthetics and safety.
Sometimes, we could have achieved a better result, while the patient feels their outcome is fantastic. So, from that perspective, we are continuously refining our techniques.
We conduct surveys before and after surgery, asking patients how they feel about their necks and taking photos to assess the results.
How do I personally measure success? I judge it based on the number of revision requests we receive.
For example, in rhinoplasty (a nose job), patients sometimes return for a revision to make small adjustments, like reducing an extra tip. In our case, our revision rate is less than one percent. From that standpoint, this surgery is extremely successful.
It is also extremely safe—we have not had a single case of vocal cord injury, which is one of the most serious complications we aim to avoid. And I expect that statistic to stay the same.
In terms of the recovery process, this is an outpatient surgery, meaning it is performed under general anesthesia. Still, the patient goes home the same day. The procedure itself takes about an hour and a half under anesthesia. We recommend taking a week off from work, school, or other activities.
The discomfort is moderate, meaning the patient will know they had surgery. Some procedures are so minimal in recovery that people forget they even had surgery the next day—this is not one of those. Patients will certainly feel that they had surgery.
We do prescribe pain medication, but many patients find they do not need it. From that standpoint, recovery is straightforward. There is no need for voice rest or diet modification. Ultimately, it is a week of rest, catching up on favourite streaming shows, and returning quickly to normal life.
Jacobsen: How has gender-affirming care evolved in terms of surgical techniques and technological sophistication over time?
Mendelsohn: It is all based on philosophy. The techniques have advanced, and even surgeons still performing open procedures are now recessing the incision, understanding that the focus is not just the cartilage—the goal is the person.
We are seeing an important shift in approach as we look at the broader medical and surgical communities, not only in the United States but worldwide. Now that insurance companies are covering this vital healthcare, our collective experience is growing. We are better equipped to handle complex cases, such as residual fullness below the vocal cords or unexpected complications.
With more data and shared experiences, we can continue to improve and refine our techniques. For a long time—before February 2018, to be exact—there was little shared knowledge in this field.
Now, we are seeing gender-affirming surgery become like any other surgical subspecialty. We need more surgeons working in this space to drive innovation. I hope my procedure will become obsolete in a few years because we will have found an even better way to do it.
Jacobsen: What is the role of ENT specialists in the evolving multidisciplinary approach to transgender healthcare?
Mendelsohn: The role of ENT specialists is critical because we focus on everything related to the neck. This includes vocal feminization, vocal masculinization, and tracheal shave procedures.
But beyond that, ENT as a specialty is deeply connected to what it means to be human. We deal with hearing, speech (distinct from voice), breathing, nasal function, allergies, and mucus production, which affect how we function daily.
Because of this, once a patient has completed their gender-affirming procedures, ENT specialists continue to provide care as needed. Right now, this work is primarily focused on the throat. Still, many ENT specialists are also performing facial feminization surgeries, which address key facial features.
We are also seeing a rise in facial masculinization surgery. However, that falls more within the realm of facial plastic surgery within ENT.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges and promises for individuals undergoing each type of surgery? One fact you pointed out is that 2018, which is recent.
Mendelsohn: It’s embarrassingly recent. When I was in training, I was working in Bellingham, learning advanced endoscopic techniques, and that was in 2011. That was the first time I had ever even seen a gender-affirming surgery.
I had read about it, but I had never witnessed one. It was mind-blowing to see how profoundly life-changing it could be. Surgery is always about achieving the biggest impact with the smallest intervention, and these procedures exemplify that principle.
For me, that was incredible. When I returned after training in 2011, these procedures were essentially unavailable unless a patient could pay in cash—a briefcase full of money—because healthcare in America is expensive. If you could not pay, it simply wasn’t an option, which was heartbreaking.
Now, at least, we finally recognize that a massive group of important patients were ignored for so long. We have much catching up to do.
Jacobsen: What is the biggest takeaway from developing these techniques and their impact on people’s lives? This could be helpful for those who may not have expertise in this field but are reading this interview out of general interest.
Mendelsohn: Oh, boy. There are so many takeaways. I’ll keep it short.
We must fight against the misconception that a tracheal shave is a cosmetic procedure. I perform tracheal shave surgeries for cisgender women as well. Many women have naturally large Adam’s apples. They were assigned female at birth. They identify as women. Many of them have started families. And yet, they have a largeAdam’s apple.
Would anyone say that reducing their Adam’s apple is just cosmetic? I hope not.
A woman walking around with a large Adam’s apple experiences constant distress. It is not something you would wish on anyone. If we recognize this for cisgender women, then we must also understand that providing the same care to gender-diverse patients is just as critical.
This is especially true when we think about voice care.
I saw a patient recently—a beautiful young woman. If you put her in a lineup with 100 other women, you would never be able to “clock” her. But when she speaks, her voice is masculine.
She experiences an impossible dilemma in life. People open doors for her because she is perceived as a young, beautiful woman. But she can’t say “thank you” because if she does, people react negatively.
She is called names for being rude if she doesn’t say thank you. If she does say thank you, she is called names because of her voice. This is a torture that most people cannot imagine. And it is such a small thing. But it becomes debilitating when you multiply experiences like that over a lifetime.
This is not a cosmetic procedure. This is not just, “Oh, you want your voice to sound different.” This is something that must happen. Gender-affirming care is a critical component of healthcare.
Even if someone has different religious or political views, they must recognize that a human being is suffering. And if we can help them, we must do so.
That is our responsibility as individuals.
That is our responsibility as a society.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Mendelsohn: Of course.
Jacobsen: Nice to meet you. Thank you—I appreciate it.
Mendelsohn: No, no—thank you for getting this out there.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/08
Simon Gaudreault, Chief Economist and VP of Research at CFIB, discusses the federal government’s reversal of the capital gains inclusion rate hike and its implications for small businesses. CFIB welcomes the decision, emphasizing the need for certainty amid economic uncertainties like U.S.-Canada trade tensions. Gaudreault highlights CFIB’s push for a UK-style tax framework that limits provisional tax authority to six months. He stresses the importance of predictable policies for business confidence and investment. The discussion underscores the challenges small businesses face and the necessity of clear, stable tax regulations to support economic growth and entrepreneurship in Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Simon Gaudreault, the Chief Economist and Vice President of Research at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). Since joining CFIB in 2011, he has led research and lobbying efforts on economic, political, and social issues affecting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across Canada. Appointed to his current role in 2022, Simon serves as a national spokesperson and media commentator.
Previously, he worked in municipal finance and economic development. He earned an Honours B.A. in Economics from the University of Ottawa and an M.Sc. in Economics from Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), where his research focused on entrepreneurship in Canada’s rural and remote regions.
So, what decision did the federal government make regarding the capital gains inclusion rate?
Gaudreault: The government has decided to reverse its planned increase to the capital gains inclusion rate announced in the 2024 federal budget. As a result, we are reverting to the long-standing policy of allowing only 50% of capital gains to be taxable for most individuals and business owners.
This is a positive decision, especially since the Minister of Finance has confirmed that the government will still increase the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption (LCGE). Previously set at $1 million, the exemption has now been raised to $1.25 million.
With this change, the government maintains the higher LCGE while returning to the 50% inclusion rate. From CFIB’s perspective, this represents the best of both worlds, as business owners who sell a small business will be able to retain more of their capital gains tax-free due to the increase in the LCGE.
Any capital gains above $1.25 million will continue to be taxed at a 50% inclusion rate instead of the two-thirds (66.7%) inclusion rate planned in the 2024 budget. This is a major victory for small business owners and entrepreneurs in Canada.
Maybe I can combine my next two questions:
Jacobsen: When was the increased capital gains inclusion rate of 66.7% originally scheduled to take effect? How does CFIB react to the government’s decision to cancel the hike?
Gaudreault: Our reaction is, of course, one of relief.
The federal government originally planned to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 66.7% for gains above $250,000, and this change was scheduled to take effect on June 25, 2024. However, they have now decided to cancel the increase entirely.
When the increase was first announced, we believed it sent a bad signal to entrepreneurs and investors in Canada at a bad time.
We are at a critical moment in our economic history where strengthening the business environment is essential. Canada needs more private investment to boost productivity, ultimately improving all Canadians’ living standards.
So, last year’s government decision to increase capital gains taxes at a time when we should have been encouraging more private investment was concerning.
Now, the government has reversed course and chosen to maintain the 50% inclusion rate, which, in our view, is the right decision given the current economic climate.
Due to ongoing Canada-U.S. trade tensions and the risk of tariffs and counter-tariffs, businesses and entrepreneurs in Canada already face much uncertainty and potentially higher costs. Adding more financial burdens—particularly through higher taxes—would only worsen the situation.
For this reason, maintaining the previous tax regime—especially regarding investment and capital gains—was the right call. Our reaction to the federal government’s decision is overall positive. Additionally, it is especially positive because the government has chosen to retain the modifications to the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption that were announced last year.
Even though this change represents only a small improvement, it is still a step forward on the investment taxation front. By keeping investment-friendly policies in place, we are creating a better environment for investment and business growth in Canada.
Jacobsen: What uncertainties make it important not to increase taxes on entrepreneurship right now?
Gaudreault: The biggest uncertainty right now is the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade situation. We still do not know whether 25% tariffs will be applied to Canadian goods exported to the U.S. This uncertainty alone has drastically shifted the economic landscape over the past few months.
Additionally, the Canadian government had previously announced its counter-tariffs in response to potential U.S. trade actions. While these retaliatory tariffs have not yet been enforced, we recently received a 30-day reprieve to allow negotiations between the Canadian and U.S. governments.
However, even with this temporary break, there is still no guarantee that tariffs won will not be implemented at the end of the negotiation period. While there are currently no U.S. or Canadian retaliatory tariffs in place, the possibility remains, creating high economic uncertainty.
This morning, I was on a webinar with small business owners discussing the situation. One of them said something that stood out:
“This uncertainty about which goods will be taxed or tax-exempt in the coming weeks, months, and years is almost worse than dealing with tariffs themselves. The uncertainty alone is paralyzing decision-making in business.”
This uncertainty is freezing business activities across multiple areas:
- Investment plans are on hold.
- Hiring is being postponed.
- Expansion projects are delayed.
- Product development is slowing down.
This economic paralysis is already costing Canada heavily, affecting entrepreneurs, businesses, and the overall economy.
Given these circumstances, we should not add burdens, especially by hiking taxes. Instead, we should maintain stability and avoid creating new challenges for businesses.
At CFIB, in the face of trade tensions and economic uncertainty, the government should focus on tax cuts, not increases. While we strongly opposed the proposed capital gains inclusion rate hike, we are relieved that the government ultimately chose to reverse the increase, allowing businesses to focus on growth and stability instead of worrying about higher taxes.
Jacobsen: What specific legislative change would be recommended for the CRA to have the authority to collect taxes?
Gaudreault: Something interesting happened during this episode over the last six to ten months since the capital gains changes were announced. We were in a situation where no bill was ever passed. The government was putting things on the wayside and the back burner.
Although they had stated their intention to increase the inclusion rate, it was never formalized by passing a bill. Even worse, we were dealing with a minority government, and many opposition parties—especially the Conservatives—made it clear that they would not support such a bill. Since they were leading in the polls, they had a high chance of forming the next government.
Then, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation, the two leading contenders for Liberal Party leadership, Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, stated that they would likely scrap the capital gains tax increase altogether.
Despite all this, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) said it would continue to enforce the higher inclusion rate announced in the budget, even though it had never been confirmed through proper legislative channels. The formal steps required to confirm this tax change had never been implemented.
We advocate for avoiding this kind of uncertainty in the future. Canada should introduce clear rules that limit the CRA’s provisional authority to collect taxes based on unconfirmed budget proposals. At CFIB, we will lobby the next federal government to introduce legislation similar to those of the United Kingdom. Tax authorities are given no more than six months to pass legislation there. The system automatically reverts to previous tax rates if they are not passed within that timeframe.
The reason for this reform is certainty. Business owners need clear and predictable rules. In this case, we were stuck in the worst possible scenario—the government did not pass legislation, and the opposition and potential new government were strongly against it. Even tax experts were divided, with some saying you could file at a 50% inclusion rate and others suggesting you should file at two-thirds. This uncertainty created a chaotic situation, one of the worst things a business can face.
Even under normal circumstances, uncertainty is one of the biggest challenges for business owners. They want to know:
- If I sell this asset, what will my capital gains tax be?
- How much will I owe the government?
- Can I plan my investments with confidence?
These are critical decisions for business owners and investors, and we cannot afford to be unclear about tax rules—especially not for extended periods like the one we just experienced.
So, we are calling on the next government to ensure that future tax changes must be implemented within six months. If that does not happen, we should automatically revert to the previous tax rules before announcing the change.
Jacobsen: I have two somewhat digressive but related questions I’ll ask simultaneously. First, what factors in policy and economic shifts create the most significant real-time benefits for small businesses—existing ones and those just starting? Second, what psychological or cultural factors—such as how small business owners perceive the economy—are most significant in shaping their confidence to expand, grow, and innovate? So things that reduce anxiety are stuff like that.
Gaudreault: It depends on your specific situation as a business owner—your business model, target market, and where you are in your business life cycle. However, there are a few general factors that we can highlight for sure.
As a business owner, your optimism will largely depend on your perception of predictability in your environment. A stable business environment allows for better decision-making, whether that means stable tax rates or even improving tax policies. A predictable regulatory framework—including labour laws and compliance requirements—is crucial in maintaining business confidence.
On the economic side, business owners need confidence that there will be buyers for their products, that they will be able to access the resources and supplies they need, and that these will be readily available at reasonable costs with multiple options.
Another key factor is certainty in how rules and regulations are enforced. Business owners must know that they operate in a fair system where institutions ensure that contracts are upheld, laws are applied fairly, and regulations are enforced consistently according to democratic processes.
Looking at the past few months—and even up to the last few days—it’s clear that optimism among business owners is not very high. Unfortunately, several major factors have contributed to this:
- The federal government’s back-and-forth stance on capital gains taxes created unnecessary uncertainty.
- The CRA’s interpretation of tax policies left some business owners feeling treated unfairly.
- The broader economic environment—including tariffs, post-pandemic recovery, and high inflation—has made business operations more challenging.
It has been a rough few years for business owners, coming out of the pandemic and dealing with a highly unpredictable economy. Many are exhausted, having had to endure multiple financial shocks.
At CFIB, we track small business confidence through a monthly survey, which we’ve been conducting since February 2009. This data allows us to build a small business confidence index. Over the past several months, confidence among small business owners has remained below historical averages. Given everything I’ve just outlined, it’s not surprising.
We desperately need better news for business owners—and more certainty. Hopefully, we can finally put this capital gains tax issue behind us and focus on creating a more stable and predictable environment for small businesses to thrive.
Jacobsen: What might be the potential implications for future federal legislation on taxes based on CFIB’s lobbying intentions?
Gaudreault: If we succeed in making our case and convincing the next federal government—regardless of the party in power—to adopt a UK-style framework, the impact would be significant.
For example, if we ever had to discuss an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate in the future—though that is certainly not something we want—this system would provide immediate clarity. If a change is announced in the budget but, for some reason, the bill is not tabled in the House of Commons over the following months, there would be no prolonged uncertainty. People would know it cannot remain unresolved for over six months.
This means business owners, investors, and anyone subject to capital gains tax would have a clear timeline. Either the change will be implemented within six months, or it will not happen, and the tax system will revert to its previous state.
This approach would significantly improve clarity, a crucial component of a healthy economy and a stable business environment. That is why we will actively advocate for this policy when we meet with the next federal government after the election.
Jacobsen: Simon, thank you for your time and the opportunity to discuss this today. I appreciate it, and it was nice to meet you.
Gaudreault: Thank you as well. It was a pleasure to meet you. Please don’t hesitate to reach out. If there’s anything else, let us know.
Best of luck with the weather out west, and let’s hope we can get through this winter without freezing too much.
Jacobsen: That’s right. Damn right, Simon. You take care. Bye.
Gaudreault: You as well. Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07
Grammy-nominated singer and actress Antonique Smith is a dedicated climate activist, serving as CEO and co-founder of Climate Revival. She mobilizes communities, especially people of colour and faith groups, through storytelling, music, and art to address climate change. As the Earth Action Day 2025 Ambassador for EARTHDAY.ORG, she emphasizes urgent collective action to combat environmental crises. Smith highlights climate justice, pointing to disproportionate pollution in marginalized communities like Cancer Alley. She is passionate about change and urges involvement through ClimateRevival.org, social media, and advocacy. For her, activism is about love, action, and unity to protect future generations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Antonique Smith. She is a Grammy-nominated singer, acclaimed actress, and dedicated climate activist. She is known for her roles on Broadway and screen, notably as Faith Evans in Notorious.
Smith blends her artistic talents with passionate environmental advocacy. As co-founder and CEO of Climate Revival, she mobilizes communities, particularly people of colour and faith-based groups, to tackle climate change through storytelling, art, and music. Appointed as the official ambassador for Earth Action Day 2025 by EARTHDAY.ORG, Smith leads collective action to protect the planet, empowering global communities to unite around environmental justice and sustainable solutions.
So, what inspired your involvement with EARTHDAY.ORG, and why did you accept the Earth Action Day Ambassador role for 2025?
Antonique Smith: It’s such an honour. First, it’s important, especially now, because we are in a climate crisis. Our rights to clean air, clean water, and even our right to exist are threatened.
If we don’t act fast and take bold action—which is what EARTHDAY.ORG is emphasizing this year with Earth Action Day—we will face devastating consequences. This year’s focus is on collective action, big or small, because all those actions create an impact. That’s why I’m excited to be a part of Earth Day this year—it’s not just about awareness but about action. We need love, and we need action. That has been my platform for a long time.
I’ve been in this movement for over a decade. I started as an artist, primarily focusing on singing and speaking. Still, over time, I realized I wanted to do more. Now, I can create opportunities instead of waiting for others to include me. Of course, I still receive invitations—like EARTHDAY.ORG asking me to be an ambassador—which is an incredible honour.
But as CEO and co-founder of Climate Revival, I have found a new way to be involved in this movement—one that allows me to drive real change. Honestly, my increased activism was fueled by the intensification of extreme weather events—hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and deadly heat waves.
For example, last year, over 1,300 people died during the Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia due to extreme heat. Los Angeles, my home, has experienced record-breaking heat waves, wildfires, and flooding. The climate crisis is happening now, and I need to do more.
I am also focused on environmental justice because Black, Brown, and low-income communities are the ones who suffer the most—not only from climate change itself but from the pollution driving it. Many of the worst-polluted areas in the U.S. are in communities of colour.
I’m from East Orange, New Jersey—a predominantly Black and brown community—so I come from sacrifice zones. In these places, corporations dump pollution, harming residents’ health and well-being. That’s why I’m so passionate about fighting for climate justice—because it’s personal.
I felt that not enough was being done, so I wanted to go deeper. That decision led me into different spaces, and ultimately, that’s what brought me to EARTHDAY.ORG. At some point, they asked me to be an ambassador, which happened recently—an incredible honour. They saw me as someone who was already taking the massive action they aim to inspire in the world.
I already believe that love is the answer because if there were more love, then profits wouldn’t be more important than people. Love and greed cannot coexist. They are fundamentally opposed. Love has always been a foundational part of my platform, and I truly believe the world needs more of it. Love is the most powerful force in the world, yet it is the one we use the least.
For me, love is always the action I promote. Tarth Action Day is perfect—it aligns completely with my work. It feels almost meant to be this year. I even released a song called “Love Song to the Earth.”
Come on—how incredible is that? God aligned it beautifully. I released a song with both love and earth in the title, and then EARTHDAY.ORG asked me to be the Earth Action Day Ambassador. It feels destined.
This is meant to be, and I take it seriously. I am praying that we can make a massive impact because, honestly, we have no choice but to create massive change. Our lives are at stake, and the lives of future generations are at stake. But even before we think about the future, people right now are dying because of climate change.
I spend a lot of time in Cancer Alley, and what’s happening there is unbelievable. It’s horrifying that people in this country are allowed to live in such toxic pollution. Cancer Alley is in Louisiana—an 85-mile stretch of land between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, home to over 200 petrochemical plants. The cancer rate is as high as 95% in some areas.
This should not be legal. This should not be happening to human beings. But it’s not just there—there are cancer clusters all over the country. Even back home in New Jersey, where I’m from, we have a cancer cluster.
We need action and change, and it must come quickly. I don’t want to see more people die.
There is nothing more important than the value of human life. God created us beautifully, and I want people to be happy and healthy. I imagine a world where everyone is happy and healthy.
Jacobsen: But how do you envision storytelling, music, and art—given your Grammy-nominated singing and acting background—as effective tools for mobilizing American communities to take action on both critical and long-term environmental issues?
Smith: That is literally what I’m doing. Storytelling, art, and music are my full toolkit—they are my most powerful tools for advocacy. Since we started Climate Revival alongside Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., that’s been our approach. Rev Yearwood is a highly respected climate activist. He was recently named one of Forbes’ 50 Top Sustainability Leaders and has received many other accolades. President Obama even called him a “climate champion.”
It is an honour to co-found an organization with him. At Climate Revival, when we hold an event—which could be described as a church service-style gathering—I often lead a gospel concert or sing. If we’re in a church, there’s more gospel music; if we’re in a different venue, I adjust accordingly.
But in every event, I sing, speak, and tell stories—and Rev closes it out with a powerful, rousing speech. Sometimes, we switch it up. Yesterday, for example, at an HBCU Climate Change Conference in New Orleans, Rev spoke first, then introduced me, and I closed the event with a speech and a song.
I call this our “one-two punch” because the way we both tell stories and inspire people has a profound impact. Rev’s telling stories and my singing open hearts, inspire, and energize people. They allow them to feel.
I remember people at the Sundance Film Festival who saw us do our one-two punch. One person told me that with everything happening in the world, people have been bottling up their emotions, and when they heard me sing “Love Song to the Earth,” it broke them open.
Everyone was crying—not from sadness, but from release. That is the power of art.
Art touches us in a way nothing else does. Music, film, television, and visual art move people in a way that nothing else can.
So, for me, it’s an honour to have these gifts. I’ve had a blessed journey—from a young age, I was gifted with a voice to sing, empathy, and the ability to channel other people’s experiences as an actor. That journey has been incredible in itself.
But to then use these same gifts to heal people, to inspire them to act, to help save lives and protect our planet—that is a responsibility I do not take for granted. It is so important that we all unify right now. It’s so important that people understand what we are going through.
Part of why I co-founded Climate Revival is because, in communities of colour and faith communities, we were going into churches, and people didn’t understand the issue. That is largely due to fossil fuel industry propaganda, which has worked hard to downplay the crisis.
But it’s also because, for a long time, the climate movement wasn’t focused on people. It talked about polar bears, ice glaciers, solar panels, and recycling—and those things didn’t resonate with everyday people. It didn’t feel urgent.
People didn’t feel like climate change was affecting them directly.
But when you start explaining to people that the cancer and asthma they or their loved ones are suffering from comes from power plants, petrochemical factories, and landfills—and when you connect that same pollution to climate change—they begin to see it.
When you tell them that Hurricane Idalia was strengthened by climate change, that the wildfires in California were made worse by climate change, and that heat waves are now so extreme that Arizona had over 100 days of 100+ degree heat, people realize these things are not normal.
Even the news talks about climate change more now, which is good. But what they fail to explain is the cause.
So, to many people, it just feels like Mother Nature is tripping—like there’s nothing we can do about it. It leaves people feeling helpless.
“What am I supposed to do?”
“It’s storming. I can’t stop a storm.”
While we can’t stop the storms that are already upon us, we can take action to prevent them from getting worse. We don’t have to accept this as our future.
Yes, we will have to adapt because we’ve let it get to the point where we are experiencing extreme weather and disasters. I am praying that we act fast enough to prevent it from getting worse.
There is even a way to reverse some of it. It doesn’t have to keep getting worse—it can get better.
But that takes everyone.
That’s why I am so excited about this international Earth Action Day—it’s a global movement where everyone can do something.
Even something as simple as making a video using my song “Love Song to the Earth”—showing what you love about this planet or the people you love—could inspire someone else to take action.
You can write letters to the people you voted for—because many of them are letting us down. There are so many ways to take action. EARTHDAY.ORG has an entire page of actions people can take. Big or small, it’s about everybody deciding to do something.
Let’s not feel like we’re just watching our house burn with nothing we can do about it. Let’s do something.
Jacobsen: How can people get involved with Climate Revival? How can they attend or take part? What about financial support, posting videos, or learning more?
Smith: That is wonderful. Thank you for asking.
You can go to ClimateRevival.org and join our community—there’s a “Join Our Community” button right on the site. We let our members know when we hold events.
You can also follow me on Instagram (@AntoniqueSmith) and Climate Revival on Instagram(@ClimateRevival). We always update people on our work. That’s how you can get involved.
You can also DM me if you have an idea or want to collaborate on a partnership—maybe even host an event with us. There’s also a contact form on ClimateRevival.org and our website, Antonique.com.
There are many ways to connect, and I do my best to respond. However, the website and Instagram are probably the best ways to stay engaged.
Jacobsen: Antonique, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. It was so great to meet you.
Smith: Yes, you too! This was wonderful. Thank you so much!
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07
Kham Inthirath is the Founder and CEO of Compound Effect LLC, a leader in AI-driven business transformation. With over two decades of expertise in marketing and consulting, Kham leverages AI to enhance branding, customer experience, and revenue growth. His visionary approach reduces content creation time and redefines business automation. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are leading AI innovation, implementing ethical principles like accountability, transparency, and human-centeredness. Initiatives such as NEOM and Digital Dubai emphasize sustainability and governance. With AI rapidly transforming society, global collaboration is essential. Businesses and nations must act now to address human rights, sustainability, and digital transformation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsne: How do ethical foundations of AI development in the Middle East reflect responsible innovation and global leadership? Also, how does the Middle East’s dynamic approach to AI deal with contemporary challenges, cultural shifts?
Kham Inthirath: There’s a lot going on around the world. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are leading the line when it comes to innovation, particularly in technology and AI. There have been significant steps put toward the adoption of AI thanks to such measures as the UAE’s AI ethics principles and such tools as the Digital Dubai Ethical AI Toolkit.
Saudi Arabia’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) came up with six ethical principles for AI governance: accountability, transparency, fairness, privacy protection, sustainability, and human-centeredness. They are extremely critical because AI is going to turn the tide on everything, from how we live to the future of work. So, the populace needs to comprehend how AI is creeping into every fabric of our lives.
In addition to all this, projects such as Saudi Arabia’s NEOM (a smart city initiative) are integrating AI to necessarily prioritize sustainability and innovation, while at the same time tackling data governance issues. There is a lot of emphasis on these areas, and they put much more good work that should be followed closely.
What’s going on in the Middle East should provide additional impetus for more global collaboration. As nations, we are still in the process of determining the legislation, regulations, and governance of AI, and everyone is waiting to see how everything unfolds. Europe has started to put national policies in place, and the U.S. has begun to do just that. However, with changes of administration, we are still not clear on how all of that would unfold, especially with key players such as Elon Musk posing.
We are all still learning about these developments, and my hope is that business does not adopt a passive ‘wait’ this time around. The AI revolution is moving forward at a dizzying pace, and there can be no holdouts. Action must be taken and very soon. It is crucial that organizations, countries, and individual actors in whatever form take measures moving forward while we still grapple with questions related to human rights, sustainability, and digital transformation.
It is captivating to note how the Middle East is taking these challenges on board, while one example of addressing this is the involvement of Microsoft with the Good Lab in Abu Dhabi, working with global partners to solve challenges such as food security and climate resilience with AI. So much is taking place, and I look forward to seeing how this will unfold.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kham.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06
Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based attorney and strategic advisor on human rights and security, explains that while international indices—such as those from the WEF, UNDP, and OECD—provide useful metrics for gender equality, the real challenges lie in the social, legal, and economic conditions that shape women’s lives. She contrasts extreme examples like Afghanistan’s oppressive gender apartheid and China’s One-Child Policy—which led to forced abortions, skewed gender ratios, and long-term economic instability—with more progressive policies seen in Nordic countries. Policies that restrict reproductive freedom, enforce traditional gender roles, or impose financial penalties for childlessness have consistently resulted in unintended negative consequences, including declining birth rates, higher maternal mortality, and economic hardship. Both agree that demographic challenges cannot be solved solely through statistical mandates or top-down interventions. Instead, they advocate for enhancing personal agency, improving work-life balance, and providing affordable childcare and robust parental leave. Ultimately, Tsukerman emphasizes that having and raising children is a personal choice and that practical, community-based policies must be supported rather than imposed through coercive state measures.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by the highly intelligent Irina Tsukerman. Irina is a New York-based national security and human rights attorney who leads Scarab Rising, Inc., a strategic advisory firm. She was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2009 and has been a practicing attorney. Irina holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Fordham University School of Law. She works extensively on foreign affairs, Middle East policy, counterterrorism, intelligence, cybersecurity, and international security.
Her writings have been featured in numerous international publications, including The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Kyiv Post, and Trends Research & Advisory. She has provided expert analysis for various media outlets and think tanks. The Jewish Week named her a “36 Under 36” honoree, recognizing her leadership. Irina is fluent in multiple languages.
Her expertise includes cybersecurity, energy security, influence campaigns, intelligence analysis, strategic communications, and global media. She has also made numerous media appearances and published extensive analyses on these subjects. Today, we will discuss some of these key topics. Thank you for joining me in this perennial and highly relevant conversation.
Numerous organizations, rankings, and indexes are designed to assess gender parity across different countries. While these are qualitative rather than absolute measures, they provide useful indicators. Some of the most well-known include:
- The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its Global Gender Gap Index
- The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and its Gender Inequality Index
- UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and its Gender Parity Index
- The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and its Gender Equality Index
- The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its Social Institutions and Gender Index
- Equal Measures 2030 and the SDG Gender Index
- UN Women, which works on gender-related policy research but does not publish a specific Global Gender Parity Index
Many organizations and individuals globally are deeply invested in gender equality. Even in countries with repressive policies or cultural norms that restrict both women and men, awareness of these issues continues to grow.
With that in mind, when you think about these metrics and gender parity as a whole, what comes to mind? How do you view qualitative measurements like those I just mentioned?
Irina Tsukerman: Generally, when discussing gender parity and women’s rights, several key factors come into play. The most fundamental is equal protection under the law—the ability of women to access employment opportunities, including roles in government and senior private-sector positions.
Other essential considerations include gender-based violence, legal protections against discrimination, and policies affecting education, healthcare, and economic empowerment. Social and cultural influences also shape women’s access to education, professional opportunities, and personal freedoms.
However, gender equality is defined differently by different people. There are diverse political and ideological perspectives on the issue—even among women. Some argue that gender should not be used as a primary category of analysis, while others believe that these metrics remain essential for tracking progress and addressing disparities. I do believe these indices have value. Measuring specific factors is important, but the methodology used to measure them is equally critical in ensuring accuracy and meaningful analysis.
Jacobsen: But some things—like legal protections, gender-based violence issues, and similar matters—are pretty cut and dry. I do not think they should be particularly controversial. However, cultural, national, and regional differences exist in how people view these issues.
What do you make of these cultural, national, and regional differences regarding what we might call the question of women or the status of women, where different cultures, countries, and regions tend to provide different answers?
Tsukerman: The first question is to what extent women can participate in decision-making processes concerning their status. Women’s ability to engage in these discussions is severely restricted in some cultures and societies.
To use the most extreme example, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan enforces absolute gender apartheid. Women are denied basic rights, including access to healthcare, education, and even the ability to appear in public spaces without severe restrictions. The entire country is subject to laws that fundamentally erase women from public life. While this is an extreme case, we can contrast it with countries like Finland and other Scandinavian nations, where strict provisions ensure women’s representation in government positions and corporate leadership, mandating female participation in key decision-making.
Most countries in the world fall somewhere between these two extremes. The United States is a particularly interestingexample because women’s status can be analyzed through multiple dimensions, such as political participation, economic opportunities, healthcare access, cultural norms, and public opinion trends. Urban versus rural divides, ethnic and religious backgrounds, and regional differences create a complex landscape for assessing women’s rights. In many ways, the US is a microcosm of the broader international debate on gender equality.
Women in the United States fare well compared to many other places worldwide. By most metrics, they rank in the upper tier. However, socioeconomic disparities remain a concern, particularly for women in lower-income brackets who face challenges related to healthcare, economic stability, and educational opportunities. Gender-based violence and abuse, while present in all social classes, tend to be more prevalent among lower-income communities, which is a pattern observed globally.
Despite economic fluctuations over the years, the US has a large and growing middle class, and women have continued to rise in social, financial, and political influence. Women’s representation in leadership roles—whether in business, politics, or other areas—has increased steadily. By most global standards, the US ranks relatively high in these categories.
Jacobsen: Beyond statistical metrics, there are also key international legal frameworks that outline women’s rights. Some of the most important documents include:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
- The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1979)
- The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) is updated periodically every five years, this year being one of the update years.
These documents establish international principles regarding gender equality, but their implementation varies widely across different countries. Some nations fully embrace these standards, while others reject or only partially enforce them.
While significant progress has been made, women’s global status remains highly dependent on political will, economic structures, and cultural dynamics.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) has conventions on gender equality. There is also the Equal Remuneration Convention, the Discrimination Convention, and the Violence and Harassment Convention. Additionally, gender equality is incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
So, at an international level, we have various declarations and frameworks to promote gender equality. At the very least, many countries commit to these goals through policy initiatives or rhetorical support.
From a geopolitical perspective, do most countries that support these principles genuinely intend to implement them? Or do they merely pay lip service to these ideals without taking meaningful action, even if progress is slow?
Tsukerman: That is a key question, and two separate issues are at play. First, the concept becomes diluted when everything is framed as a “right”—whether a human right, a woman’s right, or another category. Suppose too many goals and priorities are stacked into broad, aspirational categories. In that case, achieving them all becomes difficult—if not impossible. Even when efforts are well-intentioned, overcategorization leads to a fragmentation of focus and resources. The result is that little progress is made on any front.
Second, while many developing countries genuinely try to improve gender equality, the definition of “improvement” varies significantly across cultures, economic conditions, and political systems. Some nations prioritize certain reforms over others, depending on historical context, economic constraints, and social attitudes.
That said, there are clear cases of bad-faith actors—countries where governments officially endorse gender equality while simultaneously enforcing repressive laws that severely restrict women’s rights. In these cases, rhetoric is used as a public relations tool while state policies actively disenfranchise women. These countries tend to be easy to identify because their laws—whether restricting women’s movement, employment, education, or civil liberties—speak for themselves.
I would give the benefit of the doubt in cases where no formal legal restrictions exist. However, cultural, economic, or structural barriers still hinder progress. Some governments may lack the resources or struggle with deeply ingrained cultural norms, making reforms difficult to implement despite genuine efforts. These countries may be slow-moving in their progress, but at least they are trying to find practical pathways forward.
Jacobsen: Now, turning to the United States, we will get to the issue of “tech bro culture” shortly, but first, let’s look at the historical legal framework shaping women’s rights in the country.
The Seneca Falls Convention (1848) marked the first formal call for women’s suffrage and legal equality in the US, leading to a series of landmark legislative changes:
- The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) granted women the right to vote.
- The Equal Pay Act (1963) mandated equal pay for equal work.
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibited gender discrimination in employment.
- Title IX (1972) prohibited gender discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.
- Roe v. Wade (1973)—which established federal protections for abortion rights—was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) after 49 years.
- The Violence Against Women Act (1994) provided federal support for addressing gender-based violence.
- The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009) strengthened protections against wage discrimination based on gender.
So, in addition to the international frameworks, we see that even within a single country like the US, progress has been incremental—sometimes advancing and sometimes rolling back. This raises an important point: Does excessive categorization and broad aspirational language slow progress by making goals harder to achieve?
While global conversations around gender parity often rely on idealistic declarations, practical policy implementation remains uneven. The challenge is balancing ambition with feasibility, ensuring that legal protections translate into real-world impact rather than merely symbolic commitments.
We see a similar pattern internationally regarding the wealthiest countries in the world—places where one might assume that economic prosperity would naturally lead to greater freedoms and equity. While, in theory, wealth should provide more opportunities and reduce systemic barriers, wage inequality and wealth disparities still prevent the fair distribution of resources.
This leads to a familiar cycle: declarations, legislative acts, and official statements that sound promising on paper, yet their implementation remains slow and uneven in many areas. How do you interpret this pattern within the United States, where we see a domestic reflection of what happens globally?
Tsukerman: The United States relies on constitutional law as the foundation for all legal rights and protections. From the perspective of constitutional originalism, one could argue that the constitutional framework already implicitly guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens—regardless of gender, race, or background.
If one takes that position, additional statutory provisions, such as the Equal Pay Act, may be considered unnecessary or even measures that could backfire in certain ways. Suppose equal protection is already established at the constitutional level. Further legislative interventions might be redundant or create unintended consequences in that case.
However, implementing any law depends heavily on the specific legal language and how it is applied in practice. Even within the broadest constitutional provisions, there will always be variation in interpretation and enforcement across different states and jurisdictions. Case law naturally evolves, and new technologies, social changes, and legal challenges constantly prompt reinterpretations of existing legal frameworks.
Take Roe v. Wade, for example. The central issue was privacy—a constitutional concept that became highly controversial because it was applied specifically to abortion. This led to heated debates about whether the case was truly about privacy or if abortion itself should be the focal point of the discussion.
- Those who saw it as a privacy issue argued that the ruling should extend far beyond abortion, influencing other aspects of personal autonomy and government intervention.
- Others believed that if abortion was the main concern, then more voices—including legislators, medical professionals, and even the father of the unborn child—should have a say in the matter rather than it being an issue of a woman’s sole discretion.
This illustrates how legal debates often evolve far beyond their original scope. A case that begins with one specific issue can morph into a broader ideological and legal battle—and sometimes into something entirely different from its original intent.
Additionally, when new rights are claimed, or existing rights are challenged, disputes arise about government overreach, private versus public interests, and the balance of legal protections. These debates often lead to inconsistent enforcement and uneven application of laws nationwide.
For example, what is considered a “successful” gender equality policy in Texas may be viewed as the exact opposite in New York—and vice versa. This wide divergence in interpretations and applications contributes to legal uncertainty and makes implementation highly contested and regionally variable.
Jacobsen: Now, I’d like to turn to another important aspect of this discussion: the role of ultra-wealthy individuals in shaping policy and social discourse. You have observed, and I have also noted, that there is a phenomenon among billionaires and high-net-worth individuals who own or control significant portions of high-tech industries in the United States—and, in some cases, internationally.
These individuals have a deep interest in demographics and population trends. While I have not come across explicit cases where their focus is race-based, their obsession with demographic shifts, population control, and societal restructuring raises important ethical and legal questions.
I have typically seen a strong focus on numbers in these discussions. Analysts and commentators often frame the issue regarding replacement rates, stating that a sustainable birth rate requires 2.1 children per couple—accounting for two parents plus an additional 0.1 to compensate for premature deaths.
In contrast, many developed countries report sub-replacement fertility rates—figures such as 1.5, 1.4, or even below 1.0. I was told that in South Korea, for example, the rate is as low as 0.7 or 0.8. These numbers are often discussed abstractly without addressing the sociocultural, economic, or political realities contributing to declining birth rates. Before we get into the existential implications, what do you make of this hyperfocus among technology entrepreneurs (“tech bros”) on birth rates and demographics?
Tsukerman: To be clear, technology industry leaders are not the only ones obsessed with this issue. A strong anti-Malthusian strain of thought—particularly among conservatives—argues that population decline is an existential crisis. On one side, Malthusian thinkers claim that the Earth’s resources are finite and cannot sustain continued population growth. Conversely, pronatalist advocates believe societies will face economic and social collapse if humanity does not reproduce at a certain rate.
I understand the concern. Each country is sovereign, and a high birth rate in one country does not “balance out” a declining birth rate in another. However, no government, billionaire, or ideological movement can control what individuals or families choose to do regarding reproduction, adoption, or family planning. This fixation on demographic engineering is unsettling. It raises questions about personal autonomy, social planning, and the role of government or elites in influencing private decisions.
Of course, it is reasonable for societies to discuss what policies or conditions are most conducive to family stability and child-rearing. That is a legitimate debate and part of the broader social contract between citizens and their government. Discussions about family policies, childcare support, education, and economic incentives are worthwhile.
However, when random individuals lecture others online about when and how they should marry or have children, it feels intrusive and out of place. While macro-level concerns about demographic trends are valid, individual reproductive choices are deeply personal. No amount of generalized rhetoric is going to sway people’s deeply held decisions about marriage and parenthood.
Repeating broad demographic concerns in banal, alarmist ways does not help move society in any productive direction. Suppose these advocates truly want to influence policy. In that case, they should focus on gathering data, polling the public, and understanding what practical support systems people need to feel more secure in starting families.
Short of serious policy discussions, these abstract debates achieve little. People who believe society can be planned from the top down greatly overestimate their control over human behaviour. History has proven this time and again—the Soviet Union, China, and other collectivist regimes attempted large-scale social engineering, and it backfired tremendously.
Jacobsen: Do large, centrally planned societies—like China under the One-Child Policy or the Soviet Union—tend to collapse under their weight because human societies are too complex to be pre-planned in this way?
Tsukerman: The One-Child Policy led to a massive demographic decline in China. Women were often forced to undergo abortions, and the policy created long-term economic and social imbalances.
Given the cultural preference for boys over girls, China’s One-Child Policy led to severe demographic imbalances. Families disproportionately chose to abort female fetuses, give up girls for adoption, or, in some cases, engage in infanticide. This has resulted in a highly skewed gender ratio, with millions of men unable to find partners. This long-term consequence still affects Chinese society today.
In contrast, the Soviet Union faced different pressures. While there was less direct gender-based population control, economic and social conditions made large families less desirable. The heavy burden of state control, economic hardship, and forced labour policies discouraged people from having more children.
If a society places significant financial and social burdens on individuals, people will be less inclined to have more children. So, contrary to some arguments, traditional societies did not necessarily lead to higher birth rates if economic and social conditions were unfavourable.
Jacobsen: Before we move on, do you have any final thoughts on the stability of planned economies or the long-term viability of China’s demographic policies?
Tsukerman: The failure of planned economies and social engineering is critical. China’s One-Child Policy was not just a policy failure—it was a demographic catastrophe. Beyond the obvious gender imbalance, the policy created long-term economic instability, an aging population, and a shrinking workforce.
The issue was not just that China mismanaged its economy—it was also the misery index of life under authoritarian rule, coupled with rigid social controls, that made family expansion undesirable.
Historically, China’s agrarian economy required large families to work in the fields. The high child mortality rate and lack of medical advancements meant that families had to have multiple children to ensure that some survived into adulthood. Additionally, sons were preferred because they were expected to carry on family names and provide for aging parents. This cultural norm continued well into the 20th century, reinforcing gender disparities.
In contrast, the Soviet Union had a more mixed economy—some regions remained agrarian, but urbanization and industrialization changed population dynamics. Unlike China, territorial expansion and militarization were major in population growth.
For much of its history, the Soviet Union was either at war or preparing for war, leading to an emphasis on military-age male populations rather than balanced demographic policies. Additionally, harsh living conditions, forced collectivization, and political purges contributed to population instability.
Despite its large territorial expanse, much of the Soviet Union was difficult to inhabit—regions like Siberia were sparsely populated due to harsh climates and poor infrastructure. Meanwhile, economic and political power was highly concentrated in Moscow, leaving other regions underdeveloped and fueling competition for urban living spaces. This uneven distribution of resources, prestige, and opportunities led to high social stratification and further discouraged large families.
Jacobsen: In China and the Soviet Union, government policies failed to account for long-term demographic sustainability. Centralized attempts to engineer population growth or suppression often backfired, proving that human societies are too complex to be rigidly pre-planned.
Despite these failures in gender equity and population control, did these societies achieve anything positive regarding gender parity? While there were issues with sex-selective abortion, family name traditions, and patrilineal inheritance, were there any notable advances for women in these systems?
Tsukerman: Confucian traditions in China historically fostered strong family units. The emphasis on filial piety created a deep respect for elders and contributed to community cohesion, making society more durable and stable—at least outside government-imposed population control policies.
I don’t necessarily agree with the Confucian hierarchy, but it provided a certain level of protection for older people and ensured social continuity for a long time. The emphasis on tradition, respect, and structure made Chinese society resilient. However, it also reinforced cultural conservatism, which often placed women in subordinate roles.
When communism took over, it theoretically promoted gender equality—but in reality, it did not necessarily improve conditions for women. While the Communist Party outwardly claimed to champion women’s rights, its political and social structures remained deeply patriarchal.
For example, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the inner circle of the most powerful figures in China consists entirely of men. Women who had been rising through the ranks of government and party leadership have been systematically purged.
Jacobsen: When you say “eliminated,” do you mean purged politically?
Tsukerman: Yes, purged in a political sense. I am not suggesting that these women were murdered, but politically, they were removed from power and denied further advancement.
In contrast, in the Soviet Union, World War II created both opportunities and necessities for women to enter the workforce. The perception that women had greater equality was not due to progressive ideology—it was simply a byproduct of war and necessity.
Millions of Soviet men were killed on the battlefield, many due to Stalin’s reckless military strategy, which relied on human wave attacks—sending vast numbers of undertrained and ill-equipped soldiers into battle to overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers. This cost millions of lives but ultimately contributed to the Soviet victory in World War II.
Because of these massive losses, women had to take up jobs in factories and essential industries, filling roles that men had previously held. However, this was not a result of cultural progressivism or genuine gender equality initiatives—it was a direct consequence of wartime labour shortages.
Despite communist rhetoric about equality, women were denied access to prestigious institutions, such as KGB training academies, until the 1960s or later. In elite circles, women were often discouraged from divorcing Communist Party members because divorce was seen as a political liability for male officials.
Jacobsen: So, was divorce essentially social suicide for women married to men in high-ranking positions?
Tsukerman: Exactly. Women were often trapped in marriages where their husbands were unfaithful, career-obsessed, or heavy drinkers. Yet, divorce was discouraged because it could damage the man’s political career. This left many women with few options outside of domestic responsibilities. While they did participate in the workforce, their social standing and opportunities remained limited compared to men.
Even where legal equality existed on paper, massive wealth disparities between Communist Party elites and the general population meant that women in lower social classes faced harsh living conditions. Unlike in the United States, Soviet women could not access modern household appliances that could ease domestic labour, making daily life far more difficult. Ultimately, while communist regimes claimed to promote gender equality, their actual policies often reinforced gendered divisions, particularly in elite circles where men retained overwhelming control.
Household appliances like washing machines and dishwashers arrived in the Soviet Union much later than in the West. This meant that women had to do laundry by hand, wash dishes manually, and handle all household chores without modern conveniences.
In addition, child-rearing responsibilities fell almost entirely on women. Mothers were expected to help children with schoolwork and manage household affairs, while men were rarely expected to contribute.
As a result, women essentially worked two full-time jobs—one in the formal workforce and one at home. There was also a strong cultural expectation that they had to be accommodating to their husbands in all ways, including tolerating infidelity.
Divorce was rarely a viable option, as women often received minimal alimony (if they were lucky) and faced significant economic hardships due to low wages. This system trapped many women in unhappy marriages, making it difficult for them to achieve any real financial or social independence.
This system was not beneficial for women in any real sense.
Jacobsen: We mentioned the One-Child Policy in China. I did not realize that it ran from 1979 to 2015—literally decades. That policy has now created China’s current demographic crisis.
India is a country geographically contiguous with China. Although India is not often discussed in the same breath as China, it also ranks poorly in many gender-related metrics, including women’s participation, equality, and personal safety.
India has a massive population—the only country in the billions still experiencing population growth. China, by contrast, reached its peak population in 2021 and is now declining.
What about practices like dowry, child marriage, high rates of sexual violence, and low female labour force participation?
By formal economy, I mean the paid workforce since women primarily do a huge amount of unpaid labour in most societies.
Tsukerman: India is extremely diverse, with many cultures and traditions clashing within a single national framework. While some harmful gender-based practices are being phased out, progress remains slow and uneven.
The Indian government has taken steps to combat child marriage, which used to be widespread. In some segments of society, widows were historically expected to die after their husbands, often through ritual self-immolation.
Jacobsen: Is that Sati?
Tsukerman: Yes, that is the historical practice of Sati, where widows were burned alive on their husband’s funeral pyres. While Sati has been banned, it was once a real and horrifying phenomenon that the Indian government actively worked to eliminate—with relative success.
That said, sexual harassment and sexual violence remain serious issues. These problems require far more resources and enforcement, but they have not been a top priority for the government.
Instead, India’s primary focus has been economic growth, deregulation, and business development. This has taken precedence over social issues like gender-based violence and legal protections for women.
In addition, India has one of the most bureaucratic governments in the world. This slows progress in nearly every area—not just gender equality. The government is not necessarily deliberately keeping women down; its priorities have been elsewhere, focusing on economic expansion over social reform.
There has not been sufficient incentive to focus on the greater inclusion of women in India’s workforce. However, as educated women in Western countries like the UK and the US form stronger professional and cultural ties with India, this will likely improve over time.
India’s rapid economic growth—especially in sectors like the digital economy—creates new opportunities for women. In industries where remote work is an option, such as technology, digital retail, and online services, women may find it easier to participate without facing traditional social and mobility restrictions. As India modernized, many of these barriers could be overcome relatively quickly.
Addressing sexual violence, however, requires far more resources. It demands extensive community engagement, legal reforms, law enforcement training, education initiatives, and cultural shifts. This is not something that can be changed overnight. Still, progress is possible through international cooperation, best practice sharing, and local grassroots efforts.
Women must be equipped with tools to advocate for themselves in civil society and within political parties, coalitions, and local governments. Change must happen at the grassroots level and through top-down policy initiatives. More importantly, it must be a decision society makes, including local communities.
One of the biggest challenges in India is the vast disparity between highly educated urban populations and rural villages still struggling with basic infrastructure—such as sanitation, clean drinking water, and reliable electricity. When so many fundamental survival issues remain unaddressed, issues related to women’s empowerment often take a backseat.
Jacobsen: The next most populous country in the world is the United States, which we have already covered to some extent. Let’s turn to Indonesia, a country where traditional customs often limit women’s public participation. In many regions, women are far less visible in public life, making representation a significant challenge.
Not everyone needs to see themselves in leadership or public roles to feel motivated or inspired. However, representation is crucial for some in shaping aspirations and personal development. For those individuals, seeing women in leadership positions matters significantly. For others, it may not be a deciding factor in their ambitions.
Like India, Indonesia also faces issues related to child marriage and early marriage, as well as wage inequality and employment discrimination. These challenges are not unique to Indonesia, but they are structural obstacles that require policy intervention.
Another critical issue is access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. This factor is particularly impactful because a lack of reproductive autonomy can lead to lifelong consequences that restrict a woman’s choices and opportunities. Without control over their reproductive health, many women face social and economic constraints that dictate the trajectory of their lives. Given this broader context, what is your perspective on Indonesia’s gender landscape?
Tsukerman: Several factors shape gender dynamics in Indonesia. One of the most significant influences is the growing power of conservative religious parties, which have gained substantial influence in wider political discussions—particularly in certain provinces.
At the same time, Indonesia’s rapidly expanding technology sector presents new opportunities for women. Despite underrepresentation in STEM fields, women can thrive in digital retail, e-commerce, and online services, which provide alternative pathways to financial independence.
Although women’s overall representation remains low, I expect significant growth in female participation within Indonesia’s tech sector. Innovation-driven industries are more flexible and can offer women more opportunities to succeed than traditional sectors that cultural and structural barriers may still influence. When discussing traditional societies, healthcare and essential services are the most urgent and easiest areas to address. This is because health directly impacts the entire family unit.
If a mother does not have access to healthcare, she cannot adequately care for the household. This leads to negative ripple effects—the family structure weakens, children suffer, and overall well-being declines. Healthcare is a fundamental necessity and is often the most effective entry point for broader societal improvements.
From a policy and advocacy standpoint, the best approach in traditional societies is to start with basic survival needs, such as healthcare and sanitation, and then gradually expand to education and economic empowerment. Ensuring that women—especially those who are divorced, widowed, abandoned, or responsible for elderly parents—have access to education and financial stability is essential.
In my experience, pragmatic arguments tend to be far more persuasive in traditional societies than ideological debates about rights, gender equality, and human dignity. While abstract ideals are important, practical, community-based solutions resonate more effectively with local populations and policymakers.
The most effective strategy is to begin with tangible, immediate improvements, such as increasing access to healthcare, and then work with local legislators, grassroots organizations, and female advocates to expand the conversation toward long-term reforms.
Jacobsen: Now, shifting focus to Pakistan. We often hear about high-profile cases, such as Gulalai Ismail and Saba Ismail, who have been prominent figures in women’s and children’s rights activism.
Gulalai Ismail and Saba Ismail have played a key role in advocating for marginalized women and girls. After facing persecution, Gulalai fled Pakistan.
These are extraordinary cases—young activists who founded women’s rights organizations as teenagers and have remained deeply involved in human rights efforts ever since. However, their stories do not exist in isolation; they reflect a broader societal context in Pakistan.
Pakistan’s Pashtun population, which makes up a large minority, has historically been at the center of cultural and political controversy. Women in tribal and rural areas often face systemic marginalization due to deeply entrenched patriarchal norms.
Some of the most pressing gender-based issues in Pakistan include:
- Restricted mobility and social exclusion due to tribal and feudal structures
- Violence against women is often disguised under the term “honour” killings.
- Educational barriers, particularly for rural girls, who face lower school enrollment rates
- Legal discrimination, particularly in inheritance laws and court testimony, where women’s rights are significantly weaker than men’s
At first glance, Pakistan shares some similarities with India and Indonesia in terms of women’s rights challenges. However, its sociopolitical structure makes it unique.
Tsukerman: Yes, Pakistan’s gender inequality landscape is similar to India and Indonesia, but it is also distinct in several key ways.
One major difference is Pakistan’s deep tribal divisions, which have more influence over governance than in India. While India also has tribal communities and inter-group conflicts, they do not play as dominant a role in shaping women’s rights and regional governance as they do in Pakistan’s tribal belts.
Pakistan has large, semi-autonomous tribal areas where the government has little authority. Some of these areas operate under Taliban-like structures, where extremely conservative tribal customs dictate women’s roles.
In these regions, government intervention is minimal, and women face extreme restrictions on education, work, and personal freedoms. These areas have been historically difficult to govern, making it challenging for national policies on women’s rights to take hold.
Unlike in India and Indonesia, where governments have at least made stronger legal commitments to women’s rights, Pakistan’s legal system remains highly restrictive, with significant barriers to gender equality under both civil and religious law.
Ultimately, the combination of feudal power structures, religious conservatism, tribal autonomy, and government inaction makes women’s rights progress in Pakistan particularly complex.
In addition to tribal and feudal structures, religion plays a significant role in shaping women’s rights and societal expectations in Pakistan.
A conservative, fundamentalist form of Islam is practiced in many parts of the country, particularly in rural and tribal areas. However, in major cities, the atmosphere is somewhat more open, allowing greater flexibility for women in professional and social spaces.
Despite these challenges, women in Pakistan participate in traditional professions, such as teaching, nursing, and medicine. Compared to Afghanistan, Pakistan is far less restrictive, but deeply ingrained traditional expectations still limit women’s freedom and career options.
Interestingly, one of the most effective ways for women to advance professionally is through security and military roles. Women in these sectors are often highly committed to proving their worth, much like the “tech bro” phenomenon in the tech industry. Serving in the security sector allows women to demonstrate patriotism, dedication, and competence, earning them respect in conservative circles that might otherwise be denied.
Ironically, many women who rise to prominence in government and security roles tend to be more conservative than their male counterparts. This is likely because they feel an added pressure to demonstrate ideological loyalty to be accepted and taken seriously.
The government and military sectors provide the most room for growth for women in Pakistan, and some of the most visible female figures emerge from these fields. However, Pakistan’s political landscape is highly fractured, making systematic reform difficult.
Tsukerman: Unlike India, which—despite being a messy democracy—has clear political parties with defined positions, Pakistan’s political system is much more fragmented.
Pakistan operates more like a collection of competing factions, almost resembling “states within a state.” The intelligence services, military, and private sector are intertwined, with various power centers controlling different aspects of governance and business.
Foreign influence further complicates the situation. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Turkey, and Qatar all exert influence over Pakistan’s political and economic landscape. Additionally, the military is divided into factions, often working against one another rather than presenting a unified front.
This fractured governance structure makes it extremely difficult to implement nationwide reforms related to women’s rights. Policies are often introduced inconsistently, enforced unevenly, and sometimes backfire due to conflicting power struggles.
Even Pakistan’s Supreme Court has been unpredictable, attempting to advance progressive rulings in some cases while also upholding regressive laws, such as blasphemy laws, in others. This contradictory legal and political system hinders social development and stability.
At the same time, Pakistan’s growing tech sector, fueled by young entrepreneurs, is pushing for social liberalization in certain areas. However, the country’s massive debt, deep political polarization, and economic instability make any systematic change—whether related to women’s rights or other reforms—difficult to implement shortly.
Jacobsen: Now, moving to Nigeria—an entirely different region and culture with gender-related challenges. In Nigeria, women’s issues seem less systematically embedded in legal or tribal structures and more individually impactful. Some of the most pressing concerns include:
- High rates of domestic violence
- High rates of sexual assault
- Economic barriers preventing girls from accessing education
- Limited financial resources and economic opportunities for women
In many ways, these issues mirror the concerns emphasized in North American gender equality discourse, but in far more extreme forms—particularly when it comes to violence and economic disparity. How do you interpret Nigeria’s gender dynamics, particularly when considering the differences between the northern, Muslim-majority regions and the southern, Christian-majority regions?
Tsukerman: Nigeria presents a unique gender crisis that is not as common in other countries we’ve discussed—the issue of mass abductions of girls. Mass abductions of girls in Nigeria are still happening today. In most cases, the situation is resolved through negotiations and ransom payments, leading to the eventual release of the victims. However, these incidents continue to occur, primarily due to ongoing raids on villages, a weak law enforcement system, rampant corruption, and poor security infrastructure.
This lack of protection is not limited to specific regions—it is a nationwide issue. Nigeria is also deeply polarized along ethnic, religious, and economic lines, which further complicates efforts to address gender-based violence and inequality.
The Christian-majority regions of the country contain most of Nigeria’s natural resources, which has fueled separatist movements with foreign involvement. Many Christian communities feel economically and politically marginalized, especially when it comes to resource distribution and government representation.
At the same time, Iranian influence has been increasing, with attempts to convert segments of Nigeria’s Muslim population to Shia Islam, further exacerbating religious tensions. Additionally, external tribal groups from peripheral areas attempt to expand their influence within Nigeria, adding another layer of instability.
Nigeria also faces a deep divide between rural and urban populations. In tribal areas, traditional customs restrict women’s roles. In contrast, in urban centers, highly educated, ambitious men and women pursue opportunities in business and politics. Many of these individuals immigrate to the West for education. Some return to Nigeria to assume high-ranking positions but are typically from wealthier families. Lower-income families, in contrast, lack these opportunities, reinforcing economic inequality.
At the heart of Nigeria’s challenges are systemic government corruption, a lack of political will for reform, and minimal foreign investment in resolving social issues. While the US, Arab states, and China consider Nigeria a key security and trade partner, none of these major players have prioritized addressing Nigeria’s internal gender and economic disparities. This neglect has allowed many of the country’s deep-rooted problems to persist without meaningful intervention.
Jacobsen: Moving to Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, we see a different gender-based crisis. Unlike Nigeria’s mass abductions, Brazil is distinguished by its alarmingly high rates of femicide.
Gender-based violence in Brazil manifests in several ways:
- Femicide rates are among the highest in the world, with thousands of women murdered each year due to gender-based violence.
- Women earn less than men and hold fewer leadership positions—a common global issue but still significant in Brazil.
- Abortion laws are extremely restrictive, leading to unsafe and illegal procedures, despite sufficient national wealth to provide safe and equitable access to reproductive healthcare.
Brazil presents an interesting paradox—economic resources exist to support gender equality initiatives, yet legal and cultural barriers continue to restrict women’s rights. The combination of high rates of femicide and lack of reproductive autonomy creates a particularly difficult environment for women.
How much of this do you attribute to machismo culture, and what other key factors shape these dynamics in Brazil?
Tsukerman: Government corruption is a significant cause of Brazil’s gender-based issues. Both major political parties have been involved in scandals and power struggles, preventing meaningful policy progress on gender-related issues.
For example:
- President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) previously served time for corruption before re-election.
- Former President Jair Bolsonaro failed to deliver on economic promises and attempted a January 6-style coup and is now under investigation and barred from leaving the country.
Brazil’s political landscape has become increasingly polarized, with little room for moderate or reform-driven efforts. Instead, much of the country remains trapped in economic instability, crime, and ineffective governance.
One of the most pressing social issues—the favelas (informal settlements plagued by poverty and gang violence)—has been largely ignored by successive governments. Without serious economic and security interventions, these areas remain dangerous environments for women, where gender-based violence, economic precarity, and lack of access to healthcare continue unchecked.
Ultimately, while machismo culture plays a role in reinforcing gender inequality, the bigger issue in Brazil is government corruption and institutional failure. Until these structural problems are addressed, it will be difficult to make sustained progress in protecting women’s rights and improving gender equity.
Organized crime is one of the biggest obstacles to gender equality in Brazil. The presence of powerful criminal syndicates across the country reinforces systemic discrimination against women while also amplifying the most extreme and toxic aspects of machismo culture.
When criminal organizations exert significant influence over society, violence becomes normalized—including violence against women. In this context, femicide is not just an act of domestic violence but a power move, reinforcing male dominance within criminal structures. The devaluation of women in these environments is not just cultural—it is a direct consequence of a lawless system that thrives on brutality and impunity.
Education and economic restructuring are necessary to dismantle this cycle. Brazil’s vast informal settlements—the favelas—serve as incubators for entrenched criminal cultures, where poverty, lawlessness, and lack of upward mobility prevent meaningful change. Without systematic efforts to address these socioeconomic conditions, these deep-rooted problems will persist.
Despite the urgency of these issues, there is little political will to address them. Neither major political faction in Brazil has seriously emphasized reforming these social structures. Instead, Brazil’s political landscape has been shaped by populism, corruption, and short-term electoral strategies, which benefit from maintaining an easily manipulable electorate rather than enacting long-term structural changes.
Another complex layer in Brazil’s sociopolitical environment is the weaponization of indigenous activism by various interest groups. This complicates efforts to balance indigenous rights with national economic and political concerns, creating tensions that further distract from gender equality issues.
Ultimately, Brazil’s social fabric is shaped by corruption, criminal influence, and populist governance, making it difficultto implement systematic reforms in women’s rights and broader societal progress.
Jacobsen: Moving to Bangladesh, we see similar gender-related issues to those in Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. Traditional norms often confine women to domestic roles, and early marriage is common, even though there are legal prohibitions against child marriage.
Some of the major gender concerns in Bangladesh include:
- Poor working conditions and low wages—a global issue but particularly severe in Bangladesh
- High rates of domestic violence
- Acid attacks, which are especially unique and devastating
Acid attacks stand out as a particularly brutal form of violence. The only other time I have encountered similar cases was through a colleague working to support individuals accused of witchcraft in parts of Africa.
In those cases, witchcraft allegations—often made against women and children—led to horrific attacks where perpetrators would throw acid on their victims, believing they were possessed or practicing sorcery. What makes acid attacks in Bangladesh different from these witchcraft-related assaults?
Tsukerman: Acid attacks in Bangladesh are a distinct phenomenon from the witchcraft-related violence seen in parts of Africa.
In Bangladesh, acid attacks are often a form of calculated, passive-aggressive violence rooted in deeply ingrained social hierarchies and suppressed hostility. Women are the primary targets, and men do not always perpetrate these attacks. In some cases, older women, such as mothers-in-law, are responsible.
This type of violence is unique because it is designed to destroy a woman’s life completely—both physically and socially. The perpetrators—whether bitter family members, rejected suitors, or individuals seeking revenge—use acid as a weapon to disfigure and isolate their victims permanently.
While Bangladesh’s government has historically been authoritarian, it has not actively encouraged acid attacks. Instead, this violence stems from a cultural structure where resentment, strict social hierarchies, and suppressed anger manifest in extreme forms of punishment.
Bangladesh’s legal system has taken steps to combat acid attacks. Still, enforcement remains weak, and social attitudes have slowly changed. Addressing this issue requires legal reforms and a fundamental shift in cultural attitudes toward women, power, and social status.
Acid attacks in Bangladesh are not just random acts of violence but part of a larger cultural problem that has been allowed to persist due to a lack of strong legal intervention and societal condemnation.
This phenomenon is rooted in a deeply ingrained culture of hostility, insecurity, and vindictiveness. There has not been a serious or sustained effort to confront and eradicate this toxic, spiteful behaviour, nor has it been legally exposed and made socially unacceptable to the degree necessary to deter future incidents.
It continues because it works—it instills fear, despair, and suffering; for some individuals, that is their only way of exerting power or deriving satisfaction. A society in which violent emotional outbursts are normalized as acceptable forms of conflict resolution is not healthy.
In most places, deliberately throwing acid on someone’s face would be seen as an extreme sociopathic act. However, in Bangladesh, it has become culturally normalized in some circles, turning it into a broader social issue rather than just isolated criminal behaviour.
To address this problem, targeted measures are needed, including stronger legal repercussions, increased social awareness campaigns, and efforts to shift cultural attitudes toward rational discourse and nonviolent conflict resolution.
Jacobsen: One more country: Mexico. In Mexico, a key cultural framework shaping gender roles is Marianismo—which venerates women for their virtue, purity, and devotion to traditional roles.
Many of the previous cases we’ve discussed—such as machismo-fueled violence, economic deprivation, and social inequality—involve forms of sexism that are overtly harmful and restrictive. Marianismo, by contrast, seems to align more with benevolent sexism, where women are exalted but simultaneously confined to rigid societal roles.
Mexico, like other Latin American nations, has high rates of gender-based killings (femicide), as well as:
- Gender pay gaps
- Limited leadership opportunities for women, despite recent high-profile female politicians
- Restrictive and inconsistent access to reproductive healthcare and abortion
What are your thoughts on Mexico?
Tsukerman: Much of Mexico’s gender structure resembles medieval Europe before the Enlightenment. While Marianismo is a reverence for women, it does not necessarily benefit them. Historically, societies that “exalted” women this way often punished them harshly when they failed to live up to idealized roles.
Women were expected to embody purity, sacrifice, and selflessness, but whether they “succeeded” in this role was not up to them—society determined it. They had no control over their fate. Instead, a judgmental community decided whether they had fulfilled their prescribed “higher purpose.” Those who failed or deviated faced ostracization, violence, or even death.
This rigid societal expectation still manifests in modern Mexico, particularly in cases of gender-based violence. In societies where individual rights are not the foundation of governance—where emotion, tribalism, and social conformity outweigh rationality and legal protections—gender-based violence tends to be higher.
The more a society embraces reason, individual autonomy, and equal rights, the less gender-based violence it experiences. Education plays a crucial role, as does a broader cultural shift toward valuing logic and fairness over emotion-driven retribution and power struggles.
Jacobsen: I bring up these prior discussions on international contexts, powerful figures, and economic and social conditions to emphasize a crucial point:
Many of the most vocal figures discussing birth rates and demographics—all of whom are men—approach the issue purely from a statistical and economic perspective, completely disregarding the lived realities of the individuals who give birth.
Women disproportionately bear the burden of child-rearing, care work, and family responsibilities. Yet, these discussions rarely engage with the reasons why women make the reproductive choices they do. Instead, the conversation is reduced to abstract numbers, devoid of human context.
Some of the most well-known figures who have spoken about declining birth rates and demographic concerns:
- Elon Musk (entrepreneur, pronatalist advocate)
- Pavel Durov (founder of Telegram)
- Mark Andreessen (venture capitalist)
- J.D. Vance (Vice President of the United States)
- Simone and Malcolm Collins (pronatalist activists)
- Kevin Dolan (organizer of Natalist conferences)
- Nigel Farage (British politician)
- Donald Trump (former US President)
- Fumio Kishida (Prime Minister of Japan)
- Vladimir Putin (President of Russia)
Additionally, South Korea has made policy shifts, including downsizing its Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, reflecting broader institutional changes regarding gender policies and population concerns. The central question remains: Why do these discussions focus solely on statistics and economic models while ignoring the people’s real circumstances and personal choices behind the numbers?
Tsukerman: I would put Kishida and Putin in a slightly different category from the others but for distinct reasons. Japan’s demographic crisis is undeniable. Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, and its population is shrinking rapidly. From both a social and economic perspective, this is a genuine crisis.
It is reasonable for a Japanese Prime Minister to be concerned about this trend. However, I am not convinced that any prime minister—even over multiple terms—can fully reverse such a long-term demographic shift. Policies can incentivize higher birth rates, but reversing deep-rooted social and economic trends is far more complicated than simply encouraging people to have more children.
Putin’s concern about demographics is also rooted in numbers, but his motives differ significantly. Russia has been in a state of war since 2014, and its current military engagement in Ukraine has cost over 800,000 lives. Beyond Russia’s broader demographic decline, Putin needs a continuous supply of non-disabled young men to fight in a war that may last for decades—outlasting even his own rule.
For this reason, Russia’s demographic concerns are directly linked to military strategy and national security. Putin’s policies are not just about keeping birth rates high—they are about ensuring a long-term supply of soldiers.
Jacobsen: What about the rest of the figures on the list, such as Trump, Vance, Farage, and Musk?
Tsukerman: With the rest of them, I am not convinced that their concern over birth rates is rooted in an actual crisis—at least not how it is for Japan or Russia.
Take Donald Trump, for example. The United States remains one of the most populous countries in the world. While the birth rate has fallen, it is nowhere near the demographic decline seen in Japan, South Korea, or the Czech Republic.
The US has a much slower population decline and benefits from higher immigration rates, making an immediate demographic collapse unlikely. While birth rates are falling, this is not an existential crisis for the US like other countries. I categorize the concerns of figures like Musk, Vance, and Farage as more ideological than urgent.
Jacobsen: While some may genuinely believe in the importance of reversing demographic trends, their framing of the issue often ignores the key question—why are people, particularly women, choosing not to have children in these numbers? Without addressing economic barriers, work-life balance, gender inequality, and access to healthcare, their rhetoric remains disconnected from reality.
Tsukerman: Whether Donald Trump’s policies will address declining birth rates remains to be seen. So far, I have not seen any concrete policy measures—aside from his recent support for easing access to IVF procedures—that would significantly impact demographic trends.
For families struggling with infertility, making IVF more accessible could certainly help. However, are infertility and the high cost of fertility treatments the primary driver of declining birth rates? Probably not. The issue is far more complex, and a single policy change—such as expanding IVF access—is unlikely to solve a broader demographic crisis.
Most of the other figures involved in this conversation have no policymaking authority.
- Elon Musk and Pavel Durov are technocrats, not government officials or policy advisors.
- Kevin Dolanis is personally passionate about the issue. However, his impact on policy is unclear.
- Other figures like Nigel Farage and Mark Andreessen may have strong ideological views. Still, they are not directly involved in shaping demographic policies.
It is unclear why these individuals are so fixated on birth rates and how familiar they are with the socioeconomic factors behind these trends.
In the case of Pavel Durov, there is also an entirely separate concern—he has allegedly fathered over 100 children as a sperm donor. This raises ethical and biological concerns, particularly regarding the risk of genetic inbreeding if these children unknowingly marry and reproduce with each other. Unless there is a well-documented system in place to track biological relationships, this could create serious long-term medical issues.
Ultimately, while these individuals may have personal concerns about declining birth rates, they lack policymaking expertise and have not proposed any serious, data-driven solutions.
Jacobsen: The most effective solutions to declining birth rates appear to focus on removing restrictions on women’s agency rather than simply incentivizing childbirth.
Some of the most successful policies—seen in Sweden, Norway, and Finland—include:
- Generous paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers
- Financial incentives for families, including child allowances and tax deductions
- Housing subsidies to ease the cost of raising children
- Job security and economic stability, ensuring parents do not fear financial hardship when having children
- Flexible work arrangements, such as remote work and part-time options, to help parents balance careers and family life
These policies are less extreme, less invasive, and more practical than urging people to have more children. More importantly, they can be swiftly implemented through policy changes without requiring cultural overhauls or coercive measures.
Other successful policies—as seen in France and Nordic countries—include:
- Affordable and accessible childcare reduces the financial and logistical burdens of raising children.
- A stronger emphasis on work-life balance and equal parenting responsibilities to mitigate the “motherhood penalty” that often hurts women’s careers
When governments adopt these measures, birth rates tend to stabilize. Instead of pressuring women to have more children, these policies holistically support families, making parenthood more viable and appealing.
Tsukerman: Exactly. The issue of declining birth rates is not strictly economic—it is also about personal priorities and life choices.
In the United States, there is immense societal pressure on families—especially on women, but also on men—to structure their lives in a specific way when they have children.
The prevailing expectation is that before having children, individuals must:
- Achieve financial stability
- Own a home
- Have a well-established career
- Provide an optimal standard of living for their family
This creates significant pressure, leading many people to delay parenthood or opt-out altogether. If society treats child-rearing as an overwhelming burden rather than a natural life stage supported by practical policies, then it is no surprise that fewer people choose to have children.
Ultimately, these technocrats and politicians want to reverse declining birth rates. In that case, they need to address the barriers that make parenthood difficult—not just talk about abstract demographic trends while ignoring the human factors behind them.
There is great competitive pressure surrounding education and parenting in the United States, which greatly discourages larger families.
The highly competitive and expensive school system focuses on academic achievement, extracurricular activities, and structured child development. Parents feel enormous pressure to enroll their children in top-tier schools, pay for costly extracurriculars, and maintain an active role in school-related responsibilities.
Beyond school choice, there is also pressure related to parental leave. The lack of robust maternity and paternity leave policies makes it difficult for parents to balance career progression with family life. The expectation of a child-centred lifestyle in the US is particularly intense. Once a family has children, their entire lives are often expected to revolve around them, making it harder for parents to maintain previous interests, social lives, and professional goals.
In many cases, the demands extend far beyond basic childcare. Parents are expected to participate in countless school-related activities, including extracurriculars for the child and mandatory school participation, parent-teacher conferences, fundraisers, and social events.
By contrast, in countries like France, you rarely hear about an endless cycle of school activities. Aside from graduations and occasional school events, parents are far less expected to be constantly involved in structured educational or extracurricular obligations.
This constant pressure on American parents creates significant barriers to having a family. It reduces parents’ free time, limits their ability to plan vacations, and makes career progression more difficult. Helicopter parenting culture adds to this stress, making parents feel like they are always falling behind or not doing enough compared to others.
As a result, many people feel that parenting in the US is not enjoyable or sustainable, discouraging them from having larger families or children. These social factors play a much larger role in declining birth rates than many people acknowledge.
Jacobsen: Then we have Israel, where birth rates are rising, not only among highly religious or traditional populations but across the board. What are the key differences?
Tsukerman: Israel presents a fascinating contrast to other developed nations. Unlike most Western countries, Israel has a strong culture of community support, which helps ease the burdens of parenting.
While some social pressure exists to have children, it is not necessarily negative. Instead of parents being expected to micromanage every aspect of their child’s life, there is greater accommodation for fertility issues, a supportive cultural environment, and a more organic balance between structured and unstructured family activities.
Another major factor is the sense of early responsibility placed on children. From a young age, Israeli children are encouraged to be more independent, which reduces the burden on parents compared to cultures where parents are expected to do everything for their kids well into adulthood.
This combination of social support, cultural expectations, and practical independence helps parents feel more confident and less overwhelmed, making it easier to have larger families without the same stress level seen in the US or parts of Europe.
Jacobsen: So you’re suggesting that even if strong economic policies are in place, people won’t choose to have larger families without the right cultural framework.
Tsukerman: Exactly. Even if you provide financial incentives, tax breaks, and paid parental leave, it will never fully offset the cost of raising children—especially in highly developed countries like the US and Western Europe.
In theory, countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland have some of the best policies in the world to encourage parenthood. Yet, Europeans tend to have even fewer children than Americans. While some things—like cheaper healthcare or subsidized childcare—help, they do not completely solve the issue. Economics alone is not the deciding factor. Social expectations and cultural attitudes play a much larger role than many policymakers acknowledge.
It ultimately comes down to a personal cost-benefit analysis. People recognize that having more children comes with expenses and challenges but also consider the emotional and social benefits. In societies where having children is seen as a fulfilling, communal, and integrated part of life, people tend to be more open to larger families. In societies where parenting is seen as an overwhelming, competitive, and restrictive obligation, birth rates decline—even when financial incentives are provided.
This is why purely economic policies will never be enough to reverse declining birth rates without shifting cultural attitudes toward parenting and family life. There is a strong connection between community support, cultural mindset, and quality of life regarding family planning and birth rates.
In the US and many other developed countries, raising a family is increasingly viewed as a burden rather than a fulfilling or natural part of life. In contrast, societies that balance economic flexibility, cultural values, and supportive work environments maintain higher birth rates without coercion.
Jacobsen: However, the “magic number” of 2.1 children per woman, representing a replacement-level fertility rate, has not been universally sustained in most developed nations. Looking at various countries and demographic trends, we can see that certain societies have found localized solutions that work within their contexts. However, there is no universal formula for sustaining population growth while preserving individual freedoms.
Population growth tends to be high in societies where women’s rights and autonomy are restricted—where they have limited access to education, healthcare, and career opportunities. In these societies, traditional gender roles remain rigid, leading to higher birth rates at the cost of personal freedom and economic mobility.
That is my observation. What is your take? Do you believe there is a set of concrete policies that could be applied universally to address population sustainability?
Tsukerman: We have never been in a better position economically, socially, and technologically than now. Across the world, more people have access to education and careers than at any other point in human history.
For women, this is the best period in history regarding economic and social opportunities—with some exceptions in specific countries. However, as societies develop, people prioritize personal freedom, time, and individual goals over social expectations. That is the trade-off of modern progress—the more freedom and economic stability people have, the less likely they are to prioritize reproduction as a societal duty.
So, the challenge is not simply financial incentives or government policies—it is about aligning individual choices with broader societal needs. However, forcing people into having more children is not an option. Once people are free to choose, they will not necessarily prioritize what is best for society—they will prioritize what is best for their personal lives.
This varies by individual, but generally speaking, if you want a successful career and a balanced lifestyle, you are likely to limit the number of children you have. Unless you are extremely wealthy and can afford a team of nannies and household staff, having many children is not practical for most people in modern society.
Jacobsen: And that brings us back to Musk and Durov, who have exceptionally large children—but under unusual circumstances.
- Elon Musk has 13 children with four different women (that we know of).
- Pavel Durov has over 100 children in approximately 12 countries but as a sperm donor, not an active father.
Neither of these men is deeply involved in parenting or actively raising their children. In Durov’s case, he is not involved at all. He is simply a sperm donor with no direct responsibility for the children he has fathered. This further reinforces the original point—the conversation about birth rates and demographics is framed purely in statistical and economic terms rather than acknowledging the legal, social, and policy realities that influence family planning.
Their approach treats people as abstract numbers rather than individuals making real-life decisions. Women’s agency, economic pressures, career considerations, and work-life balance are often ignored in these discussions, making the entire pronatalist argument feel detached from reality.
That is a key issue—many technocrats and political figures discussing demographics do so without engaging with the lived experiences of the people making these decisions.
This discussion highlights the gap between policy theory and real-world decision-making regarding population sustainability.
As commonly referred to, these Tech Bros present themselves as technocratic, ‘meritocratic,’ and futurist-minded individuals. Many of them align with transhumanist ideals, which you have previously drawn my attention to as an important factor in their worldview.
Much of this thinking originated with the law of accelerating returns and theories stemming from Moore’s Law, which hypothesized continuous exponential growth in computing power. However, according to experts like Sam Altman and others, we are now in the era of scaling laws, where AI and technological advancements have an almost incomprehensible multiplicative effect.
Given their futurist perspective, what solutions do they propose for this demographic crisis? They see fertility rates below 2.1 as an existential threat and react with panic, fearing civilization’s decline.
What exactly do they see as the transformative solutions for this posed problem?
Tsukerman: Their “solution”—if you can call it that—is to donate their sperm and spread their seed as widely as possible.
For example, Pavel Durov has allegedly fathered over 100 children as a sperm donor, which sounds like a grand contribution to human survival—until you realize that, on a global scale, it is statistically irrelevant. In a world of billions of people, 100 extra births make no meaningful difference to overall demographic trends.
Furthermore, this approach could lead to serious medical crises. If these biologically related children are unaware of each other and end up reproducing together, it could result in genetic disorders and significant health risks. Then there is Elon Musk, who has 13 children with four different women. While this may be more than most people, it is still nowhere near enough to reverse any global demographic decline.
Even beyond numbers, there is a psychological and social aspect to consider. Suppose some of Musk’s children grow up traumatized by his absence, parenting style, or the public scrutiny surrounding him. In that case, they may actively choose not to have children themselves. Suppose his approach to fatherhood leads to broken families or generational dysfunction. In that case, his contribution is not necessarily a net positive regarding long-term societal stability.
More importantly, none of these men have real policy prescriptions. They reproduce for the sake of reproducing, but they offer no real guidance on:
- How to create a society where people genuinely want to have more children
- What needs to change in terms of policy, social structures, or work-life balance
- How to make family life more appealing and sustainable for modern individuals
Their only real argument is that people should sacrifice their desires for collective social needs, which historically has been a dangerous ideological path.
Jacobsen: Fascist regimes, such as Ceausescu’s Romania, also pushed aggressive pronatalist policies, forcing people to prioritize national interests over personal freedom. This is a well-documented historical failure, yet these Tech Bros seem oblivious to that reality.
However, people in developed democratic nations—such as the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe—are not living under totalitarian regimes and have no interest in being forced into state-controlled family planning initiatives. Western societies fought against fascism, Nazism, and communism precisely to avoid government-dictated economic and reproductive policies.
There is a massive gap between their proposed vision and any realistic path to achieving it. Their ideas are detached from reality, failing to address the lived experiences of people making family planning decisions.
It is essentially a dilettante’s guide to demographics—a simplistic, surface-level take on an incredibly complex subject.
Their approach mirrors large language models, where they systematize and statistically analyze data but lack a deep understanding of the human thought processes that generate those outputs.
It is akin to skimming the surface of a vast ocean while ignoring everything beneath it. They identify a statistical concern but completely miss the intricate social, economic, and emotional realities that shape human decision-making.
This is why their solutions feel hollow—they fail to address the messiness of human relationships, cultural values, and economic structures that influence birth rates.
Tsukerman: People don’t forget that throughout human evolution, from its early beginnings—whatever they happen to be—until this point, family and family structure took on and evolved as well. It was never completely static. What people idealized as an ideal family was never quite as clear an idea as people think. A lot of the time, nobody asked those people what they wanted. Now we have the choice.
So unless people want to sacrifice democracy and the ability to formulate their own choices, which are protected by the constitution and so forth, for a society where people are forced to marry, settle down with whomever their families choose, and stay there for the rest of their lives, they’re going to have to admit that there’s no clear-cut pathway to any of this, and it’s going to be messy.
The more freedom people have, the more choices they have, and the messier it will be. But unless you want to eliminate choice from the question, you’ll have to figure out how to get people to make better choices and define a better choice in a way that makes sense.
Jacobsen: Here are dumb ‘solutions.’ Poland, Iran, and the US post-Roe v. Wade: Limiting reproductive choice to increase birth rates somehow. It does not. It results in more unsafe versions, higher maternal mortality, and economic hardship for women. Dumb.
A childlessness tax during the Soviet Union was 6% of a person’s salary for adults without children. Many avoided legal marriages to escape the tax. Dumb.
Romania, Ceausescu issues Decree 770: In 1966, Romania banned abortion and contraception, forcing pregnancies to boost the population. State doctors regularly monitored women to ensure they weren’t terminating pregnancies. Maternal mortality rates soared. Unwanted children went to orphanages under horrific conditions, and birth rates plummeted again once Ceausescu was overthrown. Dumb.
Reducing women’s educational and career opportunities (Afghanistan, some Middle Eastern countries): You mentioned Afghanistan earlier. Increased early marriages and birth rates are up in the short term. Still, as with the Romanian example, this leads to higher poverty rates, worse child health and mortality, and overall economic decline. So, therefore, dumb.
Marriage restrictions and incentives for younger marriages—Iran post-2021 and China discouraging divorce—fail because Iran banned sterilization and restricted access to contraception while encouraging married women to marry early. China increased restrictions on divorce to keep families together, supposedly leading to higher birth rates because nothing signifies intimacy like acrimonious marriages stuck together by the state. Outcome: Young people avoid marriage altogether. Birth rates are still declining. Dumb.
Encouraging only traditional gender roles. South Korea, with its previous policies. Historically, women were discouraged from working after childbirth. There was an emphasis on patriarchal traditional family structures.
The result, women avoided marriage and children because there was a lack of support for working mothers. So, they have now shifted to gender-equal policies. However, the birth rate remains one of the lowest in the world. Encouraging traditional gender roles did not work in the South Korean case. Dumb.
Nationalist and ethno-exclusive policies are a rising tide of ugliness—to make an aesthetic appraisal. Hungary, Russia, and Poland are promoting birth incentives for particular national or ethnic groups, highly exclusionary to immigrants. This policy has failed because population growth requires both native births and immigration. It did not work—i.e., it was dumb.
So, these are very steadfast examples of not working in our prior discussion. On the other hand, the Nordic model of work-life balance, affordable childcare, and parental leave—like France and Sweden—and the absence of discrimination against working mothers or restricted access to family planning and forced births seem like reasonable solutions, far more than the prior—or just creepy commentary by techno-bros.
Do you agree or disagree? What are your closing thoughts, Irina?
Tsukerman: There needs to be an acknowledgment that having children is a deeply personal choice, and it is not easy. It is certainly not easy for women who have to bear those children. It is certainly not easy for anyone who has to raise those children—more importantly than simply being a biological producer of children.
Even if, somehow, there were a way of developing children externally in a machine that does not require any serious commitment from women—even if you eliminate the biological factor—raising the actual child remains the biggest part of the job.
And this is not something you can force anybody into. You can force them to give birth and have the child. You cannot force them to raise them or be a good parent.
People should focus less on how many children people have and more on ensuring better examples of good parenting—and more on it. Because of the number of broken families we are seeing, the numbers of horrific social phenomena—drug overdoses, broken communities, covered-up sex scandals, and abuses—none of that brings about healthy societies, healthy families, or children who grow up to be functional adults.
We need to shift our focus to that. Then there is the demographic crisis—healthy communities will lead to healthierchoices, resolving the crisis independently.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today.
Tsukerman: I appreciate it, Irina. Thank you so much.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05
Dr. Paola Rossi, Clinical Program Director for Lifestyle Medicine at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, leads the Believe in You program, promoting exercise and nutrition for cancer survivors. Inspired by survivors struggling to participate in the Dolphins Challenge Cancer event, the initiative provides a 20-week structured training program with in-person and virtual sessions, nutritional guidance, and community support. Participants progress from inactive to active lifestyles, with data showing sustained improvements. Plans include a digital platform, expanded outreach, and national replication. Rossi emphasizes long-term sustainability, ensuring survivors maintain healthy habits beyond the program.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Paola Rossi, M.D. She is the Clinical Program Director for Lifestyle Medicine at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and South Florida’s only National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. Originally from Argentina, she earned her medical degree from the University of Buenos Aires. She later pursued additional training in exercise physiology at the University of Miami.
Dr. Rossi’s work focuses on lifestyle factors, including Diet and exercise, in cancer prevention and survivorship. She helped develop Sylvester’s Believe in You program, a high-risk lifestyle medicine clinic designed to support cancer survivors through exercise and nutrition. She is passionate about community outreach and enjoys acting, dancing, and baking sourdough bread in her free time. So, thank you for joining me today. What inspired the creation of the Believe in You program?
Dr. Paola Rossi: About three years ago, we met with the Miami Dolphins Foundation to discuss the Dolphins Challenge Cancer (DCC) initiative, which raises funds for cancer research at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. During that meeting, a few cancer survivors shared that, while they thought the initiative was great, they couldn’t participate because they struggled to even walk from the parking lot to Hard Rock Stadium, let alone complete a 5K or a 30-mile bike ride, which is the minimum distance for the cycling event.
The Dolphins Challenge Cancer (DCC) has been raising funds for over a decade, supporting cancer research and patient care. However, at that moment, we realized we might have unintentionally excluded the people we were trying to help.
So, we decided to train these survivors and ensure that they could participate if they wanted to. We started with a small pilot program involving about 10 cancer survivors, which was a huge success. Every participant could complete the 5K.
Since then, we have expanded the program to include more participants and provide additional support, ensuring that any cancer survivor who wants to participate in DCC has the opportunity to do so.
Jacobsen: How is the 20-week program structured?
Rossi: The program is structured with weekly in-person training sessions, usually held on Saturdays, at two locations—one in Miami-Dade County and one in Broward County.
We also have one or two daily virtual sessions via Zoom, which complement the in-person training from Monday to Friday. This allows participants to reach the recommended 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week.
Additionally, we provide educational newsletters covering topics like muscle soreness, the importance of warming up and cooling down, and the role of nutrition in exercise recovery.
We also hold monthly workshops on mental resilience, positive self-talk, and motivation—all essential skills for helping participants successfully complete a race or endurance event.
However, the key part of the program is building a strong community. Sticking with a four- to five-month training program is not easy, and many people struggle with exercise consistency. However, by fostering a sense of community and peer support, participants help keep each other accountable and motivated.
Jacobsen: For individual cancer survivors, how do you tailor the program to meet each person’s needs?
Rossi: That’s a great question.
We work with trainers who specialize in exercise oncology, and the program has a three-tier system to accommodate different fitness levels.
We make adaptations based on each participant’s physical condition and experience with exercise. For example, we categorize participants into groups:
- Walkers – for those new to exercise or have not been physically active for an extended period.
- Joggers – for those ready to take on a more moderate activity level.
- Runners – those with higher fitness levels and want to train for longer distances.
This tiered system ensures that each participant receives individualized support and can progress at their own pace, making the experience both inclusive and empowering for cancer survivors.
Some people are walking but don’t feel safe or haven’t pushed beyond basic movements, like walking the dog. Others have some training experience but still feel they need support. That’s why we have three tiers within the program. We ensure that participants have access to safe terrain, proper equipment, and a structured progression of exercises. Hence, they feel like they are progressing without pushing too hard—finding that balance is always the challenge.
Jacobsen: What about nutrition education alongside physical training? People can eat poorly and still build muscle, but that may not help with recovery or overall health in the long run.
Rossi: Yes, we place a strong emphasis on nutrition because, in addition to the Believe in You program, we are part of Lifestyle Medicine. Nutrition and exercise are two of our core pillars. We tailor the nutrition component to cancer survivorship, which comes with specific dietary recommendations.
Our newsletter includes nutrition objectives, recipes, and other practical resources. Additionally, we host monthly nutrition workshops covering grocery shopping, meal prep for busy weeks, and strategies to meet nutrient needs. These workshops are both educational and practical. We also provide guidance for those experiencing cancer-related symptoms that may affect their Diet—like nausea or early satiety (feeling full too quickly)—by offering alternative food options that still meet their nutritional needs.
While the program is tailored to cancer survivors, we also accommodate their companions or caregivers. Although cancer survivorship nutrition guidelines have some specific recommendations, they generally align with national nutrition guidelines, making them beneficial for a broader audience. However, we are careful not to push rigid dietary requirements, such as prescribing a fixed amount of protein daily, since individual needs vary.
Suppose we identify participants who require specialized support. In that case, we refer them to Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center dietitians. This complimentary service provides personalized nutrition counselling for cancer survivors.
Jacobsen: You have an interest in the community. Community helps people stay on the right path regarding Diet and exercise. How do you build a strong support system for participants?
Rossi: I’d love to say there’s something special about what we do, but honestly, they do most of the work. We provide the space, organization, and expertise in nutrition and exercise. Still, cancer survivors naturally form strong bonds with each other.
The experience of cancer diagnosis and treatment is so unique that people don’t need much encouragement to support one another. Once they connect, they hold each other accountable, sending messages like, “Hey, why didn’t you show up today?” or “I know you’re tired, but come anyway.”
Unfortunately, some participants end up in the ER or require inpatient care, but when they return, they often check in on each other. We provide a safe space, but the participants create the community themselves.
Jacobsen: Are there any cases that require a high level of individual tailoring? For instance, someone might have had a more aggressive form of cancer that affects their ability to eat or exercise, whether in terms of weight training, cardio, or other activities.
Rossi: Absolutely. We work with a diverse range of participants, including adolescent and young adult cancer survivors in their twenties and older participants—we currently have an 87-year-old participant who attends with his wife.
And, of course, participants are at different stages of their cancer journey, with varying levels of diagnosis and disease progression. This presents unique challenges, but we are fortunate to have a structured support system.
Each trainer works with four to five program assistants at each location. This setup allows the trainer to keep the session running while ensuring individual participants receive personalized support. Suppose someone needs to walk instead of run, repeat a specific exercise, or take a break. Someone is always available to assist and monitor their progress in that case.
This system helps us provide the necessary adaptations and modifications for participants facing greater challenges. On the flip side, participants themselves look out for one another. For example, they may approach us and say, “Hey, Scott isn’t feeling great today—can you check on him?” That kind of peer support and accountability is an incredible part of this program.
Suppose we notice someone struggling significantly to keep up with the training. In that case, we usually recommend one-on-one sessions with an exercise physiologist. This allows them to address specific challenges in a more individualized setting. After a few weeks, many participants can reintegrate into the entire program or, at the very least, participate at a level that works for them. In this way, our approach bridges the gap between clinical care and community support.
Jacobsen: What have you found to be the most fulfilling part of running this program?
Rossi: Being part of their stories, without a doubt.
Hearing how their lives have changed because of this program is incredibly rewarding. We have so many stories—like our 87-year-old participant who now refers to one of the younger participants as his “adopted grandchild” after meeting them in the program.
Another memorable story is from a woman who joined one of our early program editions. In her exit interview, she told us that on the first day, she thought, “I won’t be able to do this. I won’t come back.” But she did come back—and over time, she lost 30 pounds, became more active than ever before, and even saw a drop in her tumour markers.
Even if our role in these transformations is small, being part of their journey keeps me going. It motivates me to expand our reach and help more people benefit from the program.
Jacobsen: How do you benchmark fitness and diet standards? In other words, how do you measure where people start when they join the program compared to the minimum and recommended standards for Diet and fitness?
Rossi: Our participants joke about this because we conduct many baseline and end-of-program assessments—but it’s an essential part of our work.
We begin with questionnaires assessing their Diet, physical activity levels, and overall quality of life. These are standard research tools used in scientific studies to measure lifestyle factors.
We also conduct in-person assessments, including:
- Carotenoid level measurements – This skin pigment test indirectly reflects fruit and vegetable intake.
- Grip strength tests – A strong indicator of overall muscle function and health.
- Blood pressure monitoring – To assess cardiovascular health.
- One-mile walk test – To evaluate cardiorespiratory endurance, measuring how quickly they complete the mile and their level of exertion at the finish.
Throughout the 20-week program, we reassess these markers to track Diet, strength, and endurance improvements.
Jacobsen: A few of these assessments are repeated throughout the program, and at the end of the program, we conduct them all again to track progress. We compare the results to the initial assessments to see how participants have improved.
So far, the trends have been consistent, although we haven’t fully analyzed this year’s data yet. We have seen previously inactive participants become active, and those who were moderately active progress to vigorous activity levels.
We also see self-reported improvements in Diet, particularly an increase in fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption—key dietary components we emphasize. Overall, based on subjective feedback and objective measures, the program has been successful in helping participants adopt healthier habits.
Jacobsen: What about maintaining those standards over the long term?
- How long has the program been running?
- Diet and exercise programs often lead people back to their original habits once they stop actively participating. How do you address that challenge?
Rossi: The core program lasts five months, but we don’t stop there. We have what we call the “off-season,” which helps participants stay engaged throughout the rest of the year.
We hold monthly in-person training sessions during the off-season and continue offering some virtual sessions. Additionally, we host a workshop every two months to reinforce healthy habits and provide ongoing motivation.
We’ve observed that program repetition is the most significant factor in long-term success. Many participants return year after year—we now have individuals who have been with us from year one to year three. The data shows that those who stay engaged over multiple years are likelier to maintain and build on their progress.
On the other hand, when participants step away from the program, gathering follow-up data becomes more challenging for them to regain momentum. That’s why one of my biggest goals is ensuring that we don’t let the program become a one-time, short-term intervention. Instead, we want to create lasting behavioural change by keeping people involved beyond the initial five months.
It’s essential that participants can transition back into their real world and sustain these habits without relying on the structured support we provide throughout the program. If they can’t do that, we haven’t equipped them with the tools they need for long-term success.
For me, this is a key benchmark of success—if we struggle with long-term sustainability, then something in the program needs to change. Of course, many external factors influence sustainability, including social environment, policies, and systemic barriers. It’s an asymmetrical battle, but if participants keep returning, they only continue to improve.
That’s why we’ve been analyzing trends—we want to see whether repeating the Believe in You program each year leads to sustained behavioural change. If returning participants show continuous progress, that’s a strong indicator that the program is effectively reinforcing positive habits.
Jacobsen: What future enhancements or expansions do you envision for the program?
Rossi: Right now, we need to expand. One of our key priorities is creating a website where people can access educational materials anytime rather than receiving them only occasionally via email. We also want to offer on-demand training sessions so participants can follow along at their own pace instead of only attending live, scheduled classes.
Another primary focus is outreach. While the program is open to any cancer survivor in South Florida, regardless of whether they are a Sylvester patient, we still need to improve our messaging to ensure that more community members know about this free resource. Participants can even bring a companion, but we must increase awareness and build a stronger community network to spread the word more effectively.
Ultimately, I envision this program replicated in other parts of the U.S., not necessarily under our direct management, but as a model that other organizations can adopt and integrate into their cancer survivorship initiatives. Ideally, Believe in You could be linked to fundraising events nationwide, creating a national movement for cancer survivors’ health and wellness. That would be the dream—breaking out of a silo and making this a lasting, widespread initiative.
Jacobsen: I love that vision. Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was great meeting you.
Rossi: Very nice to meet you!
Jacobsen: We’ll stay in touch.
Rossi: Cool, sounds good.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05
Janelle Kellman, Esq. is a former Mayor of Sausalito (2022) and city council member. She restructured the city’s finance department post‑COVID‑19, secured $2 million for sea level rise mitigation and infrastructure planning, and led housing equity initiatives. In 2020, she founded the Center for Sea Rise Solutions to advance coastal resilience, workforce development, and ocean health. The nonprofit launched an international blue economy job creation program with the City and Port of Barcelona and the World Ocean Council, and established a local task force with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Congressman Jared Huffman’s office. Janelle holds a BA from Yale, a Master’s in Environmental Management from Oxford, and a J.D. from Stanford Law. She is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of California 2026. She highlights the expansion of nondiscrimination protections, grassroots activism’s role in legal advancements, and the need to prioritize economic security, housing affordability, and public safety over culture wars. Kellman’s leadership includes launching Sausalito’s first Pride celebration and securing funding for infrastructure. She advocates for collaborative governance to ensure inclusive policies that benefit all Californians.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What legal shifts seem most transformative in redefining protections for queer communities?
Janelle Kellman: One of the most significant legal advancements has been the expansion of nondiscrimination protections that explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity. Efforts to ensure equal access to public accommodations, housing, and employment are essential in creating a more just society. Additionally, comprehensive protections that prevent discrimination in schools and foster inclusive learning environments are critical in ensuring that LGBTQ+ students feel safe and supported. At the same time, the fight to codify abortion protections into law remains a key issue, as reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ rights are deeply interconnected in the broader fight for bodily autonomy and personal freedom.
Jacobsen: As a Stanford-trained legal expert and former mayor, what innovative strategies have helped promote equity for LGBTQ+ individuals?
Kellman: As Mayor of Sausalito, I launched the city’s first-ever Pride celebration—a three-day event honoring and celebrating our diverse and inclusive community. This public recognition was about more than just celebration; it was a statement of values and a commitment to inclusion at every level of local governance. I support integrating minority rights, including LGBTQ+ equity, into broader policy initiatives, including nondiscrimination protections in public spaces and efforts to ensure that all residents, regardless of identity, have access to the same opportunities and resources.
Jacobsen: What is the dynamic interplay between grassroots activism and policy-making in the advancement of queer rights?
Kellman: Grassroots activism is often the spark that drives policy change. Many of the legal protections we now take for granted—workplace protections, marriage equality, and inclusive nondiscrimination laws—started as demands from activists on the ground. These are now being threatened again, and are major distractions and avoidance tools for tackling the real issues that plague our Country like the economy, housing and public safety.
Jacobsen: What is effective in rewriting the narrative for sexual and gender minorities?
Kellman: The key is moving beyond division and distraction to focus on what truly impacts people’s lives. Too often, politicians use discrimination as a wedge issue to stir controversy instead of addressing real problems—like the cost of living, access to good jobs, and public safety. The best way to rewrite the narrative is to put these shared priorities at the center of the conversation. LGBTQ+ individuals, like all Americans, want economic security, affordable housing, and safe communities. When we focus on solutions that benefit everyone, we take away the power of those trying to use identity as a political weapon.
Jacobsen: As a candidate for California Lieutenant Governor, what policy initiatives are important to champion?
Kellman: California has real problems to solve, and we need leadership focused on results. That means:
Strengthening the economy by supporting small businesses and investing in the workforce of the future.
Expanding housing affordability so that all Californians—no matter their background—can afford to live where they work.
Prioritizing public safety by ensuring law enforcement has the resources they need while also investing in mental health and community-based solutions.
Ensuring that all Californians have access to high-quality education and healthcare without political interference.
We can’t afford to let fear-mongering distract from the urgent issues facing our state. California’s leadership must be focused on creating real opportunities for all, not fanning culture wars that divide us.
Jacobsen: What do you feel have been your most significant professional challenges—and triumphs?
Kellman: One of the biggest challenges in public service is cutting through political noise to focus on what actually improves people’s lives. As Mayor of Sausalito, I saw firsthand how easy it is for important issues to get sidelined by unnecessary political fights. My biggest triumphs have come from putting people first—whether it was leading Sausalito’s first-ever Pride celebration to build a more inclusive community or working on infrastructure projects that improved daily life for residents. Real leadership means ignoring distractions and keeping the focus on what matters: jobs, housing, and safety.
Jacobsen: How can activists, lawmakers, and legal experts collaborate to ensure evolving legal frameworks empower all queer communities?
Kellman: The best way to advance real progress is to move beyond performative politics and focus on meaningful reforms that benefit everyone. Activists, lawmakers, and legal experts need to work together to ensure that legal protections are strong, enforceable, and rooted in economic and social stability. That means making sure all communities—including LGBTQ+ individuals—have access to safe housing, stable jobs, and fair treatment under the law. If we stay focused on these fundamentals, we take power away from those who use division as a political tool and instead build a more united, prosperous future for all Californians.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Janelle.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04
During the Second Trump Administration, PATH remained committed to eliminating single-use plastics despite shifts in policy. CEO Shadi Bakour noted adaptations to inflation, tariff volatility, and regulatory changes by streamlining operations, diversifying suppliers, and optimizing logistics. Tariff impacts on aluminum and international trade required nuanced procurement strategies, while tax reforms prompted proactive financial planning. PATH aligned with evolving environmental policies and supported legislation promoting sustainable packaging. Consumer behavior shifted toward values-based purchasing, especially among youth. Despite labor policy challenges, PATH’s purpose-driven culture helped attract and retain talent. Bakour remains optimistic as sustainability moves from trend to norm, fueled by innovation and generational demand.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has PATH adapted to the economic policies of the Second Trump Administration?
Shadi Bakour: PATH’s core mission—to eliminate single-use plastic by offering sustainable alternatives — has remained the same since day one, even as economic and political landscapes shift. During the Second Trump Administration, we’ve closely monitored changes in federal policy, particularly those affecting environmental regulation, trade, and manufacturing. While certain rollbacks in environmental protections have presented challenges for the sustainability sector, they’ve also strengthened our resolve to lead by example. We’ve adjusted our operating strategy to maintain efficiency amid inflationary pressures, streamlined certain functions to preserve capital, and continued to educate consumers on the importance of sustainable choices.
Jacoben: What about specifics around regulatory costs, sourcing, and supply chain issues, or the pricing of aluminum?
Bakour: Navigating the complexities of a global supply chain is part of our everyday reality. Volatility in aluminum pricing—driven by tariffs, demand cycles, and international relations—requires us to maintain close partnerships with our suppliers and to secure contracts that protect us against sudden cost spikes. We’ve also invested in building a more resilient sourcing network that includes both domestic and international partners to mitigate risk. On the regulatory side, evolving packaging and labeling requirements mean we stay agile and proactive to remain compliant without passing excessive costs onto the consumer. Our operational team constantly evaluates and optimizes logistics to avoid disruptions and reduce carbon impact.
Jacobsen: How are the tariff adjustments working within the context of international trade agreements?
Bakour: Tariff fluctuations—particularly on imported aluminum and other raw materials—have created a need for more nuanced procurement strategies. As the Trump Administration reevaluates trade agreements and reinstates certain protectionist policies, we’ve had to adapt by diversifying our supplier base and strengthening relationships with manufacturers. This helps us avoid overreliance on any single trade route or country. These strategies not only safeguard our pricing but also ensure continuity in product availability across the U.S. and international markets.
Jacobsen: With possible tax changes, what strategies might maintain PATH’s financial health and growth trajectory?
Tax reforms, especially those affecting SMBs, require proactive financial planning. We’ve worked closely with our advisors to identify credits, deductions, and incentives—such as those for sustainable manufacturing or domestic job creation—that align with our business model. We’ve also prioritized reinvestment into R&D and sustainable innovation, which not only fuels growth but can also offer long-term financial benefits under evolving tax codes. Our approach remains focused on margin discipline, scalable partnerships, and smart capital allocation to stay on track regardless of fiscal policy changes.
Jacobsen: What environmental policies affect sustainable businesses?
Environmental policies—like extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, plastic bans, and state-level incentives for sustainable packaging—have a direct impact on how we operate. When forward-thinking regulations are introduced, they help level the playing field and accelerate the transition to sustainable and reusable products. For instance, we actively support legislation that bans single-use plastics or encourages refillable systems, because it aligns with our ethos and helps drive wider consumer adoption. At the same time, we stay engaged with policymakers to ensure new regulations are practical and foster innovation, not just compliance.
Jacobsen: How have consumer behaviors or spending patterns altered due to economic uncertainty?
We’ve seen a more values-driven approach to spending emerge in recent years, especially among younger consumers. Even in times of financial uncertainty, people are prioritizing quality and sustainability over convenience or cost alone. They want to buy from brands that reflect their personal ethics, and PATH fits that ethos. While price sensitivity remains a factor, we’ve worked hard to make our products accessible and competitively priced, so consumers don’t have to choose between affordability and sustainability.
Jacobsen: With small businesses, how are hiring and talent retention affected by changes in employment policies or labor laws?
Changes in employment policies—such as minimum wage adjustments, benefits mandates, and hiring incentives—impact small businesses in real terms. But at PATH, we’ve found that purpose-driven work culture is our greatest asset in attracting and retaining talent. We offer flexibility, meaningful work, and a commitment to social impact, which appeals to employees who want to do more than just collect a paycheck. We’ve also made conscious decisions to invest in employee growth and well-being, which helps minimize turnover and builds long-term loyalty, even in a competitive labor market.
Jacobsen: What gives you optimism about the future of sustainability?
There’s a clear shift happening—sustainability is no longer a niche concept or a marketing trend. It’s becoming a baseline expectation. Consumers, especially Gen Z and Millennials, are driving that demand, and businesses are responding with real innovation. We’re seeing growth in circular economy solutions, improvements in sustainable materials, and more collaboration across industries than ever before. That gives me hope—not just for PATH, but for the future of our planet. It tells me that we’re moving from awareness to action, and that’s where real change begins.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Shadi.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04
Dr. Syd Young, a physical therapist in Austin, Texas, specializes in gender-affirming care and operates Out Wellness, an inclusive space for LGBTQ+ individuals. Young provides pre- and post-op care for gender-affirming surgeries and general physical therapy, addressing healthcare discrimination. They emphasize financial accessibility through sliding scales and mutual aid. Young highlights systemic barriers, legislative threats, and misconceptions about trans healthcare. They advocate for broader acceptance and education in gender-affirming care, aiming to normalize affirming practices across healthcare. Their work extends to fitness, self-defense, and community support, reinforcing the need for safe, affirming spaces in a restrictive political climate.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, today we’re here with Dr. Syd Young. They’re very connected to the general health and wellness scene in Austin, Texas, and they work in private practice within the community. As a physical therapist, Syd specializes in gender-affirming care, working with trans populations in Austin. They also own a gym and wellness center, Out Wellness, which serves as an inclusive space for the local LGBTQ+ community. It’s a unique resource offering access to experts in hormone therapy, sex education, self-defense, and trans-affirming fitness classes.
Thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Dr. Syd Young: Yes, of course. I’m happy to be here.
Jacobsen: So, what does your work as a physical therapist specializing in gender-affirming care involve? Many people may use those words, but they might not fully understand what they mean or might interpret them differently.
Young: It means a lot of things. What most people probably associate it with is pre- and post-op gender-affirming surgery care. My background is in sports and orthopedics—I completed a residency and a fellowship in that field. Typically, if someone tears their ACL, they come to physical therapy, we help them get stronger, they have surgery, and then they continue with PT post-op. This means they often work with a physical therapist for a long time.
Because gender-affirming surgeries are relatively new and are not performed by orthopedic surgeons—but rather by plastic surgeons or, in the case of bottom surgery, sometimes urologists—there hasn’t been the same established relationship with physical therapists as there is in orthopedic or trauma surgery. As a result, these surgeons often don’t refer patients to PT, even though there are orthopedic implications to these surgeries. For example, in top surgery, when people are having breast tissue removed, surgeons are often cutting through muscles. Even though it’s not classified as an orthopedic surgery like ACL reconstruction, it still has orthopedic implications.
So, first and foremost, we do a lot of pre- and post-op care for top and bottom surgeries. But beyond that, we also provide general physical therapy care for this population. Many queer and trans folks have had negative experiences in the healthcare system—whether it’s being misgendered, deadnamed, or facing other forms of discrimination. As a result, people also come to us for general PT needs—things like a sprained ankle, lower back pain, or other common injuries. We support them through that care in an affirming and welcoming space where they can access health and wellness services without fear of discrimination.
Jacobsen: So, as an inclusive space for LGBTQ+ individuals, through OutWellness, what is the model used to address gaps that may exist in traditional healthcare? You alluded to issues like misgendering and deadnaming—are those the only concerns?
Young: There are lots of concerns, and it’s important to talk about financial concerns first and foremost, even before we discuss deadnaming, misgendering, and similar issues. We don’t accept insurance here. The American insurance system is flawed at best—most people don’t fully understand their plans, what’s covered, and what’s not. So, rather than navigating that complexity, we work on a sliding scale. The sliding scale almost always results in people paying less than they would if they were using their insurance, and that’s by design.
We live in a capitalist world, so of course, we need to pay rent and keep things running. But we fully believe that health and wellness shouldn’t be a privilege—everyone should be able to access it. That’s why, in addition to our sliding scale, we also have a mutual aid system. People who pay full price understand that part of their payment helps subsidize care for someone who cannot afford it. Those who can pay do, and in turn, that allows us to offer care to those who can’t. It’s a really cool ecosystem that allows us to sustain our operations while ensuring that healthcare isn’t a financial burden for people. Since healthcare often does feel like a privilege in this country, we are doing everything we can to push back against that reality.
And then, something that might sound small but is actually really significant—we are such a queer-centered space that things like deadnaming and misgendering don’t come up here. We ask people for their names and pronouns, and while we do have to keep a legal name on file for documentation purposes, that name is never used otherwise.
I had a situation once with a new client who introduced themselves to me. A couple of weeks later, they said, “Oh my god, I came out!” And I responded, “That’s great! What did you come out as?” And they said, “I came out as Max.” I was momentarily confused because I had only ever known them as Max. Then they said, “Oh, yeah… you’re the only one who knew.” It was one of those moments where I realized that our space had been a safe place for them to try out their identity before fully coming out.
That kind of thing happens a lot here—people will say, “I’m trying out a new name” or “I’m trying these pronouns—can we use them in this space?” And we do. It’s fun, it’s meaningful, and it makes a difference. These issues that are so common in traditional healthcare settings just don’t arise here because we are a fully queer-centered space. We’re part of the community ourselves, so it never feels like an issue.
Jacobsen: So, it feels like you’re more deeply plugged into the community than into what might be called a clinical or sterile mindset?
Young: Yes, exactly.
I work hard to make sure that it doesn’t feel like a traditional healthcare environment. First of all, this is how I’m dressed for work today—this is my work outfit. When you walk into our space, you enter a gym first, and we have to walk through the gym to get to the PT area. That is intentional—it’s designed to be different from a typical clinical setting because many of us have experienced healthcare trauma.
On social media and in public conversations, people call me Dr. Syd, but in practice, nobody does. It’s important to me that no one calls me “Doctor” here because I want to maintain a familiar and equal relationship with my clients. I don’t want people to feel like they’re talking to someone in a position of authority over them. I don’t want there to be any sense of hierarchy or disparity in our relationship. Instead, I want us to feel like equals, working together to develop a plan that makes sense for them.
Jacobsen: I spoke with a surgeon in California, and the situation there seems a bit different—again, I’m speaking as a non-expert. But how have recent legislative changes in Texas impacted access to gender-affirming care? We’ve touched a little on financial barriers, but I’m wondering more about access.
Young: Yes. So, I’m in Texas, and I know that, federally, things have been scary—and here in Texas, things have been especially scary. Fortunately, at the moment, access for adults has remained largely unaffected. However, access for minors has been completely eliminated.
Minors in Texas cannot access gender-affirming care at all. That means families are now searching for resources elsewhere. Right now, the closest available care is in New Mexico, so we are working on gathering resources for parents of trans kids to help them find ways to access care in other states. We’ve also seen a huge outflow of people leaving Texas. It’s been significant—people are moving in large numbers to safer states like Massachusetts and Colorado. That has been one of the most noticeable changes.
In terms of new legislation, the next session is about to begin, so we haven’t seen any new laws passed yet, but we know what’s coming. Right now, they are tracking 106 anti-trans bills in the Texas legislature, and the session hasn’t even started. So, we know that more attacks on trans rights are on the way.
That said, last time, there were three major anti-trans bills that were passed. These included a ban on drag, a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and a ban on trans women in sports. However, two of the three were overturned after being approved. So, part of what we are trying to do as queer and trans people in Texas is understand that some of these laws are designed to intimidate us. Some of them cannot be upheld legally, even though they are passed. The fear comes from not knowing which ones will be enforced and which won’t.
For now, trans adults still have access to care. We still have gender-affirming doctors and surgeons in the area who are prescribing hormones and performing surgeries. That is where things stand right now, but it is definitely a scary time to be a queer or trans person in Texas.
Jacobsen: Have you thought about moving your practice, given what might be coming up in the near future?
Young: I haven’t. I am very privileged within the queer community—I am white, and I can pass as a cis woman when I want to.
I have very close ties to my family of origin, which provides me with another layer of support. That’s very important, especially as we navigate this difficult time. Now, more than ever, it’s essential that this place exists. We’ve seen that firsthand. Since the beginning of the year, with everything happening politically and socially, we’ve had a huge influx of trans folks coming into this space. People need this.
And honestly, I need this place, too. The feedback I get a lot from clients who move to the East Coast is that spaces like this don’t really exist in places like New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts. The reason is that trans folks can generally feel safe in any gym or wellness space there. A place like OutWellness might be nice to have in those areas, but it doesn’t feel like a necessity. In Texas, though, it absolutely is. Our approach is that as the federal government or the Texas legislature becomes more restrictive, we double down on our stance of protecting our trans and queer chosen family. I’m pretty stubborn, and that’s the stance we will continue to take.
Jacobsen: I’ve been working on a series of interviews—one on counter-extremism and counterterrorism, another on white nationalism, and a third that’s slipping my mind at the moment. But when you talk to experts in counter-extremism and counterterrorism, they’ll tell you that in Canada, you don’t see as many violent incidents, but you do see a lot of misogynistic extremism, mostly online. The primary or exclusive plotting of terrorist acts are Islamist.
In the U.S., though, a significant portion of terrorist plots—and in many cases, the actual execution of violent acts—are linked to white nationalism. There’s not a complete overlap, but there’s certainly a Venn diagram between white nationalist ideologies and fundamentalist Christianity. These groups tend to have very rigid ideas about sex and gender, which creates an exclusive mental landscape for people who don’t fit into those strict categories.
Relating that back to your work—do you or your clients ever report violent threats or incidents at clinics, patient support programs, or even personally, from individuals associated with these extremist groups?
Young: It’s interesting because you’re absolutely right—these things happen all the time. But we’ve been really lucky, and I do think Austin serves as a bit of a safe haven in all of this.
For three years, I worked out of my home, and my home address was very public. Now it’s not, but it was for a long time. During that time, we had zero instances of harassment, threats, or violence directed at me or at any of my clients here at Out Wellness. I haven’t personally received any direct reports of those kinds of incidents, although, of course, I know they happen elsewhere.
It might sound a little odd, but Austin truly does feel like a safe haven in a red state. That being said, it doesn’t take long to leave that bubble. If you drive just ten miles outside of Austin in any direction, you’re out of that safe zone. But within the city itself, we do have a protective bubble, and I think that helps mitigate some of these risks.
Jacobsen: What are some misconceptions that healthcare providers have about the needs of transgender individuals?
Young: The most common one I hear is that trans folks will go to a provider for an issue completely unrelated to their transness, and yet their trans identity becomes the focus of the conversation.
For example, I’ve had trans clients who are parents. They go to the doctor for a completely routine reason—let’s say they have a cold, or they’re dealing with a minor injury—and somehow, the conversation shifts to their gender identity. It’s as if the provider can’t separate
It’s this innocuous thing, but it’s almost always linked back to their hormone therapy. A trans person could go in with any unrelated issue, and the provider will immediately jump to, “I don’t know, but it’s probably because you’re on testosterone,” or “I don’t know, you’re on estrogen, so that must be the cause.”
These assumptions are inherently transphobic because they fail to see the whole person. The provider looks at the medication list, sees hormone therapy, and immediately dismisses everything else.
Jacobsen: It’s like when a kid has symptoms and RFK or others might say everything points to autism. It’s that same reductive thinking.
Young: Now, to be clear, there are physiological implications to being on hormones, and they are important to consider. But more often than not, providers use that as a way to dismiss any other potential diagnosis. Worse, many providers will suggest that the solution is to stop taking hormones altogether—without understanding that these are life-saving medications for many trans people. The harm they do is twofold: first, by falsely attributing unrelated health concerns to hormone therapy, and second, by recommending discontinuation without understanding the consequences. That kind of advice can be incredibly damaging.
The biggest misconception is that gender-affirming hormones are some kind of optional choice, like something trans people can just stop taking at any time. Providers need to understand that these are essential medications. It’s not as simple as, “Oh, just stop.” These are not over-the-counter drugs—they’re prescribed by trained medical professionals.
And, just to be clear, testosterone is a Class C controlled substance. It’s highly regulated. Trans people aren’t just picking up testosterone at the drugstore—we are getting it from licensed medical professionals. Yet, despite that, there’s this assumption that every health issue a trans person experiences must be because of their hormones. It’s completely ridiculous.
We see a double standard at play here. People with uteruses take birth control every day, and yet, because society wants them to be on birth control, no one talks about the health risks associated with it. And in reality, the side effects of birth control are often far more significant than those of gender-affirming hormones. But we don’t see providers blaming every symptom a cis woman has on her birth control, do we? That same consideration is rarely extended to trans people.
Another issue I see often is providers being completely unfamiliar with gender-affirming surgeries. I had a client who needed an X-ray about three or four weeks after top surgery. The technician told them, “Okay, raise your arms over your head.” And they were like, “I literally cannot do that. I physically cannot lift my arms above my head right now.”
Even as a physical therapist, I haven’t treated an ACL reconstruction in about four or five years at this point, but I still have a general understanding of how to approach it. That kind of basic knowledge should apply across the board for all surgeries, but when it comes to gender-affirming procedures, many providers just don’t have the familiarity—or the willingness—to learn.
If someone came to me and said, “I’m ten weeks post-op ACL reconstruction,” I’d immediately think, “Okay, you probably can’t jump right now.” That’s just general knowledge—I don’t need to specialize in ACL rehab to understand that jumping would likely be too painful and beyond their current recovery stage.
Even if I felt that I wasn’t the best person to treat their ACL because I’ve been removed from that kind of work for a while, I could still approach it with a baseline level of understanding. I’d say, “You came to me for PT today, so we’re not going to have you jumping because I know that’s too much for you right now.” That’s just basic competency.
The same kind of basic knowledge should apply to gender-affirming surgeries. It takes around eight to ten weeks for someone to regain full range of motion in their shoulders after top surgery—period. That’s general information. If a provider knows that, they won’t make an uninformed request like, “Raise your arms above your head.” Instead, they’d immediately recognize, “Oh, that was a silly thing for me to ask. Of course, they can’t do that yet.”
Providers should have at least a baseline level of knowledge about gender-affirming care because these surgeries are not rare. They happen all the time. Trans people are everywhere, meaning every provider—whether they realize it or not—is treating trans patients. It’s not just me. It’s not just gender-affirming care specialists. It’s everyone working in healthcare.
And that’s my biggest point. My hope is that by the time I’m old and retired, what I do won’t be considered anything special. Ideally, by then, every practice will be operating the way we do. Places like OutWellness will be obsolete because they won’t need to exist anymore—because every healthcare provider will be providing affirming, competent care. That’s the dream.
Jacobsen: There’s a strange mental economy that people have around this. And I think it applies to Canada as well, though maybe even more so in the United States. People get hair plugs. People get breast augmentations. People get all sorts of cosmetic procedures. When people age and their ears or noses change, they often get procedures for that, too.
There’s dental work, orthodontics—so many things that people don’t question. And in the U.S., since private care is more common than in Canada’s public system, people go out of pocket for all kinds of medical procedures.
So why is there this disconnect when it comes to gender-affirming care? Why do people accept that hair plugs or breast implants are “fine”, but certain gender-affirming procedures are suddenly considered off-limits?
And, as you pointed out, birth control and the morning-after pill also affect hormones. Yet, no one questions their availability. People aren’t campaigning against those in the same way.
Young: Exactly.
Jacobsen: So why is there this gap? Why are these two things—cosmetic procedures and gender-affirming care—not treated the same way? Why does society struggle to bridge that divide?
Young: I don’t know. I have no idea. But the honest answer to your question is that we live in a patriarchal society. The surgeries and hormones that support or reinforce that structure are readily accepted, while those that don’t are not.
We talk about breast augmentations, we talk about gynecomastia surgery for men, and we talk about the morning-after pill—all of these are widely accepted because they align with the male gaze. Procedures that make people more appealing or more “useful” in terms of reproductive control are normalized.
On the other hand, and this is a broad generalization, trans people don’t reinforce or serve the patriarchy in the same way. They don’t necessarily fit into conventional standards of attractiveness as dictated by the male gaze, nor do they conform to traditional reproductive roles. And that’s where the line gets drawn. It’s not that gender-affirming care is fundamentally different from other medical procedures; it’s that it doesn’t serve a patriarchal purpose.
If gender-affirming care were about making people “hotter” or more appealing to men, or if it somehow made them more “useful” within patriarchal structures, it would be viewed completely differently. But because trans people are doing these things for themselves—for their own euphoria, their own well-being—society struggles to understand it.
I also think there’s a fundamental lack of empathy when it comes to dysphoria. People who don’t experience it often have no reference point for what it feels like to live in a body that doesn’t reflect who they truly are. We already live in a society that struggles to believe marginalized people when they speak about their experiences, and that extends to trans people and their needs. At the end of the day, though, I believe much of this resistance comes back to living in a patriarchal society that doesn’t care to understand this population.
Jacobsen: How do you integrate fitness, self-defense, and hormone therapy education? And particularly, what do you mean by self-defense and fitness? Those are broad terms.
Young: Yes, and we keep them intentionally broad. I strongly believe that movement should be fun and personalized to each person.
When I talk about fitness, I mean movement of any kind. Many people come here and say, “I’ve never engaged in movement before, but I want to try a little bit of everything to see what feels good.” And I say, “Cool! Let’s do that.”
A lot of times, that movement ends up being strength training. That might involve using barbells, interval training, or a combination of different exercises. But it’s about finding what works for each individual.
Our self-defense class is taught by a member of our community who has been practicing martial arts for over twenty years. He’s an instructor in several different martial arts disciplines, though, to be honest with you, I don’t even know all of them. He sent me his résumé, and I just looked at it and said, “That looks good! You’re hired!”
Jacobsen: “So, you’re training with Jackie Chan?”
Young: Basically! I saw his qualifications and said, “You’re qualified. That sounds great to me.”
But beyond that, I keep our language intentionally vague because I don’t want people to feel limited by what they can or can’t do here. I firmly believe that movement is whatever you want it to be—whatever feels right for you and whatever you’re going to stick with for the long term. I don’t care what you do for the next three to six months—I care that you’re moving in a way that works for you.
I care about what you’re doing a decade from now. Are you still engaging in movement that you enjoy, or are we back in the vicious cycle of trying to figure it out again? I want to help people break that cycle—to find what feels good and sustainable for them in the long run.
Jacobsen: Now, shifting topics a bit—this will vary by state, but I want to ask about the most pressing legislative issues. At the state level, Texas has its own developments. You have your little oasis in Austin, but what’s happening federally? What policies are currently being enacted, and what new ones are expected? I assume that people who are personally affected by these issues are tracking them closely, since it’s more impactful for them.
Young: Yes. There are so many.
To start, there was the “two genders” policy that was announced at the inauguration. That was one of the first moves, and it impacts people who are either in the middle of transitioning or who have already transitioned but now exist in this legal limbo. It also disproportionately affects people who are androgynous because these policies are designed to enforce strict gender binaries.
I can’t remember the exact name of these laws, but I keep calling them “Good Samaritan laws”, even though that’s not what they are. Essentially, they empower everyday people to police others—giving them the perceived authority to challenge someone’s gender based on their appearance. For example, I have short hair, so under these laws, someone might feel entitled to say, “You look like a man. You shouldn’t be in this bathroom.” These laws create vigilante-style policing of gender identity, which is incredibly dangerous.
Then there’s the attempt to ban gender-affirming care entirely. While that likely won’t hold up legally, the fact that it’s even being proposed is concerning. They’re also pushing a ban on trans women in sports, as well as restrictions on trans people serving in the military.
Another disturbing push is to extend the statute of limitations for people to sue doctors who provided gender-affirming care. That means someone could transition, live as their true self for years, and then suddenly be encouraged to sue their doctor for providing that care. It’s a clear attempt to scare doctors out of offering gender-affirming treatment.
They’re also trying to make it illegal for doctors to refer patients out of state for gender-affirming care. If I went to my doctor in Texas and said, “I want gender-affirming care—can you refer me to someone in New Mexico?”, they’re trying to criminalize that referral. The goal is to box people in, making it as difficult as possible to access care.
Beyond that, they are working to intimidate doctors—to make them afraid to prescribe hormones, perform surgeries, or even provide basic referrals. They’re trying to create an atmosphere of fear around gender-affirming care so that providers will self-censor and stop offering it altogether.
Those are the main policies I can think of off the top of my head, but there are over a hundred federal bills targeting trans rights that are currently in the pipeline. Some of this might be scare tactics, but the reality is, it’s working.
Jacobsen: It sounds like a shotgun approach—throwing everything out there to see what sticks.
Young: Absolutely. And that’s by design. It is a political tactic that has been used before, but we’ve never felt it at the federal level like this. It happened in the Texas legislature before, but now it’s national, and the stakes are even higher.
Jacobsen: What else? Here’s something that people don’t like to talk about—imperfect allies. You’re not going to agree with everyone on everything, but if you can align on one issue, you can get more political action done by working together, even if you disagree on other things. The enemy of my enemy is my friend in that sense. What are your thoughts on that, especially when it comes to some aspects of gender-affirming care that you work with daily?
Young: That’s fair. Imperfect allies are incredibly important. This whole system is designed to divide us. That’s intentional. When all marginalized communities come together, we are actually the majority. But the system separates us—by race, gender, sexuality, class, everything—so that we don’t unify.
So, to your point, I might disagree with someone on one thing, but if we agree on several other major issues, those commonalities outweigh the disagreements. Finding common ground and showing up for each other is essential. That’s a big deal.
We saw this during the BLM movement—queer folks showed up and stood in solidarity. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Women’s March happened, and many queer folks showed up for that as well. Now, in this terrifying time for trans people, we hope that allies will show up for us in return. The most important thing we can do is say, “I don’t personally relate to your experience, but I believe you. How can I support you?” Coming together, even when we come from different backgrounds and experiences, is what makes lasting change possible.
Jacobsen: What type of gender-affirming care is least provided, so that people who are interested in entering this field can train in those underserved areas and help fill the gaps?
Young: That’s a great question.
I’m actually in the process of creating a residency program for physical therapy and gender-affirming care. I’m also working on getting post-op protocols published for physical therapists, because those basically don’t exist right now. There are some PTs who specialize in post-op bottom surgery recovery, but it’s a very niche area, and outside of that, there’s almost nothing. There’s very little research available, which makes it difficult for providers to access reliable information.
So I would say that anything in the recovery realm is critically needed. I also work closely with a gender doula who specializes in the very acute post-op phase—helping people with showering, bandage care, infection checks, and mobility assistance. That is an incredibly important and niche area that more professionals should be trained in.
I also work with a primary care doctor who specializes in hormone therapy and gender-affirming care. She’s a general practitioner, but many trans people seek her out specifically because she is affirming and knowledgeable. That’s another area where more providers are needed. Even an orthopedic surgeon who isn’t specifically trained in gender-affirming care could still make a huge difference just by being an affirming provider.
People often assume gender-affirming care is just hormones and surgeries, but it’s so much more than that. It’s also about affirming spaces—saying, “Yes, we can try your new name. Yes, I will respect your pronouns. No, I’m not going to ask invasive questions unless they are absolutely necessary, and if I do, I’ll approach it with care.” Every area of healthcare could benefit from more of this approach.
Jacobsen: What are your favorite quotes? That’s my final question.
Young: My favorite quotes? Well, this isn’t really relevant, but I’ll tell you anyway.
I’m a huge fan of The Office. It’s my favorite show.
Jacobsen: I’ve seen a few episodes.
Young: It’s hilarious.
Jacobsen: Yes, it’s pretty funny.
Young: So my favorite quote from The Office is from Michael Scott: “I’m not superstitious, but I’m a little stitious.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s good.
Young: As Americans become less religious, that’s kind of how I see them—we’re becoming more woo-woo by the minute, for sure.
Jacobsen: Yes. They’re a little stitious. But that’s still better than big-time organized, politicized superstition.
Young: Correct. I agree.
Jacobsen: So that’s what all of you grew up in, then?
Young: I don’t know. I probably could find another quote that’s more aligned with what we’ve been discussing, but that’s my favorite quote regardless.
Jacobsen: Well, on that little stitious note—thank you. I appreciate it.
Young: Yes, of course.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/03
Alexis Rockman, a contemporary American artist born in 1962, discusses his fascination with natural history, sparked by early visits to the American Museum of Natural History. He reflects on influences like King Kong and Bride of Frankenstein and his views on science communication, AI art, and environmental activism. Rockman critiques market-driven journalism, celebrates Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson and shares a skeptical yet hopeful outlook on the future. With humour and honesty, he explores artistic process, despair over climate inaction, and the enduring need for storytelling grounded in scientific and ecological awareness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Alexis Rockman. Born in 1962, he is an American contemporary artist known for his vivid, often speculative landscapes that explore the intersection of nature and civilization. Raised in New York City, his frequent visits to the American Museum of Natural History, where his mother briefly worked as an assistant to anthropologist Margaret Mead’s secretary, ignited his fascination with natural history. He studied animation at the Rhode Island School of Design before earning a BFA from the School of Visual Arts in 1985.
Rockman’s work addresses environmental issues such as climate change, genetic engineering, and species extinction, with notable exhibitions at institutions like the Brooklyn Museum and the Smithsonian American Art Museum. In 2025, he designed the official Earth Day poster with the theme “Our Planet, Our Future,” emphasizing environmental stewardship and renewable energy. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Rockman: Pleasure.
Jacobsen: So, I did get to visit briefly as a Canadian travelling in the United States on Amtrak, all the way across the United States. I was very struck by two things in D.C.: the landscaping and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. It was so vast compared to any museum I’d ever been to. It goes on forever. I could not explore it all during the half day I was there. Half day. Yes, I know. I felt so… touristy. Another thing that struck me about D.C. is that the landscaping and gardening are done better than anywhere else I saw in the United States.
Rockman: It’s about public spaces and power.
Jacobsen: Yes, so, have your early experiences at the American Museum of Natural History and your exposure to Margaret Mead had a profound or a minor influence on your artistic direction?
Rockman: Which?
Jacobsen: The experience of going to the American Museum of Natural History and the impacts of Margaret Mead.
Rockman: Margaret Mead—my mother was the assistant to her secretary. So, I know who Margaret Mead is. She’s an interesting figure. My mom found her abusive, if you read between the lines. Somehow, she still loved anthropology.
However, the museum profoundly affected me and formed my perception and expectations about what nature should be. I’ve done a fair amount of travelling. I have to confess. I often secretly wish that nature looked more like a diorama than some disgraced, eroded, or human-induced clear-cut forest—or something like that.
Jacobsen: How has King Kong—and is it The Bride of Frankenstein?—influenced you?
Rockman: You did your homework coming up with those two movies! They are perfect examples of incredible world-building. King Kong and The Akeley Hall at the AMNH share a lot of cultural DNA and were made around the same time in the early 1930’ . They’re both looking at nature as a theatrical experience. Kong is horizontal tabletop miniatures, glass painting with stop motion animation models and the dioramas are the same idea though lifesize with taxidermy with painted cycloramas. So you’re dealing with a highly constructed stagecraft representation of nature that is very expressive and atmospheric. Both owe a huge debt to art history and Kong look is based on engravings by the great French illustrator Gustave Doré.
In terms of Bride of Frankenstein, that is one of the great witty horror black comedies. Again, it’s a very beautiful production, very theatrical, and an incredible cinematic experience.. Great writing. They have great scores from European émigrés, such as Franz Waxman for Bride of Frankenstein and Max Steiner for King Kong.
Jacobsen: How was your experience collaborating with Stephen Jay Gould?
Rockman: Well, I never collaborated with him. I knew him, and read his books which I love. He wrote about my work, not me personally. He’s one of the science writers I admire most in the world – being able to bring so many ideas together.. He wrote two essays about my work—one in 1994 and one in 2001, right before he died.That was a thrill to be taken seriously by someone I admired so much.
Jacobsen: What are your thoughts about E.O. Wilson?
Rockman: Wilson—I love him too. He was a great gentleman in the history of science and a great popularizer. His life’s work was the love of ants, of course… After I returned from Guyana in 1995, I created a series of portraits of ants inspired by his research. He wrote me a wonderful rejection letter when I asked him to write something for a book I was doing! Somehow, a couple of years later, I ended up on the cover of one of his books.
Jacobsen: What research in science has fascinated you the most and led to a work of art you’re most proud of?
Rockman: I don’t think there’s just one. There are so many things about the history of science that I’m fascinated by, and it’s an ongoing thing. I’ve worked very closely with scientists on certain projects.. To be clear, I do projects that have sets of rules and I’ve ignored science on others—for example when I worked on the movie Life of Pi, it had nothing to do with science. It was purely about world-building and fantasy. I pointed out to Ang Lee that there would never be meerkats on an island in the middle of the ocean because they live in the desert. And he said, “Well, this is a fantasy,” and I quickly realized he was right.
Jacobsen: When you work with scientists, what have you noticed about how they look at things? What is captivating to their eye when they’re examining something?
Rockman: They’re storytellers. They’re telling the story of not only the history of life on this planet but also the history of geology—how old the planet is and what happened on Earth. So, to me, it’s another incredible resource. Scientists, as people, can be very different—some are flamboyant and extroverted; others, like my mom—she’s an archaeologist and a scientist—are more reserved.
Jacobsen: In your travels, what places have you found the most exciting to explore for stories, artistic inspiration, and so on?
Rockman: All these questions about “what’s the most”—the quantified—it doesn’t work like that. Because, for me, going to a dump around the corner from here in CT is exciting. Going to Antarctica is fascinating. There are interesting things everywhere—even in a gutter in the city. I love going to places. I want to go to Borneo. I’ve never been there. But I’m very democratic when it comes to thinking about these things.
Jacobsen: Regarding a garbage dump around the corner. What parts of it would appeal to you artistically?
Rockman: What’s making a living there? What animals am I going to see? If it’s the right season, you’ll see turkey vultures because they migrate. What types of plants can survive? Where are they from? Are they native or invasive? That kind of thing.
Jacobsen: When you examine fantasy worlds where people are creating whole worlds—” world-building,” as you called it—do you find a preference for yourself? Are they built entirely from scratch, or are they built using parts of the real world? Using facts about real organisms and their migratory patterns, lifestyles, or physics—or ones more entirely concocted from the imagination?
Rockman: Anything that’s interesting. There are no rules with this stuff but I’m interested in visions that I haven’t seen before. When I saw Star Wars when I was 15, I knew about Jodorowsky’s unmade production of Dune. Alien hadn’t been made yet. I knew Star Wars was derivative to a point—of 2001 and other things like that—but I thought it was a fresh take on that stuff, even at 15. These films have one thing in common- a huge amount of planning and the use of artists to articulate the filmmakers vision.
I find the new Dune movie—the one by Denis Villeneuve—unbearably tedious and derivative- it’s too brown, and I’ve seen it all before. Blade Runner is the benchmark of incredible visionary work by Syd Mead. Ridley Scott knows how to turn to artists and was so smart to bring him on. He was brilliant at understanding who could help him show a unique version of the future, even in 1980 when the movie was starting production. We still exist in its shadow.
Jacobsen: What do you think of the Earth Day theme “Our Power, Our Planet”?
Rockman: It’s hopeful. I sympathize with it.
Jacobsen: How do you think Americans are doing regarding sustainable development, working on climate goals, and so forth?
Rockman: Before the last election, things were in serious trouble that seemed insurmountable from my perspective. And now, it’s a disaster and a global embarrassment.
Jacobsen: Any words for your brothers and sisters in the cold North?
Rockman: What Trump is saying and doing is appalling and shameful.
Jacobsen: People often reference Carl Sagan’s writing—probably not even a full page, maybe half a page of one book—where he imagines a future America in his children’s or grandchildren’s time, which is now. He warns of a society with immense scientific and technological prowess but a public without the capacity to make effective, informed decisions regarding technology and science. Do you have thoughts on the prescience of that?
Rockman: It reminds me of that great E.O. Wilson quote: “We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.” It’s a fucking disaster. Let’s face it. He was right. And he’s one of my heroes. It’s a bad moment all around. And sure, I pick on America, but the rest of the humans are universally idiotic. Are you in Canada now?
Jacobsen: Yes, and I’m Canadian.
Rockman: I got that. You could still be in Jersey, for all I know.
Jacobsen: Joysy? I almost was in Joysy. I got back a day and a half ago, not even. I’m in a small town on the outskirts of the Lower Mainland in British Columbia.
Rockman: I will speak in Tacoma in a couple of weeks at The Museum of Glass.
Jacobsen: What are you going to be talking about?
Rockman: Evolution, my first big panorama painting I made in 1992. Wow. That’s a long time.
Jacobsen: Not to the Earth.
Rockman: Yes.
Jacobsen: I just returned from thirteen days in New York, where I attended events surrounding the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), held in 2025. The visit also marked the 30th anniversary of the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the 25th anniversary of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. It was also Nigerian Women’s Day—a big event. That was fun. So yes, New York was very fun.
Rockman: Good.
Jacobsen: Now, you’ve expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of art as a tool for activism. What’s with the skepticism?
Rockman: Show me some activist art or activism that’s worked, and I’ll change my mind. Could you show me? That’s being polite—”skepticism” for you Canadians.
Jacobsen: Unabashed disdain?
Rockman: No, it’s not disdain. It’s more… it’s bleak. You’re not getting the vibe. This is despair. This isn’t some attempt to be above it all. I tried. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I’ve seen the arc of this story. I know where we’re headed. The election is just an exclamation point on this stuff. I blame myself as much as anyone else. I didn’t—couldn’t—do anything about it.
Jacobsen: When you have public commentary against scientific truisms—let alone the more nuanced truths science discovers—in American discourse, politically and socially, do you note any colleagues who… I don’t want to say “sell out,” but…
Rockman: …more like with Bobby Kennedy?
Jacobsen: Sure.
Rockman: Yes. He was a friend of ours… So don’t laugh. I saw the arc of that.He wrote the preface for an exhibition catalogue for Manifest Destiny in 2004, a project of mine at the Brooklyn Museum about what Climate Change is going to do to NYC. I even did a poster for Riverkeeper in 1999. He and Cheryl have been to our house. So, I hope he’s selling out because if he believes what he’s talking about, he’s lost his damn mind. He was a hero to many people. Articulate. Charismatic. Believed in the right things. They had been a champion of all the things we cared about. It’s a disgrace.
Jacobsen: Have you seen this happen to more than one person?
Rockman: I’m not sure I can think of someone off the top of my head, but don’t—don’t get me going. Of course, it’s happening to more people.
Jacobsen: I remember Noam Chomsky being interviewed once in someone’s house and talking about honest intellectuals who went against their cause—or went against higher motives—and his response was, “Do you want to start from A?” When doing your paintings and going for scientific accuracy, how do you balance that with the aesthetic you’re trying to convey simultaneously?
Rockman: That’s a fun process. Because that’s done at the beginning before I start making something, once I figure out what I’m doing and feel confident that it’s credible and makes sense in the context of my goals, then I’m good. For instance, I’m starting a big project for the Jewish Museum in a couple of weeks and meeting with the director of education. It will be built around hunting, fishing, and agriculture artifacts in their collection.
I don’t believe the director of education is technically a scientist, but she’s an authority on the history of these artifacts. I’ll take whatever she says seriously. So I’ll build this painting around that, and then I get to a point where I do research and figure out where everything goes. Got to make sure it’s a dromedary, with one hump and not a Bactrian Camel lol. Then I change hats and focus on the process of making the best painting I can.
Jacobsen: Was there any project in your history—up to now—that you’ve had in mind for a long, long time, but it was simply too lofty or too costly in terms of time and effort? Where mid-sized projects might be–might not necessarily be expedient, but they might be…
Rockman: …lucrative.
Jacobsen: Potentially lucrative—yes.
Rockman: Listen, I’m a small businessperson. I have to balance risky projects that might sell somewhere with things I’m confident I’ll sell within a relatively reasonable amount of time. So, absolutely—and I’m constantly conversing with people about how to get these things done. I’ve been very lucky, Scott, that I’ve had so many projects that started as lofty pies in the sky and ended up becoming a reality. But we’re not dealing with movie money here—it’s just a painting!
Jacobsen: Right. Now, I’ve talked to AI people. I had two conversations with Neil Sahota, who’s a UN advisor on AI ethics or AI safety. I asked him, “How much of this is hype?” And he said there’s quite a bit, but it still needs to be taken seriously. So, on the creative front, what are your thoughts on developing AI that generates visual imagery?
Rockman: I have a mixed-bag reaction to AI. On one hand, it’s dazzlingly fascinating. Then, it reminds me of eating a Twinkie—it feels great while doing it, and then it’s just garbage afterward. To me, the sky’s the limit in terms of potential. It will revolutionize the workforce— People will lose jobs just like every revolution.
But my job is to make unique objects that reflect the human experience. And AI is not the human experience. It mimics things that have already been done and reconfigures them. But there’s a strange hangover to it—no matter how incredible it seems—and they are incredible—there’s something familiar. It’s like a dream you’ve already had—a hangover from a dream.
I’m sure AI will get better and better. But luckily, I make objects. Hopefully, what’s interesting about my work is that it involves mistakes and reactions. Intimacy will be valued more and more as our culture evolves.
That’s my perception.
Jacobsen: Where do you think the place is now for art activists, despite the “despair”?
Rockman: Well, there are other mediums—film, streaming, or other forms of moving entertainment that come out of the history of television and movies. For example, The China Syndrome when that came out in 1979— crippled the nuclear industry. Unfortunately, in retrospect, environmentally, it was probably not for the best. So if you tell human stories that are relatable it might be extremely effective. But I don’t think what I’ve done so far as an artist has been effective.
Jacobsen: Do you think collective art activism is still worth pursuing, rather than individual?
Rockman: Well, I don’t know what “collective” means. What does that mean?
Jacobsen: Like artists organizing under banners—Earth Day, or through symposia and conferences—organized around a theme relevant to climate change activism? Things like that.
Rockman: Environmental Activism has not been effective since the 1970’s. Civil rights activism was effective. Gay and women’s rights—have been effective in the past. The problem is that we’ve run out of time. It’s a physics experiment. It’s not negotiable.
Jacobsen: Yes, and that also goes back to the prior mini-commentary about how people, largely, aren’t physics-literate.
Rockman: Right. But you must understand something, Scott—in America, huge industrial, corporate, and global forces make sure people are skeptical about science because it’s in their best interest. When science tells stories about industries like fossil fuels or plastics who want to make money- they don’t want to go out of business.
Jacobsen: Yes. Not an accident. What do you think the effectiveness of popular science communicators has been—your Bill Nyes, your Carl Sagans, your Neil deGrasse Tysons, and others?
Rockman: I was lucky enough to—well, I know Neil. I know Bill Nye. They’re wonderful. I don’t think they’re quite up to the task. I don’t think anyone is. We need someone equivalent to Martin Luther King as a spokesperson who can take on the mantle. That’s why the Bobby Kennedy affair is tragic—he could have been that person.
Jacobsen: What if we’re looking through a historical lens here, from a generational psychology perspective? Think about it—during the peak activism era you’re referencing, there were fewer media channels: television and radio. A narrower distribution meant greater cohesion. Civil rights had figures like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and maybe Marcus Garvey as an intellectual legacy. Women’s rights had Gloria Steinem and others. These movements had leaders whom people wanted to follow—with enthusiasm.
What if there’s been a gradual slide over decades toward cohorts that respond less to singular, charismatic leadership? If that’s the case, the tactics need to change accordingly. What about that?
Rockman: Sure. Whatever works. Maybe Muhammad Ali was a great figure for these issues, and he put his career and life on the line. He went to prison. I don’t see… I don’t see LeBron doing that, even though he’s someone who has, much to his credit, kept himself out of controversy and lives a life worth emulating on many levels. But I don’t see anyone taking those risks in these generations.
Jacobsen: Yes. So, is there a large, risk-averse trend?
Rockman: It’s a type of corporateness. I don’t see Vince Carter—Air Canada—doing it.
Jacobsen: Who would be the one for this generation now? Whoever uses “Sigma” and “No Cap” best. What’s the longest piece you’ve ever taken to produce—and what’s the quickest? I know, sorry. I’m doing extremes here.
Rockman: I don’t know… The sketch I did of Manifest Destiny on a napkin when I was at a dinner sitting next to Arnold Lehman, the then director of the Brooklyn Museum in 1999,was the quickest. Then making the damn painting took five years which I finished in 2004.That was the longest. So there you go. It’s the same piece.
Jacobsen: The official Earth Day poster for 2020 features solar panels in a vibrant natural setting. What inspired it?
Rockman: It was a hard process, Scott, because I kept coming up with ideas that Earth Day deemed too negative. And this was, of course, before the election. I was thinking to myself, “Are you kidding me? What is this—We Are the Worldor some fucking Coke commercial?” I was about to bail, and my wife Dorothy said, “Don’t be an idiot. This is a dream opportunity for you.” You must understand that Robert Rauschenberg did the first Earth Day poster in 1970, and my wife used to work at Leo Castelli, the gallery that represented him. We have two Rauschenbergs. So, this is bucket list. So, I talked to some friends. We devised the idea over a couple of beers. Much to my surprise, the Earth Day people liked it. I was thrilled.
Jacobsen: Quick question—side note. What beer?
Rockman: One of the local IPAs up here in CTHeadway IPA.
Jacobsen: Do you ever drink Guinness?
Rockman: I’ve loved Guinness, though it’s a little heavy. I had it more when I was younger and needed less exercise.
Jacobsen: That’s right—it’s for molasses aficionados or something like that.
Rockman: Molasses—there you go.
Jacobsen: I remember one time in a small town, there was this guy named Veggie Bob. I had the phone number (604) 888-1223—that’s how small the town was. He ran Veggie Bob’s. Later called it his Growcery Café. I remember I bought a bucket of molasses from him for no good reason. What should I ask… How is Madagascar?
Rockman: Sad and incredible.
Jacobsen: How sad? How incredible!
Rockman: These islands have unique biodiversity. Who doesn’t love land leeches and beautiful lemurs? On the other hand, the human population is so desperate for resources. It’s like moths eating a blanket. Then, the Chinese try to eat it, too. So, it’s sad.
Jacobsen: You had a recent Journey to Nature’s Underworld exhibition, correct?
Rockman: That’s in Miami. And I also have a gallery show in Miami called Vanishing Point at the Andrew Reed Gallery.
Jacobsen: Was the former one with Mark Dion?
Rockman: Yes. At the Lowe Art Museum in Miami.
Jacobsen: How was that collaboration going?
Rockman: We’ve been friends for forty years. About twenty works each from over the last four decades are juxtaposed next to each other.
Jacobsen: Forty years ago, one might hazard a guess—you drank Guinness at some point.
Rockman: I did, mostly in the ’80s.
Jacobsen: When action movies were a very big thing
Rockman: I was listening to a podcast about Predator—the movie.
Jacobsen: Ah, yes. That’s very cool. What did you learn?
Rockman: I learned so many things. For instance, I learned that the first location had to be moved because there was no jungle, and no one could figure out why that original location had been chosen to shoot the movie.
Rockman: Yes. That was the era of iconic movie lines.
Jacobsen: “If it bleeds, we can kill it!”
Rockman: Yes.
Jacobsen: Or what was that other line… “Pussyface”?
Rockman: Was it?
Jacobsen: Good. You’re married to a journalist. What are your partner’s perceptions of journalism now—and her perceptions of how the public views journalists now, based on your conversations?
Rockman: My wife Dorothy Spears, slowed down being an arts journalist because she felt that the things she wanted to write about for the places she was writing for became increasingly influenced by market dynamics. And—I don’t want to put words in her mouth—and this is my perception of her perception: the market for advertising in some parts of these venues began to dictate or influence the journalism content. And she didn’t want anything to do with that.
Jacobsen: That was the end of her journalism career?
Rockman: No, but she just moved on to other types of writing. She’s writing books now. A memoir about her experience at Leo Castelli Gallery, for example. So, no—she just lost interest in being at the service of the publicity department of art of journalism.
Jacobsen: Advertising?
Rockman: Ish. It’s a very tough situation.
Jacobsen: Sure. Yes. Especially when you’re making a decision right at the highest level in North America.
Rockman: Exactly.
Jacobsen: That’s fair. What question have you always wanted to be asked but have never been?
Rockman: I’m so lucky that I’ve been asked so many questions—that anyone even cares about what I’m doing.
Jacobsen: That’d be fun if you could ask yourself. What do you think your younger self, drinking a big pint of Guinness, would be asking your older self now? “Why are you drinking IPAs?”
Rockman: Ha! No, but seriously—we all have regrets. I’d give myself some advice at key moments: not to do certain things and to do other things.
Jacobsen: At what points do seemingly good opportunities arise, but “all that glitters is not gold”? What are some key signs?
Rockman: You’d never know. Every day, there’s some interesting email or offer. Things often go south, but you must be optimistic and hope something works out.
Jacobsen: So, this interview took a mood shift over forty minutes. I can’t tell if we went from despair to optimism or—
Rockman:Medication or my martini kicked in.
Jacobsen: Ha!
Rockman: No, I’m kidding.
Jacobsen: That’s right. That’s it.
Rockman: Yes.
Jacobsen: So, that’d be quite a good question: “Why are you drinking IPAs and martinis now rather than Guinness?” That’s my question to you.
Rockman: Rather than what?
Jacobsen: Guinness into IPAs and martinis.
Rockman: You can drink more of it without feeling nauseated.
Rockman: Yes.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your expertise.
Rockman: Pleasure.
Jacobsen: Nice meeting you. Bye-bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/03
Abigail Jackson, a policy researcher at the Institute for Research on Public Policy, specializes in economic resilience, affordability, and low-carbon transitions. She has contributed to multiple initiatives, including the Toward a More Equitable Canada research program. Jackson highlights that rural communities face economic disruptions due to small populations, remoteness, and lack of economic diversity. She outlines three key factors of workforce susceptibility: facility emissions, industry intensity, and market transformations. Jackson also emphasizes the need for government and private sector collaboration in workforce development. She advocates for community-led transformation strategies, stronger skills training, and expanded support for community futures organizations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Abigail Jackson, a policy researcher specializing in economic resilience, affordability, and low-carbon transitions. At the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), she has contributed to multiple initiatives, including the Toward a More Equitable Canada research program and the Supporting Workers and Communities Through Low-Carbon Transition project.
Abigail has played a key role in the Affordability Action Council, serving on its secretariat and co-authoring five policy briefs on food affordability, housing, and transportation in the context of climate and economic challenges. Her contributions to public policy were recognized in 2023 when she received the Jack Layton Progress Prize for a Better Canada.
Before joining IRPP, Abigail worked at Habitat for Humanity, coordinating affordable housing, community development, and energy efficiency programs. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Business and International Political Economy from the University of Puget Sound and a Master of Public Policy from McGill University.
Thank you for joining us today. I appreciate it.
Abigail Jackson: Thanks for having me.
Jacobsen: Why do rural communities face a higher risk of economic disruption?
Jackson: We found through our project that rural communities tend to be more susceptible to economic disruption because they generally have smaller populations, are more remote, and are less economically diverse than urban areas.
Combined, these factors can make it more difficult for displaced workers to find new jobs within their communities after an economic disruption.
Take economic diversity, for example. If a community lacks economic diversity, fewer employers or industries may exist. When an economic shock—such as a change in prices or demand—occurs, a larger proportion of the workforce is likely to be affected because fewer sectors and employers exist.
The greater the share of people impacted in a community, the more significant the ripple effects. This creates challenges for the workers directly affected and local suppliers, contractors, service providers, and government revenues.
In addition, workers in remote communities often struggle to access essential services and job markets within their communities and nearby areas. This difficulty can make it challenging for communities to retain their workforce.
These are some key factors, though the situation can be much more complex. Every community is different, but we have observed these general trends in our research.
Jacobsen: What factors make a community more susceptible to workforce disruption?
Jackson: Our project identified three key factors determining a community’s susceptibility to workforce disruption. To assess this issue, we developed three specific metrics to measure community vulnerability.
The first is facility susceptibility, which measures emissions from large facilities—particularly those included in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). These are facilities that exceed a specific emissions threshold.
So we look at the emissions of those facilities relative to the size of a community. For example, consider a community with a high-emitting cement facility—this could be classified as susceptible under this metric.
The second metric is intensity susceptibility, which measures the proportion of employment in emissions-intensive sectors. A community may have many smaller employers in emissions-intensive industries. For instance, a community with high employment levels in emissions-intensive manufacturing and associated truck transportation could be identified as susceptible under this metric. Truck transportation, as an industry, tends to be emissions-intensive. Even if a community has multiple employers, the cumulative effect of these emissions-intensive industries can make it particularly vulnerable.
The third metric is market susceptibility, which measures the proportion of employment in sectors we have identified as globally traded and either currently undergoing or expected to undergo major market transformations.
For example, consider a community with a high proportion of employment in auto manufacturing. Given the global shift toward electric vehicles, this industry is actively transforming. Many other factors can also contribute to a community’s susceptibility to workforce disruptions.
While we focus on these three key metrics, we also acknowledge other contributing factors, such as:
- The loss of a major employer in the past 10 years
- A major employer undergoing significant transformation or restructuring, even if unrelated to emissions (e.g., automation)
Additionally, we recognize that climate change will cause workforce disruptions. However, these factors are not currently incorporated into our methodology, as they would require extensive calculations, data, and assumptions beyond our current scope. We do hope to explore these issues in future project iterations. Still, our focus remains on the three key metrics I mentioned earlier.
Jacobsen: How are disruptions in one industry rippling through others?
Jackson: When a major employer transforms or shuts down—or when an entire industry or sector declines or evolves—it can have widespread indirect effects across a community and other industries.
For example, businesses that supply parts, goods, or services to an affected facility will also feel the impact.
A case in point is Ingersoll, Ontario. The shift to producing electric vehicles at the General Motors CAMI Assembly Plant—which recently transitioned from manufacturing internal combustion engine vehicles to electric delivery vans—led to the closure of several local parts suppliers. In particular, suppliers that produced components for drivetrains were affected, as electric vehicles no longer require the same parts for internal combustion engines.
These changes throughout an economy can create ripple effects. Workforce disruptions may impact parts suppliers but can also affect other sectors, such as tourism and services. Local restaurants, social service providers, and even local government tax revenues may decline, leading to changes in government-led sectors.
This strain can affect multiple areas of a community. While it is difficult to measure the full extent of the ripple effect, it is certainly present. The long-term effects will depend on the industry affected, but they can be significant in many cases.
For instance, local housing markets could be affected if workers relocate, influencing the construction sector, contractors, and related industries. Additionally, changes in the movement of residents—whether due to job disruptions that create an influx of opportunities or outflows due to economic downturns—can be just as disruptive. These imbalances in supply and demand have widespread effects on a community’s economy.
Jacobsen: How does the IRPP see the role of governments and the private sector in community resilience?
Jackson: We believe governments at all levels are critical in supporting workers, employers, and entire communities through the low-carbon transition.
Through this project, we are developing a suite of policy recommendations focused on:
- Community-led economic development
- Skills and training programs
- Support for workers who lose their jobs
- Helping major employers adapt to market changes
- Ensuring community social services are prepared to provide support during disruptions
Our first set of recommendations is our primary focus at the moment, as we are still in the process of developing the others. This initial set emphasizes empowering community-led transformation strategies grounded in economic development planning.
Our research has shown that economic transformations are most effective when developed and led by people who live and work in the affected communities. Therefore, we recommend that governments support this community-led transformation process while incentivizing private companies to invest in and around at-risk communities.
This could be achieved through:
- Enhancements to investment tax credits
- More generous financial support based on location
- Expanded eligibility for specific government programs
There are many possible approaches, but the ultimate goal is to encourage investments that foster economic diversity and growth in vulnerable communities. This will help them build resilience against future market, technological, or policy changes.
The private sector also plays an essential role in this process. Many companies already offer in-house training programs, and some facilities actively collaborate with local communities to coordinate workforce development and strategic investments.
Greater public and private sector collaboration will be essential for building proactive, long-term support for these vulnerable communities. We will release more detailed recommendations in upcoming policy briefs throughout the summer and fall. Still, I will leave it there for now.
Jacobsen: How can community future organizations be empowered?
Jackson: Community futures organizations have immense potential to enhance and support strategic economic development planning in vulnerable communities.
These organizations exist nationwide and are already present in—or near—many communities we have identified as susceptible. Local leaders govern them and support small businesses, particularly in rural areas.
Many of these organizations go even further in Quebec by providing strategic economic development capacity for communities. In British Columbia (BC), provincial and federal governments provide funding and support for community futures organizations, demonstrating a model for effective local collaboration.
However, these organizations face significant resource limitations. Their federal funding has not been increased in nearly a decade.
To empower these organizations, we recommend:
- Expanding their mandate to take on a more strategic leadership role
- Increasing financial support so they can improve integrated planning across different communities, particularly in vulnerable areas
Jacobsen: The Canadian Centre for Community Transformation will be a repository for best practices, case studies, and data. How would this differ from existing networks?
Jackson: Great question. We recommend that the federal government establish the Canadian Centre for Community Transformation, a dedicated institution providing information and supporting the design of government programming.
For example, a community in Saskatchewan could learn from the experiences of a community in Newfoundland and Labrador and vice versa. Better access to local data and case studies could lead to more effective economic development strategies nationwide.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) could house this information hub. By being part of this federal department, it could draw on resources from:
- Regional development agencies (which also fall under ISED)
- Community futures organizations (which receive federal funding through ISED)
This approach would allow for better coordination, improved data-sharing, and stronger support for economic resilience across Canada.
This centre would differ from existing networks because it would draw on data and resources from various parts of government and community organizations. It would centralize this information, making it accessible, user-friendly, and easy to navigate—a critical aspect of its purpose.
Additionally, the centre could serve as a unique facilitator of collaboration, not just through an online platform but also through in-person gatherings. These knowledge-sharing exercises allow communities to exchange best practices, lessons learned, and innovative strategies, bringing people together nationwide in new and impactful ways.
Jacobsen: What training and programs might be critical to help residents adapt to changing industries? You alluded to this earlier.
Jackson: Yes, we know that skills training is essential for ensuring the long-term success of workers and their communities. We are currently developing a policy brief on skills training to explore this issue in greater depth.
However, what we already know from the data is that:
- Workers in vulnerable communities tend to have lower levels of formal education than those in non-susceptible communities.
- Regional mobility is low—meaning that workers are less likely to relocate for employment opportunities when job losses occur.
For many reasons, community members often prefer to remain in their local areas and build upon existing opportunities. There are multiple pathways for workers to engage in skills training, including:
- Employer-provided programs
- Government-funded training initiatives
- Local colleges or institutes
- Self-directed learning
However, the complexity of navigating these opportunities—considering the job market, required skills, available programs, and funding options—makes it crucial for workers to receive personalized assistance in their job transition journeys.
At the federal level, the Sustainable Jobs Plan includes many programs to promote skills training related to the low-carbon transition. However, a key concern about this plan is that it primarily focuses on specific sectors and job types.
We must ask whether the supports offered through these programs and policies align with the needs of workers in vulnerable communities, particularly in areas that currently lack access to green industries.
A comprehensive approach to workforce development should consider the following:
- All workers in the community
- All local job opportunities, whether green or not
- The broader economic and social forces shaping these communities
- Existing community assets, particularly place-based resources
By ensuring that workforce development initiatives consider all these factors, we can better support workers in adapting to economic changes while strengthening community resilience.
A comprehensive approach like this will require greater coordination between economic development planning and workforce development programs. As I mentioned, we will have more concrete recommendations to share in the future. Still, those are our high-level insights on what is needed for training programs during this transition.
Jacobsen: Abigail, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it. It’s nice to meet you.
Jackson: Great. Well, thank you so much, Scott. I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Jacobsen: Likewise, you too.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/02
Malka Shaw, LCSW, is the founder of Kesher Shalom Projects, a trauma-informed initiative supporting Jewish identity and mental health after the October 7 Hamas attacks and rising antisemitism. She developed The Guard System, integrating CBT, DBT, and narrative therapy, and has trained over 3,500 professionals in Jewish cultural competence. Shaw also serves as the training and education coordinator for Gesher Campus Care, founded by Dr. Jessica Zmood and Dr. Shelly Steinwurtzel. Gesher bridges Jewish students on campus with vetted, culturally competent therapists. In a wide-ranging conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the team discussed the psychological impacts of antisemitism, identity destabilization, indoctrination on college campuses, and the professional concerns arising from politicized therapy practices. They highlighted the misuse of “decolonization” rhetoric in clinical spaces and warned of therapy becoming ideologically coercive. The discussion emphasized the need for ethical, bias-free mental health care for Jewish communities facing increasing hostility.
With a rise in antisemitism U.S. college campuses after October 7, 2023, psychologists Jessica and Shelly founded Gesher Campus Care. It is a referral service connecting Jewish students and faculty to culturally competent therapists. The aim is to ensure safe, supportive mental health care where Jewish identity is respected and understood. Kesher Shalom projects was founded after October 7th. It was founded to equip professionals who address antisemitism and trauma. It started out with a grassroots call on Zoom. Now, Kesher Shalom offers education, support groups, training, intended to foster dialogue and resilience across diverse audiences to understand and respond to the clinical and emotional impact of antisemitism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Malka Shaw, LCSW. She is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and founded Kesher Shalom Projects, an initiative focused on Jewish identity, resilience, and cultural competency. This initiative was developed in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the rise in global antisemitism. Shaw created educational and therapeutic programming to support Jewish communities and developed The Guard System, a trauma-informed framework integrating CBT, DBT, EMDR, and narrative therapy. Shaw has trained over 3,500 mental health professionals in Jewish cultural competence and the psychological impact of antisemitism. She also plays a key role in Gesher Campus Care, providing culturally competent mental health resources for Jewish students in higher education. She is a member of the American Jewish Medical Association (AJMA), American Jewish Psychologists (AJP), and Psychologist Against Antisemitism (PAA).
Steinwurtzel: As you may already know from Malka, Kesher means “connection,” and Gesher means “bridge.” They share a similar Hebraic root but are distinct words. Jessica and I founded and directed Gesher Campus Care. Malka is our training and education coordinator. She has been leading our orientation training for therapists. We love Malka and work closely with her, but they are separate organizations. Gesher Campus Care is a nonprofit focused on bridging the gap between students on campus seeking mental health support in a safe, vetted, trauma-informed setting and connecting them with therapists who meet those criteria.
Jacobsen: We’re also here with Jessica Zmood, Psy.D., a New York State Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice in Manhattan since 2010. She earned a B.A. in English Literature and Spanish from Washington University in St. Louis. She completed a post-baccalaureate in psychology at Baruch College. Dr. Zmood received her M.A. and Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology. Her clinical background includes work in substance abuse treatment, psychiatric evaluations, and therapy with Spanish-speaking clients. She specializes in stress, anxiety, depression, and relationships. She is a Level II certified Gottman therapist and an AJMA, AJP, and PAA member.
We’re also joined by Shelly Steinwurtzel, Psy.D., a New York State Licensed Clinical Psychologist specializing in treating children, adolescents, and adults. She holds a B.A. from Brandeis University, an M.S.Ed. in School Psychology (2008), and a Psy.D. in School and Clinical Psychology (2011). Her experience includes psychiatric hospital work and serving as Columbia University Medical Center’s NICU staff psychologist. Dr. Steinwurtzel was formerly the Assistant Director at Pace University’s McShane Center. Her additional certifications include EMDR, CBT, and perinatal mental health. She’s a member of APA, AJP, PAA, Postpartum Support International, and the National Network of NICU Psychologists.
Thank you all three for joining me—I appreciate it.
Shaw: Thank you.
Zmood: Thanks for having us.
Jacobsen: Social work and clinical psychology are here today to explore antisemitism. This is going to be interesting. I have a background in psychology. I was in some psychology labs, but then I went into journalism—so this feels like home.
Zmood: What? I did the opposite. I used to be a journalist, and I left journalism for psychology. So there you go.
Jacobsen: In New York?
Zmood: Yes.
Jacobsen: The New York journalist went into psychology. How could you?
Zmood: It was too tough for me in the big city. I was writing too many articles about makeup and weddings, and I thought—”Oh, this is not what I want to do.”
Jacobsen: What part of New York were the makeup and wedding stories about?
Zmood: It was in Manhattan. I was trying to get jobs in magazines. Ironically—or maybe not ironically—all the places that hired me are now defunct. As most magazines are, I’m glad I jumped ship and went into psychology.
Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s hard out here. It’s hard in the hood. So, when we think of antisemitism vis-a-vis emotions and individual differences in psychology, what is happening with someone who harbours this style of prejudice and hatred? What are the impacts on individuals who have had this expressed toward them—on and off campus? It’s a general question for an overview.
Dr. Shelly Steinwurtzel: That’s an interesting question—your first question, about what generates antisemitism from a psychological perspective—is what you’re asking, right? What brings that about?
That’s a big question. I don’t know that there’s a single generalizable psychological characteristic that one can point to for antisemitism or any form of discrimination. There are so many factors that go into it. But certainly, at least on college campuses, what we’ve been seeing—and what experts are talking about—is that there’s much indoctrination.
Malka talks a lot about the role of indoctrination in this particular population. So this question of psychology and politics intersects with the work you do, Scott, in investigative journalism. Many people have been studying and bringing these issues to the forefront—experts across all these arenas.
You’ve got the BDS movement, which has been active in academia for a long time. You have SJP—Students for Justice in Palestine—which, I don’t know if you’ve seen some of the more recent documentation about its connections or alleged connections to other organizations.
Again, this leans more toward history and investigative research. Still, it speaks directly to psychology, especially because the psychology of adolescence is relevant to how propaganda has been strategically implemented in academia over the years.
I recommend looking into Lorenzo Vidino, who’s in the George Washington University program on extremism. They’ve published reports that date back to before the United States government designated Hamas a terrorist organization (in 1997). The FBI was reportedly able to link certain groups’ plans that would be enacted once Hamas was listed as a terrorist organization.
The Program on Extremism at GW outlines those early plans—strategies involving fundraising, philanthropy, advocacy, propaganda, and education. SJP, or Students for Justice in Palestine, eventually emerged from those broader plans.
All of this is currently being explored further in legal and academic investigations—there’s more to come. But I bring this up because these activities date back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. There has been a long-standing and intentional use of propaganda on college campuses. So, to your question—people engaging in antisemitic behaviour may not even identify as antisemitic themselves. Rather, they may be victims of propaganda.
From a psychological standpoint, we know that late adolescence and emerging adulthood—typically ages 17 to mid-20s—is a critical developmental period. During this time, the prefrontal cortex is still maturing. Research in neuropsychology shows that it is not fully developed until the mid- to late 20s.
We don’t fully understand how decades of screen exposure and constant social media might affect this development. But based on my observations—and supported by some emerging research—I hypothesize that executive functioning may already be declining due to fast dopamine hits from social media and excessive screen time.
But fundamentally, that stage of life is meant to be when individuals form their identity—when they leave the security of home and begin to develop a sense of self out in the world. Part of it is trying on many different styles, behaviours, and versions of self-learning from other people. Campus communities are meant to be a space for diverse perspectives and exposure to people from different backgrounds, which is beautiful when considering a university’s purpose.
But when you have intentional propaganda being espoused—with a very different intended outcome—and in this case, antisemitism, there’s much ideology that’s hyper-focused on a small region of the world and just 0.2% of the global population.
In terms of psychology, much of it comes down to being brilliant at identifying opportunities within a population and understanding the strengths and vulnerabilities of individuals during this period of psychological development.
Dr. Jessica Zmood: Yes, and I can give an example from a student at Columbia—a Jewish freshman who didn’t have any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Zionism. They were just a Jewish kid at Columbia who wanted to make friends, get involved, and join some clubs.
There’s a group at Columbia called C-U-A-D, which stands for Columbia University Apartheid Divest. It’s a coalition of about 20 to 30 student organizations. So, do you want to join the gardening, arts, or dance clubs? They might all be part of CUAD.
Now, imagine—you’re this Jewish student. You go to a club meeting and say, “Hey, can I garden with you?” And they respond, “We’re CUAD members. As part of this group, you need to renounce your Zionism. We know you’re Jewish. We don’t accept Jews or anyone who supports genocide, colonialism, or apartheid in our gardening club.”
So you could be in the group—but only if you denounce part of your identity, ancestral connection, and homeland. You’re asked to make a political statement about Israel. Now imagine being a 19-year-old kid who just left home and community, trying to make friends, settle into college life, worry about homework, social life, dating—and then being told that this is what you’re facing.
You’re backed into a corner. You’re meant to feel immediate shame about who you are—about your identity, your relationship to Israel, and your Jewishness. Then you’re presented with propaganda disguised as truth—told, “This is what’s happening. You either support it and conform, or you don’t.”
The information is false even at that starting point, so this student is incredibly precarious.
Asking students to walk into those situations, stand firm in their identity, and know who they are and where they come from—all while just trying to make friends and be college students—is asking them to do something incredibly difficult. But that’s what many are facing.
“I want to garden with you all, but I want to do it as someone who doesn’t believe what you’re saying—someone who feels that’s false. I’m a proud Jew. I’m a proud Zionist.” And for most Jewish people, those two identities go hand in hand. But in this scenario, they’re turned away. The door is shut on them.
To be socially included in the broader Columbia community, you must—quote—divest from your identity. This is incredibly damaging. And if you internalize this as a Jewish student on a college campus, it becomes painful and complex.
Steinwurtzel: Columbia’s been in the news a lot, but I want to clarify—and emphasize—that, unfortunately, this isn’t just Columbia. It would be one thing if this were limited to one campus, but we know it’s not. It’s pervasive.
We’ve spoken with faculty from other universities. One conversation stayed with me. A professor shared that, for the past year and a half, Jewish students on his campus had been essentially in hiding—afraid to speak up, afraid to be visible.
He described a turning point when, after a particular incident, some students finally came out of the closet—because they couldn’t bear it anymore. That language—”came out of the closet”—was so impactful. It speaks directly to Jess’s words about the shame and fear of being cancelled by peers when they want to have a normal university experience and become more of themselves. But instead, they’re made to feel they can’t share an important part of who they are.
That struck me deeply because we’ve worked hard in psychology and society to create inclusive, safe, and welcoming spaces. And yet, Jewish students, faculty, and staff are being made to feel that they must hide. That phrase—”in the closet”—is powerful because we’ve fought many social justice battles in the name of openness and acceptance. And now, this group is being pushed into silence.
Zmood: Cancel culture—the binary nature of all of this. The complete lack of nuance. It’s not “we disagree with certain actions of a government on the other side of the world.” It’s you—this individual student standing in front of me—you represent everything I hate.
Jacobsen: And therefore, you can’t garden with us.
Zmood: Yes. That was the story I shared earlier. Students ask, “Let me find clubs that aren’t part of this coalition so I can show up as myself and be accepted.” As Shelly said, while Ivy League schools like Columbia get the headlines, we’ve heard some horrific stories from small colleges in New England that haven’t gotten much press.
Generally, most students tried to keep their heads down and focus on getting through school, hoping no one would notice them. But things are reaching a fever pitch now. As Shelly said, students are forced to leave hiding to advocate for their right to exist and participate in student life without shame.
I want to get through school without incident. To think that becoming invisible—just getting through without being abused—is now the goal of your college experience? That’s so, so sad. And let’s be honest: it would not be tolerated by any other ethnic, racial, or cultural group. Another anecdote: One student’s father told me, “Do you want to see the film on October 8?” It’s about people’s experiences in America—specifically on campuses—since October 7.
His son, a sophomore in college, said, “Why would I want to see that film with you? That’s my life. I live it every day. I get through it—but I don’t want to watch it. I don’t want to relive it.” The father visited the campus to understand it firsthand, and he came back traumatized. He told me he had no idea how his son had functioned in that environment. His son has since moved 40 blocks away from campus and now commutes daily to avoid being confronted by this. It’s such a difficult time for these kids.
Steinwurtzel: Malka, I believe you had something you wanted to add.
Malka Shaw: Yes, thank you. I have many thoughts about what Jessica just said, but I’d also like to return to the original question—Scott, could you repeat it? I think we veered off a bit.
Jacobsen: Sure—this session is exploratory, so I didn’t expect a strict structure. But to recap, Shelly’s response brought in developmental psychology and executive function—people like Adele Diamond come to mind—and Jessica followed with a case study and observations specific to New England campuses that aren’t getting media coverage.
This all stemmed from the original question: Psychologically, what is going on with an individual who harbours antisemitic prejudice? And conversely, what are the psychological effects on individuals targeted by it?
So far, the responses point to two themes: 1) the psychological systems of the aggressors are often overwhelmed or manipulated, and 2) the targets experience varying forms of stress and trauma—depending on individual differences.
Let’s turn to your social work lens now.
Shaw: Absolutely. From a social work perspective, there’s much to say about the social dynamics. But I want to return to the psychology of indoctrination for a moment—because it’s really important to name what’s happening.
Here’s the dynamic: the first student who says to another, “You can’t be in my gardening club,” genuinely believes he’s right. He thinks he’s standing up for justice. And why? Because Zionism has been misdefined and vilified so severely that it’s no longer recognized for what it truly is.
So, let’s define it clearly: Zionism is simply the belief that Jews have the right to exist, the right to defend themselves, and the right to live in their ancestral homeland. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with every action or policy of the modern State of Israel or reject peaceful coexistence with others in that homeland. But that’s not how it’s being framed today.
What’s happened is that a legitimate part of Jewish identity has been reframed as evil—and that’s what these students are absorbing. That’s what makes this so dangerous. It’s not just misinformation—it’s identity vilification.
Passover is coming up. It’s a major Jewish holiday that arrives in about two weeks. At the end of every Passover ceremony, called the Seder, we say, “Next year in Yerushalayim.” Yerushalayim—Jerusalem—is referred to as Zion in ancient Jewish texts. Zion is the root of Zionism. Zionism, therefore, predates both Christianity and Islam. It’s an ancient concept—thousands of years old.
So let’s return to that person—the student who believes they’re doing the right thing by excluding someone from a club. Part of the reason they feel morally justified is that moral superiority and cancel culture activate the dopamine system. It feels good. It gives them a hit of perceived virtue.
They genuinely believe they’re doing something right. In their mind, it’s like saying, “Well, I don’t want someone from the KKK in my gardening club.” That’s the false equivalence they’re drawing. But the reality is—that they’ve been indoctrinated. Once indoctrinated, someone begins to lose the ability to think critically.
I’ll give you a quick overview of neurology.
Zmood: I can share slides if that helps everyone.
Shaw: I often show a set of slides that include statistics on what’s happening to students on campus and also how mental health indoctrination is occurring within the field through educators.
Yes, show him the DBT slides. From a neurological standpoint, when someone has been indoctrinated, their brain begins to resolve discomfort by rejecting evidence and reinforcing existing beliefs.
Here’s what happens: Indoctrination leads to heightened amygdala activation, the part of the brain responsible for processing fear and emotion. As a result, the prefrontal cortex—which handles critical thinking, decision-making, and impulse control—becomes dampened.
Let’s say someone has come to believe that Zionism is evil. That belief becomes central to their new identity and their perceived moral standing. Now, any new evidence that contradicts that belief isn’t processed neutrally—it triggers a threat response. That’s when you get rigid neural pathways. The more these ideas are repeated, the more the brain hardwires them. Clinically, we refer to this as entrenchment. Colloquially, it’s doubling down.
You see this person dig deeper into their belief—not because they’re reasoning through it, but because it’s psychologically painful to unlearn it. They must admit that everything they’ve internalized and possibly acted upon is wrong.
That kind of rewiring is neurologically and emotionally difficult. We’ve studied this extensively in cult recovery; the same mechanisms apply here. When neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to adapt—is reduced, it limits cognitive flexibility and growth capacity.
Critical thinking reduces empathy in these cases because decision-making becomes fear-based. Once these neurological changes occur—heightened amygdala activation and diminished prefrontal engagement—the brain’s ability to produce empathy decreases. This can lead to an increased tolerance for violence and attitudes that would otherwise be morally unacceptable.
Now, you have a student who feels justified in believing that Jessica’s child cannot join the gardening club because they are certain they’re right. They’ll double down if you challenge them and don’t do it exactly the “correct” way. They’ve lost empathy because you’ve been redefined in their mind as “one of the bad guys.”
We need to consider empathy from all sides because, historically, we’ve seen where this can lead. Look at the youth movements under Nazi rule—many of those kids were indoctrinated. What we’re seeing now is not so different, and history is beginning to repeat itself.
Even more disturbing is that we now see this same dynamic creep into medicine and psychology.
Shaw: Jessica, can you show him the DBT slides?
Zmood: Yep, I’ve got them up.
Shaw: Great. I want Scott to see them.
Jacobsen: For anyone reading this—DBT stands for Dialectical Behavior Therapy. Go ahead and share.
Shaw: Start with the one that shows the brain graphic—the one that labels Zionism and racism as diseases.
Jacobsen: Where is it sourced from?
Steinwurtzel: That’s the interesting part. If you look closely at the slide, it says “The Slow Factory.” This was presented as scientific data at a DBT workshop at the APA—the American Psychological Association.
However, The Slow Factory is not a research institution. It’s a consortium of artists and climate activists. They created this slide content based not on empirical science but on ideological messaging. And yet, it was shown to thousands of students and licensed clinicians at an APA conference.
Shaw: The slide suggests that there’s a part of your frontal lobe—your executive functioning center—that becomes infected by “Zionism,” which they claim must be decolonized and cured for someone to be psychologically healthy.
Jacobsen: The frame I’m getting here—as someone staunchly nonreligious—is that this sounds more like something you’d hear in the Middle Ages. It’s almost like saying someone is possessed and needs an exorcism. Suppose this isn’tbacked by data or empirical evidence. In that case, it’s closer to incantation—like casting out demons—than mental health science.
Zmood: Yes. So—this group’s mission is to “redesign socially and environmentally harmful systems” to align with what is good for the earth and good for people. But who are they? They’re designers—web designers, creative designers. This is a purely creative endeavour—these slides are fabricated visual content presented as if they were grounded in scientific research. They are also internalized by licensed clinicians, who bring these distorted frameworks into their therapeutic practices.
Now, therapy itself—a space that is supposed to be as apolitical and bias-free as possible—has been politicized. This contradicts everything we were taught in graduate school.
Shaw: We were trained to be mindful of our projections, practice ethically, and maintain objectivity in the room. What’s happening now directly conflicts with the ethical codes of almost every professional licensing board—whether for LCSWs, MFTs, or psychologists under the APA. I have a slide listing all the different codes of ethics.
Zmood: I’ll show that next so you can see for yourself.
Steinwurtzel: But to take it even further: this same group includes people who describe themselves as queer abolitionist therapists, and when you research some of their platforms, you find that they are also advocating for eliminating mandated reporting laws. Essentially, they are arguing for anarchic frameworks in clinical practice. Scott, I know the laws are slightly different in Canada. Still, I can’t imagine they’re so different that a therapist wouldn’t be a mandated reporter. If any of us—therapists or teachers—suspect abuse, we are legally required to report it. That’s the law here. I assume it’s similar to where you are, but we can double-check.
Now, look at Lara Sheehi. She was the head of Division 39 of the American Psychological Association, the Psychoanalysis Division. That’s a significant position of influence. There’s a substantial body of material out there on her. These are typical things she posts publicly—every day—on Twitter. She’s not some fringe figure; she’s leading a division representing over 135,000 psychologists within the APA. That’s a serious ethical concern.
Jacobsen: So, when we do exploratory group discussions like this, the strategy we use is to identify points of traction so we can pursue them more deeply. When I see cases like what you’re describing, I draw a clear line between what’s happening here and something like the demonology and exorcism of the Middle Ages—because those were fantasy-based categories. Suppose someone came into your practice and said demons possessed them as a clinician. In that case, you’d have a professional response. But that belongs to a more obvious realm of irrationality. These categories being presented—Zionism, fascism, the Overton Window—are real concepts in political science and sociology. The Overton Window is the window of acceptable discourse. When people push increasingly extreme views into public dialogue, they shift that window—what was once radical becomes normalized.
So yes—Zionism, fascism, and the Overton Window are legitimate subjects of study. But what’s happening here is that, without any evidentiary foundation, these terms are being thrown together like a patchwork, as if they’re interchangeable psychological constructs. And that’s dangerous. It’s much more sophisticated to untangle that rhetorical collage than refuting something mythical, like demon possession. This is not pseudoscience in the traditional sense—it’s non-science cloaked in academic aesthetics.
Shaw: Well, this is what happened in Nazi Germany. They’re taking playbooks from that era—using fake science to justify harmful ideologies. This isn’t new. Throughout history, there have been many instances where science was warped to serve power. Entire communities were targeted. For example, there was a time when an entire Indigenous tribe was labelled “less worthy” and subjected to forced sterilization.
Science has been manipulated many times in history. And this is exactly why Gesher Campus Care needed to be created. Because we can’t just send Jewish college students—who are experiencing real antisemitism and psychological harm—to just any therapist, the therapists must be vetted and properly trained. Even Jewish-identifying therapists need specific training to understand this climate and the unique cultural, historical, and psychological needs of these students.
We touched on this in our last conversation. Still, I want to go deeper today into something I call “antisemitism of identity destabilization.” Identity destabilization can happen at any age, but it’s especially dangerous during late adolescence when young people figure out who they are in society. That’s why it becomes so critical on college campuses—students are forming identities, and now that identity is being challenged or vilified in profoundly harmful ways.
I have some of these examples on my phone, though not all are in my slide deck. Jessica, could you share that specific slide with me, too?
Jacobsen: Let’s pause here. I think I was the one who interrupted Jessica earlier—so if you have any other slides or points you want to finish, we can come back to that first.
Zmood: What we’re looking at here is a third set of examples—what I’d call a disturbing sample of what mental health clinicians are publicly posting on social media. These are licensed professionals, and their posts include statements like:
“I’m feeling urgency, anger, disgust, and avoidance when working with Zionist patients.”
“Jewish people are sexual predators.”
“Keep your crimes out of this country.”
“A large portion of my clients are Zionists. I never understood how that might impact their well-being. Any wisdom on this? None of them are seeing me with the intention of deconstructing.”
That word—”deconstructing”—is key. It ties directly into the previous slide we showed, where the therapist talks about “deconstructing the colonized mind.” The idea here is that the Zionist part of the brain—a part of someone’s identity—is considered an illness that must be “treated” or “removed.”
Another example reads:
“Zionism is a racist white supremacy ideology.”
This kind of statement completely erases Jewish identity. It’s not even factually accurate.
Shaw: Because the truth is, Jews aren’t “white” in the monolithic, simplistic way these ideologues are framing it.
One of the most important points I emphasize is that Judaism is one of the world’s most ethnically and culturally diverse identities. Judaism predates modern categories like ethnicity, culture, and religion, which have only existed for the past few hundred years. Judaism has been around for over 4,000 years.
So what happens when you’re Jewish and something else? What if you’re queer and Jewish? What if you’re Black and Jewish? What if you’re Latino and Jewish?
And the irony here is staggering. Hitler targeted Jews because we weren’t “white enough.” Now, 70 years later, people are calling us white supremacists. It’s a complete reversal of history—a distortion that erases the trauma, displacement, and persecution that define such a lot of Jewish history.
We all originally came from the Middle East and were repeatedly expelled from our homeland. That created a diaspora that resulted in an incredibly diverse global community. Jews today come from every continent—we have Ethiopian Jews, Iranian Jews, Indian Jews, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, and so many others.
To reduce us to a single label—and then use that label to justify exclusion, dehumanization, or discrimination—it’s not only offensive, it’s historically false. And no other group would tolerate this kind of treatment. Why should we?
If we said these things about any other group—if we substituted the word Zionist with any other minority population—people would be rightfully disgusted. But somehow, Jews don’t count as minorities, even though the numbers clearly show we are. We are 0.2% of the global population. Yet, we’re treated as though our concerns are invalid because we’re perceived as a “successful minority” or somehow not “marginalized enough.”
That’s part of the paradox of antisemitism. It’s duplicitous and self-contradictory. On one hand, we’re portrayed as oppressors, and on the other hand, as “dirty Jews.” On one hand, we’re “not a real minority,” but on the other hand, we’re still subject to slurs, threats, and exclusion. These contradictions—this back-and-forth logic—are central to how antisemitism functions. It thrives on double standards and what I call macro gaslighting.
You’ll hear things like, “Well, that’s not antisemitism. I’m just anti-Zionist.” Or, “You’re being too sensitive,” or, “You’re calling it antisemitism just to silence my free speech.” These are gaslighting tactics.
And, Scott, have you heard of DARVO?
Jacobsen: Yes—deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. I first learned about it from people working in the space of clergy-related abuse. It’s become a recognized pattern in manipulative or abusive behaviour.
Shaw: That’s what we’re seeing here on a cultural scale. As clinicians, we all feel a strong responsibility to protect the next generation’s mental health. We already know the long-term consequences of the generation after the Holocaust survivors. This moment now requires the same level of care.
This is not just a community issue—it’s a mental health crisis, particularly for adolescents and late adolescents. Shelly and Jessica are truly heroes in this space. They saw a service gap and created a nonprofit that works daily to ensure students receive the culturally competent mental health support they need.
The goal isn’t to achieve a perfect identity development process—because that’s not realistic in this climate—but to at least make it as normative as possible in an environment that is anything but normal.
Steinwurtzel: Scott, there are so many layers here. I’ll share a couple of thoughts now.
First, it’s not just the students. Yes, they are at particular risk because they’re in the middle of developing their sense of self—figuring out how they want to show up in the world. That stage is critical.
But we’re also hearing from faculty and staff, which brings another risk layer. For example, untenured faculty members are afraid to speak openly. Many of them have anti-Zionist advisers or tenure board members, and some of these boards are holding class sessions in encampments. So, expressing their Jewish or Zionist identity can jeopardize their careers.
Then there are graduate students, many of whom are silently struggling. At Gesher, we aim to support anyone on campus who needs us—not just undergrads but faculty, staff, and grad students. Everyone is experiencing this differently, and campus communities are their microcultures. Each campus has its vibe and pressures, and people are tied to that culture in a way unlike any other environment.
That’s such an important point. The gaslighting that Malka described earlier? It’s not just happening on the individual level but at a mass scale. What we’re witnessing is an inversion of reality, where the victims are made to feel like the perpetrators and speech that defends identity is twisted into accusations of bigotry.
It’s not only harmful to Jewish students—it’s dangerous to democracy. We’re losing our ability to hold nuanced conversations. And that’s what college is supposed to be about—learning to wrestle with ideas, not silencing people or pushing them into hiding.
So we’re talking about both individual psychology and a broader cultural psyche—a kind of collective, ambient anxiety and reversal that’s deeply damaging. And yes, this is bigger than just the Jewish community. It’s a question of whether we still value intellectual honesty, diversity of thought, and the ability to disagree without dehumanizing.
How do we have real conversations without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Can we agree with certain aspects of a person’s thought process or belief system without agreeing with every part? From a psychological perspective, we can’t diagnose an entire society, but we can observe a trend toward black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing reasoning, characteristic of psychological immaturity.
In healthy adult development, we should be able to hold on to complexity. We should be able to say, “This part I agree with, but that part I don’t.” Psychologically speaking, that’s called the ability to think in shades of gray. When we do this, we can hold multiple truths simultaneously—we can mourn and still feel joy or grieve and live fully. That’s a marker of emotional maturity.
But right now, what we’re seeing on many college campuses is something different—more aligned with what we would clinically call rigid thinking or even what resembles traits of borderline personality disorder. I’m sure you’ve encountered BPD in your psychology background, Scott. There’s a desperate need for many of these students to feel like they’re part of something meaningful. And to achieve that sense of belonging, they’re willing to sacrifice critical thinking, or as the saying goes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that’s a dangerous way to shape our future generations.
Shaw: Many students are willing to take social, academic, and psychological risks. And they may even know what they’re risking it for. They’ve been told this is the “right side of history,” so they follow it unquestioningly. Those were a couple of the thoughts that came to me as everyone shared.
And, if I may share something a little more personal—when all of this began unfolding, yes, it was shocking as a Jewish person. But it was profoundly horrifying to experience this as a Jewish mental health professional. Our professional identities are deeply tied to our values. We’ve pursued this field because it means something to us. So, to suddenly face antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism, not only from society but from within our field, has been devastating.
Zmood: I have to go. Shelly can continue in good faith without me—and Malka, too. Thank you, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Jess. Thanks for being part of this conversation.
Shaw: So, Scott, do you have any quick or specific questions you want to ask before we wrap up?
Jacobsen: Yes, I do. The one I had relates to your reflections—specifically on Jess’s presentation about some of these individuals and our observed trends.
I want to be clear—I’m not looking to “cancel” anyone’s business. However, many of these people have professional channels, and the concern is about the public messaging influencing clients and clinicians.
They share their qualifications—”Come see me; I’m open at these times,” “Here are my rates,” “Contact me for more information or special offers,” etc. This is standard professional practice. People are allowed to make a living as clinical social workers or psychologists.
But what stands out in these cases is that the commentary shared on their platforms is often political or personal and posted on their professional pages—as part of their brand. That’s an entirely different dynamic. If these views were expressed purely in personal spaces, that would be one thing. People are allowed to have opinions. But the issue is when those opinions—particularly antisemitic or ideologically aggressive views—are being shared in spaces used for clinical advertising and patient engagement.
In your analysis, are these statements posted in professional spaces like LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook pages representing their practices?
Shaw: Yes, it’s important to separate two things here. First, we’ve seen that the world of professionalism is becoming less professional overall. I might be the oldest on this Zoom. Still, when I graduated college, the expectation was that you interviewed in a blazer, wore closed-toe shoes, had no visible piercings or tattoos, and kept strict professional boundaries. That was the norm.
There’s been a cultural shift in attire and how people define “professionalism.” Personal branding has merged with professional identity. So yes, they’re posting political commentary—often deeply biased and, in many cases, explicitly antisemitic—on platforms where they are simultaneously offering services to clients. That is deeply troubling. There’s another piece we may not have time to unpack today fully, but it’s worth flagging: What role did the pandemic play in this?
Students currently in college were in middle school or high school during COVID-19. That means their critical identity formation years happened in isolation during a global trauma. That’s bound to have psychosocial impacts, including how they perceive relationships, authority, and ideology. The professional world also changed during that time. Work from home, telehealth, and TikTok therapy blurred boundaries even further. What we’re seeing now is a direct outcome of that shift.
But the fact remains: using professional platforms to promote antisemitic or biased materials is both appalling and heartbreaking. For Jewish mental health professionals like us, it’s a triple heartbreak.
First, there’s the ongoing trauma of what’s happening in Israel and with the hostages. Second, antisemitism is resurgent—especially in academic and mental health spaces. Third, there’s the sense of betrayal from our profession—a field to which we devoted our lives.
All three of us here are members of AJMA, the American Jewish Medical Association. AJMA was founded after October 7 to respond to the growing hostility within the medical and mental health fields. What’s happening in hospitals and therapy rooms is outrageous; we’ve been speaking out.
So yes, we’re all in this together because it’s not just personal—it’s professional, communal, and existential.
Steinwurtzel: To answer your question directly, yes, these attitudes are normalized in professional spaces. They are tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged or celebrated. That’s why we’re speaking up.
The American Psychological Association (APA) strongly advocates “decolonizing therapy.” On its face, this concept is not necessarily problematic. There’s room for discussion about how therapy can better serve diverse populations. However, politicizing this idea within the therapeutic frame is unacceptable.
I dropped in a reference to Thema Bryant, who was President of the APA. I have nothing personal against her—I don’t know her—but ‘decolonizing therapy’ was one of the main initiatives she advocated for during her presidency.
That’s part of how this has become so normalized. People are now putting this language—framed as clinical best practice—on their professional websites and social media. It’s become part of the expected rhetoric for anyone promoting therapy services. So, prospective clients encounter it and interpret it as evidence-based.
I have no issue with dialogue on these themes. We should always be evolving and engaging in complex conversations. But the problem arises when a specific group—in this case, Jews and Zionists—is singled out and mischaracterized as part of a global colonial enterprise.
The irony—and frankly, the absurdity—of this is striking. Israel is a tiny piece of land. The Jewish people make up 0.2% of the world’s population. To claim that Jews are somehow orchestrating global colonialism is historically, demographically, and logically flawed.
There are over two million Arab citizens living in Israel today. Zionism is not—and has never been—the desire to eliminate other people from Israel. As Mark already said earlier, that’s a complete misrepresentation of what Zionism means.
I also dropped in the Free Press article by Sally Satel. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, Scott, but it’s incredibly relevant.
Jacobsen: I interviewed her several years ago. She is thoughtful and grounded.
Steinwurtzel: I shared the article not just because Gesher is mentioned in it but also because the letter it includes—written by the leadership of Psychologists Against Antisemitism, including Julie Ansis—is exceptionally well-crafted.
The letter outlines many growing concerns within the APA and, more broadly, across social work and mental health. It shows how ideologically driven frameworks—like unexamined uses of “decolonization”—are being normalized in professional spaces and how this creates an unsafe environment for Jewish professionals and clients alike. It’s part of why we’re so deeply concerned.
You asked earlier about the psychological makeup of someone who espouses antisemitic beliefs or engages in these behaviours on campuses. That’s a complex question, and honestly, it’s been quite a journey for us to witness our colleagues and peers—people who are intelligent, educated, and clinically trained—embracing these ideologies.
There isn’t a single psychological profile. As we’ve said before, it can happen to anyone. These ideas have become so entrenched, particularly under decolonization and equity.
But then, you look at the Jewish experience, and we become a conundrum within these frameworks. We are 0.2% of the population, but we’ve been relatively successful in certain fields. And that disrupts the equity narrative.
Jacobsen: Right—Jews make up a quarter of Nobel Prize winners.
Shaw: It disrupts the narrative, and instead of embracing complexity, some people double down on simplified ideological thinking. And that’s when it gets dangerous. That’s also part of Jewish culture. The emphasis on education and literacy has been central to Jewish identity for millennia—even in the Middle Ages.
Jacobsen: But here’s the thing: you don’t see people haranguing Hindu or Sikh women for success.
Shaw: There’s this persistent oxymoron—a contradictory double standard—that operates when it comes to Jews. Take one example from history: money lending. That role became stigmatized and portrayed as morally corrupt. But why did Jews become associated with money lending in the first place?
The truth is that, historically, Jews were excluded from owning land—so they couldn’t be farmers. They were barred from guilds so that they couldn’t become craftsmen. The only profession left open to them—due to restrictions imposed by Christian institutions—was money lending. Then, when the Catholic Church forbade Christians from lending money with interest, Jews became the only ones allowed to perform that necessary function. And suddenly, they were vilified for it. We were forced into that role, and then we were demonized for surviving.
Shaw: I often say Jews have had no choice but to excel—because the alternative was extermination. That’s the brutal historical reality. We had to become resilient, resourceful, and driven—not because we wanted to outshine others, but because our survival depended on it.
Steinwurtzel: I just returned from Israel. I want to share something because it speaks to both the psychology of survival and the emotional complexity that Israelis have developed—and that we in America are struggling to integrate.
This goes back to the black-and-white thinking we’ve been discussing—the rise of cancel culture, the borderline dynamics, and the erosion of nuance in how we relate to others and ideas.
Israel’s experience is completely different. This is a country in deep mourning. People are devastated by loss, angry, and actively surviving.
At the same time, there is joy, exuberance for life, sharper focus, and more vibrant energy. The emotional bandwidth is wide—they feel the full range of human experience, not collapsing into black-and-white modes.
One of the recently released hostages shared that Hersh Goldberg-Polin—while still in captivity—said something deeply profound to him, a paraphrase of Viktor Frankl: “When you have a why, the how becomes possible.”
That’s it. That’s the center of it. When you know your why, the how becomes more manageable. There’s clarity, purpose, and prioritization. You stop wasting energy on distraction or division.
That clarity drives our work. It’s what drove Malka to develop Kesher and our work with Gesher. These initiatives were born out of trauma, but they offer pathways to growth and resilience.
In psychology, we talk about this as post-traumatic growth. Trauma doesn’t always have to lead to long-term injury. Traumatic experiences don’t have to become traumatizing if we healthily process them and find meaning in the pain.
Malka covers this so beautifully in her training. I’ve seen it firsthand in my clinical work, especially in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). I wasn’t even working in the field of antisemitism before October 7. But that day changed everything.
In my practice, my personal political beliefs don’t come up because, as Jess and Malka said, we were trained to follow the patient. Our role is to guide them clinically, using neuropsychological, psychological, behavioural, and psychosocial frameworks. Our political opinions have no place in the therapy room.
That’s part of what we’re also training our Gesher therapists to remember. Even though the mental health field has become politically active, our therapeutic environments must remain safe spaces for patients—places where they can explore their “why,” not our “why.”
That’s where Gesher and Kesher became necessary.
Jacobsen: We saw quotes from therapists openly stating that they need to ‘decolonize the space of their patients'” That is not patient-centred care. That’s motivated therapy—it reflects the therapist’s agenda, not the client’s needs.
Steinwurtzel: And honestly, it’s strikingly similar to the rationale behind conversion therapy. The psychological field fought hard to remove conversion therapy from legitimate clinical practice because we came to understand the scientific and psychosocial basis of sexual diversity. We now recognize that trying to “convert” someone’s orientation is unethical and harmful.
But this idea of “decolonizing the Zionist mind”—that’s conversion therapy for Jews. It’s a nonreligious form, but the structure is the same: it assumes something fundamentally broken or wrong about a person’s identity. It seeks to change it against their will.
Shaw: It’s worth noting, too—this isn’t just a fringe issue. These perspectives are now mainstreaming in professional spaces, and they’re being positioned as therapeutic norms.
Here’s something random but relevant: I looked into the Jewish history there when we were in Spain. There are very few Jews left in Spain today, either due to conversion, exile, or mass murder dating back centuries. But historically, there was a large Sephardic Jewish population there.
Steinwurtzel: Recently, a genetic study found that about 30% of Spanish men—men who today identify as non-Jewish—carry Sephardic Jewish ancestry. That’s a huge percentage, and it tells us something about how deeply rooted Jewish identity is in many parts of the world.
Shaw: That ties into the larger conversation about Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. In North America, Ashkenazi Jews are more visible and numerous. But in the global Jewish population, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews make up the majority. That’s an important correction to some of the misinformation being circulated.
This whole narrative that Jews are “white colonizers” in Israel? It’s absurd.
Go to Israel, you’ll find it’s an extremely diverse State. Israel is majority Mizrahi—which is closer to North African. Sephardic Jews have more Mediterranean features. It’s not a white state in the way it’s often portrayed.
Steinwurtzel: And don’t forget Ethiopian Jews. My cousin is married to an Ethiopian Jew—she’s Black. Her heritage is fully Jewish. There are Black Jews, Arab Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews. The Jewish people are ethnically and racially diverse.
So this narrative that ‘Zionism is white colonialism’—it’s not just offensive, it’s categorically false. It erases centuries of history, migration, and survival. And it ignores the fact that Jewish diversity is central to who we are.
Her family came from Ethiopia in the 1990s. When you speak to Ethiopian Jews who made aliyah, their stories are often incredibly powerful. I remember being in Israel another time, eating in an Ethiopian restaurant, and this woman sharing her story. One of the things she said struck me deeply—and it speaks to what Zionism truly is.
She told us that her grandparents and earlier generations in Ethiopia had no idea other Jews existed. They thought they were the only remaining tribe of Jewish people—that they alone carried the tradition of Zion. They had no technology, no external communication, and no way to connect with Jews outside their isolated villages.
When they eventually learned about the State of Israel and that there were Jews all over the world, they were in shock. It was life-changing. It reoriented their entire understanding of their identity. This woman asked her grandmother, “What surprised you the most about coming to Israel?” And her grandmother responded: “I can’t believe there are white Jews.”
And for many of us, our reaction might be the reverse—”I can’t believe there are Black Jews.” But that’s the beauty of it. Judaism is so ethnically diverse. They didn’t have religious texts or educational resources—just oral traditions and prayers toward Jerusalem. And that’s the key: Jerusalem is our indigenous home. Our souls, as Jews, are deeply tied to that land. It’s not a slogan. It’s who we are.
That’s my little moment on the bully pulpit—I know I’ve been talking for a while. I need to go soon.
Shaw: Scott, do you have any final questions or thoughts before I go? Thank you for being so patient with us today and for reading all of this so thoroughly.
Jacobsen: Thank you—all of you—for your time. There’s still a lot more to explore. And I know Malka needs to go now—so we can start wrapping up.
Shaw: Yes, Scott, thank you again. It’s always a pleasure working with you. You’re amazing, and I’m glad you’re shining a light on these important issues.
Steinwurtzel: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Not a problem at all. Thank you for your time, Malka.
Shaw: Bye, everyone!
All: Bye!
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/02
Bob Spoerl, founder and CEO of Bear Icebox Communications, is a Chicago-based PR expert with a background in journalism. A Medill School of Journalism graduate and WTTW Fellow, he specializes in strategic communications and media relations, particularly in real estate, retail, and franchises. In an interview, Spoerl discussed the impact of Trump’s administration on small businesses, emphasizing unpredictability in tax policies, regulatory shifts, and tariffs. He highlighted challenges in compliance across global markets and the shift toward deregulation. Spoerl advised small business owners to maintain financial reserves and prepare for uncertainty in an evolving economic landscape.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Bob Spoerl. He is the founder and CEO of Bear Icebox Communications, a Chicago-based PR firm specializing in strategic communications, media relations, and brand management. He has a background in journalism.
Hooray. He graduated from the Medill School of Journalism and was a WTTW Fellow, giving him deep insight into Chicago’s media landscape. Bob has extensive experience crafting high-impact PR campaigns, particularly in the real estate, retail, and franchise industries. His expertise in navigating media relations and brand strategy has made him a sought-after consultant for businesses looking to enhance their public presence. Is all of that correct?
Sounds great. Excellent. So, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Bob Spoerl: Thank you.
Jacobsen: How has the first season of Trump’s administration been for small businesses? For instance, is it overall good, overall bad, or are there particular industries that are acutely impacted—some struggling while others potentially flourish?
Spoerl: Yes, that’s a great question, and I like to think in nuanced terms.
The reality is that I run a micro-business. If you look at it, I am a small business, but we have ten employees. The shifts under the Trump administration swung wildly, which has been a roller-coaster ride. The best policy for a micro-business like mine is to keep your head forward and not get overwhelmed by what’s happening in the news cycle.
I will say that we do have clients in the nonprofit space who were freaking out when the federal freeze was announced—and then it wasn’t. I understand that. I empathize with them. If a large portion of your funding comes from federal grants that are suddenly at risk or potentially set to disappear, that’s a serious concern.
As a public relations firm, I can speak directly to what I do. Scott, I have interesting insight into other industries because we service a multitude of them.
For example, nonprofits have been on a roller coaster. I also have clients in the manufacturing space, and things are more nuanced there. The reality is that, with tariffs being imposed on Canada and Mexico, manufacturing in North America is now in question.
I have clients that manufacture here, but “here” is a relative term when considering where parts are sourced. So, it’s been unpredictable. What I have tried to do is not look too far into the future or attempt to predict what will happen under the Trump administration because if anything is certain, it’s unpredictable—and he likes it that way.
Jacobsen: What about the potential for tax changes under this administration? How will that impact small businesses? How can they blunt any negative effects and take advantage of any positives?
Spoerl: That’s a great question, too. There’s a law, the acronym of TCJA (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), and I should know this because one of our clients is an accounting firm. Essentially, the tax cuts put into law are set to expire, and the expectation is that they might be renewed or extended.
Jacobsen: Again, what about on the flip side—on a consumer level—if there are potential negative tax effects from tariffs? We will see how those shape up, but there is also a sort of indirect tax on businesses due to tariffs, not just on consumers. So, while taxes might be cut at certain levels, there may be hidden costs—let’s call them “lowercase taxes”—that we might experience, whether that comes through inflation or other means.
I believe TCJA is set to sunset. As a micro-business, those impacts affect me less. Businesses in the $5 million to $25 million range will feel the effects more, but I am not quite there yet.
Jacobsen: What about regulatory uncertainty? I did a great interview with an international lawyer who specializes in big, global trade. We discussed binational relationships and what happens when, for example, a Norwegian freighter operates between Norway and the U.S. but is not under the jurisdiction of either country. The complications arising when tariffs come into play make the movement of goods and services much more difficult at a large scale. But what about the micro-level concerns you are speaking to?
Spoerl: Regulatory uncertainty is an interesting issue. We have a client in the global compliance space, and one of the intriguing things is the rollbacks we might see in the U.S. that are not happening in the U.K. or the EU.
For example, we might see rollbacks of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) or ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) regulations in the U.S., whereas other countries maintain or strengthen those policies. You have seen it in the news—organizations like Paramount, which owns CBS, have begun rolling back their DEI policies. That is just one of many examples.
Jacobsen: And Rings of Power Season 3 got cancelled. Some are blaming it on that.
Spoerl: I wouldn’t be surprised.
But yes, regulatory uncertainty extends beyond tariffs and supply chains—though those are part of the conversation.
Another question is regulatory compliance. If this is too far into the weeds, let me know. However, when you look at third-party supply chain risk management, if certain countries are easing regulations while others are not, it creates significant challenges in tracking compliance across the supply chain. The difficulty lies in ensuring that businesses adhere to regulations when those regulations differ across jurisdictions.
That said, as we shift our regulatory perspectives, things are going to get more complicated, especially for organizations operating at a global level, dealing with trade across the EU, U.K., and other countries.
Of course, the big tenors of both Elon Musk and Donald Trump contribute to this broader discussion.
Jacobsen: On the one hand, it is chaos from men. It’s the ethic of “move fast and break things,” comes from the Silicon Valley crowd. Another way of looking at it is as a “survival of the fittest” approach to business—through deregulation, fiscal austerity, etc. This ‘chaos’ could be seen as an attempt to implement a more cutthroat business cycle. Will we see more small businesses shutting down under this pressure while the ones that survive become more competitive?
Spoerl: Interesting. I could see that environment taking shape. I’m thinking of the classic Apprentice-era Trump—that was the whole premise of the show. Creating intense competition to weed out those who are unfit to run a business. And I don’t think this is an overtly political statement—he sees the world in a win-lose framework, not a win-win. It’s a zero-sum game, in his view.
Part of these federal employee layoffs and regulations are about creating a survival-of-the-fittest environment. Tariffs could also contribute to that. I don’t know if the intention is to reduce the number of businesses, but that might be the outcome. One thing to consider, Scott, is that we might see a surge in consulting businesses as tens of thousands of former federal employees lose their jobs.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point.
Spoerl: So, how do I, as a small business, pivot with each radical change over the next few years? That’s the real question.
Jacobsen: That’s an astute point.
Spoerl: Yes, that’s reasonable. We saw a similar pattern during COVID.
I analyzed post-COVID trends, and we saw the country’s highest number of small businesses opening, largely because people who lost their jobs started consulting practices or LLCs.
We can see the same thing happening now. The real measure will be its impact on GDP and revenue numbers. But another factor is that many highly talented people are losing their jobs.
Private organizations that recognize these individuals’ values may win. These people are not necessarily losing their jobs due to a lack of ability but because they are politically misaligned with the administration.
Jacobsen: That’s an important dynamic. Internationally, this could create opportunities for questionable allies. During the, “Muslim ban”—banning people from certain countries, most of which were not implicated in 9/11, for instance—many talented individuals with H-1B visas could have been effectively pushed out. These people create entire industries because they are hardworking and brilliant. Canada picked up some of them, correct? And so, other countries could take advantage of that if people want to leave.
Spoerl: We’re not that far from seeing it happen again. Did I answer your question, Scott, before?
Jacobsen: Yes, you did. The taxes and regulatory aspects are important. Musk, early on—long before his recent remarks—spoke about the fact that, from his point of view, this would be painful in the short term, but only temporarily.
You probably recall this: the idea that deregulation, layoffs, and fiscal austerity will streamline the federal workforce, likely incorporating AI to handle tasks people used to do. In the long term, this will be better for business and accelerate the growth of the American economy relative to other economies.
Spoerl: That is the desired outcome from this administration. But we’ve never attempted it at this extreme level.
In the 1990s, I forget the exact acronym, but the Clinton administration did conduct some minor workforce reductions in an effort to balance the budget. From what I understand, there were some cutbacks, but they were not to the same degree or executed with the “rip the Band-Aid off” approach that we are seeing now.
Even here in Chicago, I read this morning that 11 government buildings are up for sale—and some people are still working in them. So the question is: where are they going to work? Are they going to be let go?
It’s not just about layoffs—they are dismantling the infrastructure of federal employment itself, which is interesting. The hope is that this allows for economic growth, but history is something we need to learn from.
I’m no historian, but some of the deregulation in the 1920s arguably contributed to the 1929 crash and ultimately created the demand for further regulation.
So again, I would be cautious about rapid cuts. As a business owner, I see incremental change as the more effective approach—because it allows for tinkering, A/B testing, and ensuring that each decision is right.
That is how I make decisions. That may be why I’m not Elon Musk.
Jacobsen: Fair point.
Spoerl: But that’s my philosophy. One thing I learned during my undergrad, before launching my business and getting into journalism, was that I was actually studying to be a priest. So, I had a lot of Jesuit influence, yes. I’ve got a lot of Jesuit spirituality still ingrained in me. One of the things I found interesting—think what you will about organized religion—is that the Jesuits do an excellent job of training people to discern and make decisions.
Jacobsen: They are, intellectually speaking, the elite of the Catholic world.
Spoerl: Discernment is not just about quick decision-making; it’s a process. I have brought that into my business. It has worked well for me.
But again, we will see what comes of this DOGE effort to strip the government of what they perceive as bloat. Many people in the U.S. don’t realize how much of their daily lives are tied to government agencies.
For Illinois, our governor, J.B. Pritzker, has said that several million people may lose their Medicaid here in Illinois. There are so many people—those with disabilities, older people who cannot afford nursing homes—who are dependent on government programs.
People don’t fully appreciate the layers of support that government agencies provide. Anyway, I don’t want to go too far off on a tangent, but I always think about it.
Jacobsen: How should small business owners adapt their financial planning in light of this?
Spoerl: That’s a fair question.
Spoerl: Having a comfortable cash reserve—whatever that means to you—is super important. I also think it’s critical to forecast for uncertainty.
We’ve had a pipeline of leads, but my expectations tend to be more conservative. I’m seeing people hesitate to make decisions or delay our budget allocations. So, yes, being fiscally conservative in uncertain times is the way to go. I wouldn’t be too bullish right now.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today. It was nice to meet you, and I appreciate your taking the time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01
Dr. Caroline Fleck, a licensed psychologist and clinical instructor, explains her groundbreaking book, Validation, (Amazon) and its roots in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT)–cheat sheet. She outlines how validation balances change with acceptance, offering a transformative approach to treating conditions like borderline personality disorder. Fleck details how traditional therapies often dismiss genuine emotional experiences, fostering self-doubt and internalized blame. She emphasizes the need for mindful, empathetic communication that validates feelings and nurtures self-compassion, enabling individuals to challenge societal pressures and cultural norms that promote inauthenticity. Fleck also examines how parenting and even religious systems contribute to pervasive invalidation, advocating for a balanced approach that encourages acceptance and change. Her insights underscore the potential for meaningful transformation when emotions are authentically recognized and supported.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Caroline Fleck, PhD, a licensed psychologist, clinical instructor at Stanford University, and highly sought-after business consultant. She holds a doctorate in psychology and neuroscience from Duke University and a BA in English and psychology from the University of Michigan.
She combines academic rigour with practical experience and is renowned for her expertise in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Caroline has transformed lives by empowering individuals to build stronger relationships and foster self-compassion. Her groundbreaking book, Validation, distills complex psychological principles into actionable skills that create lasting change in both personal and professional realms.
Caroline innovates, educates, and inspires globally—and occasionally does interviews with Canadians. Let’s get started with an overview question. What inspired you to write Validation? And can you share some of your journeys in getting Validation on bookshelves and grounding it in your expertise?
Dr. Caroline Fleck: Yes, so, Validation is a fascinating concept and a set of skills that revolutionized the field of clinical psychology when it started gaining recognition in the 1990s. These skills were introduced through dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), which incorporated validation techniques to help therapists communicate acceptance.
Typically, behavioral therapies are very change-oriented. The goal is to change how someone thinks or behaves to alleviate symptoms and, ideally, treat them. What DBT did differently was balance this emphasis on change with a corresponding emphasis on acceptance.
And holy crap was that effective.
For the first time in history, we had a treatment that proved effective in addressing conditions like borderline personality disorder, suicidality, and self-harm—issues that had previously been considered untreatable. This led to a revolution. Well, a loud revolution within psychology, though outside the field, few people have heard about it.
As a dialectical behaviour therapist, I have witnessed firsthand the power of these skills—their effects on patients and their impact on how we think about psychology at large. It blows my mind that no one has written a book or talked about this more openly outside of academia or the mental health field. Until now, these skills have primarily been reserved for DBT therapists.
My mission, my ambition, was to raise their public awareness because they create meaningful change in nearly every relationship imaginable.
Jacobsen: Now, if you were to take a pre- and post-treatment snapshot of professional discussions before this methodology was recognized as effective, how would professionals have talked about borderline personality disorder or suicidality when these conditions were considered “untreatable”?
Fleck: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a particularly interesting case because it is perhaps the most stigmatized disorder in all of mental health. Frankly, in part, because we couldn’t treat it, we started to— in my opinion—blame the victims, unfairly placing the responsibility on individuals who had this disorder.
Now, it didn’t help that part of the criteria for BPD includes extreme mood swings, irritability, anger, and oscillating between loving and hating people. This can be a very difficult population to work with, that is for sure. But before DBT—and even still, frankly—the language clinicians and licensed professionals use to describe these patients is often veryalarming. You hear things like, “You don’t want too many borderlines on your case,” or “I don’t take borderlines; I don’t like being sued.”
People have said these things to me, even post-DBT. But before that, it was just accepted that this was an unworkable, untreatable group and that clinicians should avoid them at all costs in their practice. Fortunately, DBT—and validation in particular—has challenged us to adopt a more nonjudgmental, objective way of discussing and conceptualizing the condition.
But before that, I mean, it wasn’t good.
Jacobsen: Part of that nonjudgment comes from not essentializing people. I’ve noticed this a bit—it’s like when someone breaks a leg, and you say, “Why can’t you run? Start running! Oh my gosh, pick it up. Walk it off!” That’s the physical equivalent of what’s happening in mental health, alarmingly, from professionals, especially regarding some of these very severe incidents of mental illness.
Fleck: My head went in a million different directions—one, that’s an extremely astute point. Because what you’re describing is invalidation, right? These individuals are experiencing not only invalidation from their environment but also from trained professionals. They are being invalidated in their struggle.
No one says, “It makes sense that this is so hard. I understand why you’re struggling in this way.” Instead, as you described, the message is as if you’re telling someone with a broken leg to run: “What’s wrong with you?” That is incredibly damaging.
This is particularly important because borderline personality disorder (BPD) occurs at exponentially higher rates in individuals with a history of childhood sexual abuse. Invalidation is part of the etiology. Coming from an invalidating environment is part of what gives rise to this condition.
And then, to layer even more invalidation on top of it—you can see just how hard it is for someone to get out from under it.
Jacobsen: I just gave a talk yesterday before leaving for New York to a Christian group in Croatia. I’m not religious—I’m a humanist—but the focus was on how to combat clergy-related abuse.
One thing that came up from a colleague of mine was that the primary demographics of victims are young boys and adult women. Those populations and how they are treated when they come forward with claims follow the same framework. The ideology behind it reflects how we handle people who report abuse. Yes, false allegations happen—but they are very, very rare.
So right off the bat, the assumption should likely be true, statistically speaking. We’re not even being generous here—just in terms of prevalence. Yes, we should assume that the person is telling the truth.
Yet, if someone has these kinds of issues—whether it’s suicidality or a series of comorbidities that come with this complex of interrelated symptoms—there is often a structural correlate in how the brain is networked due to trauma or possibly some genetic precursor, whatever the cause may be.
How does DBT, and some value framework, help take advantage of our plasticity so that people can—maybe not completely transition to a healthier state of mind—but at least mitigate some of the more extreme symptoms of their condition?
Fleck: Well, part of what we’re doing—through validation in particular—is addressing the consequences of pervasive invalidation. For example, consider the experience of childhood sexual abuse, where the very people who are supposed to care for and protect you are mistreating or abusing you.
In these situations, when someone is pervasively or even severely invalidated, as is the case with abuse, they do not learn to trust their own emotions. They are told that their emotions are wrong—that they shouldn’t be feeling the way they do, that they should walk it off, or that they shouldn’t talk about it.
The underlying message is: Don’t trust your emotions.
As adults—or even in the aftermath of those experiences—these individuals often do not know how to validate their own emotions. They don’t know what they’re feeling or whether they should be feeling it. As a result, they frequently defer to the environment for cues on how they should act, think, or feel.
One of the most powerful things validation does is help people start to trust their read of a situation.
Unfortunately, although this issue is very pronounced in individuals who come from pervasively invalidating environments, my experience has been that most adults struggle with self-validation. Perhaps not to the same extreme—some may have a greater sense of emotional awareness and regulation—but as a culture, we are not great at self-validation.
We are good at problem-solving; that’s what we are wired for and trained to do. However, we do not recognize the validity of our experiences and emotions very well. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to bring these skills into broader discussions if that makes sense.
Jacobsen: Let’s say someone comes to you in your practice. They don’t necessarily have a formal diagnosis. Still, they exhibit a few key risk factors that suggest they might be heading in that direction.
And you see a pervasive sense of self-doubt—meaning they are consistently self-invalidating in their internal dialogue. How do you walk them through a session to help them start recognizing their emotions? How do you guide them to the point where they can say, “No, I do feel sad or anxious or bad about this. This was wrong—what this person did to me was wrong,” and so on?
Fleck: This morning, I had a session with a client, a mother who was beating herself up for forgetting to bring baked goods to her child’s school. She had signed up on the list of parents who were supposed to bring items, but she forgot.
She was subjecting herself to intense self-criticism and self-loathing. Honestly, anyone with that kind of inner voice would feel awful.
So, instead, I guided her toward looking at the valid reasons why she may have forgotten. Okay, let’s examine what’s valid here. You have three kids, you didn’t write it down, and you had other responsibilities—X, Y, or Z.
People often start getting nervous at that point because they think, “That sounds like making excuses.”
But that’s not what we are doing.
Jacobsen: Does their anxiety go up at that point?
Fleck: Yes, it absolutely can, depending on the person.
But I need to argue that if we want to prevent this from happening again, we need to understand the chain of cause and effect that led to this moment. That’s my entry point. And really, what I want them to do is begin to understand what led to this behaviour.
“Okay. All right. Now, you’re feeling guilty. Why are you feeling guilty? Let’s trace that back. If I were in your shoes, I’d feel guilty, too, given what you’re telling yourself. But if we look at the facts, does it make sense for you to feel this guilty? Does this degree of guilt fit the circumstances? I don’t think so.”
So I want them to say, “I can see why I feel guilty. I’m beating myself up. In some sense, it’s valid that I feel guilty. But also, I probably shouldn’t be beating myself up this much given the circumstances.” So, it’s this constant process of tracing cause and effect to determine what is valid here.
Jacobsen: Now, we’ve evolved a lot of cognitive systems; and I assume that, more or less, they tend to lean toward some homeostasis when working together. You can see that in what we now refer to as mental health. So, what goes awry in individuals who blow things way out of proportion?
For example, someone may be going through life, having a child, being a mom, baking something for school, and suddenly ending up in your office overwhelmed. What has gone wrong in that system—something that is probably evolutionarily useful but, in this context, unhelpful?
Fleck: Well, I see the roots of that developing much earlier in life. I also work a lot with parents. As a parent, I can completely relate to the innate urge to solve my child’s problems.
For example, let’s say my daughter tries out for the soccer team and wants to make it. But I know she didn’t practice consistently—she tried to cram it all in the day before tryouts when she needed more preparation.
When she’s disappointed that she didn’t make the team, my instinct is to focus on what she could do better next time. My instinct is to problem-solve—to help her figure out how to change the situation.
Why? Because I don’t want her to hurt. I want her to make the team and see things she could do differently to achieve that goal. But in doing this, I am teaching her to do the same thing to herself.
When she feels disappointed, she does not think, “Oh, it makes sense that I’m disappointed. I was really looking forward to this. I wanted to be on the team. Of course, I feel this way.”
Instead, she’s learned to immediately analyze what she did wrong and what she needs to do better next time. And if that pattern is reinforced repeatedly over time, by the time my child is 35 and forgets to bring baked goods to school, her inclination will not be to validate her emotions.
Instead, she’ll instinctively problem-solve what she did wrong and chastise herself for making a mistake. Does that make sense? I see the roots of this pattern forming very early in life.
When I work with parents, I’m not kidding—three-quarters of my work is focused on helping them validate their children’s emotions. That’s not to say they can’t problem-solve, but we need to create space for emotions first. It’s okay to be disappointed. I would be disappointed, too. That’s sad. That’s really frustrating. But we, as a culture, have difficulty sitting with our children’s negative emotions. Unsurprisingly, they grow up struggling to accept and regulate those emotions as adults.
Jacobsen: In one of your earlier responses, you hinted at a broader social issue—how our culture tends to invalidate people, at least enough for them to end up in your office. What are we doing, as a culture, that fosters so much self-invalidation? What mechanisms are we reinforcing that make people internalize these invalidating patterns?
Fleck: You touched on a huge source of cultural invalidation, which, for many people, can be the church. If you’ve been abused within a religious system, that experience can be profoundly confusing and invalidating. But even beyond abuse, there’s often this ingrained sense of Because I’m attracted to the person I’m attracted to, or because I like the things I like, I must be bad. I shouldn’t be this way. I shouldn’t be who I am. Religion, of course, can drive that message in deeply, but we see this pattern reinforced in different ways. Society repeatedly tells us that you should not be who you are. There’s something inherently wrong.
I remember attending a Tara Brach workshop years ago, and she did something I thought was incredibly risky—something I, as a therapist, would probably never do. She had the entire room close their eyes and said, “Now, raise your hand if you feel something is wrong with you.” Then she told everyone to open their eyes. Nearly every single person had their hand up. That was the moment that stuck with me. That is what I’m talking about.
We live with this pervasive sense that something is fundamentally wrong with us—something bad at our core. What validation communicates, instead, is acceptance. It says, “I see you. I hear you. I get you.” That is the message I don’t think we, as a culture, are skilled at providing—to ourselves or others. And that’s what I hope to achieve with my book.
Jacobsen: One concept that has come up a lot recently in conversations and writing is authenticity. Are many of these systems you’re hinting at essentially inauthenticity drivers—in the sense that people are conditioned to distrust themselves and self-invalidate? Are they absorbing the belief that their entire persona and psyche are wrong somehow, or at least in part? Another question came to mind, but I just lost it—sorry.
Fleck: No, that’s okay. If it comes back, great. If not, that’s fine too. And I love your questions.
On that first one, you’re touching on something that makes it difficult to wrap their heads around regarding validation: Isn’t validation just praise? We’ve spent our whole lives being told never to seek external validation. And I need to hammer this home—validation is not praise.
Praise causes people to contort and distort themselves in all sorts of ways to meet or exceed expectations. That’s not what validation communicates. And you’re absolutely right—so many systems in our culture reinforce this confusion. Look at social media. People think they are “seeking validation,” but they’re actually seeking and responding to praise—likes, thumbs-ups,heart emojis, etc.. And then they start changing or distorting themselves—with filters and curated posts—so they can obtain that heart emoji.
In the process, they lose themselves. It’s fascinating because I see all this discourse on TikTok—like #WomenWhoRelyOnMensValidation—and I think, if only they were actually getting validation.
Jacobsen: We see this play out on both the left and right; these dynamics even have explicit terms. They hold some utilitarian value for people at different points in their lives, helping them reach certain goals. But ultimately, they turn into caricatures.
One example—on both ends of the spectrum—is the rise of “trad wives” on one side and “boss girls” on the other. Personally, my sociopolitical bias leans toward the latter, but I think both of these archetypes ultimately drive women toward inauthenticity.
Oh, and I remembered my other question. If people don’t trust their judgment, they aren’t validating their sense of reality. That means their reality testing—their ability to assess what is true—is compromised. So, beyond just a loss of internal validation, does this leave them vulnerable to exploitation?
Fleck: One hundred percent. And that is exactly what happens. The more you defer to your environment to tell you what you should be thinking or feeling, the more vulnerable you are to that environment exploiting you—because it’s easy to do so.
And it doesn’t just happen in an ideological sense; it happens at all levels. You can be manipulated into buying things you don’t need, subscribing to belief systems that don’t serve you, or contorting yourself to fit into moulds that aren’t aligned with who you truly are. This kind of exploitation isn’t going to be in service of your true self—because why would it be? It’s much easier for an external force to tweak you into being a “better” version of yourself, a version that better serves them.
Jacobsen: How does mindfulness play into all of this?
Fleck: Mindfulness is a core part of validation. When I validate someone, I am mindful of them. And by mindful, I don’t just mean being present—I mean being nonjudgmental, simply aware of what is happening. It also involves understanding and empathy.
But here’s the key: You cannot validate someone without paying attention to them. You just can’t. And that’s one of the biggest issues we’re facing right now.
I’m trying to think of the right word for it… but attention is the most precious resource we have right now. And yet, we are bleeding it out everywhere.
We’re losing our attention to all these different devices, apps, and distractions, and in doing so, we’re pulling that attention away from the people we would otherwise be giving it to. I see it in something as simple as people who think they can multitask—saying, “I’m listening while I’m typing a text message.” But the reality is, they aren’t communicating that they’re listening. That’s not what comes across when someone is staring at their phone. And ultimately, validation is about communication. It’s about communicating some degree of acceptance—I see and hear you. But you do not see someone when your attention is pulled elsewhere.
Jacobsen: Not all communication is speech—it’s active listening, too.
Fleck: Exactly. At the most basic level, some mindfulness is always required for validation.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned mindfulness, validation, and your work with clients, but I wanted to ask—have you personally experienced depression? I’ve had a history of major depression a long time ago, and long-term mild anxiety. It probably didn’t help that I drink coffee, but I’ve channelled it into writing, so that’s my productive outlet. What about you? If you’re open to discussing it, how has your experience shaped your approach to validation in therapy? How do you communicate these ideas in writing?
Fleck: Yes, I struggled with depression from about 15 to 26—so at least a solid decade. That’s a long time. So long that I forgot what anything else felt like. And I did all the things—I went to therapy, I tried medication—and nothing worked. Eventually, I thought, I’m going to figure out how to treat depression myself. I’ll just become a doctor.
A big part of my reaction was how invalidating most of the therapy I had received felt. I didn’t feel heard—I felt judged. I felt, honestly, like what you described earlier with the broken leg analogy, as if I were being told, “Why don’t you just run?” That was the message I received, and it completely confused me. It made me blame myself so profoundly for not getting better.
So, when I went to grad school, my original plan was to study depression. That was my focus. But at the same time, I was really into meditation because out of everything I had tried, meditation was the one thing that seemed to help. It didn’t necessarily cure the depression, but it gave me just enough distance from my judgmental mind. And I thought, “There’s something here. I need to explore this.”
Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) was the first therapeutic approach to incorporate mindfulness as a core part of treatment. That was a huge draw for me—I had to study it. I ended up going deep into DBT, and in the process, I learned how to validate other people. It’s a required part of the training—you must prove that you can effectively use these skills with patients.
And wouldn’t you know it—I developed the ability to validate myself over time. That was incredibly powerful for me, and it has been essential in buffering against some of my mental health struggles.
Jacobsen: Switching gears a bit—here we are at CSW69 with Beijing+30, thinking about it. Are there gendered aspects to invalidation? I’m aware that some psychiatric diagnoses have seen shifts in the ratio of prevalence between men and women over time. For example, narcissism seems to be balancing out between genders, which is not the kind of parity we need.
But are the ways society invalidates men and women different? And are the ways men and women self-invalidate different? Is it significant enough to be worth commenting on?
Fleck: Yes, I mean, what doesn’t get talked about enough is how men experience invalidation. How women are invalidated has been well-documented, and we have a clearer understanding of how that contributes to mental health struggles. But with men, we tend to see the invalidation of their emotional worlds—and often, the direct punishment of emotional expression.
It’s not always in overt ways, like “I’ll give you something to cry about.” More often, it’s subtle—even within peer groups—this pervasive sense that certain emotions are off-limits. That you can’t and shouldn’t feel certain things. And that kind of message, given repeatedly, creates a profound sense of invalidation. It makes it difficult to recognize, manage, express, or even accept emotions when they do arise.
Jacobsen: The rhetorical question is: How do you validate an emotion when you don’t even have the language to identify it?
Fleck: This is one of the coolest things about mastering validation skills. If I get it right, one of the most powerful, validating things I can do is to look at someone and say, “Oh, you’re devastated. Of course, you are. That makes perfect sense.”
The act of naming an emotion—one they may not have even identified themselves with—can be incredibly profound. When you get it right, it’s like, on some level; you know them better than they know themselves. That’s an incredibly high level of validation to pull off.
The great thing is that a person doesn’t necessarily need to have an advanced vocabulary foremotions in order to be validated. They don’t even need to fully understand what they’re feeling. For someone to validate themselves, they would eventually need to develop that awareness. Still, for me to validate them, I can put into words what I presume they are experiencing.
Of course, if you get it wrong, it backfires. The person might feel completely unseen—like, “No, I’m not devastated. I’m just hungry.” And that’s fine. You drop down to an easier level and try again. But fundamentally, people don’t need the perfect vocabulary to receive validation.
Jacobsen: And for women?
Fleck: Oh, boy. It’s another level entirely. Women are constantly told they’re too dramatic, too upset, and too emotional. There’s this idea that emotions drive everything they say or do. Any strong desire or conviction they have is often dismissed as irrational.
I can only speak from personal experience here. Still, as a woman, I have internalized the message that my emotions undermine my thoughts and opinions. That my emotions make my reasoning less valid. If I’m frustrated, I’m being a bitch. If I express concern, I’m jealous. If I call something out, I’m overreacting.
And the problem is, when you hear those messages repeatedly, you start to doubt yourself. You start to feel like even your most rational, well-thought-out ideas will be minimized or dismissed just because you express them.
Then there’s another layer—the invalidation of women’s entire personhood. Beyond being seen as emotional, women are often only viewed through the lens of their sexuality. That’s tough for people to wrap their heads around, even today. So much of who we are, outside of sex and attraction, isn’t acknowledged, reinforced, or valued. And that creates massive distortions in how women are seen—and in how they see themselves.
In many ways, I think the invalidation that women experience is more visible and easier to identify. That’s often the case when a group has been historically oppressed. Because, at its core, oppression is the language of invalidation. It is systematic invalidation.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned family dynamics before and talked about how this starts early. Based on your experience with parenting and therapy, when would you say invalidation begins? At what age, do we start absorbing these patterns?
Fleck: Yes, I talk about this in my book—I give an example of a young child, maybe two or three years old, who’s told they’re about to have a baby brother or sister. They get so excited that they can’t wait. And then the baby arrives… and suddenly, they hate the baby. They lash out. I remember my brother getting mad at my mom and saying, “I wanted a puppy.”
Jacobsen: My sister wanted a sister and got a brother, and my brother wanted a dog and got a brother.
Fleck: Oh, man. So, for you, it started early.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Fleck: As parents, our instinct is often to say, “No, you don’t hate your brother. You love him.” Or, “You don’t feel that way; you’re just excited!” But right out of the gate, we are telling them what they are feeling is wrong. We’re overriding their emotions, dismissing what they express, and replacing it with what we want them to feel.
We have the power to do this because, as adults, we have bigger brains, more logic, and a broader understanding of the situation. But the child’s emotions are real to them. And when those emotions manifest as tantrums or resistance, we tend to push even harder to correct their experience. We don’t mean to invalidate them—we think we’re helping—but our message is: “What you’re feeling isn’t real or valid.” That pattern can start very early.
Jacobsen: I grew up in a small town, and many of my friends were older—especially older women. One thing I noticed, which seems to be pretty pervasive, is that past a certain age, there’s this cultural shift where women seem to disappear. It’s almost exponential—first, they fade into the background, and then they fade into the background of the background.
Other cultures handle aging differently, but in North America, once someone’s predefined role is no longer relevant, they just get shuffled off. “We don’t have a place for you anymore, so off you go.”
Fleck: Absolutely. And I think this overlaps with those issues around sexuality as well. In our society, if you are no longer conventionally sexually desirable, you start to disappear. If you no longer serve the function of mother, you start to disappear. The message is: “You’re not needed anymore. You don’t exist.”
It’s such a stark, black-and-white way of viewing people—as if these singular traits define their worth. And once those traits evolve, shift, or fade? So do they. They stop factoring into the social equation altogether. That’s what happens when we reduce people to these flat, singular dimensions. The moment they no longer check a particular box, they… disappear.
Shoulds—whether explicit or implied—are the antithesis of validation. A should suggests, “You should be something other than what you are.” And within that statement is the fundamental invalidation of who you are and what you’re experiencing.
It’s interesting when you start noticing the shoulds you impose—even just as a thought exercise. Look at how often we think: They should act this way. They shouldn’t act that way. They should vote this way. They shouldn’t think that way. These are constant, automatic judgments; there’s much to unpack in how they shape our perceptions of others.
To be clear, validation doesn’t mean endorsing everything about someone’s experience. I don’t have to validate all of it. I only have to find one thing that’s valid—maybe it’s their emotions, maybe it’s their thoughts, maybe it’s their behavior. Suppose I can authentically recognize one valid aspect of their experience and speak to that.hat is when the connection happens. That’s where change begins.
Jacobsen: One last question. Where is the theoretical foundation of psychological construct of “validation” limited? And with further research, how could it be refined and expanded? Because you’ve spoken about validation in a broad sense, are there gaps in the concept?
Fleck: Yes, we’ve seen this evolution in psychology. Carl Rogers—a major figure in the 1970s—was all about this concept of unconditional positive regard, which was essentially another way to describe validation. He believed that people will naturally grow into their fullest, actualized selves if they communicate enough validation.
Since then, we’ve found that while validation is crucial, it’s not enough. The impact is much greater when you combine validation with skills training, reinforcement, and other change strategies. For example, if a child falls off a bike, it’s validating to say, “Oh my gosh, that must have hurt. You must be so disappointed. You probably don’t want to ride anymore.” But at some point, you also need to follow up with, “Let me help you get back on the bike.”
That’s the key—it’s not acceptance or change. It’s acceptance and change. The real magic happens when you hold both polarities together, balancing them rather than seeing them as opposites. That’s how real growth happens.
Jacobsen: And with that, I’ll say—on the podium—thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. It was great to hear your expertise.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean-born philosopher, Humanist, apatheist, academic researcher and educator. He is also into human rights struggles and active citizenship as the founding leader of a Social Democrats Association (SODA), a youth civic movement which lobbies and advocates for the inclusion and recognition of young people into decision-making processes and boards throughout the country anchored on Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions). He is also the acting president of Humanists Zimbabwe. Chinama highlights Zimbabwe’s culturally tolerant heritage, disrupted by colonialism, which entrenched Christianity into society. The recently introduced Heritage-Based Curriculum emphasizes secular and heritage-based education, promoting critical thinking and innovation. However, challenges arise from religiously controlled schools and insufficient teacher training. Chinama notes generational shifts, with younger Zimbabweans being more tolerant due to digital access. He identifies prominent African secularists like Dr. Leo Igwe, Mubarak Bala, and Harrison Mumia. He aspires to advance secularism through research and education reform.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with an articulate advocate of humanism from Zimbabwe, who has gained significant prominence in the country. For those unfamiliar with humanist, secular, and freethought movements in North American and Canadian media, this discussion will provide insights into how Zimbabwean cultural heritage, when integrated into the educational system, can form a reasonable foundation for more secular governance in Zimbabwe. My first question is this: What aspects of Zimbabwean heritage and culture support the idea that secularism is a natural intellectual and historical trend for the nation?
Tauya Chinama: Thank you for your question. Zimbabwean culture, particularly what we broadly define as the national cultural identity, has historically been very tolerant. Zimbabweans have long known how to coexist peacefully. However, colonialism severely disrupted this spirit of coexistence. When colonialism came to Zimbabwe, it became almost impossible for Zimbabweans to separate Christianity from colonialism.
To clarify, other religions, such as Judaism and Islam, had a limited presence during the colonial era. Islam, for example, constitutes less than 1% of Zimbabwe’s population today. Christianity, however, became deeply entrenched in Zimbabwean society. While Christianity was introduced as early as the 16th century through Portuguese missionaries, it struggled to gain significant traction. When colonialism took hold in the late 19th century, missionaries leveraged colonial structures to make inroads into Zimbabwean society.
During the colonial era, there was no freedom of religion. Christianity enjoyed an unfair advantage, heavily influencing the education system and shaping societal attitudes. As a result, many Zimbabweans became intolerant of other religions and even their own traditional culture, which was often labelled as evil, devilish, or mere ancestral worship by Christians.
The introduction of a new curriculum in Zimbabwe aims to address these imbalances. First launched in May 2024 and fully implemented in 2025, the new Heritage-Based Curriculum represents a significant shift in education policy. Historically, English, mathematics, and science were emphasized as the most critical subjects. However, the revised curriculum now prioritizes Heritage Studies as a core subject.
Students are required to meet the qualifications of five O-levels, which now include Heritage Studies, mathematics, English, a science subject, and a new subject called Family and Religious Studies. This subject requires teachers to present content objectively without proselytizing, preaching, or favouring one religion over another.
As a humanist and educator in Zimbabwe, I am privileged to contribute to this effort. My areas of specialization include Family and Religious Studies, Heritage Studies, and Religious Studies. When teaching biblical studies, I treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than as sacred scripture, as it is often viewed in churches. I deliver information objectively, ensuring students receive a balanced education.
I am encouraged to see Zimbabwean intellectuals, particularly those drafting the heritage based curriculum, ushering in an educational framework that serves as a repository for secular ideals. This curriculum represents a significant step toward fostering a more inclusive and secular approach to education and governance in Zimbabwe.
Chinama: And for me, promoting secularism and humanism in Zimbabwe has become, if I may use religious language, my vocation. Recently, in December, I was in South Africa attending a conference in Stellenbosch that was themed Decolonizing Secularity. It resonated deeply with me because, back home, we now have the Heritage-Based Curriculum, which aligns well with those ideas. While in South Africa, I visited several places, including the Slave Lodge. I feel incredibly privileged and one of the happiest individuals to see this curriculum introduced in Zimbabwe.
However, the curriculum faces significant challenges. Most parents in Zimbabwe are Christian, and many are reluctant to embrace such a curriculum. There are also issues with individuals trying to politicize it, including some of its implementers, who fail to grasp its core principles. These challenges notwithstanding, it is a step in the right direction.
This provides a good introduction. You likely have more questions about the heritage-based curriculum that was recently launched in Zimbabwe. I am happy to discuss it further.
Jacobsen: Now, about education policy, are there any proposals—or have there been any proposals nationally—to highlight Zimbabwe’s secular and humanistic heritage within the educational system? Such initiatives could help reinforce the work others and you are doing to promote these values.
Chinama: Unfortunately, nonreligious people or secular humanists in Zimbabwe represent a very small minority, roughly 10% of the population. This makes it challenging to gain widespread recognition or advocacy for our views. While some officials know our presence, they may choose not to engage fully, possibly for fear of alienating the broader, largely Christian population.
That said, the shift in the education system towards ideas aligned with secular humanism is a significant win for us. Progress cannot be blocked, and we see the inclusion of secular and humanistic ideas in the curriculum as a sign of this momentum.
That said, the Ministry primary and secondary Education faces substantial challenges. One critical issue is the lack of capacity building for teachers. While the curriculum is well-designed and aligns with secular humanism, it has been handed to teachers without sufficient training or resources. Teachers are the key implementers of any educational framework. Still, they are ill-equipped to deliver the curriculum effectively.
In our education curriculum, research, critical thinking, and innovation are promoted from an early age, starting at 5 or 6 years old in early childhood education. Students in both primary and secondary schools are encouraged to undertake projects that resemble small dissertations. Each student identifies a problem in any learning area or subject and then collaborates with the teacher, a facilitator, to study the problem and propose a solution. This process, which includes problem identification and problem-solving, is designed to address local challenges.
These projects aim to prepare students to develop practical, local solutions to local problems. In this way, the Zimbabwean education system can be described as heritage-based. For instance, even how mathematics is taught is designed to address and solve local issues. Similarly, subjects like English, agriculture, and biology are taught with a focus on their application to real-life, local problems.
However, teaching certain theories, such as evolutionary biology, poses challenges in Zimbabwe. This is partly due to differing understandings of terms like “theory.” In the United States, “theory” often refers to an explanation grounded in evidence. In contrast, it may carry a connotation closer to facts in other contexts, such as the UK. This discrepancy complicates how such subjects are received and taught in Zimbabwe.
Jacobsen: How much influence does religion have in the public education system in Zimbabwe? For example, we agree that teaching a world religions course to children and teenagers—covering the facts, figures, and beliefs of various religions globally and in Zimbabwe—differs from endorsing or advocating for Christianity, Islam, or precolonial religious beliefs. The former allows pupils to make their own informed decisions. With this distinction in mind, how much does religion encroach on education in appropriate and inappropriate ways?
Chinama: Yes, that is an important question. The problem with Zimbabwe’s education system is that a significant number of schools—about 50%, including many of the best schools—are owned by religious organizations, particularly the Catholic Church. Other denominations, such as the Methodist Church, the Adventist Church, and the Presbyterian Church, are also key stakeholders in education.
Because over half of our schools are under Christian control, these institutions have significant influence. Many develop their school-based curriculums that include religious indoctrination, aligning with the specific denomination that owns the school. For instance, students might be pressured to follow certain religious practices or beliefs that are specific to the denomination managing the school.
The national curriculum, however, mandates that teachers present religious studies without favouring one religion. Unfortunately, this mandate is not always followed in church-run schools. These schools often appoint principals and other leaders based on their loyalty to the denomination rather than merit.
This creates an uneven playing field, where schools risk becoming centers for promoting specific religious doctrines rather than institutions for imparting factual knowledge. To address this, we need reforms in education policy to ensure that schools remain neutral spaces focused on teaching evidence-based knowledge, not converting students to any particular religion.
If churches want to establish schools to spread their faith, we cannot stop them. As secular humanists, we defend their right to create such schools. However, we have a problem when they push their religious agenda in schools that are funded by taxpayers’ money. Most of their teachers are paid by the government, so they should adhere to the government curriculum and follow the government’s education policy.
There is often a clash between the education commission of a particular church and the Ministry of primary and secondary Education. While churches are important stakeholders, we need to negotiate with them to find common ground. Unfortunately, as humanists or secular humanists in Zimbabwe, we cannot currently fully address these issues. In the future, we will have the resources to sponsor and construct schools that embody secular humanist principles. These schools would treat all religions equally and respect all individuals regardless of religious views. For now, we are doing the best we can with our resources.
Today, I posted a status acknowledging someone who said they were praying for me. I said I was happy they were praying for me, regardless of my religious beliefs. As a secular humanist, I understand the statement’s intention. To me, it means the person cares about me. Although I may have issues with the concept of someone praying for me, I focus on the intention rather than the act itself. We want secular humanism to represent this—promoting tolerance and understanding rather than judgment.
Jacobsen: Are there any inclusions of humanism in any facet of Zimbabwe’s education system that you’re aware of outside of your efforts?
Chinama: Humanism is included in the curriculum, although it is not explicitly labelled as such. For instance, in subjects like Family and Religious Studies, teachers are explicitly instructed to teach without favouring one religion. The Zimbabwean government has also taken steps toward secularism. For example, the National Pledge replaced the Lord’s Prayer, at school assemblies. Although the National Pledge references “the Almighty God” in the preamble of the Constitution, it marked a move toward a more inclusive approach.
Those responsible for designing the curriculum recognize the importance of promoting secular humanism. However, parents and even many teachers still lack understanding. I believe teacher training also needs to evolve to better align with these principles.
The Ministry of Higher and tertiary Education has introduced what it calls Education 5.0, which is part of its effort to address local challenges through the education system. Historically, Zimbabwean educational institutions focused on teaching, community service, and research. Education 5.0 has expanded this scope to include industrialization and innovation to solve local problems through education. This initiative reflects the country’s push to use education for practical problem-solving and societal progress.
Jacobsen: How does Zimbabwe’s education system compare to those of bordering countries, such as those in southern and eastern Africa?
Chinama: other countries can learn from us. However, countries like South Africa are ahead of us in terms of education and promoting secularism. Botswana is also ahead. On the other hand, Zambia is a more complicated case. Zambia has declared itself a Christian nation in its Constitution, which makes it an extremist state. However, that term may sound politically incorrect. Declaring a country a Christian nation while simultaneously claiming freedom of religion creates a contradiction. By making such a declaration, Zambia favors Christianity over other religions.
Mozambique, too, could learn from us. Christianity’s influence is very strong there, and in the north, there is a significant Muslim population, which has occasionally led to friction. Implementing a secular curriculum in Mozambique could minimize their challenges due to religious differences.
Jacobsen: Are you noticing generational differences in Zimbabwe? For example, are high school students now more likely to be cosmopolitan or tolerant of the nonreligious compared to older generations?
Chinama: Yes, there are clear generational differences. The students in primary and secondary schools have fewer issues with nonreligious people, which is a positive trend. As secular humanists in Zimbabwe, we applaud this progress. The concern, however, lies with their parents. Many parents try to send their children to religious schools, fearing that their children are becoming more secular.
While most young people remain religious due to their parents’ influence, they are increasingly exposed to diverse ideas and cultures. This is largely because the younger generations—Generation Alpha and the upcoming Generation Beta—are digital natives. They were born into the digital era and can access information through their devices. This access differentiates them from past generations, who relied solely on their parents and teachers for information. Thanks to the digital era, secular humanism is growing in Zimbabwe.
According to the last census conducted in 2022, nonreligious people in Zimbabwe account for slightly over 10% of the population. This is a significant increase. By the next census in 2032, I expect this number to rise to over 15% or even closer to 20%. Change is a gradual process, but by 2050, I am optimistic that Zimbabwe will be a fully secular state—not just in theory but in practice.
Jacobsen: What are your plans for advancing secularism in Zimbabwe?
Chinama: I am considering applying for a fellowship to study and promote heritage-based curricula as a foundation for secularism. Ideally, I would like to return to South Africa, particularly to the Stellenbosch Institute of Advanced Studies, where I attended a conference in December. Spending a year there conducting research and writing policy recommendations could allow me to bring actionable ideas back to Zimbabwe. I hope to present these ideas to lawmakers and other stakeholders to further advance secular humanism in the country.
Jacobsen: Last question: Who do you think is the most significant figure in secular activism in Africa? Who do you think is Africa’s most significant secular activist right now? For instance, I know that during the post-colonial period, Kwame Nkrumah was very important to the movement in Ghana. Similarly, Nelson Mandela was incredibly significant for South Africa. Who is the most prominent figure in secular and humanist activism in Africa?
Chinama: Unfortunately, the most prominent figures in secular activism may not necessarily be politicians. However, regarding secularity in Africa today, I mention three key individuals. First, my brother, Dr. Leo Igwe, is in Nigeria. He is a prominent figure in the humanist movement. Second, there is Mubarak Bala, also from Nigeria, who was arrested but has recently been released. Third, in East Africa, there is Harrison Mumia.
As we move to Southern Africa, there are others, such as Wonderful Mkutshe in Malawi. In Zimbabwe, we also have a few active secularists, including myself, Mxolisi Masuku, Shingai Rukwata Ndoro, and Prosper Mtandadzi. In South Africa, there is Dean Kruger, who has also been active in this space.
If I were to name the most prominent figures, I would rank Leo Igwe, Mubarak Bala, and Harrison Mumia at the top. Beyond that, in Uganda, we have someone like Kato Mukasa, currently based in the UK. He has also made significant contributions to humanism in East Africa.
However, one region that lacks prominent humanist activists is Northern Africa. There is a gap in secular activism in that part of the continent.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Tauya, as usual, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Chinama: Thank you very much for the opportunity. I hope to continue working together as we strive toward a fully-fledged secular society in Zimbabwe and Africa. A truly secular society would benefit both religious and nonreligious-religious people.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Chinama: Thank you.
Jacobsen: All right. Take care.
Chinama: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31
Canadian Heritage and its portfolio organizations play a vital role in the cultural, civic and economic life of Canadians. Arts, culture and heritage represent more than $57 billion in the Canadian economy and close to 673,000 jobs in sectors such as film and video, broadcasting, music, publishing, archives, performing arts, heritage institutions, festivals and celebrations. The Canadian government has allocated $24.2 million for Indigenous-led sport initiatives during the 2024–2026 funding cycle. Funds are distributed through three streams: $10.6 million for Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies and the Aboriginal Sport Circle, $7.2 million for Indigenous governments and organizations, and $6.25 million for initiatives benefiting Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Projects are evaluated based on social development goals, community impact, and organizational capacity. The Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC) program funds these initiatives, with annual allocations totaling $11.4 million. In Vancouver, $642,000 supports seven Indigenous-led projects expanding access to sports and recreation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How will the $24.2 million investment in Indigenous-led sport initiatives be invested?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: In the 2024–2026 funding cycle, $10.6 million will be distributed to the 13 Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs) and the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) to develop sports community programming.
$7.2 million will be distributed to Indigenous governments, communities and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations to support projects that promote sport and recreation in Indigenous communities. These investments will be delivered through 55 projects across the country. See recipient list here.
$6.25 million will be distributed to Indigenous governments, communities and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations that provide opportunities for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people to participate in meaningful sports activities. These investments will be delivered through 50 projects across the country. See recipient list here.
Jacobsen: What is the sub-selection criteria for the 119 sport projects being supported?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:
- Stream One and Two funding is made available to the 13 Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs), the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) to provide leadership and support to the PTASBs and to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations for projects that create opportunities for Indigenous people to participate in culturally relevant sport or physical activity and which address one or more of the following social development goals drawn from the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action:
- improved health;
- improved education;
- improved employability;
- reduction of at-risk behaviour.
- Stream Three funding is made available to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations that specifically support sport and recreation projects serving Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ peoples and which address one or more of the following social development goals drawn from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice:
- physical and mental health;
- suicide prevention;
- sexual trafficking awareness and prevention;
- safe and healthy relationships;
- sexual positivity (2SLGBTQI+).
Application Evaluation Criteria:
Applications should clearly describe community needs how the project will address these needs:
- Any barriers to accessing sport or physical activity are clearly described.
- The Project Need and Impact clearly identifies and addresses the selected SSDIC social development goals.
- Project Need and Impact clearly support the improvement of Indigenous people’s overall health and well-being.
- Funding priority is to support grassroots or community-based organizations and organizations serving remote and rural communities where need is significant.
- Application demonstrates organizational capacity to deliver proposed project in a trauma-informed way and has familiarity with intended participant demographics (for example, Indigenous youth, at-risk youth, Indigenous people with a disability, etc.).
- Taken together, the cohort of 2024-2026 projects will reach many participants, serve all Indigenous identity groups (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit), including Indigenous peoples with a disability, in every provincial/territorial region, with off-reserve, remote, rural, and urban community representation.
- If any partnerships are needed to adequately deliver the proposed projects, they are clearly identified.
Ultimately, decisions are made by consensus of the Indigenous-led review committee.
Jacobsen: Which funding cycle is the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC) program allocating funds?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:
It is for the 2024–2026 funding cycle.
Jacobsen: What is the total funding to support Indigenous-led sport initiatives?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:
- Stream One: $5.3 million annually since 2019 and ongoing
- Stream Two: $3.6 million annually since 2019 and ongoing
- Stream Three: $2.5 million annually since 2021 and ongoing
Jacobsen: How is the funding structured? / Q6. How is this structure built into the three streams?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:
The Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC) funding is coming from Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program.
SSDIC funding is delivered through 3 streams:
- Stream One: $5.3 million is available annually to the 13 Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs) and the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) for the development of sport community programming
- Stream Two: $3.6 million is available annually to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations for projects that promote sport and recreation in Indigenous communities
- Stream Three: $2.5 million is available annually to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations that specifically support sport and recreation projects serving Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ peoples
Jacobsen: What is the specific investment in Vancouver for Indigenous-led projects?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:
In Vancouver, approximately $642,000 will be invested in seven Indigenous-led projects aimed at expanding access to sport and physical activity.
- NEC Native Education College – $94,500 for 2025-2026 under Stream 2
- Squamish Indian Band 555 (Squamish Nation) – $85,500 for 2025-2026 under Stream 2 and $130,000 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
- BC Indigenous Housing Society – $134,970 for 2024-2026 under Stream 3
- Canoe Cultures Society – $99,574 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
- Musqueam Indian Band – $12,500 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
- Indigenous Physical Activity & Cultural Circle – $85,000 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
Jacobsen: How does Minister Duguid depict the role sport and play in communities and its benefit for Indigenous peoples?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:
Sport unites communities, builds strong bonds and promotes healthier lives. Through the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities program, Indigenous partners are breaking down barriers and creating lasting, positive change through sport.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31
Pregnancy Justice, a U.S. non-profit, defends the rights of pregnant individuals, advocating against unlawful surveillance and medical privacy violations. Staff attorney Caitlyn Garcia discussed a lawsuit against Vermont’s DCF, which unlawfully assessed A.V.’s parental capacity before birth. DCF’s actions led to A.V.’s newborn being removed, delaying reunification. The case highlights Vermont’s high-risk pregnancy docket, where medical providers share private data with DCF without consent. Garcia emphasizes the need for policy changes to ensure medical care is not weaponized, protecting parental rights and reproductive autonomy. The lawsuit seeks accountability, damages, and systemic reform against pregnancy-based surveillance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Pregnancy Justice is a U.S. non-profit organization dedicated to defending the rights and dignity of pregnant individuals, regardless of pregnancy outcomes, including birth, loss, or abortion. Founded in 2001 as National Advocates for Pregnant Women, it was rebranded to its current name in 2022. Caitlyn Garcia serves as a staff attorney at Pregnancy Justice, focusing on legal advocacy and research. A 2020 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, she previously worked with Brooklyn Defender Services Family Defense Practice. Caitlyn, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Caitlyn Garcia: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Regarding the lawsuit against the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF), what are the key legal claims in this case?
Garcia: We filed this lawsuit on behalf of our client, A.V., on January 16, 2025. To provide some background, A.V. became pregnant in 2021. She contacted LUND, a Vermont-based organization providing services to parents and families, and relocated to a shelter. While she was at the shelter, the Vermont Department for Children and Families initiated an assessment of her parental capacity, alleging that she had untreated mental health concerns.
This assessment was conducted without A.V. being notified and without any formal mental health evaluation. When A.V. was in labour at the hospital, DCF again intervened, filing a motion for temporary custody of her baby—before the baby was even born.
The motion contained inaccurate statements, raising significant legal concerns. A hearing was held, and A.V. ultimately consented to a vacuum-assisted delivery, followed by an emergency C-section. Immediately after birth, her baby was taken from her, denying her the opportunity for immediate skin-to-skin contact and early bonding.
DCF then delayed reunification between A.V. and her child despite never filing for formal termination of her parental rights. Months later, she was finally reunified with her baby after enduring the trauma of family separation.
A key issue in this case is that DCF did not have the legal authority to open an assessment before A.V.’s child was born. A fetus is not legally recognized as a child under Vermont law. Through our investigation, we uncovered DCF’s high-risk pregnancy calendar, a system used to track and surveil expecting parents, which raises serious concerns about privacy violations and overreach.
In this case, LUND and Copley Hospital shared information about A.V. with DCF without her knowledge or authorization. Our claims in the lawsuit focus on constitutional violations under Vermont state law, particularly the improper sharing of confidential medical information and the infringement of A.V.’s right to make medical decisions.
Being pregnant does not mean you lose your rights. This lawsuit seeks accountability for the violations of A.V.’s reproductive rights and the legal protections that were denied to her.
And we’re hoping to learn more about the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar I referenced earlier through discovery and further investigation. This appears to be part of a broader pattern or practice of surveilling pregnant women—not just A.V., but other pregnant women in Vermont. Hopefully, with discovery, we will obtain more information about this aspect of the case and move forward in preventing DCF from harming parents in this way. We also aim to prevent other parents from being placed on this high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar and having their rights violated.
The complaint also includes Count 13, the first-ever legal claim based on Article 22 of the Vermont Constitution: Proposition 5, or the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. This is a significant development, as we are bringing the first case that invokes this claim. We will see how it plays out.
Jacobsen: Regarding DCF and the initial investigation, what legal authority, if any, does DCF have to assess an expectant parent’s parental capacity?
Garcia: DCF can open an assessment of parental capacity. However, as was not the case here, they are supposed to do so only when an actual, living child exists. A.V. had not yet given birth to her baby.
That was a major issue. Additionally, they are required to notify the parent. A.V. should have been informed that an assessment was being opened and that DCF was initiating an investigation. Yet, she was not notified.
Not only did they fail to inform her, but they also opened the assessment concerning a fetus. Both of these actions were improper and against Vermont law.
We are working closely with local counsel in Vermont, including the ACLU of Vermont and Sarah Starr, who are key players and well-versed in Vermont law. We are also collaborating with a law firm to ensure that A.V.’s rights are fully vindicated.
Jacobsen: What is the significance of Vermont’s Article 22? What does the Reproductive Liberty Amendment say, particularly about this case?
Garcia: Certainly. Article 22 was enacted in 2022. It is also known as Proposition 5 or the Reproductive Liberty Amendment.
Essentially, it constitutionalized Vermont’s commitment to individual reproductive autonomy. In the complaint, we quote directly from the amendment, which states that:
“An individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
This provision strongly emphasizes personal autonomy. As I mentioned earlier, women and individuals do not lose their rights to personal autonomy simply because they become pregnant.
We further argue that DCF’s pattern and practice of surveilling pregnant Vermonters interferes with that reproductive liberty by placing them on the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar. This leads to unwarranted investigations and intrusions.
Women have no way of knowing that they have been placed on the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar. They also have no way of removing themselves from it. As a result, their reproductive rights are violated. Simply because they are pregnant, they are subjected to additional surveillance with no means of avoiding it.
Jacobsen: What evidence did DCF present in court to obtain custody of A.V.’s fetus?
Garcia: They cited the claim that A.V. had untreated mental health concerns. However, as I mentioned earlier, those claims were unsubstantiated. She was never given a mental health evaluation, which was a significant issue.
They also submitted an affidavit listing the baby’s birthdate—even though the baby had not yet been born. This meant the court was presented with incorrect information, which, in a way, misled the court by providing false details.
DCF also claimed that A.V. was “failing to push” or give birth in a manner that the hospital deemed necessary. In reality, A.V. had already agreed to a vacuum-assisted delivery and ultimately consented to a C-section. The hearing then concluded, and she gave birth via C-section.
The court relied on these claims despite concerns about the accuracy of the information and how it was obtained. LUND and the hospital provided details to DCF, raising further concerns about privacy violations.
We see this kind of coordination between hospitals, medical providers, and Child Protective Services in many other cases. Pregnancy Justice works on cases across the country, and we have observed a troubling pattern of hospitals and medical providers sharing information with CPS to surveil families and parents. This is a growing problem nationwide.
Jacobsen: What accountability measures are currently in place for DCF’s potentially illegal actions, particularly when they are overly intrusive, lack evidence, or violate an individual’s rights?
Garcia: A.V. has filed for multiple forms of legal relief.
First, she is seeking damages to compensate her for violating her rights.
Second, she requests punitive damages against DCF for its unlawful, willful, egregious, and malicious misconduct, which directly caused her harm.
Third, she is seeking an injunction, which would require DCF to stop these practices, delete all records related to A.V., including confidential counselling and medical records, and end this unlawful pattern of surveilling pregnant individuals.
Fourth, she has asked for a declaratory judgment, which would establish that DCF violated her constitutional, statutory, and common law rights and that this pattern of behaviour is unlawful.
Under the law, she is entitled to seek all these different forms of relief.
The court also has the discretion to determine what additional relief may be appropriate. As the case progresses, we hope the court will recognize the severity of these violations and grant the necessary relief to A.V. and others affected by similar actions.
Jacobsen: Regarding Vermont and the broader context of cases similar to A.V.’s under Pregnancy Justice, what are the recurring themes? Additionally, what policy changes could increase accountability for organizations acting against the best interests of individuals like A.V.? Conversely, what policies could be implemented to enhance protections for individuals like A.V.?
Garcia: Certainly. As I mentioned earlier, we are seeing hospitals and medical providers collaborate with Child Protective Services (CPS) and share information, including confidential and protected information, without proper consent. Holding both healthcare providers and agencies accountable for improperly sharing this information is essential.
We have seen hospitals drug test individuals without their consent or informed consent and then share those results with CPS, leading to family court cases and prolonged investigations—sometimes lasting 60 days or more. In these cases, ensuring informed consent is critical. Individuals need to be fully aware that they are being drug tested and that the results of these tests could be shared with CPS.
Policies holding providers accountable are necessary so pregnant individuals feel comfortable disclosing personal information. For example, suppose a pregnant person has a substance use disorder and needs treatment. In that case, they should feel safe discussing this with their healthcare provider without fear of punitive consequences.
When individuals trust their providers, they are more likely to seek help, which benefits not only the parent but also the child and the entire family. This creates a twofold solution—ensuring accountability for agencies and providers while prioritizing informed consent. Hence, individuals understand the potential consequences of disclosing sensitive information, such as undergoing a drug test or speaking with a healthcare provider, if that information is shared externally.
Jacobsen: If confidential information shared by an individual like A.V. is improperly disclosed, what are the potential safety and privacy concerns that arise? Specifically, what happens when an unsubstantiated mental health status is documented as part of the record, even without evidence? Could this have professional or long-term implications if such information is publicized?
Garcia: I’m not sure how to answer this. Of course, the availability of improperly obtained and unlawfully acquired information is always a concern.
First, suppose an individual is placed on this high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar without their knowledge and without any means to remove themselves. In that case, they cannot correct the issue. They are listed due to inaccurate or misleading information. Yet, they cannot challenge or remove themselves from that designation. That is a serious issue.
Second, A.V. did not have a mental health disorder, and she was never even evaluated. She did not undergo a full mental health assessment, which makes DCF’s claims even more problematic. Suppose authorities assert that an individual has a condition without scientific evidence or proper evaluation. In that case, it can lead to long-term legal and personal consequences.
This misinformation ultimately ends up in the court’s hands, and the court relies on the information provided to make decisions. It is critical that courts receive accurate and verified information and that individuals have a fair opportunity to correct false records.
I cannot say more at this stage, but we hope to learn more about the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar through the discovery process. Specifically, we need to answer:
- Who is on that docket?
- How long are individuals kept on it?
- What criteria are used to place them there?
These are critical questions that need answers.
Jacobsen: How does this Vermont case compare to similar cases across the United States? While there are common themes, different states and cities have varying levels of protection. Do any states or cities have better or worse policies regarding these issues?
Garcia: Certainly. We are seeing a consistent pattern across states—hospitals and medical providers collaborating with Child Protective Services (CPS), conducting unauthorized testing, and reporting unverified mental health claims about individuals.
Vermont has strong legal protections, which help pursue justice for A.V. However, even in states that are generally considered more protective—such as New York—we still see hospitals conducting unauthorized testing, reporting patients without consent, and engaging in discriminatory practices against pregnant individuals.
Because we handle cases across multiple states, Pregnancy Justice has observed national patterns. I work on cases in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and New York so that I can speak to the differences in legal landscapes across these regions.
We have also discussed our Fetal Personhood Report and Pregnancy Criminalization Report, which highlight these broader systemic issues.
A key concern in A.V.’s case is fetal personhood—her baby had not yet been born, yet DCF attempted to gain custody of the fetus before birth. That is a serious legal and human rights issue.
You probably already have this report—you might have seen this chart before. We may have discussed it previously, but in our latest report, Pregnancy as a Crime, on page 19, there is a chart titled “The Role of the Family Policing System,” which is what we call child welfare in pregnancy-related prosecutions.
But there is a chart titled “The Role of the Family Policing System.” It highlights how many of these cases—although they are criminal, and A.V.’s case was not—underscore how information obtained in the medical system is often used.
It illustrates the critical role that medical providers and child welfare agencies play in these prosecutions. This is the broader issue Caitlyn was referring to—while we may not have many cases with the same fact pattern as A.V.’s, this situation indicates a systemic issue.
Medical settings are increasingly being co-opted—patients’ private medical information is being obtained and used to build cases against them, often in coordination with child welfare agencies.
Jacobsen: I just read the page now. These 210 files—these are from across the United States?
Garcia: Correct. Cases like these are not uncommon, and they often involve the same elements.
Jacobsen: What argument can they make against this? You are citing government sources—citation 59 is the White House. What are the big takeaways, Caitlyn, as we wrap up?
Garcia: The big takeaways are to hold agencies and providers accountable for sharing confidential and unlawfully obtained information.
We must also protect the rights of pregnant individuals, and states need to review their laws to understand how they are used. Even in Vermont, where the laws are strong, DCF still works unlawfully with outside organizations.
Both providers and DCF must be held accountable for their actions. This ties into the broader issue of separating medical treatment and care from punishment.
A.V. went to the hospital expecting medical care and compassionate treatment—not to have her rights violated. We must ensure that care is not weaponized as a tool for punishment.
Some people forget that both the family policing system and the criminal legal system exist. These systems often work together, and even though A.V. did not face criminal charges, she was still subjected to family court proceedings.
These systems frequently overlap, punishing parents both criminally and civilly, which increases the harm and stress they experience. It is important to recognize how extensive these harms are and to separate medical care from legal punishment.
A.V. should have experienced the joy of having her first baby, with crucial moments like skin-to-skin contact and bonding—essential in a child’s early life. Instead, she was robbed of those experiences.
You cannot get those moments back. While this case is about A.V.’s rights, it will impact all pregnant women in Vermont because of the discovery process and the broader claims against DCF for surveilling pregnant Vermonters.
I hope this case sends a message to other states. As we move forward with discovery, I hope other states recognize this as a serious issue and take steps to prevent similar violations.
This case should guide agencies, making them realize that this kind of surveillance must end here.
Jacobsen: Caitlyn, thank you for your time.
Garcia: Awesome.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30 (Unpublished)
Peter Evans is the Chief Executive Officer of Xtract One Technologies, a company specializing in AI-based threat detection and security solutions. He has over 25 years of experience in digital transformation and innovation within high-growth technology sectors. Evans has held CEO roles at four technology companies and has overseen revenue growth, profitability improvements, and multiple liquidity events. Before joining Xtract One, he held senior positions at technology and security firms, including IBM, where he contributed to the strategic direction of the Internet Security Systems division, focusing on security considerations related to cloud computing, telecommunications, and mobile technologies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What led to the selection of Xtract One’s Gateway for deployment at Manitoba’s Health Sciences Centre and Crisis Response Centre?
Peter Evans: Manitoba Health conducted a thorough evaluation where they tested multiple security solutions. Xtract One Gateway demonstrated strong performance during its pilot across various hospital locations.
Healthcare environments create unique security challenges. Patients arrive in distress, staff need efficient movement between areas, and the setting must remain welcoming. During the pilot, Gateway showed it could handle these complexities effectively while maintaining appropriate security levels.
We worked collaboratively with HSC staff throughout the process. Their emergency department deals with situations different from those of the Crisis Response Centre, requiring tailored approaches for each location. Our willingness to adapt to their specific needs, combined with Gateway’s performance in testing, influenced their final decision.
Jacobsen: How does the system ensure robust threat detection while also maintaining a comfortable and seamless experience for patients, staff, and visitors?
Evans: Xtract One Gateway allows people to walk through naturally without removing items from their pockets or bags. Our AI algorithms distinguish between potential threats and everyday items like laptops, tablets, notebooks, keys, and phones. False alerts are decreased significantly, preventing unnecessary invasiveness and delays for patients.
With Gateway, healthcare staff spend less time managing security processes and more time focusing on patient care. The system prevents entrance bottlenecks, which is important for emergency departments where delays could affect clinical outcomes.
Jacobsen: How does Gateway distinguish between potential weapons and everyday personal items?
Evans: Xtract One Gateway combines advanced sensor technology with AI algorithms to create what we call “threat signatures.” The system analyzes object characteristics and then compares them against a library of known threat profiles.
We’ve trained our AI on millions of data points representing both threats and common personal belongings. The system continuously improves through machine learning, becoming more accurate over time.
For HSC specifically, we determined sensitivity settings to match and balance their security profile, patient experience, and operational flow.
Jacobsen: What operational improvements are expected in hospitals with this implementation?
Evans: Enhanced safety without operational bottlenecks stands as the primary benefit. Traditional security often creates entry delays that negatively impact patient experience and potentially clinical outcomes.
Xtract One Gateway delivers faster processing while maintaining security coverage. Emergency departments operate more efficiently, staff focus on patient care rather than security procedures, and the atmosphere remains conducive to healing.
Security staffing requirements decrease, as well. Gateway’s precision in identifying actual threats allows personnel deployment to more strategic roles instead of conducting manual searches or managing security lines. This is particularly valuable given current healthcare staffing challenges.
Jacobsen: How do Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the Ontario Nurses’ Association statistics make the need for advanced security solutions urgent in healthcare?
Evans: Statistics from the Ontario Nurses’ Association reveal that up to 85% of nurses have experienced workplace violence. Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Agency data confirms healthcare workers face some of the highest violence rates across industries.
These numbers have continued trending upward in recent years. Healthcare workers, dedicated to healing others, increasingly become targets of violence. Manitoba Nurses Union president Darlene Jackson noted that frontline staff felt “much safer” with our detectors in place.
Real people experience trauma in their workplace when these incidents occur. Staff safety affects everything from retention rates to quality of care. Advanced security solutions like Gateway create environments where healthcare professionals can focus primarily on patient care.
Jacobsen: How does Gateway improve screening times and reduce the need for separate bag searches at entry points?
Evans: Xtract One Gateway fundamentally changes the screening paradigm. Traditional security approaches require people to empty pockets, remove items from bags, or undergo separate screening processes for carried items. This creates significant delays, requires additional staffing, and often creates an unwelcoming atmosphere.
Our Gateway system allows individuals to walk through naturally while carrying their belongings. The AI-powered detection can scan both the person and their bags and backpacks simultaneously, identifying potential threats while distinguishing harmless personal items like laptops, tablets, and phones. In most cases, this eliminates the need for separate bag searches.
In terms of actual numbers, we typically see processing times that are significantly faster than traditional metal detector and bag search combinations. This means that healthcare facility patients can simply walk-right-in, while the hospital maintains effective security coverage.
Jacobsen: What other industries can benefit from AI threat detection systems?
Evans: While healthcare facilities represent an important application of our technology, we’re seeing adoption across numerous sectors where safety concerns must be balanced with operational efficiency and visitor experience.
Sports and entertainment venues have been early adopters, and educational institutions from K-12 to universities are increasingly implementing these solutions to protect students and staff. What’s interesting is how the technology is being adapted to meet the unique needs of each environment. In corporate settings, it might focus on protecting intellectual property as much as people. In schools, it needs to accommodate high-volume morning entry of students carrying educational technology. The flexibility of AI-based systems like our Gateway means we can customize solutions for virtually any environment where safety and security are priorities.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Peter.
–
Xtract One Technologies is a top provider of AI-powered threat detection and security solutions designed to create safe, seamless entry experiences. Its discreet, non-invasive Gateway systems allow facility operators to identify weapons and threats at entry and exit points without slowing foot traffic. Focused on enhancing “Walk-right-In” convenience, Xtract One supports diverse environments, including schools, hospitals, arenas, stadiums, manufacturing sites, and distribution centers. Known for blending advanced security with user-friendly design, the company leads the market in providing safety without compromising experience. Xtract One’s cutting-edge solutions reflect its commitment to innovation, efficiency, and protection across high-traffic, high-security venues.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30
Zahir Rajani, co-founder of The Sartorial Shop, Bespoke Atelier, talks about Indigenous representation in fashion and the role of bespoke tailoring. Rajani discusses the growing prominence of Indigenous artists and their integration into custom design. The conversation explores the collaboration for the documentary Sugarcane, featuring Julian Brave NoiseCat, Ed Archie NoiseCat, and Chief Willie Sellars. Rajani reflects on the intersection of fashion, history, and sustainability, emphasizing how traditional and Indigenous elements can be seamlessly incorporated into formalwear. He highlights the importance of authenticity, craftsmanship, and cultural storytelling in reshaping the fashion landscape.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Zahir Rajani, co-founder of The Sartorial Shop, Bespoke Atelier. How do you see Indigenous representation in fashion evolving, particularly the role of bespoke tailoring in this?
Zahir Rajani: Yeah, that’s a great question.
For me, I can relate it to the project we worked on and what I have been fortunate to experience throughout this collaboration. Indigenous representation in fashion is increasing and moving in the right direction. Through this project, we have met some incredible Indigenous artists whose work is simply spectacular. Just through this collaboration alone, we have already started to think about how we, as a bespoke atelier, can incorporate some of their beautiful work into our designs.
The more we discuss it, the more we realize that Indigenous fashion is becoming more prominent. So, when I say it is headed in the right direction, I mean that it is gaining greater visibility and recognition, as it should.
Jacobsen: What was your initial reaction with Amanda May Daly creating some custom pieces?
Rajani: My wife and I run the business together—she is my co-creative director.
Our first reaction was one of honor—we were truly honored to be approached and selected to be part of this project on multiple fronts. First, it was an incredible opportunity to contribute to an important part of Canadian and British Columbia’s history. Second, we had the privilege of working with artists like Julian Brave NoiseCat and Ed Archie NoiseCat, whose work has been widely recognized, including at the Smithsonian Institution. And of course, collaborating with Chief Willie Sellars was a great honor.
We were incredibly excited about the project, especially at the outset when no one knew exactly what the final outcome would be. We knew that ideally, we wanted to incorporate Indigenous art and Indigenous fashion into a modern aesthetic with an old Hollywood and Western feel.
- CEO and Creative Director of The Sartorial Shop, Zahir Rajani (Left)
- Julian Brave NoiseCat, Oscar nominee, activist, filmmaker, writer, and co-director of Sugarcane (centre-right)
- Celebrity Stylist, Amanda May Daly (right)
Jacobsen: For those unfamiliar, The Sartorial Shop opened in May 2023 and later relocated to Downtown Vancouver. What factors do you attribute to its rapid growth and success?
Rajani: Great question. When we set out to reopen the family business, we were reviving a legacy. My parents originally started what would become The Sartorial Shop in 1984 and ran it until 2010, when they closed. My wife and I decided to reopen in late 2022, and we officially opened our doors in May 2023.
Our goal was to bridge a gap in Vancouver’s bespoke and custom suiting market and expand beyond that. The industry had two extremes—high fashion and fast fashion—and we saw an opportunity to offer a balance between them.
You don’t have a “you get what you pay for” fashion market in Vancouver or B.C. So, if you’re looking for something that’s $2,000, you get what you pay for. If you’re looking for something that’s $4,000, $10,000, $20,000, you get what you pay for. But in Vancouver, that middle ground does not exist. You have fast fashion—the obvious fast fashion stores—and then you have ultra-high fashion, which is often considered overpriced, especially for the quality.
Our goal was to bridge that gap and redefine it. That has contributed tremendously to our very rapid growth, and we’re obviously grateful for it.
We are honest in what we do. When we create a garment that is hand-sewn, it is hand-sewn. When we create a garment that is tailored in Europe or Italy, it is tailored in Europe or Italy.
If we create something worth $2,000, it is likely double or triple the price at a competitor of ours. The honesty and dignity in the work we put together and put out there have definitely contributed to our growth. Our eye for detail, the time we spend with each individual who walks through our doors, and the craftsmanship that goes into every product we create at our atelier are second to none—especially in our market.
Jacobsen: For the documentary Sugarcane, directed by Julian Brave NoiseCat and Emily Kassie, they explore an important historical facet of Canadian history—residential school systems in Canada. The film centers on St. Joseph’s Mission Residential School, which was in Williams Lake, British Columbia. It investigates abuses, infanticide, and the enduring impacts on Indigenous communities today. What are your reflections on this chapter in Canadian history and the narratives of resilience and strength among Indigenous people who have endured these injustices?
Rajani: Having been born and raised in Vancouver, I, unfortunately, never learned about this in school. I went through the public school system. At the time, there wasn’t a lot of information available to us.
When the news first broke about the discovery of unmarked graves, that was the first time many of us truly started to understand what residential schools were and how they impacted Indigenous communities across Canada. Even then, unless we took the time to do our own research, there wasn’t much publicly available information.
So first and foremost, this is an incredibly important part of Canadian history. As dark, as sad, and as disheartening as it is, it is essential that we understand what happened. Because until you understand it, it is difficult to have a real conversation about it.
This documentary and its story help us understand how residential schools impacted previous generations and how they continue to affect current and future generations of the Indigenous community. It also helps us grasp what a true path to reconciliation could look like.
That’s probably the extent of what I can answer. I’m very much an outsider when it comes to this subject, and I only know what I have been able to research and what I have seen through this documentary.
Jacobsen: Many years ago, I conducted a long series of interviews with people in ethical and sustainable fashion. Most of them were small- and medium-sized fashion designers, developers, and business owners. A majority were women, at least in the interviews I conducted, primarily in North America but not exclusively.
How has that industry evolved over time—let’s say, in the last five to ten years?
Rajani: COVID, first and foremost, brought out a lot of entrepreneurs—or at least brought out the entrepreneurial side in many individuals.
If you were laid off, you either searched for another job or started your own business. We saw a 40% to 50% increase in entrepreneurship between March 2020 and today, and that trend continues to rise.
By virtue of that, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in independent fashion ventures over at least the last half-decade.
In terms of the gender split, in bespoke tailoring and bespoke suiting, even though our focus is menswear, we do ladies’ wear as well, and we do it quite well. However, you still tend to see more men as creative directors in this space.
That shift is beginning to change. More and more women are getting involved.
If we take a step back and look at the global men’s suiting industry, you had Tom Ford, who recently sold his company, as a male creative director. You have Alessandro Sartori, the creative director of Zegna, and, of course, Giorgio Armani, who runs his own namesake brand, alongside Ralph Lauren.
In bespoke suiting, custom suiting, or general tailoring, the industry remains male-dominated. If you go to Savile Row, 95% of tailors are men.
But that’s changing.
For example, in our own business, my wife is my co-creative director, and she has equal input, insight, and oversight on every design we produce and every garment we put together.
Jacobsen: How do you approach a bespoke atelier for a project like this?
How deep is the collaboration and coordination—from the accessorizing, blending of Indigenous and Western design, and the celebrity stylist’s own vision—while also coming from a Vancouver context?
Rajani: This is a great question, and this was where we had an incredible experience.
It was fun, it was challenging, and it was highly educational for us.
When Amanda May Daly first approached us in October of last year, she suggested there might be an opportunity—if Sugarcane was nominated for an Oscar or performed well during award season—to put together Oscars red carpet looks.
She asked if that was something we’d be interested in.
At the time, nobody fully knew what these outfits would look like. But as we started brainstorming, meeting, and discussing ideas, we knew one thing above all else:
It was essential that the three individuals felt comfortable in what they were wearing.
And I don’t just mean physically comfortable—as in a fabric that drapes well or a cut that isn’t too tight.
I mean comfortable in the sense that their outfits represented who they are—first and foremost.
Rajani: So it was about understanding that—what did this mean? What does this mean to Julian? What does this mean to Ed? What did this mean to Chief Willie Sellars? And second, how do we incorporate various elements of their own Indigenous communities and cultures into each garment? For Julian, it was about working around his moose hide vest, which his grandmother made for him. For Ed, it was about integrating his own artwork into various design elements, whether through a custom cummerbund, jewelry, or specific tailoring details in his tuxedo. For Chief Willie Sellars, he was very particular about the color of the garment, why that color was significant to him, and how it would complement other accessories and pieces being made. Amanda’s role—her task—was to bring these individual visions together and merge them into something cohesive that honored all aspects: the bespoke suiting world, Indigenous arts and culture, and each person’s unique identity.
It involved a lot of brainstorming, bouncing ideas back and forth, and ultimately ensuring that the three individuals wearing these outfits felt comfortable in what we were putting together.
Jacobsen: How were not only The Sartorial Shop but also Himikalas Pam Baker, Kokum Scrunchies, Joe Big Mountain of Ironhorse Quillwork, and Ed NoiseCat integrated into the overall design of the project?
Rajani: A lot of those collaborations—most of them, really—were Amanda’s connections and curations. She knew she wanted these creators involved in some way, and then it became about building on her vision and figuring out the best way to do that.
So when we understood what Julian, Ed, and Willie each envisioned, we built from there. For Julian, his look had to reflect a very specific western style, but in a way that would be appropriate for black-tie events and the red carpet. Typically, on a red carpet, you see people wearing tuxedos—but you can’t wear a moose hide vest under a standard tuxedo jacket. If you did, you’d hide the vest entirely.
So the question became, how do we take western-style pants and transform them into tuxedo trousers? The solution was to design trousers with a thicker waistband contrasted in black satin, a black satin tuxedo stripe running down the side, and a crisp western-style formal shirt that would pair with his moose hide vest.
For Ed and Willie, the approach was similar, incorporating elements personal to them. And then, for Ed, what made the most sense was that he wanted a classic Old Hollywood-style tuxedo. Typically, you’d have a bow tie, a pocket square, and a black cummerbund. But instead of a standard black cummerbund, we thought—how about creating one that represents Indigenous arts and culture, particularly his own community?
That’s where Pam Baker was commissioned to design a beautiful custom cummerbund. In addition, Heather Jude of Jude Canada Designs created another cummerbund, using Kokum scarf fabric, which tied into Indigenous design traditions.
Ed is also very passionate about hats—whether it’s a fedora or cowboy hat—so we asked, how do we incorporate a hat into his look in a way that fits the formalwear? We collaborated with Capelleria Bertacchi, a local hat maker with whom we have a great relationship, to customize certain elements of a hat that Ed already owned.
For Chief Willie Sellars, it was a similar process. Once he selected the color of his suit, Joe Big Mountain designed some beautiful quillwork to complement it. The entire project was about harmonizing each artist’s designs, styles, and garments while ensuring every creator had the space to do what they do best—all seamlessly integrated into the outfits we designed alongside Amanda.
Jacobsen: What would you say is your biggest takeaway from this kind of collaboration, where you’re incorporating sustainable fashion into the process?
At the same time, there’s another ethical dimension to this—not just from a sustainability perspective but from a historical and cultural standpoint. What are your key reflections after participating in this project and collaborating with everyone involved?
Rajani: The biggest takeaway is realizing the depth of the fashion and design world—and how you can incorporate someone else’s style and culture in a way that is both meaningful and stunningly beautiful.
If you want a traditional tuxedo, that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t incorporate elements of another culture. It absolutely can, and when done thoughtfully, it can look incredibly powerful, deeply personal, and still maintain a formal, elegant aesthetic.
Typically, in traditional fashion, whether it’s sustainable or fast fashion, there are strict norms that designers tend to conform to—such as, “This is a red carpet look” or “This is a formal black-tie look,” and you can’t deviate from that. But in this case, we did deviate from it. We redefined the rules to ensure that each look remained a formal, red carpet-worthy design while still incorporating everything we discussed—heritage, culture, artistry, and identity.
This entire experience speaks to the vast, untapped depth of fashion and style, particularly in North America and especially in our market.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Zahir.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29
Malka Shaw, LCSW, founded Kesher Shalom Projects, which promotes Jewish unity, resilience, and cultural competency. The project emerged after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the global surge in anti-Semitism. Shaw highlights the psychological impact of anti-Semitism, propaganda, and identity destabilization. She discusses The Guard System, a trauma-informed framework integrating CBT, DBT, and narrative therapy to help individuals develop coping skills. Shaw stresses the urgency of addressing anti-Semitism, media misinformation, and social division, emphasizing that anti-Semitism threatens democratic values and requires a unified response across Jewish and non-Jewish communities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Malka Shaw, LCSW, the founder of Kesher Shalom Projects. Can you introduce this project before we get into the discussion?
Malka Shaw: Kesher means connection, and Shalom means peace. That symbolism represents what we stand for—we aim to foster connections, promote peace and unity, and combat hate.
Kesher Shalom grew organically after October 7, 2023, following the Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which resulted in the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust. The attacks also triggered a global surge in anti-Semitism. As I mentioned before, we started recording anti-Semitic incidents worldwide, which have increased dramatically, with a reported 360% rise in some regions. In the United States alone, anti-Semitic hate crimes account for nearly 55% of all religiously motivated hate crimes, despite Jews making up only about 2.4% of the population.
What was not being adequately addressed was how to help the Jewish community cope with this trauma and build resilience. This project is unique because we are trauma therapists focused on fostering resilience. We prioritize education and have now trained over 3,500 mental health professionals through continuing education courses on Jewish cultural competency, the psychological impact of anti-Semitism, working with Jewish clients, and navigating Jewish identity in the wake of October 7.
We have also been researching the psychological mechanisms of propaganda, how anti-Semitic ideologies spread, and their broader societal impact. While we initially focused on mental health professionals, our programs and workshops are designed for a broad audience. I have spoken at the New Jersey Bar Association, Rutgers University, and other institutions. We can adapt our material to meet the needs of any audience. Providing accurate, evidence-based education and sharing factual information as widely as possible is crucial.
A key part of this is Jewish cultural competence. This is not just about understanding Jewish history in the context of persecution but also about recognizing Jewish contributions to society, values, and traditions. A significant portion of our work involves correcting misconceptions—terms like “chosen people” and “Zionism” are often misinterpreted, weaponized, and used to justify discrimination against Jews.
We work to clarify these concepts, explain their true meanings, and discuss their impact on Jewish clients. The mental health field has also experienced a sharp rise in anti-Semitism. Many Jewish individuals are now hesitant to seek professional help outside Jewish practitioners. In contrast, Jewish practitioners themselves face threats, professional ostracization, and doxxing.
The Free Press broke a major story highlighting how Jewish mental health professionals have been targeted online.
Jacobsen: I read the story. Unfortunately, this situation has become common, though it’s not right.
Shaw: Yes, people are being doxxed. I have personally received numerous threats and cyber harassment. On the other hand, my practice has seen a significant increase in Jewish clients seeking culturally competent care. I always prided myself on maintaining a diverse practice and enjoyed working with people from all backgrounds. I define culture broadly—not just in ethnic or religious terms but also in professional subcultures, such as those in emergency medicine, law enforcement, or first responders—each has its own identity.
For me, culture has many layers beyond ethnicity or religion. I appreciate you bringing this topic to my attention, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
Jacobsen: When it comes to resilience—an important topic—it appears in psychological and therapeutic discussions almost as frequently as narcissism, particularly in the United States today. So, when considering cultural competence on the one hand and resilience on the other, how do you convey Jewish people’s culture, values, and ideologies in the United States to those who may have limited knowledge? And how do you teach resilience to individuals who are more likely to be targeted by these types of hate crimes?
Shaw: Let’s take one question at a time. Let’s start with cultural competence. We have a formula. I’m a licensed clinical social worker, and there is an established formula for teaching cultural competence in social work. I follow that formula. Many licensing boards require cultural competence training to maintain certification as part of continuing education requirements. However, before October 7, 2023, it was rare to find Jewish identity and experience included among the cultural competence topics.
So, we have to start by defining Jewish identity, which is complex. Judaism is not just a religion, culture, or ethnicity—it is all these and more. Different individuals connect with different aspects of Jewish identity. Judaism predates these modern categorizations; concepts like religion, culture, and ethnicity emerged only in the last few hundred years, whereas Judaism has existed for more than 4,000 years.
To build cultural competence, we discuss Jewish ideology and key historical milestones that shape Jewish identity today. I am not there to provide an in-depth history lesson—there are many history professors. Instead, we cover the essentials in two or three slides and a seven-minute video. My goal is to establish the historical and cultural context necessary to understand intergenerational trauma, which is closely tied to Jewish resilience.
I am there to answer questions and clarify common misconceptions. One major issue today is misinformation about Zionism. Zionism has been demonized to the point where discussing it triggers a gaslighting effect. But Zionism, at its core, is simply the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and their desire to live in their ancestral homeland.
Zionism does not mean discrimination against others in that homeland. It also does not mean one must agree with every modern State of Israel policy. I often adjust how I present this information depending on when and where I give the class.
I always ask, “Did you agree with everything Trump did? “Did you agree with everything Biden did? “Nobody is going to say they agreed with both. We are allowed to criticize a democracy.
So, we’re not talking about politics here. We’re talking about the right to defend ourselves when attacked and the right to yearn for our homeland. But when people start to associate Zionism with something evil or inaccurate, that is anti-Semitism.
Point blank—it’s anti-Semitism. And it also violates the ethical codes of mental health professionals, as well as those in healthcare and legal professions. In psychology, we emphasize self-experience and lived experience. Our role is not to redefine an identity or belief not part of our culture. Doing so is considered unethical in the field.
Cultural competence is crucial in our social and mental health work. It fosters true empathy. We’re not just telling people, “Don’t engage in anti-Semitism because it’s bad.”
We want people to understand who we are. Empathy comes from truly knowing someone. Once you genuinely understandsomeone, they are no longer an outsider.
At their core, human beings are human beings. Everyone shares fundamental needs—the desire to connect, love, and uphold personal values. We aim to break down the walls of judgment.
Now, moving on to your excellent question about resilience. It’s a separate issue. As a trauma therapist, I’ve seen the evolution of how we discuss trauma. We used to call it trauma recovery. Now, we talk about building resilience.
It’s a more forward-thinking, positive approach. The word resilience comes from engineering—it originally referred to materials “bouncing back.” But that’s not how trauma works.
Once you go through something difficult, you are never the same. But you have a choice. You can turn toward despair, depression, or bitterness, or you can find meaning and purpose. Some people emerge with a renewed sense of purpose and become stronger.
We strive for that. This is why people often say, “With age comes wisdom.” It’s because they’ve lived through experiences. You don’t get through life without facing pain or disappointment. I wish you could. But if that were the case, I’d be out of business.
I wish we all could, but that’s not how life works. Resilience building starts with small steps. It begins with mindset because our mindset affects our feelings, and our feelings influence our actions. That’s basic cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in a nutshell. And while it sounds simple, there’s much truth to it.
So, we start with a mindset. We help people name their experiences, express their emotions, and remove any sense of shame about what they have gone through or are currently facing. That is the most important piece. Resilience is not about feeling strong—it’s about navigating through difficulty. Clients often say to me, “I don’t feel strong.” And that’s exactly it.
Resilience happens at that moment—when you don’t feel strong, but you take another step forward anyway. And you keep going. Over time, people discover that they are far more capable than they ever realized.
That is my job in individual therapy, but it’s also my job as an educator and public speaker—to help people recognize their inner strength. Do you want to continue? Do you have any other questions?
Jacobsen: I do. I’ve noticed generational differences in how people define abuse.
Older generations—particularly in films and media—often only recognize physical or sexual abuse. In more recent times, there has been greater awareness and nuance, acknowledging psychological and emotional abuse as well.
And in the last 20 years, with cell phones, computers, and constant connectivity, people—especially in the United States and other developed nations—are immersed in online spaces. Anti-Semitism has also evolved and spread in these digital environments.
What are your recommendations for people who want to reduce their exposure or self-soothe when encountering something triggering?
Shaw: I always say, “Unplug to replug.” Social media has its positives. You and I wouldn’t have connected if it weren’t for digital media. Without it, we likely wouldn’t have crossed paths. Hopefully, it allows you to write an amazing article. That’s one benefit.
However, as mental health professionals, we strongly recommend setting boundaries. We often advise spending at least one hour, five times a week, completely off devices. In Judaism, we have Shabbat—from Friday night to Saturday night—when we disconnect from technology.
But tuning out is tuning in—to family, loved ones, and moments of reflection. Now, regarding abuse—you’re right. The boomer generation often says, “Toughen up.” But younger generations have a different perspective.
I work with teenagers who sometimes label everything as trauma. For example, they’ll say, “My teacher gave me a B+ instead of an A—that’s so traumatic.” But that’s not how trauma works, either.
But there is a reality—words do hurt. They truly penetrate. What we’re seeing with anti-Semitism today is a gaslighting effect. Specifically, what we’re witnessing online is what I call macro gaslighting. Traditional gaslighting occurs when an individual manipulates, controls, or distorts reality to make someone else question their sanity. Sometimes, it involves the perpetrator playing the victim or making the target feel unimportant, dismissed, or even crazy.
With macro gaslighting, the message extends beyond an individual. Instead of “I don’t matter,” it becomes “Malka doesn’t matter.” “She’s not worthy.” “She deserved it.” “She must be stopped.” Now, that damaging narrative spreads across social networks and communities, distorting perceptions on a mass scale. Macro gaslighting is dangerous—like a spiderweb or a puppet master’s strings. We don’t always know where it started but find ourselves entangled. For the person on the receiving end, the psychological impact is severe. It can trigger our brain’s trauma response—fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. This occurs when we feel unsafe or powerless.
Since October 7, 2023, the Jewish community has been in what I call “active trauma”—the trauma is ongoing, with no clear end in sight. At this point, I would even describe it as a combination of trauma and communal grief. Yesterday, for example, we witnessed the heart-wrenching funeral of the Bebas family. But it’s not just them. This is communal grief. We mourn them as a people, and this shapes our collective identity. So, what does this mean for self-esteem? How do people see themselves?
I want to reach out to those on the other side of this conversation. Social media creates a false sense of anonymity. It becomes easy to type hateful comments without considering the real-world consequences. But words truly hurt. They can trigger trauma responses. That is why I call it “anti-Semitism of identity destabilization.” This is the psychological impact of deliberate defamation. I can always email you more details if I’m speaking too fast. The psychological effects of anti-Semitism on Jewish individuals and communities are profound.
Trauma doesn’t always stem from one massive event like 9/11 or a violent assault. The accumulation of toxic, prolonged stress can also cause it. One of my slides illustrates this with a glass jar filled with rocks. At first, the jar holds strong. But over time, rock after rock is added, creating tiny fractures. Eventually, one last small pebble causes the entire jar to shatter. As a therapist, I’ve seen this play out countless times. People often come to therapy with a “small” problem—for example, they read one offensive comment online. On the surface, it seems like no big deal. They might tell themselves, “Oh, he’s just an idiot. I should ignore it.” But that one comment is just the final pebble. It’s the breaking point—the culmination of all the stress, discrimination, and trauma that came before it.
There is a reality that people are using bots in these spaces. I wasn’t even personally aware of bots when I first started advertising, even within mental health circles. When I shared information about continuing education classes, I was spammed with horrific cyber hate. At first, I used to take screenshots of everything, but now I know how to block certainwords—at least on Instagram and Facebook. I didn’t know that before.
At the time, I was overwhelmed by the flood of spam, and it was difficult not to take it personally until someone pointed out that many of these accounts were bots. The problem is that, even though they aren’t real people, they still create a powerful psychological effect. When an outsider sees 100 negative comments on a post, they might assume something must be wrong, or maybe those comments are valid—even though no one is researching the truth.
Anti-Semitism thrives on disinformation, distortion, and historical erasure. These bot networks fuel that misinformation and it’s easy for Jewish individuals to get drawn into responding. I don’t necessarily recommend engaging with them. Instead, I suggest reporting them. Unfortunately, Meta hasn’t effectively addressed these issues on Facebook or Instagram. The best approach is to block, ignore, and report them as much as possible.
In the mental health field, there are now organizations documenting and reporting anti-Semitic behaviour. If the person behind the posts is a licensed therapist, they are reported to their licensing boards. This is also happening in the medical field. However, I am not as involved in advocacy—my focus is on education and equipping the Jewish community with coping skills.
Jacobsen: Self-soothing is an important skill. It’s a part of resilience, though not the entire concept of resilience. That’s important to cover. In my opinion, this is one of the most practical and substantive ways to address these challenges on a community and individual level.
We often come across absurd, conspiracy-laden narratives. In another conversation, I encountered the claim that the Rothschilds own the moon. Supposedly, they have a secret base and plan various forms of world domination.
Shaw: I love it when people say, “The Jews control the weather.” I don’t know where you are, but I’m in New York. And if I controlled the weather, it would be 70°F and sunny all the time. So, that’s proof that I don’t control the weather.
There’s also proof that we don’t control the media. If we did, we wouldn’t receive such overwhelmingly negative media coverage. The fact that anti-Semitic narratives are being amplified so widely contradicts that entire idea.
Before we leave, I created a framework called The Guard System, which is designed to help with these challenges. Each letter represents a different clinical orientation and provides specific, concrete skills. Whether I’m teaching it to therapists to help their clients or presenting it in a synagogue for people to apply to their own lives, the system is designed to be practical and accessible.
It starts with G—gratitude. We incorporate skills from 12-step recovery programs. U—understanding integrates concepts from psychodynamic therapy and narrative therapy. A—attitude to action applies to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). R—regulation, Reset, and Reconnect focus on emotional regulation and grounding techniques.
Some of the simplest grounding exercises can make a huge difference. That’s why I teach therapists how to use them with their clients, work with campus rabbis to help college students, and bring these tools into synagogues to strengthen community resilience. The challenge is that people often forget to use these techniques at the moment.
That’s why we chose the word “GUARD”—to create a system that allows for easy recall. Think about how often you’ve attended a lecture and thought, “That was useful.” Still, later, you can’t remember the details. We developed two systems: the Guard System and the Bridge.
The Bridge System is designed for people who have been exposed to indoctrination—it helps bridge the gap when engaging with someone who has begun believing anti-Semitic tropes. But focusing on regulation and self-soothing, we need people to develop tools to cope independently.
The goal of therapy is for clients to rely on their therapist forever. My goal isn’t to keep people in endless treatment. The goal is to equip them with the skills to face their challenges independently.
Jacobsen: Any final takeaway points you want to make?
Shaw: The takeaway is that anti-Semitism is not just a symptom of broader societal unrest—when people feel disillusioned, they look for someone to blame.
Historically, Jews have been the canary in the coal mine. But anti-Semitism isn’t just people’s democratic values, critical thinking, and individual independence. When these fundamental principles are under attack, it signals that society as a whole is in trouble.
If you know what’s happening at some of these rallies or on college campuses, you’ll notice that people are not allowed to speak for themselves. There is an effort to silence critical thinking and discourage individuals from questioning narratives or conducting research.
What happens to a society when critical thinking is suppressed? What happens when people are encouraged to be passive, unquestioning, and unthinkingly follow a movement? It leads to radicalization. And that is not a world that 99.9% of Americans want to live in.
Now is not the time to remain silent. If you’ve ever wondered where you would have stood in Nazi Germany, now is the time to find out. If you haven’t spoken up, or if you haven’t offered a positive or reaffirming comment to someone in the Jewish community, then we know you would have been silent in the 1930s and 1940s.
It’s not just about your perceptions of the Middle East. I encourage you to question what you believe to be true. I won’t get political, but this happens in Canada and America.
Even if you had strong objections to Israel, how does that justify assaulting a college student on campus? How does it justify vandalizing a restaurant? Who gave you the right to do that?
How did I do?
Jacobsen: Pretty good. Thank you so much for your time today—I appreciate it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28
Ryan Mallough, Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), discusses the impact of U.S. tariff uncertainty on Canadian small businesses. With about 20% facing paused or cancelled orders, uncertainty is almost as damaging as the tariffs. Over half of SMEs feel unprepared, prompting concerns about supply chains, layoffs, and price increases. Mallough highlights the need for government intervention, including a potential freeze on the carbon tax. He also emphasizes strengthening internal trade and diversifying international partnerships to mitigate reliance on the U.S. market.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Ryan Mallough. He is the Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). He has experience managing Ontario’s COVID-19 response and oversees policy files related to electricity, the environment, municipal affairs, cannabis, and alcohol. Ryan joined CFIB in 2015 on the communications team, moved to the Ontario advocacy team in 2016, and assumed his current role in 2023.
Previously, he served as a Communications Officer at the University of Toronto and worked in research at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Ryan holds a Bachelor of Social Sciences (BSocSc) in Political Science from the University of Ottawa and an MA in Journalism from Western University.
Thank you for joining me today, by the way.
Ryan Mallough: Anytime.
Jacobsen: What percentage of small and medium-sized businesses reportedly face paused or cancelled orders due to U.S. tariff uncertainty?
Mallough: Currently, about one in five small businesses is affected. This is a significant number, especially considering that the tariffs have not yet been implemented.
What we’re seeing now is a reaction to uncertainty. Many businesses are closely following the news, which seems to change almost daily. This uncertainty is already having a tangible impact. Businesses are trying to secure their supply chains. Still, they are also being forced to assess where they may need to adjust operations.
Jacobsen: How does this impact differ for exporters compared to the overall SME group?
Mallough: The impact is more severe for exporters, who comprise a smaller fraction of CFIB’s membership. We are seeing a higher rate of order cancellations and contract holds because their American clients are hesitant. These clients effectively say, “We need to wait and see,” as they assess whether the U.S. tariffs will increase their costs.
Jacobsen: According to Simon Gaudreault, what is “almost as damaging as tariffs”?
Mallough: Uncertainty.
An announcement that tariffs would take effect on February 1 led businesses to make strategic decisions in preparation. The deadline was then delayed but not removed. Now, it has been pushed to March 4.
This level of uncertainty is unsustainable for small business owners. They must make informed decisions, commit to contracts, plan expansions, and forecast their financials with a clear sense of where things are headed. Businesses are accustomed to adapting, but this situation is forcing them to adjust unthinkingly.
Jacobsen: How many SMEs do not feel prepared for the potential impacts of these tariffs?
Mallough: Over half—around 54%—of small businesses do not feel prepared.
This underscores the widespread uncertainty in the business community. Many owners are still unsure about key details:
- Will the tariffs be broad-based, affecting multiple industries?
- Will they be limited to steel and aluminum?
- How will Canada respond with countermeasures?
These unknowns make long-term planning incredibly difficult for small businesses. Preparing is tough, but many business owners are still in wait-and-see mode.
Jacobsen: What operational adjustments are they planning to make for those SMEs?
Mallough: We are already seeing many businesses looking for new suppliers and trying to expand their purchasing or selling markets. About 45% are in that scenario.
We also see:
- 25% delaying or cancelling investment plans, expansions, or new hiring.
- 20% considering workforce reductions.
- 14% stockpiling products in anticipation of price increases.
Businesses are not following a single strategy. They’re more of a throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks approach. Again, that uncertainty makes it difficult to determine the right course of action without knowing how things will unfold over the next month.
Jacobsen: Tariffs on specific industries can increase general costs. How many SMEs are willing to pass those costs on to consumers?
Mallough: This has been interesting because we see clusters at both ends of the spectrum:
- 13% of businesses say they will have to absorb the entire cost. These are often agriculture businesses or long-term contracts with locked-in pricing.
- According to our data, 21% of businesses will pay consumers the full cost. This is primarily true in retail.
- 26% are unsure about how they will handle the cost increases.
That means we, as consumers, will feel the price crunch. Tariffs will put pressure on both ends—businesses will face increased costs, and some will pass that burden on to consumers.
Jacobsen: What percentage of small businesses call for more pressure on Parliament? And what recommendations are being made to address the tariff threat?
Mallough: The demand is high—82% of small businesses want Parliament to reconvene to address the tariff threat.
Many businesses hear this anecdotally. We’re in an awkward situation where a lot is happening on the U.S. side. Yet, Canada does not have a fully functioning government, with the prime minister in a transitional phase.
New Liberal leadership is still a month away, and a quick election call is possible after that. Let’s look at April or early May before we have a functioning Parliament able to respond to this issue.
Meanwhile, we are less than a month away from key deadlines, March 4 and March 12. There is growing concern that we will not be able to act quickly enough—not just in terms of countermeasures but also in supporting businesses affected by the tariffs. Some provinces may face similar challenges in responding swiftly.
Here in Ontario, we are in the middle of an election campaign. The campaign will conclude before any tariff announcement. However, the government must still act quickly if tariffs take effect in March.
Jacobsen: Do we know how small businesses are interpreting these tariffs? In other words, do they have their views on their rationale beyond what is publicly stated?
Mallough: It’s primarily based on what is being stated in public forums, but when we look at survey comments from our members, opinions are all over the place.
Some businesses believe:
- If this concerns border security, let’s invest in border infrastructure and show we’re taking action.
- The same logic applies if this is about drug control—demonstrate that we are making necessary changes.
- If this concerns Canada being treated like a “51st state,” what steps can we take to address those concerns?
- Is this personal between administrations? Or is there a broader geopolitical factor at play?
There are many conversations around these questions. Some business owners wonder: Is this a threat, or will they follow through?
The reality is somewhere in the middle. It’s hard to tell, which adds to the uncertainty. Right now, the biggest challenge is that the gut reaction in many circles is to respond immediately—
- The President makes a statement or signs an executive order, and there’s an impulse to act immediately.
Waiting and not immediately deciding how to respond may be wise. However, inaction can also be perceived as a weakness.
That’s the push and pull our members are caught in—there’s a flood of information, but they don’t know:
- What is actionable?
- What will affect my business daily?
- How do I plan when things keep shifting?
Jacobsen: What policy measures does CFIB recommend to put pressure on Parliament?
Mallough: There are a few things the government can do.
In the immediate future, the key date for business owners is April 1—the scheduled increase in the carbon tax.
We have heard from:
- Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative opposition have committed to eliminating it.
- Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, the Liberal leadership frontrunners, have signalled possible changes or even scrapped the consumer side of the tax.
We don’t want the carbon tax to increase automatically during an election period, especially if we are indeed heading toward one.
Jacobsen: So, one of the things you’re looking for—if the government can reconvene early—is at least a freeze on the carbon tax increase for now. Then, once the election occurs and a new government is in place, they can decide what to do with it.
But for now, the goal is to eliminate that increase immediately.
Mallough: Exactly. Let’s take that increase off the table right away.
Beyond that, tax reductions, in general, are extremely popular among small businesses. This includes:
- Reducing the corporate tax rate,
- Lowering payroll taxes, and
- Cutting municipal property taxes.
Any of these measures would be well-received because they leave businesses with more money to reinvest in employees and operations.
Jacobsen: We’ve also seen strong sentiment around Buy Canadian and Shop Local initiatives.
Mallough: Absolutely, and that’s a significant and positive trend. The key will be to sustain that momentum and ensure that consumers continue supporting local businesses where possible.
Here’s a key statistic:
- 66 cents of every dollar spent at a local business stays in the local economy.
- In contrast, only 11 cents of every dollar a multinational spends stays local.
That’s why maintaining this shift toward local spending is crucial.
Jacobsen: The final issue that is getting much attention is eliminating internal trade barriers.
Mallough: Yes, and that’s encouraging to see. This issue has been on our radar for years.
- We were there when the original trade agreement was signed.
- We even recognized the trade minister at the time for that progress.
But eight years later, we still have many barriers in place.
Good progress has been made, particularly at the federal and Alberta levels. However, barriers that were supposed to be eliminated years ago remain, and additional restrictions haven’t been addressed yet.
Ministers and premiers have been saying the right things—including:
- Minister Anita Anand,
- Premier David Eby,
- Premier François Legault,
- Premier Doug Ford and
- Premier Danielle Smith.
But the key now is action, not just talk. The momentum is here; they have the tools to eliminate these barriers. They need to follow through.
Eliminating internal trade barriers would:
- Improve goods mobility,
- Increase labour mobility and
- Create actual free trade within Canada as we focus on external free trade.
Jacobsen: When you conduct these surveys, what is the typical sample size?
Mallough: Usually, it’s in the couple thousand range.
We received about 2,200 responses for this survey— a solid sample size.
However, unlike most of our surveys (restricted to CFIB members), we opened this one up to all small business owners through various channels.
We’re still finalizing the entire dataset, but the results we’ve released are based on those 2,200 responses from CFIB members.
Jacobsen: Post-April 1, what are the likely outcomes?
Mallough: I wish I knew.
Jacobsen: At this point, how do you assess the situation?
Mallough: It’s hard to judge right now. Some form of U.S. tariffs are coming, and the April 1 deadline is also essential.
We’ve been so focused on March 4 and March 12, but an executive order is also under review that examines U.S. trade policy in general. The goal is to recommend tariffs and other reciprocal measures.
The President announced yesterday that this doesn’t just include tariffs—it also includes other taxes.
For example:
- The President specifically mentioned Canada’s Digital Services Tax.
- Value-added taxes (VATs), which are ordinary in Europe, were also referenced.
Traditionally, these aren’t considered tariffs, but if the U.S. is going to respond to those policies, the scope of retaliatory actions could expand significantly.
We’ll need to look for new strategies and opportunities, given that the U.S. is also exploring new angles in trade policy.
Jacobsen: So, is this trade conversation far from over?
Mallough: Definitely. We’re in this for the long haul.
Even if the details change, we look at four years of ongoing trade battles. The U.S. administration has been clear about its stance on tariffs, and while the President has emphasized border security, he has also consistently raised trade deficits.
This isn’t something that’s going away anytime soon.
Even if none of these current measures were happening, we were already set for trade renegotiations:
- The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is up for renegotiation at the end of 2025 and into 2026.
So even if we get through the spring relatively unscathed, we know that:
- By fall and into next year, we’ll be right back into trade discussions.
Jacobsen: Regarding SMEs and tariffs, how much can we increase international trade?
You previously noted that:
- 66 cents of every dollar spent locally stays in the economy.
- However, only 11 cents per dollar were spent at a multinational stay within Canada.
Could tariffs—or at least their political implications—benefit Canadian businesses and internal trade?
Mallough: Potentially.
Indeed, the “Buy Canada” sentiment among consumers suggests that possibility. The big question is:
- How long can that momentum last?
There is an opportunity in this crisis for Canada to reevaluate its economy by:
- Shoring up domestic supply chains.
- Boosting local production and sourcing.
At the same time, we shouldn’t overlook external trade opportunities either. Diversifying beyond the U.S. may become even more critical as these trade tensions evolve.
We’ve relied on the U.S., but they might not be as reliable as they once were. We should look at other trade partners. Our existing free trade agreements extend beyond North America.
At the same time, counter-tariffs will have consequences—and their impact will intensify over time. It’s going to be important for businesses to remain flexible and adapt, but also for government policies to create the right environment for:
- Entrepreneurs
- Small business owners
- Attracting investment
Ultimately, the goal is to build a stronger Canadian economy.
Jacobsen: Ryan, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate the opportunity.
Mallough: No problem.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo talks about 2025’s most ethnically diverse U.S. cities. Factors like policy, legislation, and social shifts influence demographic trends. Hate crimes rose in 2023, with a 45% increase in Los Angeles County. Top diverse cities include Germantown, Jersey City, and Gaithersburg, with Montgomery County, Maryland, leading. Birthplace diversity and racial distribution play key roles, with projections indicating no single ethnic majority by 2045. Lupo discusses economic and social impacts, emphasizing linguistic diversity and immigration’s influence. The report refines methodology, focusing on socioeconomic diversity and granular data analysis.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re back with Chip Lupo of WalletHub, an analyst for them. We will discuss 2025’s most diverse cities in the United States.
Various factors, including policy, legislation, cultural shifts, and social media, influence demographic diversification in the United States and contribute to the trends observed in analytics and statistical data.
As the U.S. continues to diversify, social dynamics shift. In 2023, there was a notable rise in hate crimes—for example, a 45% increase in Los Angeles County, reaching a historic high of 1,350 incidents. Given these changes, how does the diversification of the United States impact the economy and other critical areas such as politics and society?
Chip Lupo: Well, Scott, first of all, when we talk about diversity in this context, we are primarily referring to ethnic diversity—specifically, the demographic composition of racial groups such as White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander populations in the U.S.
Now, let’s first examine the top three most ethnically diverse cities in 2025:
- Germantown, Maryland
- Jersey City, New Jersey
- Gaithersburg, Maryland
Interestingly, three of the top four cities—Germantown, Gaithersburg, and Silver Spring (ranked fourth)—are all in Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburban area near Washington, D.C. This proximity to the nation’s capital plays a significant role in their diversity. D.C. itself, aside from being a major tourist attraction, offers extensive international opportunities in terms of employment and education. The presence of highly regarded schools and a strong internationalculture makes it a desirable place for people of all ethnic backgrounds to integrate into these communities.
In ethnically diverse cities, economic benefits emerge as people bring a wide range of skills and perspectives from their respective cultural backgrounds. This diversity fosters the growth of unique businesses, such as ethnic restaurants and culturally specific services, enriching the local economy. Exposure to different cultures also encourages social cohesion, fostering a deeper appreciation for diverse traditions within a shared community.
You mentioned hate crimes earlier. The more integrated communities become, the more people learn to appreciate different cultures as part of their social environment.
Jacobsen: Now, looking at the top five most ethnically diverse cities:
- Germantown, Maryland
- Jersey City, New Jersey
- Gaithersburg, Maryland
- Silver Spring, Maryland
- Kent, Washington
These rankings remain consistent over time, with a fairly even score distribution among the top cities. On the other hand, at the bottom of the rankings—cities ranked #501 to #497—we have:
- Parkersburg, West Virginia
- Clarksburg, West Virginia
- Barre, Vermont
- Rutland, Vermont
- Watertown, South Dakota
Despite these lower rankings, the diversity index scores across all 501 cities do not vary drastically. The highest-ranking city has a score of 73.03, while the lowest-ranking city has a score of 55.84. Given that this range spans over 500 cities, the variation is not as substantial as expected.
While some cities stand out in diversity, even those at the bottom of the list are not entirely homogenous. Analyzing these rankings with a nuanced perspective is important, considering that regional and historical factors influence how diversity manifests in different parts of the country.
Why does this metric seem to follow an almost perfect Gaussian curve? By its looks, the distribution appears highly symmetrical.
Lupo: One key factor among the bottom-tier states is their household diversity levels. However, what primarily distinguishes them is their birthplace diversity. Among the cities ranked at the top, birthplace diversity does not seem to be a defining trend—many high-ranking and low-ranking cities have lower birthplace diversity scores. This metric considers how many people living in a city or state were born locally versus how many immigrated from another country.
This trend appears consistent across all rankings. However, the bottom half of the list differs significantly: the racial and ethnic mixes in those areas are not as evenly distributed. While diversity exists across all regions, cities such as North Platte, Nebraska; Keene, New Hampshire; and Rochester, New Hampshire, show less balanced racial compositions. In contrast, top-ranking cities tend to have populations where the four primary racial groups—White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander—are nearly evenly split.
That said, while an equal distribution among racial groups is a key feature of highly diverse cities, many cities do not reflect this balance. One or two groups often comprise a significantly larger population share. These imbalances contribute to the overall variation in diversity index scores.
Another challenge in analyzing this data is the sheer size of the study. With so many cities included, the scope of diversification across the United States is immense. The report is structured around five major diversity categories—socioeconomic diversity, cultural diversity, economic diversity, household diversity, and religious diversity—each weighted evenly at 20 points out of 100. Within each category, numerous subfactors further refine the rankings.
Jacobsen: A notable methodological difference in this report is the double-weighting of socioeconomic diversity at 13.33 points for household income diversity. This category alone contains six subcategories, providing a deeper analysis of household income distribution. The report emphasizes granular details and extensive analysis rather than simply focusing on the number of cities, variables, or subfactors considered. Was there a specific reason for this methodological shift?
Lupo: Somewhat. We still considered the usual factors but aimed beyond basic percentage-based measures. While ethnoracial diversity remains central to our analysis, we also emphasized linguistic diversity— the number of languages spoken per household in each state. This aligns closely with ethnic diversity trends, as Spanish is increasingly spoken at home, along with various Asian and Pacific Islander languages. These linguistic shifts reflect deeper demographic transformations across the United States.
Let’s touch on language diversity again and return to birthplace diversity, which is a major emphasis in our study. One of the key findings is that among the top-ranked cities, there is an almost even racial distribution, with each of the four primary ethnic groups—White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander—making up approximately 25% of the population.
If current trends continue, we project that by 2045, no single ethnic group will be a majority in the United States for the first time. However, this projection depends on immigration policies, which remain a highly contested issue in the U.S. With a new administration, policies could shift rapidly, meaning these projections may look very different by next year. If the current trajectory holds, though, the U.S. will become a truly multiethnic nation with no dominant racial majority.
Jacobsen: Do you believe this shift will have a greater impact on economic factors or social stability?
Lupo: Economically, I don’t think the impact will be as significant as some reports suggest. However, socially, I do think we will see major shifts. Communities have grown accustomed to steady cultural diversification, and if that trend slows or reverses, it could create social adjustments, possibly even displacement in some areas. If immigration patterns change dramatically, the social consequences will be more pronounced than the economic ones.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Well, my friend, that’s all my questions for today.
Lupo: All right, Scott, I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: As always, thanks, Chip.
Lupo: I appreciate it. Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/27
Dr. Steve Pearlman, founder of The Critical Thinking Initiative, discusses the urgent need to teach authentic critical thinking skills based on how the brain naturally processes information. He distinguishes between System 1 (fast, automatic thinking) and System 2 (deliberate, analytical thinking), emphasizing the value of metacognition and domain-specific expertise. Pearlman critiques superficial critical thinking programs and warns against indiscriminate policy cuts, such as those from the Department of Governmental Efficiency. He advocates for reasoning over authority in education and relationships, noting that even modest improvements in decision-making—like a 5% gain—can radically transform lives and institutions over time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Steve Pearlman. He’s an educator, author, and founder of The Critical Thinking Initiative.
He holds a Ph.D. in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and previously co-founded one of the first higher education programs in the United States focused solely on teaching critical thinking across disciplines. With over three decades of experience in higher education, he has developed and implemented methods to enhance reasoning and decision-making skills for students, faculty, and professionals across academic, military, and corporate sectors. Pearlman is the creator of the Neurocognitive Learning approach to critical thinking and host of The Critical Thinking Initiative Podcast. His work focuses on the practical application of critical thinking for individuals and institutions. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate it, Steve.
Dr. Steve Pearlman: It’s my pleasure—thanks for having me.
Jacobsen: Critical thinking can be a meaningful concept or just a buzzword. How are we defining it, technically?
Pearlman: Yes. Unfortunately, critical thinking is more often a buzzword than a meaningful practice. People throw it around as if it’s something easy to define.
But we have research on this. When we ask people—including educators who are supposed to teach it—to define critical thinking, we usually get vague catchphrases and little substance.
When we ask them to define catchphrases like “analyzing” or “thinking outside the box,” things start to fall apart. It’s very difficult for people to define those concepts clearly or consistently.
Take “thinking outside the box,” for example. It sounds good. But is any idea valuable just because it’s different or unconventional? Is that really what makes something a product of critical thinking?
I could devise an unconventional solution to world hunger—like hunting dinosaurs—but that’s not thoughtful or useful.
So, we take a very different approach at The Critical Thinking Initiative. We’ve left the catchphrases behind. We look at critical thinking from a foundational perspective—what the thinking act is. We even consider it from an evolutionary standpoint, asking what thinking evolved to do and how we can harness that understanding to improve reasoning in real, measurable ways.
We also identified the core systems that run in our brains, no matter what we think. How do we teach people to become self-aware of those core systems? And then, how do we teach people to maximize their use of those core systems? That’s essentially the Neurocognitive Learning method. That’s how we approach critical thinking.
What we call it is a metacognitive process. Metacognition is a fancy word for being aware of your thinking while you’re thinking. So, we teach people to recognize what their brain is trying to do when it thinks and, therefore, take control of that process and do it better.
Jacobsen: You’ve done some work on healthy relationships. What defines a healthy relationship, and what are the top two skills people should consider?
Pearlman: Yes. A healthy relationship doesn’t mean a perfect relationship. It’s not necessarily about being ideal or even “successful” by some external standard. However, it is a relationship in which people respect one another.
So, the two most important things to remember for a healthy relationship are respect for one another and empathy for the other person’s position, boundaries, and needs.
The second is communication. Most relationships fall into trouble because both parties hold different expectations and lack sufficient communication and dialogue around those expectations. So, we want to focus our healthy relationship strategies on that.
Of course, if we can think critically with our partner, that makes it even easier.
Jacobsen: Now, when discussing respect, what does that look like?
Pearlman: It’s easy to identify moments of disrespect. That’s when someone’s needs are not being met, they’re not being heard, or they’ve voiced something important, but the other person isn’t listening. Or they’re constantly being talked over in conversation. So, respect is the opposite of that.
Respect means wanting to understand the other person’s needs. It doesn’t mean you can always meet all those needs perfectly, but it means wanting to understand them and doing your best to meet and honour them. Respect boundaries where they exist. Respect needs, desires, and interests. Support the person in whatever their interests are, and so forth.
I don’t even love the term compromise, though we often use it in the context of healthy relationships. Compromise can suggest that we’re constantly giving in to one another. Compromise is a part of any relationship, but the most successful relationships aren’t about tallying who gave in more. They’re about seeing the relationship as a team effort, where both partners work together toward each other’s success.
That’s a different way to think about it, and that mindset shift greatly affects how people approach their role in a relationship. If we tell people they must make many compromises, we get into a scoreboard mentality: “I made seven compromises; you only made three.” Or, “I made four big compromises—how dare you not meet me halfway?”
Instead, if we look at it as a team effort—about supporting one another’s interests—then it becomes less about compromising and more about mutual support, finding things we can do together that make both of us happy at the same time.
Jacobsen: You’ve also done work in situations where things haven’t just become unhealthy but have crossed into abuse. How do you apply critical thinking in that context?
Pearlman: We teach people through online courses. I used to run these kinds of courses on sexual assault prevention and similar topics.
Most of what we taught were not physical techniques. We focused on things akin to what’s sometimes called verbal judo—the ability to manage a conversation, deflect it, or steer it in a way that either de-escalates the situation or allows the person to get out of a sticky or dangerous scenario.
We teach other preventive strategies, but one key feature is knowing how to communicate in a way that gives you more control over the situation. That’s where critical thinking comes into play—when we have an expectation that isn’t met, the brain experiences conflict.
Our brains operate through frameworks—it’s how we navigate situations. However, each person has their framework that they apply.
Here’s an example we use based on a real story someone shared with us: A young woman went to another guy’s apartment, and things started to become problematic. The standard and correct thing is to say no and assert boundaries. And we advocate for that. Everyone should feel empowered to set and express clear boundaries.
But in some cases, that does not stop a would-be rapist—because, unfortunately, some perpetrators expect resistance, and they’ve already worked around that expectation. So when the woman in this situation said “no,” and it didn’t work—and the man started to become more physical—she remembered something we covered in our training videos: If you do not give a direct resistant response, then the other person may not experience the situation as resistance, and therefore, may not escalate their behaviour further.
So, instead of resisting in a way that would meet his expected framework, she changed the framework entirely. She said, “Hey, listen, I’ve got to go to the bathroom first.”
She ran to the bathroom, locked the door, and immediately texted her friends to come pick her up and bang on the guy’s door. She stayed in the bathroom for about ten minutes. Eventually, her friends arrived, knocked loudly on the door, and she was able to get out safely.
She did that by applying critical thinking—not by resisting or complying but by changing the situation’s structure. Instead of meeting the aggressor in his expected script, she used deflection and delay to create an escape.
Critical thinking can offer that in high-stakes, real-world situations. It’s the ability to understand how the brain—yours and sometimes someone else’s—processes a moment and then uses that insight to navigate toward a better outcome. Often, that outcome is mutual. In a case like this, it’s about safety and survival.
Jacobsen: Can you quickly explain the difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking? That’s from the late Daniel Kahneman.
Pearlman: The brain has two general thinking systems.
System 1 is the fast system we use for rapid decision-making. It is instinctive—essentially a survivalist mechanism. So, often, when we’re in a fight-flight, freeze, or fawn response, we’re operating in System 1. It also includes automatic processes—things we’ve committed to memory to the point where we no longer have to think actively about them.
System 2, on the other hand, is the slow, effortful, deliberate, and critical thinking system. It’s where conscious reasoning and deeper analysis happen.
It’s possible—and sometimes positive—to move things from System 2 into System 1. For example, it can become automatic when we learn a skill thoroughly. However, the problem is that once something enters System 1, we often stop thinking about it altogether—even when we should revisit it, especially if it concerns values, beliefs, or assumptions. Those automatic responses become the frameworks we use to act on the world.
So, what we do at The Critical Thinking Initiative is to help people recognize when their brains are relying too heavily on System 1 and how to shift into System 2 deliberately. The brain wants to resolve things quickly—uncertainty threatens it. Even though it’s capable of deep thought, the brain prefers efficiency and predictability.
If System 1 can resolve uncertainty with a conclusion it feels is “good enough,” it will do so because that serves its job: keeping us safe and stable. But that is not always the most effective way to think—especially about complex or importantissues. So, learning how to pull your brain out of System 1 and engage System 2 is essential.
Jacobsen: Are there people—besides those working in fields like Bayesian reasoning or quantum mechanics—genuinely do not feel fear or stress around high or even medium levels of uncertainty?
Pearlman: It depends. Some people embrace uncertainty more than others, but it’s less about intelligence or field and more about their capacity to entertain uncertainty as play.
There’s some fascinating research around this. For example, if we tell students they have an upcoming test, they almost instinctively interpret that as a threat. Even students who’ve studied well often have a fear-based response—concern about their grades, the unknown questions, performance, etc.
Now, let’s take students with test anxiety. They especially view the test through a lens of threat and uncertainty. But we see a shift if we work with them to reframe the situation—not as a threat, but as a challenge. How do we do that? By walking them through the tools they already have: study skills, prior successes, preparation techniques, etc.
When students focus on what they can do, they view the test as a challenge rather than a danger. Once that shift happens, they can engage more playfully and productively with the material—even while facing uncertainty.
That’s the key difference between people who can operate well in high-uncertainty environments and those who struggle. It’s not about eliminating uncertainty—it’s about interpreting it as something to be embraced rather than feared. Do I see it as a challenge I have the tools to face or as a threat to my identity or well-being?
Even physicists—who are perfectly at home dealing with the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, knowing they might never resolve their questions in a lifetime—can feel threatened in different contexts. Something like going to a party, for instance, might trigger more anxiety in them than contemplating the probabilistic nature of particles.
Pearlman: It depends on the field, thoughts, and the person.
Jacobsen: Yes. So, it’s less about being ensconced in a mindset and more about a trained orientation.
Pearlman: Everything with the brain and thinking is habitual to a certain extent. It’s about what we habituate ourselves to. And it also has a lot to do with how we’re raised. That makes a significant difference. The epigenetics of how we rear children is incredibly interesting.
For example, if children are raised in a more authoritarian household—where they’re expected to obey because Mom or Dad says so—and when they ask, “Why do I have to do it that way?” the answer is, “Because I told you to,” then we see clear developmental consequences. Research shows that children from those environments ask fewer questions in school and life. They also typically demonstrate less critical thinking, especially early on.
By contrast, children raised in more intellectually engaged households—where reasons are given and policies, decisions, and expectations are discussed—tend to become students who ask more questions, are more comfortable with ambiguity, and demonstrate stronger reasoning skills. This is unsurprising, but it’s important to recognize—and we have solid research to support it.
There’s a strong argument for raising children in ways where reason prevails over authority. That doesn’t mean we must negotiate everything with our kids—it’s not about constant negotiation. It’s about allowing reason to guide the process.
So, for example, if you say to your child, “It’s 9:00 PM—time for bed,” and the child asks, “Why do I have to go to bed at 9:00? Why is that my bedtime? Why do you get to decide?”—you might respond with something like:
“It’s not just about us deciding. When you stay up past 9:00 on school nights, you have trouble getting up for school the next morning. School is important, so getting to bed on time helps with that. That’s why bedtime is 9:00.”
Then the child might say, “That makes sense.” The outcome is the same—they go to bed at 9:00—but through a completely different thinking process.
Now, maybe the child responds, “Wait a second—it’s the State of the Union address tonight. I want to stay up and watch it because we will discuss it in class tomorrow.”
That’s a good reason. In that case, the child should stay up later. What the child learns in that moment is that reason prevails in your household—not blind authority.
Jacobsen: Speaking of authority, we now have the American administration—specifically a second Trump administration—with the newly minted Department of Governmental Efficiency. However, “minted” might not be the right word since it’s a restructured version of a previous department. Most government institutions, large or small, have some inefficiency—that’s just the nature of systems. So, the premise itself is not entirely unreasonable.
When you critically assess the definition of waste concerning the Department of Governmental Efficiency in the United States, how do they propose defining waste and fraud? What is your critical assessment of the quality of those definitions—either implicit or explicit—and the efficiency of weeding this stuff out, of extirpating it?
Pearlman: As you said, the premise is sound. There certainly can be waste in government—potentially considerable—which should be evaluated continuously.
But here’s the reality: we’re spending less on federal employees than twenty years ago. That number has been consistently declining in the United States, not increasing.
Now, that’s a different part of the question because there may still be waste in other areas that need to be addressed—and it’s certainly not just about employee salaries. The Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) is approaching this indiscriminately.
Take, for example, the idea of defunding scientific research—like cutting funds from the NIH. That has hugeramifications. You’re not just saving money in the short term; you’re potentially costing the country far more in the long term.
Let’s consider the cost-benefit of research into treatments for Parkinson’s disease. Many promising experiments were underway and have since been shut down. These aren’t things you can restart overnight. It will take years to reboot that work, assuming it even gets revived.
Now think about the cost of caring for people with Parkinson’s over time—relative to the cost of continuing those experiments. It’s potentially far more expensive not to fund that research.
You can also extrapolate that same logic to other federal agencies and programs.
So, while stopping funding looks good on a budget line in the short term, it may cost taxpayers much more in the long term. Any decision about cuts should involve a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.
However, we don’t see evidence that such an analysis drives DOGE’s efforts. On the contrary, they’re cutting indiscriminately without a strategic or evidence-based framework.
So the real question becomes: are these cuts made intelligently, or are they made for the sake of making cuts?
Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter, not the former.
Jacobsen: So the chainsaw metaphor is apt?
Pearlman: Yes. The now-famous image of Elon Musk holding up a chainsaw at CPAC—used as a metaphor for DOGE—is quite appropriate.
It’s a great metaphor because chainsaws don’t build anything. They just cut things down. They’re powerful tools for destruction.
We get that, especially in Texas. But chainsaws aren’t good for nuanced work. They’re certainly not designed for careful restructuring or system improvement.
And that’s exactly what DOGE is doing—cutting indiscriminately. There’s no subtlety. No long-term strategic vision. Just destruction.
And there are problems with chainsaws. The chain can snap and injure you. It can kick back and cut you. So we can extend that metaphor to DOGE—because a chainsaw is exactly what they’re using.
Yes, cuts are necessary. But wouldn’t we prefer them to be surgical? Wouldn’t we prefer a precise scalpel that corrects what needs correcting?
Instead, we’re seeing a chainsaw, which can only amputate. It cannot repair a limb. So, if you want a metaphor, the surgical one works far better.
Jacobsen: Is there something we can apply from the critical thinking methods you teach regarding domain-specific expertise? I’m thinking of the expertise involved in startups—like administration and selling a vision—instead of expertise in bureaucracy, finance, or accounting. Do you think that’s part of the core issue with the Department of Governmental Efficiency—not the premise, but the application?
Pearlman: No—it’s not a matter of domain-specific expertise. It’s more a matter of domain-specific inexpertise.
In other words, it’s not just that they lack the right expertise—it’s that they operate from the wrong premise. The flawed premise is that simply cutting for the sake of cutting is inherently valuable and that downsizing is good in and of itself.
We’re seeing decisions being made to trim down agencies by arbitrary percentages, regardless of what those agencies do. There’s no way they’ve meaningfully reviewed the operations of all these departments.
So, before we even get to questions about domain-specific competence, we must address that they operate from a fundamentally flawed principle. Cutting for its own sake is not inherently good. It can be costly and dangerous.
Yes—some cuts may be necessary. But they need to be strategic. Otherwise, we’re left with reckless amputations that hurt the very systems they’re meant to improve.
Jacobsen: What are the long-term consequences of a lack of critical thinking—for an individual or an organization?
Pearlman: That’s a great question. For an organization, the typical outcome is failure—the end of the organization.
Think about it: nothing more important to any business or institution than how effectively it can observe what’s going on in its environment—how well it understands its customers and clients’ needs, its competition, and the broader trends in the world. Based on that understanding, it has to make adjustments, solve problems, and make sound decisions.
That’s how an organization stays viable. That’s how it survives—and thrives.
It has to be nimble, responsive, and grounded in good reasoning.
Pearlman: So, critical thinking is the most important thing. Companies that stop thinking—or become stagnant—are the ones that typically disappear. They die off because they’re no longer able to compete intellectually.
You see this often in the tech world, where it happens quickly. Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo used to be the dominant search engine. It was the biggest in the world for a time.
But then they got out-thought by Google. And now, Yahoo isn’t even on most people’s radar as a search engine. They’ve pivoted to offer other services, but the core dominance they once had is long gone. That’s how fast innovation can shift—and if you’re not continuously thinking critically and adapting, you fall behind.
In life, it’s the same general principle. Now, we don’t usually die from poor decisions—though tragically, that can happen in extreme cases. But more often, the cost is Bunfulfilled potential.
We fail to live the kind of lives we want to live. This might show up in our careers, parenting, social lives, and more.
There’s some fascinating research on this. They’ve found that IQ is not the biggest differentiator regarding the quality of decisions people make. Critical thinking is.
IQ—your raw processing power—can be high. But you won’t use that processing power effectively without learning critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is a skill set—just like reading or math. It has to be taught. It has to be practiced.
And the data is clear: critical thinking is a far more powerful predictor of who makes successful or damaging life decisions than raw intelligence alone.
But here’s the problem—most people never get taught dedicated critical thinking skills.
So now imagine this: say someone did learn critical thinking, and that skill helped them make just 5% better decisions. That’s a humble number—very conservative. Let’s not even say 75% or 90% better decisions. Let’s say 5%.
Imagine if starting in adolescence, you made just 5% better decisions every day of your life. Think about where you’d be today. Even if you’re in a good place now, think how much better things might be.
That 5% course correction—compounded over years—would dramatically shift the trajectory of your life. And that’s the promise of critical thinking. With even modest improvements to the quality of our decisions, we could live very different—and often far better—lives.
Jacobsen: One last question. What do you think about philosophical or so-called critical thinking programs that are sold or advocated as such—but aren’t? Some present themselves in subtle or nuanced ways that appear to teach critical thinking, but there’s a kind of linguistic misdirection. They seem like they’re offering something rigorous when, in fact, they’re not.
Pearlman: There are a lot of well-intentioned programs out there. But they often rely on catchphrases and buzzwords to bring it full circle.
Some programs focus on problem-solving processes—different step-by-step paths to solutions, sometimes with built-in stages for revisiting ideas. These can be useful.
However, I recommend caution with critical thinking programs that approach the brain from the outside. By that, I mean they start with a constructed model or process of what critical thinking should look like and then try to train your brain to follow that process.
That can be useful in limited situations. For example, knowing the scientific method, an important structure, is helpful. But what we do—and where real critical thinking flourishes—is different.
We start by understanding how the brain naturally thinks. We make people aware of that and then build on those innate neurological processes. We amplify and elevate what the brain already does when thinking critically, and that’s where real growth happens. That’s where authentic critical thinking skills develop—not by forcing the brain to mimic some external pattern, but by working with its built-in architecture.
Jacobsen: Dr. Pearlman, any final thoughts?
Pearlman: No—I think we covered a lot. That was wonderful.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Steve. (Unpublished)
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/27 (Unpublished)
Simon Mildren, Founder and CEO of HiveKeepers, talks about the Micro Honey Harvester, a benchtop device designed for small-scale beekeepers. The innovation allows quick, clean honey extraction without disrupting bees or using traditional equipment. Mildren explains how the system ensures honey purity, minimizes contamination, and eliminates the need for filtering. The device uses cassette-based frames that can be harvested indoors, helping reduce bee disruption and honey fraud. Designed for Langstroth hives, it simplifies backyard beekeeping. Mildren emphasizes transparency, food safety, and empowering beekeepers with high-quality, unprocessed honey delivered directly from hive to table.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with HiveKeepers, the Melbourne-based startup that launched the Micro Honey Harvester, an innovative benchtop device revolutionizing honey extraction. It’s a compact tool enables beekeepers with 1–5 hives to extract honey quickly—without uncapping, using giant extractors, filtering, or creating a mess. Designed to be bee-friendly and about the size of a small coffee machine, it makes backyard beekeeping more accessible and efficient than ever. Our guest Simon Mildren, founder and CEO of HiveKeepers, stated, “We’ve taken the labour out of harvesting and made fresh honey instantly accessible.” The Micro Honey Harvester is now live on Kickstarter. It is set to make global waves in sustainable small-scale beekeeping. Thank you for joining me today—I appreciate it.
Simon Mildren: Great to be here with you, Scott. Thanks.
Jacobsen: So, quick question—why micro honey harvesting rather than macro? It’s a good concept.
Mildren: Yes, thank you. I’ve been a beekeeper for over 15 years, Scott, but I’ve always been a small-scale backyard beekeeper. You wouldn’t see it here on camera, but just behind the wall are a couple of beehives. I’ve always kept it small—just a few hives. I did that to look after bees because it’s fascinating. That’s one part of it. The other part is the benefit to my garden and surroundings and, of course, the pleasure of having honey from those bees. But we were never trying to chase dozens upon dozens of kilos of honey, which most people do because there hasn’t been a better way to extract honey in small quantities. Traditionally, it’s big quantities, bulky equipment, and lots of time and effort. Most current extraction methods are modelled after or derived from the commercial honey industry. We saw an opportunity to lighten the load for small-scale beekeepers—something easy and quick that suits their needs. They’re not trying to collect 200 pounds or 100 kilos of honey once or twice a season. They want smaller amounts more often.
Jacobsen: How does the device get the honey out in under five minutes without disturbing the bees too much? That’s the interesting part.
Mildren: Yes. So, any beekeeper would know you are still obliged to go in there and look at your bees. You still need to lift the lid off a beehive. You still need to go in there and lift out the frames. You must do that, and a regular part of the process is taking them out, having a thorough inspection, and being clear about the biology of the bee and what’s going on. So, while I say “without any disruption,” we don’t want to ignore that you still need to check on your bees. Our system allows you to work with that normal routine rather than having a big, special harvesting or extraction process. We put our frames in a special frame designed to fit into the same space as a normal frame. This frame has eight sections on it. We call those cassettes. You take this out of a hive when the actual cassette itself is fully capped—it needs to be fully capped with beeswax by the bees—and then we know there’s honey in there, ready to be harvested. The beekeeper can do this easily, either next to the beehive or they can take it inside their kitchen. There’s never been a way, Scott, that’s made this easy to do quickly—inside your kitchen or even next to your beehive. So I’ll show you. Others can’t see this, but our cassette splits in half for simplicity. And you saw before that this outside face was capped. When the honey is ready, those cappings remain there. You must remove the cappings in normal harvesting to get the honey out. In what we do, we leave them on because we’re harvesting from the inside. And we can do that because when we separate the two halves, you’ll note there’s a little opening on the back of each cell. It’s those openings that allow us to harvest the honey. What we do next with those cassettes is we have our benchtop Micro Harvester. We slide these cassettes inside here—and I know you can probably see it yourself. They slide in with the openings facing out, and then in a brief amount of time—literally pressing the button—it’ll spin for 20 seconds. A little bit of honey is still coming from the cassette I’m showing you now.
I harvested this one earlier. In 20 seconds, most of the honey is removed. Normally, there’s a huge process to remove a whole frame of honey, remove those cappings I spoke about earlier, harvest the frame, and filter the honey. And it’s the cleanup step after that—that’s extensive. So that’s slowing down now after 20 seconds. I’ll put that to the side. Feel free to ask more questions. I’m giving you the quick version of that, I guess. But without all those extra steps you must go through, the honey there now is clean and essentially filtered. It doesn’t need filtering because of the way the mechanism works. And that honey is ready to consume right now. That’s minutes instead of hours. And you asked specifically about the disruption to the bees—I put the cassette back in the beehive, even with the beeswax cappings on there. The bees will clean that up in no time and repurpose that beeswax. That’s low friction for the bees, whereas normally, a full box on top is harvested at a time, and that’s a huge disruption to the dynamics of the hive. Now, we’re lucky the bees get on with it, Scott. They get on with it. But where we can minimize that and give them less to have to do and make it easier for them to, I suppose, get back to it afterwards by harvesting smaller amounts and being less destructive to the honeycomb—that’s a much better option for them.
Jacobsen: How do you ensure honey purity and prevent contamination during this process?
Mildren: Cool. Yes, great. That’s a question I would love to answer because we have a strong case with the cassettes. The bees do their work inside the hive. Once this cassette is capped and sealed, you can see the one I’m holding up: untouched honey. It’s up to the beekeeper, but you take this straight from the hive to your harvester. Nothing’s happened to it. It’s not even exposed to the air. There’s no other extraction method that can do that quite the same. You can take this, store it, and keep it wherever necessary.
We’ve got to be mindful of honey crystallization—that can happen over time—but it stays fresh and pure the whole time. When you harvest it, you see it with your own eyes, which is stunning. It looks amazing. And that honey is absolutely at its purest. In the old approach—or the commercial, larger-scale approach to honey production—we don’t know what’s happening through all the steps. A honey producer might provide the honey to a packing shed, which goes through the packing shed arrangements in six to eight steps. As the end consumer, you don’t know if it’s been heat-treated, you don’t know if it’s been blended with other honey, and you may be sold something that’s not quite what it is. You don’t know if additives have been used—like that dreaded high-fructose corn syrup or any other sugary syrup replacement. There’s no fooling this system. You can’t fake it because the honey the bees capped hasn’t touched since it was made in the beehive. It’s truly the bees’ work.
Jacobsen: What feedback have you gotten from early testers, especially from the beekeeping community—particularly the small-batch beekeepers?
Mildren: Yes. So we’ve had it out there, testing for about nine months. Overall, they’re pleased with the operation of the frames and the cassettes. That’s the main bit. We wanted the most feedback on the interaction with the bees because the harvester itself is quite simple. Indeed, the frames and cassettes are, too. But you don’t know until you test with the bees. The user experience from the beekeepers has been that they’re happy to use the frames. We’ve made modifications, upgrades, and improvements based on their guidance. We had initial concerns about the honey volume we could produce from this system. That concern came to Scott because we’re conditioned to think we must have as much production as possible. Since there’s a bit less space to collect honey, the slight reduction in harvestable honey per frame initially concerns some of them. Then they said, “Well, if I can opt for this method, which allows me to harvest more often but with less honey each time, maybe that’s not such an issue.” So that was part of the feedback we got. Occasionally, we also get people asking about plastic—which I’m curious to learn more about from people out there. We get comments like, “How’s the plastic going to hold up?” because we know plastic is used in many forms. There’s a real attitude against plastic being in contact with food; I get that concern. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be concerned—they should be thinking about that. Where I’m interested, Scott, is the opportunity to find alternative materials moving forward other than standard plastics. We use food-grade plastics. We know it takes a little longer for bees to start using plastic initially. Now, in the commercial industry here in Australia, there are 800,000 to 900,000 beehives. Hundreds of thousands would use plastic in their hives, and the bees get along and do well with that. So, we acknowledge the issue, accept that it’s been used successfully many times by many others, and tell people that plastic will take longer for the bees to get accustomed to it the first time. But after that, they won’t know any difference. They need that first nectar flow to recognize that it works well, and then after that, the bees treat it no differently.
Jacobsen: I’m not a bee expert, but I have some questions based on assumptions. One would be: do different species or genera of bees have different ways of building their hives? And if so, would you need different models or design patterns for your cassettes?
Mildren: Good thinking. There are many different types of bees; you’re right. But only a small portion of them are colony-forming bees—like the European honeybee—and they’re the ones that collect honey. Globally, the honey and pollination industries are based around the European honeybee. That’s the bee backyard keepers use as well. There are places in Northern Australia, in our tropical regions, where people use native bees, and that’s a completely different arrangement. What we’ve proposed wouldn’t work with those. I’d be confident that nearly 100% of beekeepers—say 99.999%—use European honeybees. There’ll be a few exceptions, but generally speaking, the European honeybee is the dominant species used in beekeeping. I will mention, though, Scott, that there are differences in hive format and size. While we’ve launched a product that suits the most common beehive system in the world—the Langstroth system—it’s based on size standards. Many people won’t yet be able to use our technology until we create modifications for other hive sizes. We will certainly do that, but we must crawl before running. So, we’re starting with the most common size first.
Jacobsen: And does the simplicity of the format and reduced number of steps also help reduce honey fraud? You know, we were talking earlier about things like adding high fructose—
Mildren: Corn syrup—
Jacobsen: —or whatever into it.
Mildren: Oh yes, it’s horrifying to think. Yes, the answer is yes. But it’s horrifying to think how much fraud is happening out there. It’s staggering. We’re talking about nine out of ten honey samples taken off supermarket shelves in the United Kingdom not passing the test to be classified as genuine honey. Sometimes, that number can reach 100%. Here in Australia, we’re a bit isolated from it, so it’s a much lower number—but it still happens. And how’s this? Apimondia, the largest beekeeping and honey conference on the planet, is held annually in Europe. This year, it’s in September, in Copenhagen. They’ve cancelled their annual honey awards. They cancelled them because they were not confident they could determine legitimate honey. After the fact—after the awards had been analyzed and given out—they later discovered that many of the top 10 samples were fraudulent. Not real, honey.
Jacobsen: It’d be like running the Academy Awards this year and then cancelling it because all the year’s movies turned out to be AI-generated.
Mildren: Isn’t it staggering? And it’s even worse because food is something you put inside your body. You expect it to meet a certain standard. So, we feel that delivering honey from the beehive directly to the consumer—without touching it during the process—gives proper credit to the beekeepers, who do an amazing job producing high-quality, fresh, pure honey. And it gives the consumer what they rightfully expect. We’ve removed all those unnecessary steps. I see it this way, Scott: if we can remove all those steps and package it in a way that feels like the Nespresso machine for honey—that’s the vision I’m working toward. Going from beehive to plate with zero interference. Keeping the quality intact, rewarding the beekeeper for their premium product, and rewarding the consumer for choosing something that truly is high quality.
Jacobsen: We discussed contamination before and touched on fraud, a different issue. I’m not talking about fraud here, but more about things like wax and debris—stuff that might be blended out or filtered but not something you necessarily want in the honey immediately. How do you manage that—a different kind of purity? It’s not the end of the world, but still worth addressing.
Mildren: No, I know what you’re saying. So, with traditional honey harvesting methods, they go through a heavy filtering process, and that’s time-consuming. If you didn’t filter it, you’d end up with large chunks in the honey you buy from the supermarket—I promise you. Given how that process works, you’d have bee bodies, heads of bees, legs of bees, and all sorts of things. In our system, we don’t filter. We take what has been harvested in here. If you could see inside, I’d show you. I’ll take the lid off the base, leave it charging while it’s there, and take it off. I’ll show you—nothing’s better than visually.
Jacobsen: For the transcript, it looks like a big blender, but it’s not large.
Mildren: It’s about the size of a small coffee machine or blender. So here I’ve got the plastic bucket where the honey drains into—it flows nicely down the side. I know it is not easy to describe without seeing it, but I’ll try. We’re looking for big chunks of wax or anything where you’d think, “I wouldn’t want to put that on my toast in the morning.” I don’t know if you can see it, but on the side closest to me, I can see a section of beeswax—about a centimetre long. Looking straight in, I can see one other little chunk of beeswax and maybe a second one. And we’re talking about small pieces you’d mistake for a crumb from the bread. You might take out that one slightly bigger piece—and just to be clear—that’s not from the honey itself. That’s from the edge of the cassette, surrounding the cassette. Any beekeeper—well, it tastes and smells amazing—would not be concerned about that. You wouldn’t do a special filtering step just for that. If you have a big chunk, take it out with a teaspoon. The number of times I’ve harvested and had a big chunk in the honey—I could count on one hand. So, the idea is to make it as simple as possible. It can be that simple because the main source of mess in traditional harvesting comes when people uncap that outer surface. That loosens beeswax, and it gets pulled through in the spinning process and ends up in the honey. But if we’re not removing the cappings in the first place, I promise you—the bees underneath produce clean, clear honey. Completely unfiltered, but with barely an ounce of debris in it. We’re taking that out with only the occasional speck of beeswax coming through. No bee bodies, no dust, no dirt from the air. We eliminate a lot of those issues by doing it this way.
Jacobsen: My final question—something I can ask reasonably: what about ensuring you do not disturb the bees and do not accidentally pull in a bee and injure it?
Mildren: Yes, and that’s quite a simple fix. Firstly, you could always harvest away from the hive—sometimes, that’s the best option. There are certain times of the year when the bees if they smell honey, will be very interested—like, “Yep, I’m going for that.” Other times of the year, they’re not as concerned. That’s why the Micro Honey Harvester has a lid that sits over the top. When it’s time to harvest, the lid should be on to stabilize the central spinning component. If the lid’s on and there are no bees in there, to begin with, then you’re good. If there are bees in the air around you, you can move away a little—walk around the corner, for example. What I prefer to do, and what my kids love, is to take it inside and harvest it in the kitchen—something that cannot be done cleanly, without any effort or large setup, using current traditional methods.
Jacobsen: Excellent, Simon. Thank you for your time today. I appreciate you talking honey with me and teaching me a little bit.
Mildren: Thank you very much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Excellent. I’ll be in touch. Thank you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/27
Laura Dow is the Business Director of China Performance Group (CPG Sourcing), a global sourcing service provider operating in China since 1978. With expertise in supply chain management, logistics, and responsible sourcing, she helps companies navigate procurement challenges while ensuring compliance and efficiency. Laura frequently speaks on trade policies, tariffs, and economic trends. She advocates for strategic sourcing solutions to optimize global trade and mitigate risks in an evolving market.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the purpose and expected outcome of reciprocal tariffs?
Laura Dow: While reciprocal tariffs may aim to establish fairer trading practices and reduce trade imbalances, historical evidence shows that tariffs often deliver the opposite.
Tariffs function as taxes on imports and, as such, increase costs. Businesses pass these additional costs onto consumers, leading to higher prices for a wide range of goods and contributing to increased inflation.
Tariffs can impact economic growth and employment in three primary ways:
Reduced Consumer Spending: Higher consumer prices resulting from tariffs can decrease consumer spending, as individuals buy less when prices rise. This reduced demand may cause businesses to cut back on production and, consequently, their workforce.
Increased Operational Costs: To offset higher costs due to tariffs, businesses often downsize their workforce, even before any noticeable decline in consumer demand.
Reduced planning and investment: In an environment of uncertainty, businesses do not invest or plan for expansion, thus reducing growth and hiring.
Reciprocal tariffs may also prompt retaliatory measures from trading partners, escalating into trade wars that further hinder global commerce. In turn, diminished global commerce can lower competition between countries, adversely affecting innovation in the following ways:
Reduced Investment in R&D: The financial strain from tariffs can compel firms to cut back on research and development expenditures, hindering technological advancement and innovation.
Reduced Innovation: With decreased competition, industries may feel less pressure to innovate, leading to a decline in competitiveness. Global collaboration and the exchange of ideas are essential drivers of innovation.
Conversely, trade liberalization and reduced global tariffs have proven more effective in promoting economic growth. A notable example is the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which led to a significant reduction in tariffs and an expansion of international trade.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Laura.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/26
Brittany Cilento Kopycienski, NCC, CAADC, CCTP, LPC, LCADC, ACS, is the owner of Glow Counseling Solutions in Philadelphia, PA, and an accomplished mental health professional. She specializes in treating depression, anxiety, mood disorders, addictions, life transitions, self-harm, and trauma. As a Nationally Certified Counselor, Certified Advanced Alcohol and Drug Counselor, Certified Clinical Trauma Professional, Licensed Certified Drug and Alcohol Counselor, and Approved Clinical Supervisor, Brittany employs evidence-based approaches including DBT, CBT, ACT, and somatic interventions. Serving clients in PA and NJ, she delivers compassionate, individualized care. Her work demonstrates unwavering commitment to client well-being. Her extensive expertise enhances transformative outcomes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does trauma manifest in those struggling with substance use?
Brittany Cilento Kopycienski: Trauma can manifest in individuals struggling with substance use in various ways. People may use substances as a form of self-medication to cope with the emotional pain caused by trauma. Trauma can include past or present abuse (physical, sexual, emotional), neglect, or witnessing & experiencing adverse events. Trauma can lead to increased anxiety, depression, apathy, flashbacks, and relationship conflicts. These symptoms tend to also contribute to maintaining substance use when an individual doesn’t possess alternative coping skills due to the difficulty and debilitating nature of them. In many cases, substance use becomes a way to numb these symptoms and struggles temporarily, reinforcing a cycle of addiction.
Jacobsen: What is the role of trauma in the development of addiction?
Kopycienski: Trauma plays a critical role in the development of addiction, often acting as an underlying cause, a precipitating factor. For individuals who experience early-life trauma, such as childhood abuse, there is a higher risk of engaging in substance use as a means of coping with emotional pain. This coping strategy can eventually lead to dependence. Additionally, trauma can alter the brain’s chemistry and stress-response systems, which can make a person more susceptible to addiction.
Jacobsen: What are common misconceptions about alcohol and drug counseling?
Kopycienski: Two common misconceptions:
1) It’s only for “severe” cases: Many believe that alcohol and drug counseling is only necessary for those with severe addiction issues, but it can be beneficial at any stage of substance misuse, even before dependence fully develops.
2) It’s only about willpower: A common misconception is that addiction is purely a matter of willpower. In reality, addiction is a complex disease involving both the brain’s neurochemistry and psychological components.
Jacobsen: What therapeutic approaches are effective in helping break the cycle of addiction?
Kopycienski: 1) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): This is a therapy theoretical orientation that helps individuals recognize and change negative thought patterns that contribute to substance use.
2) Trauma-Informed Care: This is a type of therapeutic framework that integrates an understanding of trauma into therapy, recognizing its impact on behavior and mental health, and aims to create a safe environment for healing. Trauma-Informed Care is an umbrella term for several evidence based values and perspectives to implement into client care.
3) Motivational Interviewing (MI): This type of therapeutic orientation helps individuals resolve ambivalence about change and increase motivation to address their addiction.
4) 12-Step Programs (AA/NA): These programs, although are not professionally based but more peer facilitated, provide support through social networks and emphasize personal responsibility and spirituality.
5) Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT): For certain substances like opioids and alcohol, MAT (medication-assisted treatment) uses medications in combination with therapy to help manage withdrawal symptoms and cravings.
Jacobsen: What about factors of socioeconomic disparities, housing instability??
Kopycienski: Socioeconomic disparities and housing instability significantly contribute to the cycle of addiction. Individuals in lower socioeconomic brackets often face greater stress, limited access to mental health and addiction services, and fewer opportunities for education and employment. These conditions increase susceptible to substance use as a form of coping. Additionally, housing instability—homelessness or risk of homelessness—creates stress and increases the likelihood of individuals turning to substances for relief.
Jacobsen: Canada has introduced some harm reduction and decriminalization discussions. How effective are these measures?
Kopycienski: Harm reduction strategies, such as supervised injection sites, needle exchange programs, and decriminalization of certain substances, aim to reduce the negative health impacts of substance use rather than solely focusing on abstinence. Research has shown that harm reduction can reduce overdose deaths, prevent the spread of diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C, and help engage individuals in treatment who might otherwise avoid the system due to fear of arrest. Decriminalization of drugs, by removing the criminal penalties for drug possession, reduces stigma and allows individuals to seek help without fear of legal repercussions. However, the effectiveness of these measures depends on a comprehensive approach that includes access to treatment, mental health care, and social supports.
Jacobsen: How might public policy better integrate with mental health and addiction services to address the root causes of substance misuse?
Kopycienski: 1) Dual Diagnosis Treatment: Policymakers should support programs that treat addiction and mental health issues simultaneously, recognizing that they often co-occur. Integrated care can improve outcomes for individuals by addressing both issues at once.
2) Access to Comprehensive Care: Ensuring access to affordable and culturally competent mental health services and addiction treatment is key.
3) Prevention and Early Intervention: Policies that prioritize early education about mental health, trauma, and substance misuse can prevent issues from escalating. These types of policies can also reduce the stigma associated with addiction and mental health disorders through education campaigns
4) Social Support Systems: Addressing the broader social determinants of health, such as affordable housing, employment opportunities, and food security, is essential. Supporting stable living conditions and addressing socioeconomic disparities can reduce the stressors that contribute to addiction.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Brittany.
Kopycienski: If you have any other questions please let me know.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/26
Dan Kelly, President and CEO of CFIB, discusses the small business carbon tax rebate and the federal government’s failure to distribute the promised 10% rebate to businesses since 2019. Despite accumulating $2.5 billion, the government struggled to create a rebate formula. CFIB developed a headcount-based system, which was included in the 2024 budget, but the rebate was later deemed taxable. Parliament’s prorogation stalled corrective legislation, creating uncertainty. With a potential leadership change and carbon tax policy shifts, CFIB continues lobbying for a legislative fix to ensure rebates remain tax-free and businesses receive overdue funds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dan Kelly. He is the President, CEO, and Chair of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), representing 100,000 small and medium-sized business members across Canada.
He began his career at CFIB as a policy analyst in Winnipeg in 1994, later taking on leadership roles in Calgary and Ottawa, where he helped shape Canada’s first Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry. Now based in Toronto, Dan has led CFIB through the challenges of COVID-19, advocating for relief measures such as wage subsidies and rent support. He has served on multiple committees and is recognized as one of Canada’s leading advocates on issues related to taxation, regulation, labor, and payments.
Dan holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Manitoba and lives with his family. Thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Dan Kelly: Thanks, happy to be here.
Jacobsen: Regarding the small business carbon tax rebate, what is the main issue that people should be aware of? This is not a small amount of money.
Kelly: No, it certainly is not. Let me take you back and provide a quick overview of the history of the federal carbon tax as it relates to small businesses since 2019.
When the federal government introduced the carbon pricing system, it established what was called the federal carbon backstop for provinces that did not implement their own carbon pricing plans. Initially, this applied to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick. Over time, more provinces were added, and now eight provinces are subject to the federal carbon pricing system. Quebec and British Columbia remain outside of this system because they have their own provincial carbon pricing mechanisms.
At the outset, the federal government made a commitment to return all revenue collected through the carbon tax back to Canadians and businesses. The stated goal was to encourage lower emissions while ensuring that the tax did not become a net cost to the economy.
The carbon tax revenue was supposed to be split as follows:
- 90% of the revenue was designated for direct rebates to individuals through quarterly Climate Action Incentive payments (also known as “carbon tax rebates”).
- 10% was set aside for small and medium-sized businesses, Indigenous groups, and non-profits.
The consumer rebate program has been active, and millions of Canadians receive quarterly payments. You may have heard the Prime Minister and other officials claim that 80% of Canadians receive more back in rebates than they pay in carbon tax. However, this claim is widely debated. Even if true, the reason some individuals receive more in rebates is that businesses receive little to nothing in return—effectively subsidizing the consumer rebates.
Now, here’s where the issue lies: Since 2019, the federal government has not returned the 10% share meant for small businesses. While these funds have been accounted for on paper, they have never been distributed to business owners.
The government attempted to implement two programs to return these funds:
- The first program was announced but quickly abandoned.
- The second program was proposed but never implemented.
As a result, billions of dollars in carbon tax revenue that were supposed to go back to small businesses remain unreturned. Businesses continue to pay the tax, but they are not receiving the promised rebates.
From 2019 to 2023, the federal government collected carbon tax revenue from both businesses and consumers. While 90% of the revenue was rebated back to consumers as promised, the 10% allocated for small businesses was never returned. However, to their credit, the government did not spend that money elsewhere—it simply sat in an account in Ottawa for five years.
After more than 100 meetings with officials from Environment Canada and the Department of Finance, we realized the main issue was not a lack of intent to return the money, but rather a lack of understanding on how to distribute it. The government had no clear mechanism for determining how to rebate the money or how to ensure businesses received it in the correct proportions.
This created a massive political and logistical mess that remained unresolved for years. As an advocacy organization for small businesses, CFIB said, “Wait a minute—this fund has now accumulated $2.5 billion, with a B, that rightfully belongs to businesses.” Most of this money was owed to businesses in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, but in 2023, the government expanded the program to include the four Atlantic provinces as well.
This money could have been critical for struggling businesses, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet it remained untouched. We quickly realized that the federal government was not going to create a formula on its own. So, working with our economists, we devised a rebate system based on headcount—a simple, fair way to return the money to businesses.
In spring 2024, we met with Chrystia Freeland, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and pushed for a solution. To her credit, she acknowledged the issue and incorporated our proposed framework into the 2024 federal budget. She even publicly credited CFIB for our role in developing the plan.
The plan stated that businesses would receive their long-overdue rebates by the end of 2024. Over the next several months, we worked with the government to finalize the implementation details. Eventually, they confirmed that payments would be distributed in December 2024.
At that point, we asked a key question: “Like the consumer rebates, these payments will be tax-free, correct?”Officials at Finance Canada assured us multiple times that yes, the rebates would not be taxed.
However, about a month before the checks were set to go out, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) informed us that the government had classified the payments as taxable government assistance for businesses. This was completely unnecessary and counterproductive, as it meant small businesses would lose a portion of their long-overdue rebates to taxes.
We lobbied for weeks to get Finance Canada to overturn the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) decision to tax the rebate. However, at the time, the government had bigger political concerns, including the ongoing tensions between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
When we realized we were getting nowhere, CFIB issued a news release in November 2024, warning small businesses that their long-overdue carbon tax rebate would be taxable. The announcement sparked immediate and overwhelming backlash from business owners and advocacy groups.
That same day, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland personally called me and issued a public statement, announcing that the rebate would now be tax-free. That was in November 2024.
However, on December 16, 2024, the Deputy Prime Minister resigned, in part due to the fallout from the failed GST holiday, which we had also criticized publicly. Shortly after, the Prime Minister announced his resignation and prorogued Parliament, effectively stalling all legislative processes.
Then, in January 2025, the CRA informed us that the Deputy Prime Minister’s promise to make the rebate tax-free was never implemented. This required a legislative change, but since no bill was ever introduced in the House of Commons, the rebate remained taxable.
The only way to change this now is for the government to introduce a legislative proposal—a Ways and Means motion in the House of Commons—to formally remove the tax. But with Parliament prorogued, this cannot happen.
Meanwhile, the $2.5 billion in rebate checks were already distributed to businesses in December 2024 and January 2025—and, ironically, they were sent by mail during a postal strike, further delaying payments.
Honestly, it feels like a bad political satire.
Even now, the CRA is confirming that the rebate remains taxable, while Finance Canada insists they are working on a fix—but they lack the power to implement one without Parliament reconvening.
Adding to the uncertainty, the current Finance Minister may not even be in office in a few weeks, depending on who takes over as the next Liberal Party leader. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party is campaigning on scrapping the carbon tax altogether, which raises the question: Will they even bother fixing this rebate issue if they come into power?
This has been a political football kicked around for five years, and small businesses are still paying the price.
Jacobsen: Given all this, why is CFIB calling for Parliament to be reconvened immediately?
Kelly: This isn’t the only issue, but it is a major one. If Parliament is reconvened, Finance Canada can introduce a Ways and Means motion to remove the tax on the carbon tax rebate.
If they do that, the CRA will administer the rebate as tax-free, even before the legislation formally passes. This would give Parliament time to officially pass the change while ensuring businesses get the full amount they were promised.
Kelly: Even if the government changes, having draft legislation in place increases the likelihood that any new government will follow through and finalize the process of making the rebate tax-free.
We have received an informal commitment from the Conservatives that they will implement this change if they come to power. If Chrystia Freeland becomes Liberal Party leader, one would assume she would proceed with the legislation, given that she led the effort while in office.
As for Mark Carney, who knows? There is still a lot of uncertainty.
At this moment, businesses are filing corporate income taxes throughout the year, and as things stand, they must pay tax on the rebate. This is why we need Parliament to reconvene.
And this isn’t the only issue. Businesses are also facing new tariffs that will have significant economic impacts, and we need to be prepared for that.
Additionally, two outstanding issues related to capital gains legislation remain unresolved. These have been controversial, but if Parliament resumes, we could at least push forward two positive changes proposed by the Liberals last year, even if the overall capital gains increase is unfavorable.
Jacobsen: How does the tax treatment of the small business carbon tax rebate compare to the rebates given to Canadian families?
Kelly: From the start, it was made clear that the carbon tax rebates for Canadian households in the eight affected provinces would be tax-free—and they have been.
Yet for businesses, the government has classified the rebate as taxable government assistance, which makes no sense.
This is supposed to be a tax rebate. Imagine if you file your income taxes, receive a refund because you overpaid, and then the government imposes a tax on your refund—that would be absurd. And yet, that’s exactly what’s happening here.
Not only is this deeply unfair, but it also undermines the fundamental principle of the carbon tax that the Liberals have insisted upon.
They have repeatedly claimed that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral—that every dollar collected would be returned to Canadians to help cover costs.
However, with $2.5 billion in rebates sent out to businesses, the government could collect $300–400 million in corporate income taxes on that amount.
That means the federal government is now generating revenue from the carbon tax—despite explicitly promising that it would not.
Jacobsen: What discrepancy exists between the CRA’s decision and the information available on the Department of Finance website?
Kelly: The Department of Finance website still states that the carbon tax rebate is tax-free.
In fact, former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland even tweeted that the rebate would be tax-free. That post still exists.
Additionally, in our CFIB news release, we linked to an official government webpage that still claims the rebate is tax-free.
However, despite these statements, Finance Canada has clarified that, while they intend for the rebate to be tax-free, they cannot implement the change without legislation.
The problem is, with Parliament prorogued, they lack the authority to fix this right now.
Given the current political uncertainty, there is no guarantee that this issue will be resolved.
Meanwhile, the CRA still has not updated its website to confirm whether the rebate is taxable or not.
The only reason businesses even know about this issue is because the CRA privately informed us that the rebate is taxable.
And that’s unacceptable. Accountants and tax professionals have not been formally notified that businesses are expected to pay tax on these rebates.
Jacobsen: What legislative changes does CFIB want or recommend regarding the small business carbon tax rebate formula while the carbon tax remains in effect?
Kelly: All the Department of Finance needs to do is introduce a Ways and Means motion, just as it did for many—though not all—of the capital gains changes.
Once that is in place, it would officially designate the small business carbon tax rebate as a tax rebate rather than government support, meaning it would no longer be taxable.
This is a simple legislative fix.
I suspect we could get all-party support to pass it. But we cannot move forward until Parliament is in session, and right now, it is not.
Jacobsen: What else could go comically wrong?
Kelly: Well, a few things.
To complete the absurdity of this situation, after five years of struggling to get rebates to small businesses—the 10% share of carbon tax revenue originally promised—the government has now decided to reduce that percentage to 5%.
Essentially, the government found the rebate process too complicated, so instead of fixing the issue, they cut small businesses’ share in half.
Meanwhile, the carbon tax continues to be collected for 2024 and into 2025. While we expect it may be scrapped, given that both major Liberal leadership candidates and the Conservatives have promised to eliminate it, the tax is still scheduled to increase by 19% on April 1, 2025.
No one in government has signaled otherwise.
Additionally, with small business rebates now reduced to just 5%, I am concerned that businesses may never receive the money they are owed.
If the carbon tax is repealed, will the government still follow through and return every dollar collected up to that point?
That will likely become a major lobbying battle because these are billions of dollars flowing into Ottawa, and governments can always find other ways to spend it.
Jacobsen: What could be the long-term implications of the CRA’s decision for the relationship between small businesses and the federal government?
Kelly: Unfortunately, this is not the first time we’ve seen a disconnect between the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
One of the basic expectations in a functioning democracy is that when a government sets tax policy, it is implemented as intended. However, to ensure this happens, the rules must be legislated.
This is not the only example. I was on the other side of this issue when dealing with the capital gains tax changes. In that case, the CRA attempted to enforce new tax rules before the legislation was even passed. We need to create a tighter legislative window to prevent these kinds of problems.
CFIB is actively lobbying for Canada to adopt a rule similar to the United Kingdom, where if a government introduces new tax measures, it must pass legislation within a fixed timeframe—we suggest three to six months.
If the government fails to pass the legislation within that period, then the tax rules would automatically revert to their previous state.
This would provide clarity and accountability in tax policymaking, which is especially critical in a country where minority parliaments are common. We need a better system for tax policy decisions than the one we have today.
Jacobsen: Does the prolonged delay and unclear guidance from Finance Canada and the CRA affect CFIB’s credibility with some of its members?
Kelly: I have worried about that, yes. I don’t want to be the boy who cried wolf—saying “it’s taxable”, then the government switches gears, and suddenly “it’s not taxable”, only to have them reverse course again.
I have been concerned about this, but at the end of the day, if small business owners are looking for an honest broker on tax policy, they are more likely to trust CFIB than they are to rely on Finance Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency right now.
And that is deeply troubling.
Small businesses shouldn’t have to turn to a non-profit business association to get accurate tax policy information. That is the government’s responsibility, and the fact that we are in this situation today is entirely avoidable.
This mess never needed to happen.
Jacobsen: One final question: Throughout this conversation, we’ve touched on it, but what timelines should people reasonably expect—whether they’re following CFIB’s advocacy work or monitoring the political developments we’re seeing domestically?
Kelly: As of now, Parliament is scheduled to return on March 24, 2025, when the prorogation ends. Before that, on March 9, 2025, the Liberal Party is expected to announce its new leader, who will likely become Prime Minister.
Following that, we assume a new cabinet will be formed, and government operations will resume.
However, it is unclear how long Parliament will sit—it could be days or even just hours, as multiple parties have indicated they no longer have confidence in the government.
We are pushing to get this issue on the immediate legislative agenda.
Right now, all we need is a Ways and Means motion.
We don’t even need full legislation to pass yet—we just need the government to introduce it. That alone would set the process in motion and allow the CRA to change its tax interpretation.
Regardless of who is in power—Liberal, Conservative, or some other coalition—we will need to continue lobbying to ensure this legislation is finalized.
I am hoping that by spring, we can at least get the CRA to change its initial interpretation.
Most businesses have not yet filed their corporate income taxes for this year, so if we act quickly, we may be able to fix this issue before they are forced to file tax amendments.
That is our goal.
Jacobsen: Dan, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it. It was great to meet you.
Kelly: Not at all. Pleasure to meet you as well, and congratulations on the business you’ve built.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Kelly: Cheers! Have a great day.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25 (Unpublished)
Beer Girl Brewing Co., founded by Caroline Renezeder Foulk in Los Angeles, specializes in a 3.5% ABV Mexican-style lager. Foulk, drawing from her entrepreneurial background, identified a market gap as many women opt for seltzers and ciders over beer. Beer Girl aims to bridge that gap, offering a full-bodied, approachable lager. The brand is rapidly growing, hosting community events and expanding its reach while maintaining intentional, grassroots growth in Southern California.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, today, we are here with Beer Girl Brewing Co., which is a Los Angeles-based brewery founded by Caroline Renezeder Foulk, specializing in a 3.5% ABV Mexican-style lager that is gluten-reduced, low in sugar, and easy to drink. The brand aims to create an inclusive beer culture by offering a light, refreshing alternative to traditional brews. Available in 12 oz cans and on draft across Southern California, Beer Girl operates through self-distribution and community engagement. The company also offers a monthly “Beerlivery” subscription service. Through its products and events, Beer Girl promotes a welcoming environment for all beer enthusiasts while redefining beer industry norms. Thank you for joining me today.
Caroline Foulk: Of course. Thank you for taking the time to talk.
Jacobsen: Now, what inspired you to create Beer Girl?
Foulk: So, I have been in the beer industry for the last five years or so. Ironically, my background was not in food and beverage. I went to school to study music and writing. I ended up in the beer industry by happenstance working on the development of a brewery in Oxnard, California. I was involved in construction, finance and eventually the operations of the brewery.
During that time, I learned so much about the beer industry. I’ve always had an entrepreneurial spirit and looked for gaps in the market and ways to fill them creatively.
At Wagon Wheel, we had a wide variety of beers, which are well-received by both men and women. However, I noticed that some women would choose seltzers, ciders, tequila, or vodka instead of beer. I saw this not just at our brewery and everywhere—restaurants, bars, and even back in college.
I decided to look into the data and discovered a significant market share gap. Compared to vodka and tequila, which have a 50/50 consumer split, and wine, which is 60/40 (women to men), beer skews heavily male at 75/25. That led me to ask the question, why aren’t more women drinking beer?
I saw this as a missed market opportunity. We could expand the category by creating a beer that appealed to women who typically choose other drinks. So, I did a deep dive into understanding what those women didn’t like about beer.
That research led to the development of the Beer Girl recipe. We created the branding, marketing, and recipe to target these consumers intentionally.
So far, it has been successful. We see Beer Girl as a gateway for women who haven’t traditionally given beer a chance. We hope that they enjoy it and eventually explore different beer styles.
And then it’s also for the people who already love beer—who love lagers. We are 3.5% ABV, low sugar, and gluten-reduced. However, the taste of Beer Girl still has such a full of body. It tastes amazing and has a similar profile to that of a Peroni. It blows people away—men and
women alike – they try the beer and expect it to taste light or watered down because it’s gluten-reduced low sugar, and low ABV. But it doesn’t.
It keeps its full-bodied finish, and I give full credit to our head brewer, who is so talented and came up with the recipe.
Jacobsen: Does your husband have anything to say about the difference between Canadian beer, American beer, and Beer Girl?
Foulk: Oh my gosh, that is a great question, and I have no idea what he would say. When he was in Canada, to be honest, he was 15 to 21 years old, and he was playing hockey. So, he’s not super well-versed in Canadian brews. But I can tell you that he loves a lager. Since becoming a Southern Californian, he has become obsessed with Mexican lagers and is a fan of Beer Girl.
Jacobsen: What about the process for developing the 3.5% ABV Mexican-style lager? Can you describe both the concept development and the brewing process from the brewery to the can?
Foulk: Yes. So, we put a Mexican-style lager on draft at our brewery in 2023. It did so well amongst both men and women. Honestly, it was my favourite beer that we produced.
Based on market research, I wanted the ABV needed to be just a little lower. The one we had on draft was 4.5% ABV, so I asked our head brewer if there was any way to bring it down to 3.5%. he’s so talented—he made it happen.
The biggest concern when lowering ABV is that the beer can start to taste a little watered down. But through our recipe and trade secrets, we ensured it still tastes phenomenal.
We brew everything in Oxnard and can the product straight from our tanks. We self-distribute, store in Southern California, and have our delivery fleet. We handle our self-distribution, so the process starts at the brewery in Oxnard, moves to cold box storage, and then goes out to our retail accounts.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in developing the product? Are they specific to the beer itself or more about building the business?
Foulk: Well, these challenges are intertwined.
Jacobsen: Let’s start with the big picture—the business as a whole—and then we can get into the specific challenges with the beer itself.
Foulk: Yes. So, in terms of the beer itself, one of the biggest concerns was whether making it a reduced-ABV product would compromise the beer’s body and flavor. We had to navigate that carefully to ensure it had the richness and flavour we wanted.
Regarding the business, I’d say one of the biggest challenges we’re facing—something pretty typical when taking the self-distribution route—is that retailers generally prefer to work with beer brands that already have a distributor. So, coming in and disrupting that space means we have to prove ourselves to retailers. We must show them how hard we work, how reliable we are,
and how timely our deliveries will be. The biggest concern for many retailers is, “You’re self-distributed. Can you get this to me on time?” Because distributors know orders will be delivered reliably. These are large companies with pre-existing logistics networks.
Another challenge is that they often represent five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty brands simultaneously when a distributor comes in. General and bar managers—especially in
on-premise locations—are incredibly busy and prefer a one stop shop. They want to handle multiple orders simultaneously, making them hesitant to take on a new brand. They’re also reluctant because carrying a new brand could mean giving up valuable shelf or tap space and potentially disrupting existing relationships with major distributors. This makes it challenging for an independent brand like ours to break in.
That said, we chose self-distribution for a reason. Distributors take 30% of sales, and as a new company with a new concept, we decided it was better to build our brand from the ground up. Instead of giving up that 30%, we reinvest it into our team. We have an excellent sales team here in California. Despite initial pushback about not having a distributor, they consistently win accounts.
One of our biggest advantages over distributors is that we can show up in ways they cannot. We provide specialized marketing, do on-site tastings and hand sales, pitch customized events, and engage directly with our Beer Girl community. Our approach helps drive product movement for
retailers, proving that working with us is worth it. So, while self-distribution does present challenges, it has also become our biggest asset. It requires more backend logistics for me and my husband, but it’s worth it because we can scale at our own pace and grow intentionally—on our terms.
We’ll likely partner with a distributor when ready to expand beyond California. But by that time, we’ll have built a strong, independent brand that will make it easy for a distributor to want to work with us.
Jacobsen: And there’s that 30% margin on at least one line item that you can capitalize on. At the same time, you don’t have access to the standardized distribution networks that these larger companies rely on. So, how does the self-distribution model impact your profit margins and distribution strategy in a state like California?
Foulk: I wouldn’t say it changes the profit margins overall because that 30% we would typically allocate to a distributor is instead being **invested into our own sales team—**their salaries, commissions, and direct sales efforts. So, while we don’t have the logistical support of a large distributor, we make up for it by having a dedicated team focused solely on Beer Girl.
We’re putting that 30% back into our own team and marketing efforts, so we don’t necessarily see a difference in profit per unit. However, we see a significant difference in overall profit because of how our sales reps operate. They can move products at a higher velocity by actively marketing to retailers. When a distributor rep visits a retailer, they’re juggling 10 to 20 different brands, which means they cannot give equal attention to all of them—especially the smaller brands. On the other hand, our Beer Girl sales reps get to focus entirely on our brand, ensuring that our product is moving efficiently and consistently.
As a result, we are generating more profit through self-distribution at this stage. That being said, at a certain point, logistics will become too complex to manage without a distributor, particularly when expanding nationally. However, in California, we’ve completely nailed our model and are super happy with how it works. We wouldn’t want to deviate from this approach anytime soon.
Jacobsen: What about community engagement? How does it contribute to the brand’s success?
Foulk: We have strategically placed community managers in the territories where we operate. Whether at on-premise accounts, off-premise accounts, or unique venues, we constantly pitch
and host events to build a community around Beer Girl. We create spaces where women and men can come out, have fun, and experience the brand’s identity firsthand.
For example, we host tap takeovers at on-premise accounts where Beer Girl is on draft. For Valentine’s Day, we organized a movie night. These events bring people together, allowing them to engage with the brand while meeting other like-minded people—especially women—who are drawn to our events.
Even though we are Beer Girl, our events attract men, and many attendees become fans of the brand. When we launch a new retail account, we can call on our community and say, “Hey, we’re now available at this location—go check it out!” This level of engagement helps us sell out inventory quickly and expand our footprint.
Beyond just sales, we create a sense of ownership within our community. People want to see the brand succeed because they love the product, the merchandise, and the branding as a whole. In return, we invest in them by continuously hosting community events that strengthen customer relationships.
It’s a win-win situation for everyone. As long as we thrive in retail, we can continue to give back to our community, host more events, and grow the brand sustainably and inclusively. It’s a cyclical process, and that’s exactly how we want to scale our impact.
Jacobsen: How do you see the company evolving? How do you see the company incorporating bigger events and wider distribution networks outside of Southern California?
Foulk: Yes. I’m a creative and visual person, and I think big. I’ve learned through this process that my goal when I think about Beer Girl in five years is for it to be a national brand. However, we’re going to get there by focusing on our backyard first—by winning in Southern California and ensuring we are doing everything we can to be the best here. We have to remain so, so focused on building a strong foundation.
At the right time, with the right partners, expansion will happen organically. I am all about things growing naturally rather than forcing someone to take a chance on us from a distribution standpoint. I want any partnership to feel mutually beneficial and authentic. I believe that when things happen genuinely, they work out best—both parties push the product because they truly believe in it.
So, the more we focus on growing Beer Girl authentically in Southern California, the more the right partner will look at what we’re doing and say, “Wow, look at their success. I want to help take this to the next level.” But that will only happen at the right time—we’re not trying to expand too quickly and get ahead of ourselves. We want to build this brand brick by brick.
Jacobsen: Are there any other beers like this in other states?
Foulk: I don’t know of any in other states. However, the beer industry is starting to pay more attention to women. It’s funny because when I’ve had conversations with bigger players or industry contacts, mostly men, they’ve all reacted positively to the concept. There has been a lot of discussion within the beer industry about the need to bring more women into the category.
As we continue to grow, I expect to see more brands emerge that specifically target women. The beer industry needs it—women comprise half the population, so they should be included in the narrative.
Jacobsen: What has been the response from customers?
Foulk: Customers love the product. What usually draws people in is the name—Beer Girl—and the branding. Women love the aesthetic and branding, while men tend to find the name cheeky and fun, which makes them curious to try it.
I also think that when people hear that it’s gluten-reduced and low ABV, they’re often skeptical, thinking, “Let’s see how this tastes.” But once they try it, they are blown away. We’ve been capturing real-time reactions from both men and women for our social media, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.
One of the biggest things we hear, especially from women, is that they don’t experience the heavy, bloated feeling that beer often causes. Of course, everyone is different, and I would never make a blanket statement that all women won’t feel bloated drinking Beer Girl. But I can speak from my own experience—I have an autoimmune disease, and I struggle with feeling very sensitive to alcohol. I really only drink beer, and this product has been a great option for me.
I don’t drink any hard alcohol. I don’t drink wine because of the sugar. The Beer Girl recipe we created works well for my system and me. Not to say that it’s necessarily a healthy product, but it’s certainly a better-for-you option.
Jacobsen: What has been your biggest event or initiative involving this product or promoting more women’s involvement in this space?
Foulk: Yes. Well, our biggest initiative—we’ve done around 40 events in the last two months. We’re constantly hosting events at new retail locations where Beer Girl is available. Our biggest turnout of women was definitely at our Valentine’s Day event. I don’t want to give too much away yet, but we’re working hard to scale up for a few big events in April and May. These will be festival-related, and that’s all I’ll say for now, but we’re very excited.
It’s been so cool to see the impact of these events. We sell merchandise at them, and now, just walking around Orange County or San Diego, we’re spotting people wearing Beer Girl hats. It’s incredible to see the brand spreading organically in real life. The community is growing, and we can physically see it happening. That’s been one of the most rewarding parts of this journey.
Jacobsen: If you were to expand nationally, which state do you think would be the most successful for Beer Girl?
Foulk: We would do well in Texas. It gets super hot down there, and I’m obsessed with Austin. Some of my best friends live there, and it’s such a fun, cool, and unique city. There’s a huge presence of young entrepreneurs, emerging brands, and creative thinkers. A light lager on a hot day would do phenomenally well there.
Any of the hotter states—Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and down along the coast to Florida—would be great markets for us. I also think Beer Girl would do well in New York. The cool part about Beer Girl’s branding is that we’ve made it feel classic and timeless, so it resonates across different regions.
However, it will naturally perform best in warmer states because it’s a light lager. I don’t know if people will drink much Beer Girl in Saskatchewan, Canada, but in states with warm weather, we’ll see people fall in love with it.
Jacobsen: Well, I have it on good authority that how much Beer Girl you drink highly depends on whether or not you’re from Saskatoon.
Foulk: So funny.
Jacobsen: What about competitors?
Foulk: It’s funny—I’ve been in blinder mode a little, and I learned that approach from my husband. Naturally, I tend to be someone who looks at the competition and wants to see what’s out there. To a certain extent, that’s smart. But my husband comes from an athletic background, and his mindset has always been, “You train and focus on being the best version of yourself.” That’s how we’ve approached Beer Girl. We’re not obsessing over competitors but focusing on perfecting what we do best.
That being said, there are a few female-founded brands in Orange County, including one based in San Clemente, and they’re amazing. Their branding is strong, and it’s important to champion that rather than view them as competition. Some Southern California-based brands have a fun, coastal, cowgirl vibe but don’t particularly target one gender over the other. While many women gravitate toward those brands, they’re not necessarily designed for women. We may fall in line with some of those competitors.
But in Orange County and San Diego—our two primary markets—we haven’t encountered many brands doing exactly what we’re doing. That has been both an advantage and a reminder that the more we collaborate and build friendships in this space, the better. If we can raise the entire category, everyone wins. That has always been our approach.
Jacobsen: What about business multilateralism and partnerships with other industries? Have you looked into collaborations outside of beer, and if so, to what extent?
Foulk: Yes. We’re actively looking into different verticals because you want to create a full lifestyle brand when building a brand. That’s how the most successful brands operate. Look at Red Bull—they are more than just an energy drink. They have built a culture around action sports, music, and extreme events. That’s the long-term brand-building we’re considering for Beer Girl.
One example of this is our first apparel drop next month. We’ve taken a hands-on approach and done all of our cut-and-sewn apparel. I worked hard on the designs because we wanted to go beyond screen-printed merchandise. There’s nothing wrong with traditional branded merch, but we wanted to elevate it. We wanted to create something that truly feels like Beer Girl.
We’ll see how our consumers react to the clothing line, but I’m hoping it will be positive—that people will want to wear Beer Girl apparel while drinking Beer Girl.
Beyond that, I’ve always been a huge sports fan. My dad was a professional athlete in the racing world, so I grew up surrounded by that culture. I would love for Beer Girl to get involved in sports sponsorships when the time is right. There’s so much opportunity right now, especially with the rise of female athletic leagues getting more media attention and support.
There will be some cool opportunities for synergy between those leagues and Beer Girl.
Jacobsen: Do you think much is left to explore in this space? Not just light beers but different types of beer-adjacent alcoholic beverages that women might be interested in but haven’t been catered to yet.
Foulk: Absolutely. The standard stereotypes of alcohol categories—wine for women, beer for men, spritzers as the in-between option—have been around for a long time. But beer, and especially craft beer, is so diverse. It’s like drinking wine—figuring out what styles you like best takes time.
I don’t consider myself to have the most advanced palate. I know what I like when it comes to beer, but I will say that once you start drinking lagers and develop a taste for them, you’re more likely to expand your palate and try other styles—maybe an IPA, a blonde ale, or something with more complexity.
At our brewery, where we manufacture Beer Girl, we also produce a double hazy IPA that I am obsessed with. It’s so good. I can only drink about half of one because of the alcohol content, but it’s amazing. So, there is potential for other styles to resonate with women, but for now, we are laser-focused on lagers. I believe lagers are the best gateway into the beer category for people who may not have traditionally explored it.
Jacobsen: Have you ever had moments while building this company when you felt alone as a businesswoman and had to muster emotional fortitude to keep going? Or have you always felt supported?
Foulk: I feel very lucky to have an amazing support network of family and friends. My entire family has an entrepreneurial mindset, which has been incredible because I’ve always had role models to look up to. Seeing their journeys has made me feel reassured in the decisions I’m making.
That being said, there are times when you’re working so hard that you hit a moment of exhaustion and think, “Oh my gosh, can I keep pushing forward?”
Sometimes I think, “I could just get a normal job.” Many people assume that when you start your own company, you have free time or do it for yourself. But in reality, it’s the opposite—your workload increases exponentially. It’s like flipping a switch that never turns off.
It gets so much harder, and you work around the clock. There are moments when I think, “What did I sign myself up for?”But those moments are fleeting. The feeling quickly fades because we’re building something amazing. Our team has a strong camaraderie, and we celebrate daily wins that lift everyone up.
I also feel really lucky to be at this point in my life and in a time when
entrepreneurship—especially for women—is encouraged. In 2025, many of my male and female friends are launching their own companies, and women are being told they can do this. I feel incredibly grateful to have been born in this era and to be building my career now. It would have been so much harder twenty years ago.
Jacobsen: I’ll ask one more question, and then we can wrap up. I’m not sure why I didn’t ask this earlier—when you do get moments to take a break, what are your favourite ways to disconnect from the chaos of being a business owner?
Foulk: I love spending time with family and friends. That always helps me step out of my head. But I also have personal outlets that bring me back to myself. My background is in music, so playing the piano is my go-to way to reset.
Recently, I’ve fallen in love with equestrian sports. Playing piano and riding horses are the two things that completely remove me from my constant task list and help me be present.
I’m also an ocean girl. Living in Southern California is incredible because I can quickly dip in the ocean, instantly feeling grounded and in the moment. That’s important because, right now, I’m balancing so many things and wearing a million hats. It’s hard to step away from work, but I feel fortunate to live where I can easily immerse myself in nature and regain that sense of balance.
Jacobsen: Well, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Foulk: Yes, thank you! Thank you so much.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25
Aminah Taariq-Sidibe is the Manager of End Plastics Initiatives at EARTHDAY.ORG, where she leads efforts to combat plastic pollution and its impact on marginalized communities. She holds a B.Sc. in Environmental and Sustainability Sciences and a B.Sc. in Communications from Cornell University, as well as a Master’s in Communications from Columbia University. Previously a Yale Environmental Fellow, Aminah specializes in science communication, environmental justice, and sustainability advocacy. Plastic pollution disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South and low-income areas, where waste processing facilities expose residents to toxic chemicals and health risks. Microplastics have been detected in human organs, raising concerns about endocrine disruption, immune system damage, and chronic diseases. Environmental justice initiatives, such as Flint’s water crisis activism and the LA Zero Waste Plan, highlight the intersection of social equity and sustainability. However, pro-plastic lobbying hinders progress by promoting false solutions like “advanced recycling.” Community engagement ensures inclusive policies, while science communication and the End Plastics Initiative drive global action toward sustainable plastic reduction.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does plastic pollution impact marginalized communities?
Aminah Taariq Sidibe: Marginalized communities, particularly those in the Global South and low-income areas in wealthier nations, are disproportionately burdened with plastic waste, pollution, and toxic exposure. These communities often host plastic production facilities, incinerators, and landfills, leading to higher rates of respiratory diseases, cancer, and endocrine disorders due to chemical exposure. Additionally, plastic waste exports from wealthier countries flood regions that they know lack the infrastructure to manage them, further compounding environmental and health risks.
Jacobsen: What are the health risks associated with microplastic exposure?
Sidibe: Microplastics have infiltrated our air, water, food, and bodies. Studies have found microplastics in the human brain, blood, lungs, and even placentas. These particles act as carriers for toxic chemicals, endocrine disruptors (like BPA and phthalates), and persistent organic pollutants, all of which have been linked to hormone disruption, immune system damage, and chronic diseases like cancer and metabolic disorders. The reality is, we don’t yet know the full extent of the harm they cause—but we do know that marginalized communities facing higher environmental toxic loads are at even greater risk.
Jacobsen: What are case studies of environmental justice initiatives integrating social equity with sustainability?
Sidibe: Flint Water Crisis & Environmental Justice Organizing: Flint’s water crisis exposed low-income, Black residents to lead-contaminated water due to cost-cutting measures, prompting grassroots activism, national outrage, and policy changes that highlighted environmental racism and forced broader accountability for water safety.
The LA Zero Waste Plan: Los Angeles is implementing equity-centered waste management policies, ensuring that frontline communities benefit from sustainable waste solutions rather than being dumping grounds.
The Basel Convention Amendments (2019): Countries like Indonesia and the Philippines successfully pushed back against plastic waste imports, citing environmental justice concerns. This marked a shift in the Global South fighting back against plastic colonialism.
Jacobsen: What are the pro-plastic lobbying efforts and preemptive legislation?
Sidibe: The plastics industry, led by fossil fuel giants, has aggressively lobbied to frame plastic as a “recyclable” and “necessary” material despite overwhelming evidence of its harm. One example of lobbying is The American Chemistry Council’s effort to gain funding and subsidies for “advanced recycling”, which is really just plastic incineration. Preemptive legislation, often backed by industry, blocks cities and states from passing plastic bans or regulations (banning bans on plastics).
Jacobsen: How do these hinder sustainable future solutions and approaches?
Sidibe: By promoting false solutions (like recycling), resisting bans, and controlling policy narratives, these lobbying efforts delay real progress. They divert attention from reduction efforts, mislead consumers about recyclability, and actively push more plastic production while the world drowns in plastic pollution. This makes it harder to implement circular economy strategies and transition to sustainable alternatives.
Jacobsen: What role does community engagement play in ensuring sustainability policies are inclusive?
Sidibe: Community engagement is essential. It ensures that the people most affected by plastic pollution have a seat at the table. Grassroots organizations, Indigenous leadership, and youth activists are shaping solutions that are both culturally relevant and equitable. Successful policies come when frontline communities are not just consulted, but actively leading in decision-making, shaping waste reduction strategies, and holding corporations accountable.
Jacobsen: How can science and sustainability communication highlight environmental activism?
Sidibe: Science communication is most powerful when it’s accessible and action-driven. Overloading people with stats won’t inspire change—storytelling, personal narratives, and real-world impact examples resonate more. Highlighting how plastic exposure connects to health, economic justice, and everyday life makes these issues tangible.
Jacobsen: To Earth Day’s 55th anniversary in 2025, how will the End Plastics Initiative influence global sustainability policies?
Sidibe: In 2025, Earth Day’s 55th anniversary will serve as a global rallying point to push for stronger plastic reduction policies and corporate accountability. The End Plastics Initiative will continue to (1) advocate for legally binding global agreements on plastic production cuts, (2) support grassroots and community-led efforts against plastic waste, (3) push for corporate responsibility, holding polluters accountable for their role in the crisis, and (4) elevate the conversation about plastic pollution’s impact on health, especially in marginalized communities. This year, we want to turn awareness into action!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Aminah.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/24 (Unpublished)
Sheriff Chris Swanson of Genesee County, Michigan, leads IGNITE (Inmate Growth Naturally and Intentionally Through Education), a transformative jail program focused on rehabilitation through education, job training, and wraparound support. Since launching in 2020, IGNITE has significantly reduced recidivism, jail violence, and costs, earning validation from Harvard, Brown, and Michigan. With partnerships from labour unions and support from figures like Jelly Roll and Snoop Dogg, IGNITE equips inmates for successful reentry into society. The program is expanding nationally and globally, with Swanson set to keynote at Oxford in 2025. IGNITE proves that cultural change in corrections is possible—and practical.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Sheriff Chris Swanson, a dedicated law enforcement leader serving Genesee County, Michigan.
With a deep commitment to public safety and criminal justice reform, Sheriff Swanson has led transformative change in the local correctional system through innovative initiatives—most notably, the IGNITE program (Inmate Growth Naturally and Intentionally Through Education). His leadership has contributed to a measurable reduction in recidivism, improved inmate behaviour, and a historic shift in how Genesee County approaches incarceration. Swanson’s forward-thinking strategies have earned recognition from community leaders and national organizations.
Through tireless efforts, he continues promoting rehabilitation and building trust between law enforcement and the community. His visionary leadership inspires meaningful change daily. Thank you so much for joining me today.
Chris Swanson: I truly appreciate it. It’s a pleasure to know your background, Scott.
Jacobsen: So, what inspired the development of the IGNITE program?
Swanson: IGNITE is more than a program—a cultural shift. Think back to your school years. Some had great educational experiences; others didn’t. But there’s a large group of people—especially among our incarcerated population—who had no educational experience at all. Those individuals often come from cycles of poverty, addiction, trauma, and brokenness. And that’s who we see filling jails across North America.
I was a struggling student myself. But I made it through community college, then earned a bachelor’s and a master’s degree. In 1998, while finishing my master’s thesis, I explored the question: What lowers crime? The answer wasn’t more police or harsher sentences—it was hope, education, and purpose through employment.
Throughout my 30-year career, I’ve seen the same families cycling in and out of jail. When I became sheriff in 2019, I knew Michigan wasn’t immune to this cycle. If we were going to break it, we needed to change how we did business. So, we replaced a culture of incarceration with a culture of education. We didn’t push cases—we created opportunities.
When someone comes to jail, they’re going to learn, work toward a diploma, trade certification, or college credit, and prepare for a job. The goal is that they never return. When that happens, we all win: fewer victims, reduced costs for taxpayers, and real rehabilitation.
Jacobsen: And building a culture like this takes more than just policy. It takes people—staff members, educators, volunteers, community leaders, and even celebrities. So, how did Snoop Dogg get involved?
Swanson: Great question. And you’re spot on—culture change starts at the top and moves outward. Not everyone’s heart will get there at the same speed, but leadership has to lead.
When we transformed our jail into a place of opportunity, it made the facility safer for inmates and corrections officers, law enforcement on the street, and administrative staff. It also reduces legal liability and fills workforce gaps in the community. There’s a ripple effect when you educate people and give them the tools not to return to jail.
As for Snoop Dogg—he reached out because he saw what we were doing with IGNITE and wanted to help. He’s passionate about giving people second chances and breaking the cycle, just like we are. He’s since become a vocal supporter of the program, helping us expand our message nationwide.
When that happened in 2020, we launched it. I started noticing all the data—that crime had gone down, that violence in the jail was down by 90%, and that our liability lawsuits were significantly reduced. But we fought an uphill battle because if there’s one profession I know that fights change, it’s law enforcement. And if there’s one profession I know that wants to change, it’s law enforcement. So you’re working both ends of the spectrum at the same time.
However, when we saw the success and tracked the data from day one, it caught the eye of many influencers. In the United States, 80 million people have been incarcerated for at least one day, according to The Nation Outside, a group representing returning citizens. That’s 80 million people. One of those is Snoop Dogg.
Another is Jelly Roll. They’re the ones who contacted me. They saw what we’re doing because we share our story—just like we’re doing on your show. When you have people who have the same heart but a position of influence, they want to be a part of it. That’s how I connected with Shaggy, Jelly Roll, and Snoop Dogg.
Jacobsen: Who has been the most involved of those three?
Swanson: Hands down, Jelly Roll. This guy has burst onto the country music–pop–and rap scene over the last three years like a firestorm. He’s currently in Canada finishing a tour and genuinely loves people. His real name is Jason DeFord, and under the name Jelly Roll, he’s become an advocate for second chances. He spent multiple years incarcerated and has felony convictions for drugs and other crimes—but he turned his life around.
Everyone listening to the show has been given that opportunity—maybe not through the criminal justice system, but we’ve all had second chances. I had a mutual friend in the country music industry who connected us. I sent him a video, and he sent me one back. When I told him what we were doing, it caught his attention. Since then, he’s visited our community twice in the last year and a half. You can find those visits online. He became an inspiration not only to the inmates but a validator for the staff.
You asked earlier about culture change. Sometimes, the validators must come from outside the leadership circle—and that’s exactly what Jelly Roll has done and continues to do.
Jacobsen: What are the core components of the educational programming offered through IGNITE?
Swanson: IGNITE is simple. It’s the mindset shift from incarceration to education. We go to school five days a week.
The entire jail population has the opportunity—whether you need to learn your colours and numbers, want to earn a GED, a diploma, a degree, improve financial literacy, or explore one of thousands of other courses. That five-day-a-week educational structure is based on meritocracy. When you succeed in a program or graduate, we celebrate that accomplishment.
Many of the people in jails across North America have never been told, “Great job. I’m proud of you.” They’ve grown up in broken homes. Nine out of ten people incarcerated in North America are addicted or co-addicted. Six out of ten of them struggle with a mental illness—often undiagnosed. And half of them can’t read a menu.
So when we build opportunities to learn—and we bring in instructors who aren’t paid but come from industries, communities, labour unions, online platforms, and even virtual reality systems—they are proud of what they’re doing. And when we talk about that population, and they don’t come back, it matters because nine out of ten men and women are returning to our communities.
Only ten percent of incarcerated individuals in the United States go to prison. The remaining ninety percent cycle through jails. So when people do not come back to jail, it means there’s less crime, fewer victims, and reduced relapse into addiction. It all comes down to one principle: value. Give people value. Could you give them a job? They don’t come back to jail.
Jacobsen: What about the issue of recidivism? That’s a major challenge in the United States and many other places. A significant portion—arguably the majority—of individuals in jail are there because they’ve returned after reoffending. Often, it is the same crime committed shortly after release. How does the IGNITE program address that issue?
Swanson: I’ll tell you this: “recidivism” has been a buzzword for my thirty-two years in law enforcement. No matter the area or political affiliation, everyone tries to figure out the same thing: How do we reduce crime? After all the strategies we’ve tried, I’ve found that one approach works, and that’s IGNITE. From the day we launched it, we began tracking the data. That launch wasn’t marked by a new building or a big budget—it was a ribbon-cutting on September 8, 2020, driven by a culture change.
I knew that if we tracked the data consistently. Eventually, someone outside the system would validate it. That moment came when Dr. Alsan from Harvard University took an interest. We entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Harvard, Brown University, and the University of Michigan, and those institutions studied IGNITE’s outcomes for 18 months. In February 2024, they published peer-reviewed results.
I could tell you what Genesee County feels, what our community believes, or what families say—but instead, let me share the hard, validated data from the peer-reviewed economic and finance research done by those institutions:
- One month of IGNITE reduces weekly jail misconduct by 49 percent.
- On average, IGNITE participants gained one full grade level in math and reading proficiency.
- IGNITE improved community perceptions of law enforcement and fostered positive relationships.
- One month of IGNITE reduces the 12-month social cost of crime by $5,600 per person.
And ultimately:
- One month of IGNITE reduces three-month recidivism by 19% and one-year recidivism by 20%, as validated by Harvard University.
So yes—this is the answer. It’s not the only answer, but the one we’ve been looking for. That’s why IGNITE is expanding across the country—and even internationally.
Jacobsen: Is there a need to tailor the program’s educational components to the specific needs of incarcerated individuals?
Swanson: Great question. No jail is the same. IGNITE has a national standard, but it originated in Genesee County and took root in places like Collin County, Texas—just north of Dallas–Fort Worth—and as far north as Fargo, North Dakota, just south of Canada. Each region has its own needs based on its population. You’ll find the same thing in Northern New York or Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sheriffs and leaders working with incarcerated populations know their people. IGNITE is a philosophy—it’s a culture change. But education is universal. There are no borders when it comes to teaching. You meet people where they are and give them the incentive to raise their own ceiling.
For example, in Fargo, North Dakota, the emphasis is on agriculture, business, and finance. We’re training individuals to become ironworkers and line operators in Michigan because of our strong labour and manufacturing sectors. In Texas, they even have an equestrian program. Sheriff Skinner in Collin County serves over 1.2 million people, and his population has very different needs.
So, we tailor IGNITE based on where individuals will go when they leave jail and what skills the community needs. That’s how the program is adapted effectively.
Jacobsen: What are your plans for expansion into more facilities or new regions?
Swanson: We’re taking this global. I’ve had the incredible privilege of seeing our story and message resonate far beyond Michigan. In February 2024, I was contacted by the World Literacy Foundation, which is hosting a global summit at Oxford University. I’ve been selected as the keynote speaker for April 2025 to present IGNITE to an international audience.
That summit represents 82 countries that will be there in person. And when you look at the Harvard study—an expansive, empirical study—they included a statement, Scott, that humbled me when I read it. They knew the program worked, but now they had validated it with peer-reviewed data. They said: If this mentality of education—this philosophy, this cultural shift—can work in the Genesee County Jail in Flint, Michigan, post–water crisis, then it can work anywhere.You’ve done stories on environmental crises in broken communities. When you talk about poverty, crime, and systemic trauma—if it can work in a place like that, then it can work anywhere in the world. I’m telling you, remember what IGNITE stands for: Inmate Growth Naturally and Intentionally Through Education. It is the model that’s going to change the game.
Jacobsen: You mentioned cost savings per person. What about the overall cost efficiency of the program?
Swanson: That’s the great thing—this is not a costly program. When I launched IGNITE in September 2020, we didn’t get a single dollar in funding for the first two and a half years. All we did was change how we used our time. Instead of dead time, we brought in volunteers and teachers from the community.
I have not paid a single dime for anyone to teach in the more than 300,000 contact hours delivered so far inside our jail. We structured the day so that someone participated in one hour of class before lunch. One hour before dinner, they’d earn more time out of their cell, time for quiet study, and incentives—more TV, radio, and movie time—things society uses to reinforce positive behaviour. When they do their part, we do ours.
So no—we didn’t need more money. Too often, when people look for answers, they first ask for funding. I did the opposite. I proved the concept first. We got the results, and then I asked for money because now I had data and real stories to support it.
Getting a program up and running is one thing, but sustaining it is where funding becomes relevant. That’s where partnerships come in. We now work with the National Sheriffs’ Association, which represents 3,084 sheriffs across the U.S., and they have corporate sponsors who help sheriff’s offices bring IGNITE into their communities. So it’s not costing counties anything. Bottom line: It’s a solution with no up-front cost, which makes it even more attractive—anywhere in the world.
Jacobsen: Are any innovative tools—like virtual reality—being integrated into the curriculum?
Swanson: Absolutely. We implemented virtual reality (VR) during the first six months of IGNITE. There are skills we cannot teach hands-on in jail—for obvious safety reasons. We can’t teach people how to build a doorframe, weld a seam, or wire an outlet with actual tools in a secure facility. We still have a violent jail population, and Genesee County is large, with a significant number of high-risk inmates.
So, I immediately partnered with VR software companies. Our first three VR stations taught over 50 professional life skills, including plumbing, electrical, welding, and more. These gave inmates what I call professional awareness—the chance to see and experience trades they might pursue. Then, we linked up with labour unions to create real opportunities on the outside.
For example, we talked offline about a visit to New York and the big city skylines. Ironworkers made those towering buildings. Through IGNITE, we now have a nationwide partnership with the Ironworkers of the United States. When a participant graduates with a welding certification, they’re given—upon release—a helmet, gloves, apron, and direct entry into an apprenticeship with the Ironworkers Union, wherever they live. Do you want to talk about changing a family tree? That’s it right there.
That’s the kind of incentive we’re talking about. The VR stations opened the door to possibilities—literally and figuratively. And once individuals are released from incarceration, they walk into the real world with real skills. That’s just one of many ways IGNITE prepares them.
Jacobsen: How long does it usually take to change the jail culture and how people view incarcerated people?
Swanson: I’m still fighting an uphill battle with many. Even within my facility, some people have a built-in default mindset about how things should be. But that’s not what leaders rest on. Genesee County Jail has been open since 1836. Other counties around the country have been established for hundreds of years. It’s going to take time to get everyone on board.
However, leadership plows through the field. And when the once skeptical people begin to see results, that becomes the most powerful answer to the question, “Will it work?” I’ve read you the validated outcomes from the Harvard study, but beyond that, it’s about consistent momentum.
When another county adopts IGNITE—even if it’s led by a sheriff of a different political party, a different race, a different gender—and they’re still pushing the same culture shift, that’s proof this is not a one-time experiment. This is genuine, measurable, sustainable culture change.
To your second point, there will always be resistance. If we’ve been doing things the same way since the 1830s, it’s up to us as leaders to show people that something better exists. IGNITE is that something better. That’s why you see so many people adopting it—because we don’t just have passion, we have data. It makes sense.
There’s a line I often use when I talk to the media because I know, on the other hand, people who may question educating inmates while they’re incarcerated. But after speaking with families my entire career and dealing with both the street and the jail sides, I always say this: It might not seem like a big deal—unless it’s your kid.
That personalizes it. Because every one of us has either been through something ourselves or loves someone who’s made a bad decision, who’s struggled with addiction, who’s fallen short. But we’ve also seen redemption. We’ve seen second chances turn into lifelong transformations. And when someone embraces that opportunity, it’s a testimony that cannot be denied.
So yes—it’s easy to doubt something you’ve never experienced. But when it touches your family, that’s when people become believers. And I can tell you, Scott, we’ve seen that happen repeatedly. That’s why this movement has gained so much momentum—people from all walks of life are beginning to see the value of our actions.
Jacobsen: And when prisoners get out and participate in the program, what do they say to you?
Swanson: It’s powerful. First, it’s important to note that nine out of ten jail inmates are male, and a smaller percentage are female. But IGNITE serves both genders. The needs of incarcerated women are very different from those of men, and we try to address those differences. One of our goals is to help restore the family unit while someone is still incarcerated.
As I said, nine out of ten individuals return to their communities. So, we have a wraparound program that picks up where IGNITE leaves off. And let me emphasize—people don’t ask to come to jail. What many do not realize is that about 90% of people in U.S. jails are pre-adjudicated. That means they haven’t been convicted; they’re still going through the court process. A very small percentage are serving sentences.
Some are in jail for two, three, or even five years, awaiting court outcomes. Imagine your whole life being paused—your job, family, opportunities—because of a bad decision or just the people you were around. Then, years later, you’re suddenly released—maybe with time served, on a tether, or because your case was dismissed or you were found not guilty. And now you’re expected to rebuild your life from scratch. It’s nearly impossible without help.
We provide wraparound services: identification, education through IGNITE, job placement, and housing support. That’s how people succeed. We’ve had former inmates walk out of Genesee County Jail and into full-time employment. I have countless testimonials—parents coming to the sheriff’s office, former inmates returning for graduation in civilian clothes because they want to be recognized. That’s why we hold commencement ceremonies.
And I’m not exaggerating—I have never seen anything like it. They are so thankful. I’d love to send you a link to a story about one of our early graduates. This man came back from out of state just to say thank you. He was in one of the first IGNITE graduations, and he’s now working as a mason with the Bricklayers Union, making $35 to $40 an hour, with full benefits and retirement. He returned to the jail, walked in with his head held high, and told me, “This changed my life.”
Jacobsen: Chris, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate you taking the time.
Swanson: Thank you for your platform, and I appreciate your dedication to journalism.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/24
Sona Kazemi, Industrial Technology Advisor and NRC IRAP lead for the BC Fast Pilot program, discusses the selection of 12 companies based on market size, industry challenges, and commercialization potential. The program funds cleantech projects in wildfire management, water treatment, and AI, offering up to $1.5M in support. Performance metrics track efficiency and economic impact, with funding bridging pilot-to-market gaps. NRC IRAP and Innovate BC provide ongoing technical and business advisory services for long-term success.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What criteria were the basis for selection of 12 companies participating in the BC Fast Pilot program?
Sona Kazemi: The 12 successful projects were selected based on their alignment with BC Fast Pilot (BCFP) program criteria, including readiness for pilot-scale field testing, demonstrated commercial interest, and a clear commitment from an early adopter or potential customer to test the proposed solution.
The selected projects ranked highest in the following critical evaluation areas:
market size;
industry pain points;
sales and profit potential;
technology differentiation;
scalability;
strength of intellectual property protection; and,
go-to-market strategies.
The selection process also assessed the quality of early adopters or potential customers, the strength of the project team, the financial and operational capacity of companies to conduct pilot projects, and the strategy for funding commercialization activities.
The program guidelines can be found here for more details: PDF BC Fast Program Guidelines 2025.pdf
Jacobsen: How were wildfire management to water treatment and artificial intelligence project areas prioritized for the funding round?
Kazemi:The BCFP program is sector-agnostic, prioritizing projects that address critical challenges, have strong business cases, and high commercial potential. Applications are evaluated for their expected economic, environmental, and societal benefits to BC and Canada.
Wildfire management and water treatment have been key focus areas of the program over the past years given their role in protecting communities, preserving natural resources, and ensuring long-term sustainability. There is also growing support for AI-driven innovations that optimize existing industries, improve efficiency, and drive economic growth.
Jacobsen: What are important details to know about the cleantech projects piloted through this funding?
Kazemi:The 6th round of the BCFP program funded 12 pilot projects across the province with up to $1.5M from the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC IRAP) and Innovate BC. These projects encompass a range of sectors, including wildfire management, critical minerals, water treatment and management, clean fuels, transportation, and agriculture. Each initiative uniquely contributes to reducing emissions or waste, or improving resource management.
Jacobsen: What performance metrics will evaluate the pilot projects?
Kazemi: Upon project completion, awardees must submit two reports—one to NRC IRAP and one to Innovate BC—detailing technical and commercial achievements of the project. These reports must include key performance metrics (e.g., capacity, cost, rate, efficiency) and economic metrics such as jobs created or retained, purchase orders, new customer engagements, and secured funding. Additionally, NRC IRAP tracks revenue and employment data for at least 5 years after a project is signed.
Jacobsen: What is the estimated timeline for the pilot phase of the companies before reaching market viability?
Kazemi: The pilot phase timeline varies by industry, lasting from a few months to extended testing to ensure robustness and stability. Some markets enable immediate rollout post-pilot, while others require further demonstrations or de-risking to meet industry standards. Partnering with early adopters during testing helps identify challenges, validate demand, and navigate real-world complexities, potentially accelerating market viability. Pilot results ultimately shape the path to commercialization, which differs across different industries.
Jacobsen: How will the funding help the transition from pilot demonstrations to full-scale market adoption?
Kazemi: Pilot-scale demonstrations are costly, especially in cleantech, where SMEs often have access to limited cash reserves. Investors, on the other hand, often seek de-risking and customer validation before committing. The BCFP program bridges that gap by helping with building investor confidence, attracting customers, and accelerating market adoption. Funding is strategically allocated: NRC IRAP supports labour and contractors, while Innovate BC funds equipment, materials, and travel, maximizing financial support within the program’s budget constraints.
Jacobsen: How do the NRC IRAP and Innovate BC plan to support these companies beyond the initial research and development?
Kazemi: NRC IRAP and Innovate BC offer comprehensive support beyond pilot-scale demonstration, further helping SMEs through the commercialization valley of death. NRC IRAP provides support to SMEs through technical and business advisory services provided by industrial technology advisors at every stage of development, from early innovation to market adoption.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sona.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/24
WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo discusses the best and worst states for women in 2025. Women face disparities in economic opportunities and political representation, with only 26% of Senate seats and 28.7% of House seats held by women. WalletHub’s analysis ranks Hawaii, California, and Minnesota as top states for gender equality, while Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi lag behind due to high poverty and unemployment rates. Socioeconomic conditions, education, and policy play critical roles. Based on government and nonprofit data, the study emphasizes economic empowerment as key to improving women’s health and safety outcomes nationwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here again with WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo to discuss the best and worst states for women in 2025. The general finding is that women continue to face disparities compared to men in most states. Even though women constitute 51% of the U.S. population, they represent a significant portion of minimum-wage workers and have lower political representation. In the 119th Congress (2025–2027), women hold 26% of Senate seats and 28.7% of House seats (CAWP). Internationally, the U.S. shows moderate gender parity, but there’s ample room for improvement to achieve true equality. What are your general findings on this issue?
Chip Lupo: Scott, you’re correct. Significant efforts are needed nationwide to enhance women’s representation in the workforce and politics. However, some states excel in these areas. According to WalletHub’s “Best & Worst States for Women’s Equality” report, the top states include Hawaii, California, and Minnesota.
For instance, Hawaii ranks first overall, with high scores in workplace environment and political empowerment. California follows, performing well across multiple categories. Minnesota also ranks third, indicating strong performance in women’s economic and social well-being.
Conversely, states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi rank lower regarding women’s equality. These states often have higher unemployment rates for women, greater percentages of women living below the poverty line, and more women unable to afford medical care due to costs.
The disparity between the top and bottom states underscores the impact of policies and representation. States with higher female legislative representation tend to enact laws that advance women’s rights and opportunities. In contrast, states with lower female representation may lack such supportive policies.
Notably, the gap between the highest-ranked state, Hawaii, and the lowest-ranked states is significant, highlighting the varying degrees of progress across the country. This emphasizes the need for continued efforts to promote gender equality nationwide.
Jacobsen: This one is quite widespread, ranging from 77.22 to 35.73. What do you think are the reasons for this wide or flat spread among states regarding the best and worst states for women in the United States?
Lupo: Well, when you’re talking about something that is, for the most part, subjective—such as women’s equality—it’s not always cut and dry. A lot of it comes down to policy. The high-ranking states tend to be more progressive in their thinking and legislation, while the bottom-ranking states lack those policy measures.
It’s largely policy-driven, but socioeconomics also plays a major role. When discussing factors like unemployment rates or median income levels, the lowest-ranking states tend to be lower-income states with fewer job opportunities.
For example, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C. have some of the highest median annual incomes. These states have strong economies, robust job markets, and policies that support women’s economic participation. In contrast, the lower-ranking states struggle in multiple areas.
One would think that some of the lower-ranking states would excel in at least one category, making them better places for women in some respects. However, the numbers simply do not support that. For instance, Arkansas ranks among the lowest in women’s participation in the last presidential election, with a high 30s, 40s, and even a 50th-place ranking in some metrics.
Jacobsen: How important are socioeconomic conditions, such as wealth, education, and employment opportunities, in achieving gender parity?
Lupo: Oh, it’s a huge factor. Everything ties together. Let’s take a closer look:
- Massachusetts traditionally has some of the best public school systems and elite universities in and around Greater New England.
- Not by coincidence, Massachusetts has the lowest unemployment rate for women.
- Arkansas (ranked 48th overall) is in the bottom 10 for economic well-being and ranks 43rd in women’s unemployment, with a rate of over 4%, while Massachusetts is under 3%.
- Minnesota has the fourth-lowest percentage of women living below the poverty line, while Mississippi ranks last (50th).
Another key economic indicator is public high school graduation rates:
- Massachusetts and Minnesota both have graduation rates above 90% (Minnesota is nearly 94%).
- Arkansas and Oklahoma hover just above 80%.
- Mississippi ranks last, with a graduation rate of just under 74%.
Jacobsen: In the breakdown, we have economic and social well-being (60 points) and women’s health care and safety (40 points). These are significant weighted categories. My question is twofold:
- What subcategories within these broader categories are particularly noteworthy?
- What are the sources for the data collected on 02/03/2025?
Jacobsen: What was the reason for selecting these particular data sources?
Lupo: Well, the data was primarily drawn from government sources, including the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CDC, National Center for Education Statistics, and the FBI. Additionally, we incorporated data from a large number of nonprofit think tanks as well as U.S. News & World Report.
What’s interesting, as you mentioned, is that this analysis is based on just two key dynamics:
- Women’s health care and safety
- Women’s economic and social well-being
The weighting is slightly tilted toward economic and social well-being, and that’s intentional. I believe one drives the other—if women are first empowered economically and socially, many health and safety issues tend to improve.
For example, we have a category measuring the economic clout of women-owned firms and the share of businesses owned by women. If women gain economic empowerment, the second dimension—health care and safety—tends to improve. That includes factors like:
- Uninsured rates
- Access to preventive health care
- Depression and suicide rates
A strong foundation in economic and social well-being leads to better health outcomes.
Jacobsen: Those are all my questions for today, Chip. I appreciate your time again.
Lupo: Fantastic, Scott. Excellent, man. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Take care. We’ll talk next week, I’m sure.
Lupo: Yeah, I’m sure. There’s always a new report, so thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Anytime, Scott. Take care. Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/23
Dr. Ronald Reese Ruark, an attorney in private practice in Canton, Michigan, has nearly 35 years of legal experience and holds a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary (1984) and a Juris Doctor from Marquette University Law School (1991). Currently pursuing doctoral studies at the University of Michigan, he focuses on the influence of Enochic Judaism on Paul’s apocalyptic theology. Ruark has written on theology, law, and religious skepticism, including his Free Inquiry article, Three Exorcisms. His theological and legal expertise intersect with his deep interest in First Amendment issues, particularly religious freedom and expression. He left the ministry in 1988 and returned for two years before departing permanently in 2006. Ruark describes his journey as an intellectual evolution shaped by rigorous theological study and his legal career. His perspective highlights the ethical concerns surrounding religious practices like exorcism, the broader societal role of religion, and the interplay between faith and reason.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Ronald Reese Ruark. He is an attorney in private practice in Canton, Michigan, with almost thirty-five years of legal experience. He holds a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary(1984) and a Juris Doctor from Marquette University Law School (1991).
He is a doctoral student at the University of Michigan studying the influence of Enochic Judaism on Paul’s apocalyptic theology. Ruark has written on theology, law, and religious skepticism, including his Free Inquiry article, Free Exorcisms. He has been married to his wife, Nancy, for forty-five years. His extensive background brings a unique perspective on faith, law, and intellectual inquiry.
How do your theological and legal expertise intersect personally?
Dr. Ronald Reese Ruark: Theology, specifically the New Testament, has always been my first love. I was a Greek major in college, taught by a professor with a background in classical Greek, which deepened my interest in studying the New Testament. I strengthened that foundation at Dallas Theological Seminary, where I was a theology major studying under Norman Geisler. Sometimes, I wish I had pursued New Testament studies because, at the time, Dallas had a fine, young New Testament department—some of whom are still teaching today, forty years later, at the peak of their careers.
Jacobsen: How do theology and law blend in your career?
Ruark: Originally, I envisioned becoming a lay minister in a church. Legal issues, particularly First Amendment matters—especially freedom of expression—have always intrigued me. There is significant common ground between theology and law.
Eventually, I left the ministry in 1988, though I briefly returned in 2002–2004. I served as a pastor for twenty-five months before leaving for good in 2006.
Jacobsen: Those two years in the pulpit—this isn’t the main focus of the interview, but it’s insightful—what were the key takeaways, both positive and negative, that you carry with you today?
Ruark: The most positive takeaway was working with wonderful people. Many church members sincerely strive to shape their lives around their faith in Christ. Their sincerity was inspiring. I also enjoyed public speaking—I spoke four times weekly, twice from the pulpit and twice in the classroom. I was extremely busy.
Ruark: For one of those semesters, I took a full course load at Michigan. I also taught in Michigan and managed all my church responsibilities in addition to practicing law. I was barely keeping my head above water, but overall, it was a positive experience.
The negative takeaway was that when I left the church for good, I only returned for things like hearing my granddaughter sing in a Christmas choir. The most challenging realization—based on all my church experiences—was that Christians are neither better nor worse than any other religious group. In my legal work, I have interacted with Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, and I studied Judaism at the University of Michigan, working side by side with Jewish classmates. It was a difficult realization to accept because, according to Christian belief, Christians are supposed to have the Spirit of God residing within them. Yet, in practice, that did not seem to make them distinct in any meaningful way.
My study of the New Testament gospels led me to believe that most Christians do not follow a fundamental element of Jesus’ teachings—specifically, he was an apocalyptic prophet who instructed his disciples to relinquish their possessions. Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33 make this clear: No man can be my disciple if he does not give up everything he has. Yet, despite this, the people I encountered were still good, and I enjoyed their company.
Being part of a church community has many benefits. You have to take the good along with some of the bad. I don’t know if that answers your question.
Jacobsen: It does. It also provides insight because that perspective has not always been given equal space or respect over the past two decades as a counterbalance in freethought circles, activism, and speaking engagements. We seem to move toward a more balanced cultural commentary from freethought, humanist, and atheist communities.
That’s a good perspective. So, what inspired you to write Three Exorcisms? And what led you to share these particular experiences?
Ruark: The two exorcism experiences were based on personal experience and deeply impacted my psyche.
I love to write and enjoy it very much. Now that I have finished my work at Michigan, I plan to write more. I am giving free expression to the evolution of my thoughts. I’m relieved that most of my Christian friends will never see it. I tried Googling it myself, and it wouldn’t come up unless I used my full name—but when I did, it appeared immediately.
That has always been a sensitive area for me. I do not attempt to lead anyone out of the church or away from their relationship with Christ. Most of my friends are solid Christian believers, and I would never try to persuade them to abandon their faith.
This is a very autobiographical reflection on how my life has evolved. I do not challenge anyone else to experience the same evolution—some might even consider it a devolution. I don’t know.
Jacobsen: How are exorcisms framed in most churches or denominations? How are they viewed theologically, especially in a hermeneutic or analytical sense? And in terms of lived experience, how do people perceive them?
Ruark: Keep in mind that I have only experienced two exorcisms firsthand. Other than that, my knowledge comes from watching movies.
I suspect that much of it involves the subjugation of evil forces and is apocalyptic. If Christ was an apocalyptic prophet—a Jewish apocalyptic prophet—then he engaged in exorcisms according to the Gospels. I believe that involves the subjugation of evil forces and the apocalyptic conflict between good and evil.
This is fundamentally an Enochic idea. Suppose you read the Epistles, the Epistle of Enoch, the Book of the Watchers, and especially the Book of Parables. In that case, you see more than parallels between that theology and Christian apocalyptic theology—you see structural similarities. Structurally, they are the same.
Some primordial events have thrown the world into chaos. This is attributed to Adam’s sin in Christian theology, particularly Romans 5 and 6. In Enochic theology, it is a primordial cosmic event—a war in heaven that plunged the universe and the world into chaos and disorder.
Modern exorcisms are seen as part of the reordering of the world, alleviating that chaos, particularly with the advent of Christ and the power he is believed to wield in the world today. But suppose you ask fifteen or twenty Christians. In that case, you might get fifteen or twenty answers about how they perceive exorcisms.
Jacobsen: And in terms of the reality of the situation—when an individual is reporting what is essentially a supernatural event, whether it is something they are acting out or experiencing as a physiological event—what is happening when you strip away the theological interpretations and supernatural elements?
Ruark: As I indicated in the article, it was easily explained. What I witnessed was theatre. I saw people who were probably under the influence, either emotionally or psychologically. They may have known what was expected of them, or perhaps they viewed it as a dramatic moment in their lives. Some might have even believed it bolstered their significance—that they were important enough for satanic forces to try to control them.
There are all kinds of psychological explanations at play. The Exorcist—the movie—created much of the hoopla surrounding exorcisms. I would be willing to bet that the number of reported exorcisms increased dramatically after that movie.
Of course, exorcisms appear in other films as well. The Exorcism of Emily Rose comes to mind—it was a well-made film. Ultimately, however, this is all part of the cultural phenomenon.
The two Christians I dealt with directly—I was not directly involved, but I was there—were fully immersed in that belief system.
I witnessed everything, but I wasn’t the one conducting the exorcism—thank God—especially on a 14-year-old girl. You can frame it in various ways without appealing to anything supernatural. I will admit that some aspects of exorcisms can be bizarre. Still, I would attribute almost all of them to some form of psychological disorder.
I am neither a psychologist nor claim to be one, but I see no need to invoke supernatural forces. At least, I saw nothing that compelled me to do so.
Jacobsen: How does the clergy class classify these experiences? And how do they whip up hysteria, building a culture of superstition around their supposed powers through incantations, symbols, crosses, and so on?
Ruark: Religion thrives on superstition, if you ask me. This is how they spin it. It has a certain appeal—it makes the exorcist seem courageous, fighting the battles of Christ on his behalf. That is something that appeals to many ministers.
I am not suggesting that there is no sympathy for the person undergoing the exorcism. Even if it is not supernatural, and even if it is purely psychological, there is still real suffering. Some clergy members sincerely want to help, and I do not doubt that. The exorcist I was working with was an interesting guy. For him, it was not just a sense of adventure but a sense of significance.
He saw himself as doing battle with Satan. It made him feel like a powerful and substantial person. A lot of that was probably happening in the two exorcisms I witnessed.
Jacobsen: Some ethical concerns come to mind.
On the one hand, if these cases involve individuals with mental health issues, they are being treated with incantations and supernatural methods. These are people in a highly vulnerable position. That makes them susceptible to abuse and manipulation.
A second issue—not secondary but related—is that in most industries, a small percentage of people are not sincere believers in what they preach. Instead, they are sincere believers in the gullibility of others. The ability to exploit that gullibility is very real.
So, beyond the abstract ethical concerns about treating mental health issues in a harmful way, there is also the question of bad actors—those who, in cultural terms, would be considered con artists. What about those two concerns?
Ruark: Ethics play a role, but the exorcist does not see it that way—because he has put a theological spin on it. He thinks he is helping, but in reality—especially for the 14-year-old girl—he made it worse.
There are clear ethical implications for any clear-thinking person. However, within the framework of religious belief, those ethical considerations are often ignored or reframed as a spiritual battle rather than a case of psychological distress.
You are correct in using the word vulnerable—these people were vulnerable. Maybe they wanted to feel significant, or perhaps they were genuinely experiencing psychological pain. But they looked to a man to help them, which put them in a vulnerable situation, and that vulnerability was exploited and manipulated. That is what I saw happening. The ethical issues are tremendous.
However, strong First Amendment protections in a church setting shield religious leaders from many of those concerns—for better or worse. As a lawyer, I appreciate the First Amendment, but I still agree with you 100% that there are serious ethical considerations here.
Jacobsen: Do priests—or, more broadly, clergy—have any code of conduct regarding this kind of thing?
Ruark: There are so many churches. How many different denominations are there in America alone? Then, you have synagogues, mosques, and countless other religious communities. There are thousands of groups, each with its own beliefs and practices.
Perspectives can vary widely regarding something as emotionally charged as an exorcism. So, a universal code of conduct? No.
As an attorney, I am bound by a code of professional responsibility. If I fail to uphold it, I face professional discipline before the grievance commission. Doctors and psychologists have similar ethical codes that they must follow.
However, the state does not intervene in matters involving clergy. This is part of the separation of church and state.
For example, it is often difficult to sue a clergy member in lawsuits because First Amendment protections are taken very seriously. If you are involved in a church, a lot can happen to you. While many lawsuits have been filed against clergy members, holding them legally accountable is still difficult because of the First Amendment.
The state tends to stay out of church matters. Judges typically back off when a theological issue is raised in a courtroom because they are jurists, not theologians, and “never the twain shall meet.”
This loophole gives church leaders much freedom to manipulate, exploit, and even harm. That is unfortunate, but it is true.
Jacobsen: To clarify, is the direct implication of your statement that you, as a lawyer, are bound by a code of ethics and guidelines while clergy are not? In other words, does that mean you are held to a higher ethical standard than the clergy?
Ruark: Yes, that is true because clergy have no formal, legally binding ethical standards.
Of course, you could point to biblical texts like Titus or 1 and 2 Timothy, which outline moral expectations for church leaders. But in practice, there is no enforceable, standardized code for clergy behaviour the way there is for lawyers, doctors, or psychologists.
It has been a long time since I studied those texts, but there are standards for elders that would apply to clergy. However, there is nothing that the state enforces. No government produces a standard of conduct for clergy.
There are a few laws that affect clergy. As I recall, clergy cannot take advantage of a counselee and engage in a sexual relationship with them. Michigan has a law against that, though I have not looked at it in decades. But beyond that, there is no clear-cut ethical standard dictates how clergy must act in a given situation.
That kind of standard does not exist except within individual churches or denominations. Some likely have codes of conduct, but we all know those are constantly violated.
Jacobsen: There is well-documented, decades-long evidence of both cover-ups and abuse by clergy across major Christian denominations. I am working with researchers—themselves victims—who have been abused by clergy in Eastern Orthodoxy, the second-largest Christian denomination. The Catholic Church gets the most attention because it is the largest. Hence, media coverage makes sense from that standpoint.
From a professional perspective, does this evidentiary history raise further concerns about ethics and conduct in these settings, especially given the lack of ethical guidelines and the potential for abuse?
Ruark: The Catholic Church is an interesting case. I am a big movie fan, and Calvary is an excellent commentary on this topic, particularly in distinguishing between institutional religion and personal spirituality.
There have been thousands of documented instances of clergy abuse. And there is a certain dynamic at play.
I can speak for Protestant churches and clergy who attended seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary. The ministry tends to attract a certain mindset. In my opinion, the professional ministry offers an excellent opportunity for neurotic individuals to set up positions of power and abuse people. This dynamic always exists.
Now, going back to the Catholic Church, even though clergy abuse is widespread, I am not entirely sure why it happens so frequently in that setting. Is it because Catholic priests are not married? I have no idea—I have not studied that in depth. I am not a psychologist, and I do not claim to be.
However, abuse is not unique to the Catholic Church. There is plenty of abuse in Baptist churches and in any religious structure where the pastor, minister, or priest is placed in a position of extreme authority over the laity—similar to how Catholic priests function as the vicars of Christ. That hierarchical system attracts the wrong kinds of people to the ministry.
So you see these patterns of abuse in churches where institutional structures emphasize a single leader at the helm. And yet, despite these scandals, churches—especially the Catholic Church—continue to persist. I do not know if I would call it “thriving,” but it continues to exist.
With these churches’ money, power, and institutional backing, that is probably not a huge surprise.
But religion is a strange thing. It can be completely exposed as a vacuous enterprise, yet it thrives. There will always be a place for it because religion meets fundamental human needs.
No matter how much evidence, a person’s psychology makes it incredibly difficult to leave the church. Most people do not react to these issues rationally—they respond viscerally and emotionally. Moving someone out of the church takes a lot, and most people never leave. They do not even question it.
They assume that what they have been taught, what they were born into, must be true. I have no idea if that fullyanswered your question, but you raised some important issues.
Here’s the thing.
I was raised in a Christian home, and my Christian heritage goes back two hundred years. I recently visited the gravestone of my great-great-great-grandmother, who died around 1855. Her headstone includes a Christian inscription about living in Jesus, which was nice.
I was raised in this Christian atmosphere. My grandfather and my parents were good people. My parents were not what I would call faithful churchgoers, but my grandparents certainly were.
I spent much time with my grandparents—a satisfying, meaningful time in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. We read the Bible, attended church services, and did other things.
I attended Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, and had a positive experience there. Next, Nancy and I are leaving for Dallas next week to visit my old college roommate.
Dallas was a positive experience overall. There were many intelligent people there and in college. By the way, I studied with Norman Geisler. He was a fine man. In the 1980s, he was the foremost Christian apologist in the world. He was a brilliant scholar but also a genuinely nice guy.
I graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1984. I was in ministry for three years, from 1985 to 1988. By 1988, I was frustrated with it. I had left the church, and that emotional tie was broken. The financial tie was also broken—I no longer needed the church in my life to survive. I am analytical. I was wrestling with difficult theological questions and wasn’t getting satisfying answers.
No matter how much evidence, a person’s psychology makes it incredibly difficult to leave the church. Most people do not react to these issues rationally—they respond viscerally and emotionally. Moving someone out of the church takes a lot, and most people never leave. They do not even question it.
They assume that what they have been taught, what they were born into, must be true. I have no idea if that fullyanswered your question, but you raised some important issues.
Jacobsen: From your experience, you attended seminary, and seminarians are typically elite intellectuals. They are intelligent people.
Ruark: Yes, that is true. There were many intelligent people when I was in seminary, including the professors.
Jacobsen: A significant benefit of seminary is its sophisticated hermeneutical and textual analysis. It helps scholars better understand which parts of religious texts are historical, which are myths mixed with history, moral teachings, etc. Regardless of one’s motivations, seminaries are quite good at that.
But how did you go from that cultural background to seminary, growing up in the church and living a religious life? I am shifting away from the ethical issues and historical abuses in the church and more toward your lived experience—growing up in the church, living the seminary life, and having that as a backdrop.
Ruark: Here’s the thing.
I was raised in a Christian home, and my Christian heritage goes back two hundred years. I recently visited the gravestone of my great-great-great-grandmother, who died around 1855. Her headstone includes a Christian inscription about living in Jesus, which was nice.
I was raised in this Christian atmosphere. My grandfather and my parents were good people. My parents were not what I would call faithful churchgoers, but my grandparents certainly were.
I spent much time with my grandparents—a satisfying, meaningful time in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. We read the Bible, attended church services, and did other things.
I attended Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, and had a positive experience there. Next, Nancy and I are leaving for Dallas next week to visit my old college roommate.
I was in the pulpit for twenty-five months, from February 2004 to February 2006. I am unsure why I did it, but I spent those two years in ministry. When I left that pulpit, I left the church altogether because the evidence was overwhelming. My experience at the University of Michigan only confirmed what I had already begun to realize. You can easily explain the origins of Christianity from a historical perspective.
The church began as a Jewish apocalyptic movement. I call it an Enochic movement because Enochic theology was behind it all. As Paul and his churches moved into a Hellenistic world, away from Judea and into the Mediterranean, present-day Turkey, and eventually Rome, they absorbed pagan influences. And, as you probably know, dying and rising gods were everywhere in the pagan world—they were all over the Mediterranean Basin. Once Christianity entered that cultural arena, we saw the development of the resurrection narrative and other Hellenistic influences shaping Christian theology.
In other words, I evaluated the evidence more objectively. I cannot claim to be completely objective, but my analysis was certainly more critical. And for me, the evidence became overwhelming. I could not stay in the church. That was my journey, and I view it autobiographically. I do not expect anyone else to think the way I do.
My attitude toward religion is this: if it makes you more gracious, forgiving, compassionate, and kind, then more power to you.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that you are more of a friend of truth than of Jesus. The first thing that came to my mind was Plato’s quote about being a friend of truth. In that sense, you are more of an epistemic Platonist than an epistemic Christian.
Ruark: You know what? I read Epictetus and the Stoics quite a bit. I like Marcus Aurelius especially. I get many ideas from Greek philosophy so that I will take that as a compliment.
Jacobsen: It was intended as such. So, let’s move on—what has been the response to your exorcism article? What have your Christian friends and colleagues said about it?
Ruark: Honestly, very few people I know are aware that I wrote it. I have only received one immediate response, and that was from someone who praised it, saying, “That’s one of the best articles I’ve ever read.” I don’t know if that is true, but it was nice to hear. Beyond that, the only other response I received was when Melissa told me that someone wanted to interview me—which turned out to be you.
Jacobsen: That tends to happen.
Ruark: I have no idea how the broader audience will react. I might get panned in the next issue of Free Inquiry. They might say, “That guy is full of it.”
And yet, I think the future belongs to the atheists. I do. Two hundred years from now, as science continues to explain the universe, the God idea may still exist, but it will be completely redefined. Any Christians still around will be found in small pockets, little conclaves of religious people clinging to their quaint ideas.
Yet, religion may persist because, as I have repeatedly said, it meets certain basic human needs. For that reason, by the way, it deserves some respect. If it is a human enterprise, it should be acknowledged as such. However, I still believe the future belongs to those who are not religious.
Jacobsen: What about employment impacts? If someone lives in a small community with only a few churches and they are known for their criticism of religion, how does that affect them?
Ruark: In that case, you have a real problem. In small-town America, you will be seen as an outcast, an oddball—that weird guy who doesn’t belong. This will likely affect your social standing, your relationships in the community, and possibly even employment. If your job is local, I think you could face serious issues.
However, in larger metropolitan areas, you can get along just fine. Most of the time, at least. I am part of the legal community in Detroit, and the only time we ever know what someone believes is on Ash Wednesday when the Catholics show up with ash crosses on their foreheads. Other than that, no one ever brings it up. No one asks. It is simply not a big issue anymore—which, by the way, tells you something right there.
Jacobsen: What about seminary? What was the gossip around individuals who lost their faith while studying it at the highest levels?
Ruark: Where I was, at Dallas Seminary, I can guarantee that plenty of guys left the ministry and went into law. That is a favourite profession for former seminarians. Others left for different careers, either because their lives evolved unexpectedly or because they became frustrated or disillusioned—which was my experience.
If you were in seminary openly voicing these kinds of concerns, particularly at Dallas, which is a fairly conservative seminary, a fundamentalist evangelical school, you would not have been tolerated. You would have been removed.
At Dallas Seminary, you had to sign a statement of faith, just as ministers do when they enter a church or denomination. You were expected to toe the line.
As a freethinker, that is a major concern. It is one of the reasons I left the ministry—my faith had shifted. I no longer viewed things as I used to, so I left quietly. I did not create a ruckus or cause conflict—I left.
Jacobsen: What are the things in those contracts, statements of faith, or covenant agreements?
Ruark: It depends on what church or denomination you’re in. Sometimes, it could be the Apostles’ Creed or the Fundamentals of the Faith. As I recall, it typically includes a doctrinal framework—a belief in God, Christ as His Son, the idea that Christ died for our sins, substitutionary atonement or some form of atonement theology, that He rose from the dead, and that He is coming back.
This has always been a prominent doctrinal statement among Christians, and these core ideas appear in most faith statements. Some Reformed tradition churches might add doctrines of predestination, for example. It depends on the denomination—churches have different minister and parishioner requirements.
Some churches do not require parishioners to sign anything at all. You can walk into any megachurch and never be asked to sign a statement of faith—it is not a big deal. But if you start voicing concerns or challenging beliefs, you will likely be schooled, disciplined, or expected to leave. I am quite confident of that. The religious mindset does not entertain dissent.
The First Amendment does not apply to the church. Churches have broad protections under the First Amendment.
Jacobsen: I have heard of cases where someone was asked to leave for violating church doctrine. For example, I heard of a case where a woman working at a Christian school—not a teacher, just regular staff—was asked to leave after she got divorced. This might have even happened in Canada, but I do not believe it was widely reported. I grew up in an evangelical community. I remember someone talking about it while working at a restaurant in town. The school’s biblical framework did not permit divorce, so they politely told her that she had to leave for violating the covenant agreement.
Jacobsen: That kind of thing still happens?
Ruark: It is probably not as common in American churches as it once was, but I know of at least one person publicly disciplined after divorcing his wife. That still happens in conservative churches.
And here’s the thing—that kind of action is protected under the First Amendment. Church leaders cannot say anything they want, but they have extensive protections when dealing with parishioners. If a pastor were to stand in the pulpit and say something about me that was slanderous or defamatory, I could sue them—because I am not a church member. They would not have First Amendment protection in that case. But for their parishioners, they have much legal leeway.
Jacobsen: What are some of your worst stories about church discipline?
Ruark: Divorce plays a major role in these cases. There is a strong stigma against divorce in conservative churches, and that creates problems for people who leave marriages. That is one of the most common reasons for church discipline.
Other people who choose to live differently from traditional church teachings—such as individuals in churches that oppose homosexuality—often face serious consequences if they come out as gay or decide to transition. That can create a major problem within the church community.
Certain churches would not hesitate to expose what they consider immoral behaviour publicly. Other churches, however, may fear taking a strong stance, especially given today’s political and social climate in America. Church leaders always have to make this decision.
I can guarantee you that in any sizable elder board—let’s say in a Baptist church with twelve men on the board—there will be at least a couple of them who do not want to take a public stance due to liability concerns. More legally savvy people tend to be more cautious about making public statements.
On the other hand, some leaders will also say, “I don’t care about liability. We have to do God’s work.” And so, they go ahead and make a public statement anyway. These things still happen in American churches, though not as frequently as they once did.
Jacobsen: Regarding theology and politics, we have seen reactionary political movements emerging from certain evangelical Protestant Christian circles, seeking to align themselves with federal and state power. How common is this among other denominations? Is this a conscious effort among Christians in general, or are mainly select denominations reading biblical texts selectively literalistically?
Ruark: I think all churches read the Bible selectively to some extent. But yes, many conservative churches—especially evangelicals—have been aligned with the Republican Party for a long time, primarily due to the abortion issue.
Many of these churches have also aligned with Donald Trump, whom they consider to be more conservative than, for example, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden. Even though Biden identifies as a Catholic, many evangelicals do not consider him a true Christian leader.
So, in a way, conservative religion—with its moral values—and conservative politics—with its perceived moral stance—tend to walk hand in hand. One reinforces the other.
Donald Trump understood this dynamic very well. He made a big deal out of his faith, though I am not saying his faith is insincere—I have no idea whether it is. But what I do know is that he used religious rhetoric to win votes and get elected—for better or worse.
That kind of political use of religion is nothing new. We use religion to get what we want—that has always been the case.
It is important to note that more liberal churches are also politically involved but in the opposite direction. I do not particularly like the term liberal, though I consider myself liberal in the sense that I have been liberated from certain belief systems. However, progressive churches do exist and are heavily involved in activism—just not in the same way as conservative churches.
It’s like a civil war, where both sides fight each other and claim to be acting for God. Both sides pray to what is the same God, and yet they are shooting each other.
Jacobsen: To quote George Carlin, ‘Someone’s gonna be fucking disappointed.’
Ruark: Now you’re going old school on me. But Carlin, regarding religion, is about as good as it gets.
Jacobsen: That was his last special, too.
Ruark: What was it?
Jacobsen: 2008, I believe. But let’s get back to the main focus. People are shaking, convulsing, screaming—going through all the theatrics of an exorcism. They go through the motions and receive their so-called “help.” Fine. Great. Whatever. But how do they interpret their performance or experience?
Ruark: Christians—especially the more fundamentalist ones—tend to be paranoid to begin with. And it’s not just about the devil and demons. There is this deep-rooted belief that the world is out to get them, that they are constantly persecuted, and that they are always under attack. So when they experience something as dramatic as an exorcism, they typically interpret it as a battle of good versus evil, a confrontation between God and Satan.
For those who take their spirituality seriously, an exorcism is not just a personal experience but proof that they are on the right side of a cosmic war. They see themselves warriors in a spiritual battle, proud to stand for truth and righteousness. That kind of mindset is deeply ingrained in evangelical and charismatic traditions.
I remember a specific case, but I won’t say exactly where because I don’t want to embarrass the person. But it’s a relevant story. I was working at a place, and a colleague—an extremely devout Christian—was telling me about someone in his family who had lost their faith. The way he spoke about it, you could tell he saw it as a tragedy. There wasn’t any explicit condemnation, but you could hear it in his tone—as if this person had been lost to the dark side.
Later, knowing that I was not religious, I decided to joke with him a little. We were alone, standing near a car door, and he was many yards away when I casually said, “Join us.” I was joking, referencing something else entirely, but his reaction was deadly serious.
He turned to me, looked me straight in the eye, and, in a low, intense voice, said, “I am not one.” It was chilling. His response had no humour, no hint of playfulness—just absolute conviction. That moment stuck with me because it revealed how deeply some Christians internalize this worldview. For them, it is not just about beliefs—it is about identity, loyalty, and an ongoing cosmic struggle.
Jacobsen: So, about 49% Christian in Canada, if you track a line of best fit?
Ruark: I can’t remember the exact statistics in America, but they’re similar. We are becoming increasingly secularized.
Jacobsen: I was told today that around under two-thirds of the population identifies as Christian. It’s hard to quantify, though; different organizations might give you different numbers.
Ruark: But the overall trend is clear—we are becoming more secular. Your Bible will be very short-lived at this rate.
Jacobsen: What other social phenomena are tightly linked with Christian religion in the United States? If people want to play that 1990s identity politics game, how does Christian identity factor into social issues?
Ruark: Well, health care is certainly one area—especially when it comes to abortion. That is a prime example, but other aspects of health care are tied up with religion. That would be a big one.
I’m trying to think—it’s a hard question to answer off the top of my head. Certainly, employment is not as much of an issue since we have laws against using religion as a hiring or firing criterion. In theory, it should not be a factor. However, certain companies do not hesitate to advertise their faith.
For a long time, on one of the turnpikes in Ohio or Pennsylvania, I remember seeing a big sign on the roof of a small business that said, “Jesus is the Answer.” That kind of public religious messaging still happens. But legally, in America, you cannot discriminate in employment decisions based on religion.
Jacobsen: What about other social phenomena?
Ruark: Well, there are the arts, but they are becoming less influenced by Christianity. However, sports—especially baseball and the Super Bowl—have seen a rise in public religious expression. It is becoming very prominent in athletics in general.
You’re always seeing athletes thank Jesus for their victories, which—well, we don’t have to get into that—is absurd.
Jacobsen: To bring up Carlin’s point again, ‘Someone’s gonna be fucking disappointed.’
Ruark: Anyway, that happens all the time. So, sports, especially professional sports, are one of the most prominent examples of religion as a social phenomenon. Whether on the football field, the gridiron, or elsewhere, athletes always thank Jesus for what happens during the game.
That is one of the clearest examples of religion intertwining with a major social institution.
Jacobsen: What are you finding in Enochic Judaism and Paul’s apocalyptic theology? Those are some obscure concepts mashed together.
Ruark: You share the same idea of the origin of evil in Enochic and Pauline theology. Both traditions see the world as chaotic and disorderly and need redemption.
This contrasts with the temple priests of Second Temple Judaism, who viewed the world as perfect. They believed everything would be in order if you obeyed the law. The Enochic authors completely rejected that view. They saw the world as imperfect as possible, beyond redemption in its current state.
This is why Paul refers to “this present evil age” in Galatians 1:4. It is the same theological concept—a corrupt world in desperate need of divine intervention.
Enochic theology calls a messianic figure the Anointed One, the Son of Man, or the Righteous One. This is strikingly similar to the Christ figure in Christianity.
My research focuses on election—who is considered part of the chosen people in Enochic literature. This theme is also found in Romans 9, 10, and 11, where Paul speaks of a righteous remnant, a group of elected individuals. In both Paul’s writings and Enoch’s, election is not based on obedience to the law but on something else.
Enoch’s elect are those who bless the Lord of Spirits, the high God. This trinitarian theology—where there is a high God and a messianic figure—is almost identical to Paul’s view, where he speaks of “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So structurally, the theology of Paul’s apocalyptic worldview and Enochic Judaism is incredibly similar. We are now stepping into New Testament criticism, a fascinating topic. Like myself, more freethinking scholars are drawn to these historical connections.
Ruark: There used to be a group called the Dutch Radicals. I don’t know if you’re familiar with them.
Jacobsen: I am Dutch, though I don’t know if I’m a radical.
Ruark: You might like these guys. They were active in the last third of the nineteenth century, mostly in the Netherlands. The Dutch Radicals doubted the existence of Jesus, much like what is happening today in certain academic circles. They fall under what we now call mythicism.
Jacobsen: Right? They would be considered mythicists today, correct?
Ruark: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: There’s a prominent mythicist group in Milwaukee called Mythicist Milwaukee.
Ruark: I lived in Milwaukee for six years—where I was in ministry for the first time and attended law school. Suppose you read someone like Robert M. Price, who wrote Deconstructing Jesus and other books. In that case, you get a good idea of mythicism. Price leans in that direction if he hasn’t said Jesus was a myth.
The Dutch Radicals went further. Many of them doubted Paul’s existence, and some even argued that Paul’s epistles were second-century creations. Based on the Greek text, my study of Galatians has led me to believe that the letter was compiled by a redactor in the second century, after the publication of Acts, which probably didn’t occur until around 130 CE.
If Acts were written in the early second century, that would push Galatians as late as 150 CE or even 160 CE. These were the kinds of critical ideas that the Dutch Radicals were exploring. But today, it’s hard to get a hearing for these theories because of the continued influence of religion in biblical scholarship.
You can’t just express these ideas in journals like the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) or Vetus Testamentum. They don’t tolerate these kinds of challenges to traditional scholarship.
Jacobsen: Among the professional class of philosophers of religion, in your professional opinion, do you think there is much self-censorship?
Ruark: I believe there is. Certain ideas are just not entertained. You cannot bring them up.
When I was in seminary, we studied New Testament theology using a textbook by Donald Guthrie, a comprehensive work on the subject. Guthrie made a statement that stuck with me: When an idea is deeply entrenched in scholarship, it requires extraordinary evidence to overturn it.
It’s ridiculous, but that’s how the academic establishment protects its views. They don’t allow competition and don’t tolerate threats to traditional positions. That’s just how it works.
Do you know William Lane Craig, the Christian apologist?
Jacobsen argues that Christians are more free to analyze and critique their beliefs than atheists or naturalists. What would you say to that?
Ruark: It’s just another way to protect his position.
Jacobsen: He says, “You just don’t know what you’re talking about because you’re not a Christian.”
Ruark: This is a circular argument. According to Craig’s logic, only Christians are “enlightened,” so only they truly understand the evidence. That’s just a way of shutting down debate.
Jacobsen: That’s similar to his argument about how, even in the face of counterarguments, Christians can rely on the witness of the Holy Spirit as their ultimate justification.
Ruark: My point about Craig is that he always appeals to most New Testament scholars as if that proves anything. But it doesn’t prove anything. That is an observation, not an argument. But that is how religion works.
I was working on an article about how Christian apologists argue and discussed how they have stacked the deck in their favour. They have written their own rules in a way that benefits them, and they take advantage of that at every opportunity.
Jacobsen: What about Alvin Plantinga? Craig admires him.
Ruark: He is a Christian philosopher who converted to Christianity. Is he still alive?
Jacobsen: Born in 1932—no death noted. He is 92 years old.
Ruark: Wow. So he is still around. I don’t know if he is still active.
Jacobsen: He is known for his modal ontological argument and evolutionary argument against naturalism. Have you ever considered that argument—the idea that if naturalism is true, it undermines itself?
Ruark: I would have to review it. I haven’t thought about it in decades. This is the first time I have heard Plantinga’s name since Dr. Geisler mentioned him in the 1980s.
I am not saying he isn’t a prominent figure, but I have been preoccupied with other things—law and my studies at Michigan—so I really couldn’t address anything about Plantinga’s argument off the top of my head.
Jacobsen: What do you make of what I would call inflationary taxation on Anglophones—basically, how has the English language been weighted down by all these academic and theological terms? Angelology, demonology, pneumatology, Christology, hamartiology, patristics, mysticism, eschatology, soteriology, Mariology, ecclesiology… and so on.
Ruark: Yes, I studied almost all of those, except Mariology, during my time in seminary. I also took a course in angelology.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Ruark: According to the biblical text, there are angels, which is clear. But I am much more interested now in the Jewish concept of angels, particularly as heavenly beings. There is an argument out there that Christ was originally considered to be an angel before being elevated—that in Philippians 2, he ascended, and then suddenly, he was described as having risen from the dead.
The idea of the resurrection evolved, but it may have begun with Christ being seen as a mediating figure, an angelic or heavenly being. In Judaism, angels were sometimes worshiped as divine or celestial entities.
We have created a science of all these “-ologies” to make theology appear more credible. I don’t know, but I have studied most of them. I took courses in angelology, demonology, eschatology, Christology, and theology as part of the theological curriculum, especially at a conservative seminary.
Jacobsen: Are these topics widely discussed, or are they mainly limited to specialist scholars?
Ruark: It depends. In church settings, some parts of theology are emphasized more than others. Eschatology, for example—especially in conservative Protestant churches in America—is always a major topic. Discussions about the Second Coming of Christ, the end times, and similar topics are common, and plenty of seminars exist.
It was probably even more prominent in the 1950s, but these theological emphases tend to track cultural anxieties. When there is widespread paranoia or fear, churches must persuade believers that hope is coming—that Christ will return soon.
Before I left the church, I heard countless sermons about “Jesus is coming again.” I remember hearing them every summer at the youth camp I attended as a kid; they had a formative influence on my life.
Theology, at its core, is a way of systematizing the Christian faith. I understand the impulse. And the more conservative the church, the more they tend to structure theology systematically.
At the very least, theology requires imagination. You cannot study something like the Nicene Creed without appreciating the creativity of these early theologians. Even if the modern world is moving past these beliefs, they are still part of the history of ideas.
Jacobsen: What about reactions to the bombshell that Darwin dropped in the mid-1800s with On the Origin of Species? How did different Christian groups respond through acceptance, rejection, or half-measures?
Ruark: That’s an interesting topic. I attended William Jennings Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, where the Scopes Trial occurred in 1925.
Jacobsen: I went through H. L. Mencken’s reportage on the Scopes Trial, and he was a big inspiration. As a journalist, he was sharp and witty.
Ruark: He was unafraid to call things as he saw them. He had a sharp sense of humour.
Jacobsen: He did, though I think he could be mean sometimes—particularly when that fellow died. But overall, he was making valid points, and his flowery language is still delightful to read. You could remove the mean parts, and his work would still hold up well.
Ruark: He was harsh on Bryan. If you watch the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind—with Fredric March and Spencer Tracy—you see that they also portray Bryan harshly. Spencer Tracy was superb, as always, and the film is excellent, but it doesn’t give Bryan a fair shake.
That said, Bryan College is a fundamentalist school. Today, it’s essentially a training ground for people who will be Christian educators or enter some other religious vocation.
But I have always appreciated Bryan—William Jennings Bryan, that is—because he was essentially the founder of the modern Democratic Party. He was called “The Great Commoner” because he identified with low-income people, the working class, and those on the margins of society. He wanted to expand access to the benefits of American life and bring as many people as possible under its economic and political umbrella.
Yet, Bryan College, a deeply conservative fundamentalist institution, extols Bryan as a champion of the faith—primarily because of his role in Dayton and the Scopes Trial. But in reality, I think he was wrong constitutionally. His position was bigoted, and he refused to entertain the idea of evolution being taught in a science classroom.
That thinking is obsolete in American education today—and I imagine it is also in Canadian education. But we are still fighting battles to keep religion out of public schools. Every generation, a new court case emerges, with someone claiming that Genesis is science—when in reality, Genesis is a myth, as is so much of the Bible.
But that is the tension between religion and culture.
Jacobsen: Have I missed anything?
Ruark: No. It has been an interesting conversation.
Religion has had many positive effects on society but has also created serious problems. My personal view is that as long as half the world believes the other half is going to hell, we are going to struggle to create lasting peace—whether in this country or the world at large.
But that is just the nature of religious thought.
Jacobsen: Well, on that note, Ron, it was lovely to meet you. Thank you for your time today.
Ruark: Your work is important and deserves attention. I did some Googling, and I appreciate what you’re doing.
Jacobsen: Oh, thanks, man.
Ruark: I know you’re on the humanist side, and I wish you the best. Enjoy Canada. I love it.
Jacobsen: Oh, especially now—it’s great.
Ruark: It is. And when I am in Canada, by the way, it is always for good reasons. I have always felt that Canada is a peaceful place—it feels different from America, where we always fight about something. So yeah, I think Canada is a great place to be. All right, Scott, thank you very much—I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: All right, take care.
Ruark: You too.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/22
Samantha Bayard is a Spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada. She discussed how the Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) allocated $12.2 million to 22 projects following a rigorous selection process based on eligibility, scientific merit, environmental impact, and sustainability. Projects include conservation, restoration, and pollution mitigation efforts, benefiting ecosystems and communities across Canada. Indigenous organizations lead six initiatives, influencing project design and implementation. She noted how funding is sourced from fines under 14 federal legislative clauses, ensuring environmental remediation. Transparency and accountability are maintained through co-signed agreements, performance indicators, and regular reporting. EDF-funded projects align with national climate and pollution strategies, engaging 31,000 participants in activities like education workshops and habitat restoration.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What were the criteria used in the selection of the 22 projects for the acquisition of funding from the Environmental Damages Fund?
Samantha Bayard: The projects were selected following a call for applications launched in May 2023. The funding comes from fines that were available in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Once the Call for Applications is closed, applications are reviewed by Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) regional teams to verify eligibility and to assess technical and scientific merit. All project applications are subject to the same evaluation process and criteria and are reviewed to ensure that they provide sufficient information to adequately assess the application and that they meet eligibility requirements. Following this administrative assessment, a project application may be examined by a team of technical reviewers, which may include experts from Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), other federal government departments, or provincial departments (as applicable) to evaluate your application’s scientific and technical merit. The last step includes conducting a final evaluation of each of the applications received to assess the quality of applications, alignment with the program and fund priorities, environmental benefits and sustainability, monitoring and partnerships. Proposals are approved by senior executives from ECCC of the selected projects for funding.
Jacobsen: What are good examples of the conservation or restoration initiatives supported?
Bayard: Since the fund’s creation in 1995, more than $240 million has been invested in over 560 projects benefitting ecosystems and communities across Canada. To learn more about the completed and ongoing projects, visit the project map: Environmental Damages Fund: project map – Canada.ca
Jacobsen: How will the environmental outcomes be measured?
Bayard: When applying for funding under the EDF, organizations are required to provide performance indicators to demonstrate how projects will measure their results. Although they may vary by project, they are required to have at least one of the EDF performance indicators from the applicant guide included in their project.
Jacobsen: How will the 31,000 participants be engaged and contributions tracked?
Bayard: The participants will be engaged by the organizations receiving funding. Depending on the project’s purpose, participants could be engaged in a variety of activities such as: education workshops, tree and vegetation planting, or removal of invasive plant species. Funding recipients are required to report on their outcomes, including engagement (as applicable) to ECCC.
Jacobsen: For the involvement of the six Indigenous organizations, how will they influence project design and implementation?
Bayard: Six of the projects are being led by Indigenous organizations that submitted applications for funding. Funding recipients are responsible for the project and it’s work plan design, implementation of project activities and reporting on their activities, spending and results to ECCC.
Jacobsen: How does the Environmental Damages Fund allocate funds around fines and penalties? (Are there legislative clauses relevant to this?)
Bayard: The EDF is helping to ensure that environmental good follows environmental harm by using fines from environmental infractions to support projects that will benefit Canada’s natural environment, usually in the area where the violation occurred. Fines and penalties are automatically directed to the Fund under 14 federal legislative clauses, including the Fisheries Act, subsection 40(6), the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. Five federal statutes contain discretionary clauses that can be used to direct fines and penalties to the Fund, including the Fisheries Act, paragraph 79.2(f).
Jacobsen: How does the $12.2 million investment support national strategies to combat climate change and pollution?
Bayard: The EDF invests in environmental solutions when individuals or companies intentionally or unintentionally harm the environment. The main goal of EDF-funded projects is to restore the environment and conserve wildlife and habitats in a scientifically sound, cost-effective, and technically feasible way. The fund invests in projects falling within four funding categories: restoration, environmental quality improvement, research and development, and education and awareness. To learn more about the Fund visit: What is the Environmental Damages Fund – Canada.ca
Jacobsen: How will transparency and accountability be ensured with the funds?
Bayard: As the administrator of the EDF, ECCC ensures that allocated funding is spent responsibly and in line with the program’s objectives. The EDF program and funding recipients co-sign funding agreements which include the project’s objectives, work plan, budget information and reporting requirements on project activities, spending and results. To support strong results, EDF program officers work closely with funding recipients on their reporting requirements to ensure projects are on track. This includes regular contact through a variety of means, such as e-mail, phone calls, virtual meetings and in-person visits, as necessary.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Samantha.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/22
Nathan H. Lents, a biologist at John Jay College, discusses gender diversity in biology, arguing that sex is a spectrum rather than a rigid binary. He critiques the ideological resistance to this perspective, particularly among older scientists, and emphasizes that natural selection depends on variation. Lents draws parallels between opposition to gender diversity and creationist arguments, highlighting intellectual rigidity in both. He advocates for a scientific approach that acknowledges diverse sexed bodies and behaviors. The discussion explores how human sexuality evolved over millions of years, challenging cultural assumptions about monogamy and gender roles while promoting adaptability as a key evolutionary advantage.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to make sure I get my facts correct here. Today, we are here with Nathan H. Lents.
He is an American scientist, author, and professor of biology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. He specializes in forensic science, genetics, cell biology, and evolutionary biology. He has written several books, including Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in Animals and Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes.
His latest book, The Sex Factor: How Evolution Influences Human Behavior, explores the evolutionary history of sex, gender, and relationships. He is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a well-regarded organization. Lents advocates for science communication and critical thinking and regularly contributes to media outlets and public discussions on human evolution. Thank you very much for joining Small-Town Canadians. I appreciate it.
Prof. Nathan Lents: My pleasure. Thanks for the invitation.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. So, first question: Your recent article, “Get Gender Ideology Out of Biology!,” critiques ideological influences in biological science. This topic has come up in some secular humanist and related community discussions recently.
It made a brief appearance in the news and then faded away. What prompted you to write this piece? And what are the key misconceptions the public holds regarding discussions about sex and gender?
Lents: To be honest, the title of that article was intended to provoke a reaction from certain groups. There is a common perception that progressive views on gender are based on feelings and ideology, while science and biology stand in opposition.
I am pushing back against that idea because there is strong scientific support for the notion that gender diversity is a natural phenomenon. Gender expression exists in other animals, and sex is not strictly reducible to gametes and binaries.
Sexual characteristics appear in a wide range of forms, and defining maleness and femaleness is more complex than people often assume. While these complexities may not affect daily life for most people, they are crucial to understand from a biological perspective.
In reality, categorizing sex and gender with strict definitions and rigid boundaries is problematic because that is not how nature works. Life does not conform to binary classifications — it moves fluidly in and out of categories. Diversity, creativity, flexibility, and adaptability are the true hallmarks of life.
Strict definitions with hard boundaries are human constructs. That does not mean they are wrong or useless, but we must recognize that we created them.
And when we encounter biology that challenges definitions, the answer is not to call the biology wrong or aberrant but rather to rethink our definitions. People get freaked out by this because we have these cherished institutions and ideas. But we revise our understanding of many things as we learn more.
That’s what you do in intellectual pursuits. The more you learn, the more you have to revise your understanding. I can’t think of any scientific discipline where things did not turn out to be far more complicated than we initially thought.
That is the history of Western thought over the last 400 years. Every single subject we sought to understand became significantly more complex the deeper we investigated it. And it is fitting that gender, sex, and sexuality are finally receiving that same level of scrutiny.
We are now recognizing that these concepts are complicated, diverse, and messy — that they shift between categories without regard for our preconceived notions. At present, conservative reactionaries are trying to convince people that they have science on their side while portraying gender activists as driven purely by feelings and ideology. That is the narrative they push.
But I push back on that. There are strong scientific reasons to view gender as encompassing more diverse categories and expressions, both in humans and animals. When we observe animal behavior, we see how poorly it fits into two strict categories — male and female — so it would be unusual if humans were any different.
It was ideological bias that prevented us from understanding monogamy for centuries until DNA-based paternity testing forced us to reconsider what monogamy means in animals. Ideology also led us to ignore the diverse ways animals engage in reproductive behaviors. That was ideology at work.
So yes, I do want to remove ideology from biology — but that takes me in a different direction than some biologists. Some believe everything is reducible to two categories: male and female. I disagree with that, both in terms of the morphology of sexed bodies and in behaviors.
Jacobsen: Now, could the title imply getting gender ideologies out of biology in the sense that multiple ideological camps are approaching these issues differently, influencing how we interpret even those stances? From a broad perspective, what are the ideologies positioning themselves as the arbiters of truth? And where has science shifted the goalposts of those definitions, at least slightly — if not significantly — toward a more realistic perspective?
Lents: That’s a good point, and you are right that multiple ideological camps are involved. The biggest problem has been our historical tendency to view things strictly through a binary lens. That ideological perspective still dominates, and moving beyond it would benefit us significantly.
When people argue that sex should be seen as more of a spectrum, they are not claiming that everything we understand about males and masculinity is wrong or that femininity and femaleness do not exist. That is not the point. What it means is that sex exists on a continuous spectrum with two major peaks.
If you visualize a bell curve with two humps, that is a bimodal distribution. A good way to illustrate this is by considering a sex difference such as height.
Height — most men are taller than most women, right? So you have an average height difference between men and women. Those two peaks are distinct, but there is a significant amount of overlap.
There are some tall women. There are some short men. But overall, you still see two different peaks with some individuals falling in between.
Now, apply that same concept to basal metabolic rate. That is another significant difference in our bodies. On average, men have a much higher basal metabolic rate than women — typically by about 400 to 500 calories per day. That is not an insignificant difference.
But again, it exists on a spectrum. There are individuals who do not fit within their sex-typical category. Take red blood cell count or white blood cell count, for example. Men tend to have more red blood cells, while women tend to have more white blood cells. But there are people who do not fit neatly into those categories.
You can observe this pattern throughout the body — in different organs, tissues, hormone levels, and other biological traits. You can see it in testosterone levels, in estrogen levels, in the size of the corpus callosum, in the ratio of white matter to gray matter in the brain, and in the preoptic area of the hypothalamus.
When you examine all the sex differences in the body, they consistently form a spectrum — with average differences but significant overlap. This tells us that sex differences do not fit into two neatly defined categories. There are always individuals who fall somewhere in between.
Some individuals exhibit sex-atypical traits. And if you examine enough biological markers, most people will have at least one trait that places them outside their expected category.
Some men, for example, develop breasts. They may not be large, but they are larger than the breasts of some women. Some men have wide hips. Some women have strong upper-body musculature. There are always individuals who do not fit perfectly into either category based on at least one measure.
In reality, we are all mosaics of sex differences. No one fits perfectly into their designated category across every biological trait.
Why does this matter?
If you define sex purely by which gamete an individual produces, you are centering sperm and egg production over all other aspects of biological sex. Yet, all the other aspects of an individual’s biology are far more relevant — to themselves, to those around them, to their daily lives, and to their health.
For example, women develop lupus nine times more often than men. That has nothing to do with sperm or eggs. Men develop Parkinson’s disease two to three times more often than women. That also has nothing to do with sperm or eggs.
Whether it is heart attack risk, stroke susceptibility, or certain cancers, sex-based differences exist throughout the body. Even men can develop breast cancer. And if we reduced their classification to “sperm-producer,” we might dismiss breast cancer as irrelevant to men.
In fact, because male breast cancer is often overlooked, it tends to be more lethal when it does occur.
Recognizing that sex exists on a spectrum reinforces the idea that biology and sex-influenced traits permeate every aspect of our bodies. Every cell, tissue, and organ matters when considering sex differences — not just sperm and egg production.
Reducing sex to gametes ignores the rest of human biology. Another important factor is that there are individuals who are intersex — those who do not fit neatly into a sex-typical category for most biological measures or who fall somewhere in between. Discussions about sex differences often focus primarily on genital anatomy, since that is what most people fixate on.
To deny that intersex individuals straddle the categories of maleness and femaleness is to exclude them from our sex-based classification system entirely. That strips them of dignity, value, and respect. The vast majority of intersex people are perfectly healthy and fertile, and they are important members of society. Even if we adjust our understanding of sex categories solely for the benefit of this small minority, it is still worth doing.
That is why I argue that viewing sexed bodies as a spectrum aligns more closely with the biological realities that matter to us. And this is not just the case in humans — it applies to other animals as well. Many species include individuals who do not conform to the expected appearance, behavior, or physiology associated with the gametes they produce. To ignore this diversity is to overlook crucial aspects of these animals’ roles in their social ecologies.
In many species, minority sex variants play essential roles in maintaining social balance. That is one of the main themes of my book — it explores the various ways animals can be male and the various ways they can be female. It is not just about sperm and eggs; it is about everything they do with their bodies.
Jacobsen: Sexuality has evolved over several hundred million years. That is a long time — though I am told that about 1/5 of Canadians believe the maximum is only 10,000 years.
Lents: Yeah, that number is surprisingly high.
Jacobsen: I know. Iceland is the only country where, at least several years ago, surveys showed that no one under 30 held that belief. Either the world was created outright, or — my personal favorite, which I think is both more accurate and more hilarious — it was all designed by a committee. All these trade-offs, negotiations, and inefficiencies make more sense when you think of nature as the result of committee decisions.
Lents: It does, yes.
Jacobsen: That idea is only one step away from saying that nature itself is just a series of committee meetings. But back to the main point — sexuality has evolved over hundreds of millions of years. As far as I understand, and I am not a specialist, Homo sapiens speciated around a quarter of a million years ago.
Lents: Fully anatomically modern humans appeared around 200,000 years ago.
Jacobsen: Evolution takes a long time to speciate, depending on reproductive cycles. So what about human sexuality? How does this larger evolutionary story — spanning several hundred million years, say 500 million — connect to the story of the last 200,000 years of human existence?
Lents: That is a great question because a central thesis of my book is that we are a product of our evolutionary past. Understanding our natural history helps us make sense of the present. One of the fascinating patterns we see across human cultures worldwide is the presence of enduring themes in social and sexual behavior.
I am particularly interested in pre-agrarian societies — those that existed before farming. The transition to farming and settled life set us on a different trajectory, one that distanced us from our natural biology. Instead of following purely biological instincts, we began constructing a social biology, and from that point, cultural evolution took off at an accelerated pace.
However, if we look at foraging societies today, we see an incredible diversity in how they live. They inhabit different environments and construct their family structures in unique ways, but they still share some commonalities. One notable pattern is the tendency to form dyads — mating pairs of two individuals. While not strictly universal, this pattern is widespread, which suggests that humans have a natural inclination toward pairing up.
But what we do not commonly see is that these dyadic pairings necessarily lead to strict sexual monogamy. Many cultures practice pair bonding without exclusive sexual fidelity. In some cases, pair bonds are temporary, while in others, they exist within polygynous or polyandrous systems, meaning they are not always one-to-one relationships. The notion of permanent, lifelong, sexually exclusive marriage is actually a cultural peculiarity. Only a small minority of societies have historically adhered to it as a strict norm.
What does this tell us? It tells us that humans are highly adaptable in how we form families and pursue sexual relationships. Flexibility in social and sexual structures is a defining feature of our species. Unlike some animals that follow rigid reproductive strategies, humans do not have strict, predetermined ways of organizing their social lives.
In many aspects of biology, certain species exhibit much less flexibility, but humans are the ultimate generalists. This adaptability is evident not just in relationships but in all aspects of our existence. We can survive in an astonishing variety of environments. We can thrive on vastly different diets. We can use our bodies in countless ways to suit our surroundings. We are not designed for any single way of living — we are designed to be generalists. That adaptability has been one of our greatest strengths.
Jacobsen: So David Deutsch was right.
Lents: What’s that?
Jacobsen: So David Deutsch was right — we are the universal constructors.
Lents: Yeah, exactly. We construct our own environments. That is what our big brain is for — to manage complex social relationships and to navigate new situations. A significant part of our intelligence is dedicated to maintaining social bonds, but another critical function is our ability to enter an unfamiliar environment and figure it out.
Unlike other species, we do not have to wait for biological adaptations through mutations and natural selection. Instead, we actively engage with our surroundings, determine what needs to be done, and then pass that knowledge along to others. That is culture — the collective intelligence shared within a community.
Given how adaptable and flexible we are in other areas of life, why would those same tendencies not apply to our sexuality and gender? I am not saying that everyone is inherently pansexual or polyamorous or that modern perspectives on sexuality are just anomalies of contemporary culture. However, if you had been born in a different time and place, you would likely think differently about your sexuality and your relationships.
A great deal of what we perceive as the “natural” or “normal” human condition is simply cultural inheritance. That does not necessarily mean it is bad — some aspects of cultural tradition are beneficial — but it also does not mean it is some sacred, predetermined destiny. The idea that our current sexual norms are inevitable is simply not true.
If you look at foraging societies worldwide, they approach sexuality differently. Many exhibit a general openness toward sexual behavior, far more permissive than what modern societies consider acceptable. Sexuality in hunter-gatherer cultures is often more fluid, with greater acceptance of premarital and adolescent sexual exploration. In many of these societies, it is believed that gaining sexual experience is essential for becoming a well-adjusted adult. Imagine the radical notion that you improve at something through practice.
I wish modern culture would take more time to critically examine institutions handed down to us as though they were sacred and unchangeable. Many of them are arbitrary — they could have developed in a completely different way.
Jacobsen: I interviewed Michael Behe years ago and asked almost the similar questions to Kenneth Miller because that was fun and interesting. You have engaged with intelligent design creationists — who often resist being labeled as such, despite adhering to the same philosophical and epistemological framework.
When engaging with ideological perspectives, whether in politics, social issues, or scientific discussions, do you notice any patterns in how these interactions unfold? Specifically, do you see similarities between engaging with intelligent design proponents and addressing ideological debates about gender and biology?
Intelligent design creationists are more obvious in their approach, especially given that many of them were associated with the Wedge Strategy when it was first introduced. At that time, they were largely middle-aged and older American men of European descent, typically Protestant and often evangelical — except Behe is Catholic and Berlinski is agnostic–highly educated — all of them. So do you notice any commonalities in those interactions?
Lents: I do. When people become deeply attached to a particular way of thinking or an ideological framework, it makes them intellectually inflexible. I see that pattern among intelligent design proponents, but I also see the same rigidity in those who resist the idea of gender diversity.
And the fact that they are mostly older is not a coincidence. It is well-documented that as we age, we become less open to new ideas. That is a well-established psychological principle.
Here is a true story. Last week, I gave a talk at Washington University in St. Louis — a prestigious institution — to their evolutionary biology group. In my presentation, I invited them to consider gender diversity in the study of animal behavior. I presented multiple examples, using their own data, to demonstrate that they were missing a simpler explanation: gender diversity. Instead of acknowledging this straightforward framework, they had relied on more convoluted explanations, such as female mimicry or imperfect mate choice.
Many of the prevailing explanations for observed behaviors in animals are unnecessarily complex when gender diversity offers a much more intuitive answer. So, I laid out these examples for the audience.
In the room, there were about seven or eight faculty members — all older, with white hair and wrinkles — who furrowed their brows and sat in silence. You could tell they did not agree, but they also did not challenge me. They did not ask questions, they did not critique my argument, they just sat there, unmoved.
Meanwhile, the rest of the room — about 30 to 40 younger attendees, including postdocs and graduate students — were nodding their heads and snapping their fingers in agreement. They understood the concept immediately because they were open to it. They could see how the framework of gender diversity provides a clearer and more consistent explanation for animal behavior.
It really is a simpler way to interpret these observations — accepting that there is more than one way to be male and more than one way to be female. That explanation aligns with the data and follows Occam’s razor, which tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
I do see a generational divide. Older biologists tend to be committed to rigid categorical labels and definitions that constrain diversity into simplistic frameworks. In contrast, younger scientists are much more open to the idea that diversity is an inherent feature of sexuality, not an anomaly.
Sexual diversity, like all other aspects of biology, is shaped by adaptability, flexibility, mutation, diversity, and creativity. These characteristics define biological systems. Once this diversity is introduced into nature, natural selection begins to operate on it.
Natural selection requires variation. Many people focus solely on selection, but they forget that selection cannot function if every organism is identical. Selection only works when variation exists. In fact, variation is the fundamental starting point of evolution by natural selection. You must first have variation, and that variation must be heritable. Only then can selection act upon it to determine the direction evolution will take.
We need to acknowledge that diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviors is a natural part of life. It is expected. It provides ecological and social resilience to a species. We already understand that diversity is the best insurance policy against an unpredictable future. We recognize this principle in all other areas of biology — physiology, survival strategies, and behavior.
Yet, for some reason, many resist applying the same logic to sexual behaviors and sexual morphologies. I am inviting biologists to approach the study of diverse sexed bodies and gendered behaviors with the same openness they apply to other aspects of biological research.
Jacobsen: Professor Lents, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Lents: It was nice to meet you. Let me know when this goes live.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/21 (Unpublished)
Romana King, a seasoned financial and real estate expert, discusses Canadians’ top financial regrets, especially not saving early enough. She emphasizes the importance of financial literacy, budgeting, and realistic homeownership goals. King highlights generational shifts, noting that today’s young Canadians face tougher economic challenges without pensions and rising living costs. She advocates for early education, practical tools like spreadsheets, and using public resources such as government sites and library seminars. King also underscores the emotional aspects of financial decisions and encourages openness about financial mistakes to promote resilience and long-term stability. Trusted information and adaptability are key to financial success.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Romana King, an award-winning personal finance and real estate expert with over 20 years of experience.
She is a senior editor at money.ca and has contributed to major Canadian publications, including The Globe and Mail, Maclean’s, and The Toronto Star. She is also the best-selling host of No More and frequently appears on CBC, Global News, and CityNews.
Romana is also a licensed real estate professional in Ontario and British Columbia through her platform, RK Homeowner. You can follow her on X at @RKHomeowner, where she provides insights on smart homeownership, financial literacy, and expert financial advice. You can find more at romana.com. What were the most surprising findings from your money.ca survey on Canadians’ biggest financial regrets?
Romana King: It wasn’t necessarily surprising, but what stood out was the sheer number of people who had financial regrets. The large percentage of respondents expressing regret was notable, though the nature of their regrets—mainly not saving enough—was expected.
Many people don’t fully grasp the impact of not starting early or not saving enough until it’s too late. Instead of saving $100 a month, they need to save $1,000 because they no longer have the time to benefit from compound interest or long-term investment growth. The sheer volume of people facing this issue was surprising.
Jacobsen: That’s interesting. What financial mistakes did people make that prevented them from reaching their milestones? Not everyone wants to retire or own a home, but most Canadians want both.
King: Yes, the core issue is financial freedom. Whether someone wants to own a home or retire—some people have even said, “I want to work in retirement”—the real goal is financial independence. What that looks like varies from person to person.
As you mentioned, some people prioritize homeownership, while others prefer the flexibility of renting due to the financial and logistical responsibilities of owning a home. Ultimately, however, everyone strives for financial freedom.
One of the most telling findings from our survey is that nearly half of Canadians struggle to build savings. 46.4% of respondents said they had difficulty saving for a nest egg or even a down payment on a home. That’s a striking statistic. Looking back a few generations, people had similar concerns, but homeownership and financial security didn’t feel as unattainable as they do today.
You felt like you had an opportunity—you just had to put your nose to the grindstone and do it. Even with that level of effort, it just might not be possible.
Jacobsen: What are many young Canadians doing when they turn to loved ones for financial support after making money mistakes? Is that a common occurrence? Is it uncommon? Are there any incorrect assumptions in the question?
King: This isn’t drastically different from past generations, but we don’t have a strong national approach to financial literacy. Regardless of what organization I belong to or what job I have, I’ve been banging that drum for too long now. Many people feel confused about financial matters, and when they face challenges, what do they do?
They turn to the people they love because they trust them. So, yes, young Canadians do rely on their loved ones for support.
We also have to consider the economic landscape. Previous generations benefited from strong markets—whether in housing, stocks, or job security. There were more opportunities, wages were rising, and the cost of living was relatively lower.
By contrast, young people today are entering the workforce or trying to advance in their careers while dealing with significantly higher living costs. That’s why many turn to their family members for financial assistance.
Jacobsen: How do generational differences shape financial regrets and decision-making? You noted that generations aren’t that different in their goals, but you hinted at some key differences.
King: There isn’t a generational difference in the ultimate goal—financial freedom. However, there are massive differences in how each generation tries to achieve it.
The path was relatively clear if I look back to my grandparents’ or even my parents’ era. You got an education—whether through trade school, university, or college—you found a job, and you might have changed companies a couple of times, but generally, you stayed with an employer for 10 to 15 years. You’d earn a pension, typically a defined benefit or contribution pension, and then you retired.
That is not the reality for today’s younger generation. Defined benefit pensions or employer-sponsored pension plans have largely been phased out over the past 10 to 20 years. As a result, people now have a completely different approach to achieving financial freedom.
This shift has also changed how people work. Many are far more willing to embrace the gig economy or take on side hustles—something my father’s generation would have scoffed at. He would have said, “Why would you bother with that? Put all your eggs in one basket—stick with the company you work for.”
There is quite a big difference. I don’t believe that’s solely due to preference, though—I think we are shaped by what we experience.
If the younger generation—including myself and you—does not have access to employer-provided pension plans, that will inevitably shape how we pursue financial freedom. For example, I may now consider holding real estate as an investment because I don’t have a defined pension plan.
That’s just an example, not a prescription.
Jacobsen: How can financial literacy help people prevent costly mistakes? Or, when mistakes happen—which they inevitably will—how can they be less damaging?
King: Yes. When introduced early enough, financial literacy allows people to make small mistakes, adjust course, and avoid making expensive ones later.
What do I mean by that? In a world dominated by digital transactions—where debit and credit cards have replaced cash—it’s essential to understand how to use these tools responsibly. It is critical to know what it means to carry a balance on a high-interest credit card and its long-term impact.
If someone learns this lesson when their debt is $1,000 instead of $10,000, that knowledge can make a massive difference. When most of your income is spent paying off interest on a credit card, that $10,000 balance can take years—not months—to pay off. That, in turn, delays other financial goals, like saving for a home, a car, or retirement.
Financial literacy and money management skills, like saving, are crucial. The sooner you develop those skills, the better.
That doesn’t mean—and here I might ramble, Scott, so feel free to interrupt—that people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or even 50s won’t make financial mistakes. Mistakes are inevitable. Some of the most financially savvy people I know still make mistakes.
The problem is that many people feel ashamed when they make financial missteps, as if a mistake means they’ve failed. That mindset is damaging. We need to be more forgiving—both of ourselves and others. We also need to encourage people to ask for help when needed. Many financial resources are available in Canada, but people often don’t seek them out.
That’s why part of what we wanted to highlight in this survey is that big financial mistakes are common. Normalizing that helps people understand they’re not alone. When someone realizes that others have also made significant financial mistakes, it becomes easier to say, “I didn’t save enough for retirement, and I’m in my late 40s or early 50s—what do I do?”
That’s the right question to ask at that time. The wrong thing to do is hide it, avoid talking about it, or refuse to address it.
Jacobsen: What policies and financial products can help Canadians make better financial decisions? Is it an app?
King: I wish there were a single app where you could input everything and get a perfect financial roadmap, but there isn’t.
I’m a big fan of Excel spreadsheets. When I was in my 20s, I asked friends who were far more financially savvy than I was, “How do I invest?”
At the time, they told me, “You just need this one ETF or you just need this one mutual fund.” Back then, it was all about mutual funds.
I’m dating myself, Scott—I probably shouldn’t say that, but I am.
I remember not understanding their advice. The worst mistake I made at the time was not asking follow-up questions. “What do you mean by a mutual fund? Why is that the right investment?” I didn’t ask those questions when I should have.
There isn’t one app or tool that does everything for you, but you can do a few things. The first step is finding a budget that works for you. I always emphasize this because people tend to resist budgeting. Friends tell me “I hate the idea of tracking every dollar.”
So, I suggest a simple approach—take pictures of everything you buy. Whether it’s a receipt or a meal, take a picture.
Then, at the end of the month, review those images. Visually scan what you’ve spent money on, and then assign a monetary value to something you genuinely want to save for—whether that’s a car, a house, or another goal.
When you start comparing your spending habits to your financial goals, you ask yourself, “Is this purchase more important than my long-term goal?”
That shift in perspective makes it easier to adjust behaviour. It’s easier to avoid financial mistakes when you can tangibly see that spending in one area means sacrificing in another.
This approach is far more effective than simply sitting down with a pen and paper, filling out a spreadsheet, listing numbers, and forcing yourself to cut expenses. It’s easier to say, “I’m choosing not to spend on this because I want to save for something else.”
Jacobsen: How does the volatility in real estate—the spikes over several years and the downturns—factor into Canadians’ financial regrets?
I know some people who sold their homes just a month before the market peak, right before the downturn, and they were quite happy with that decision. How does that kind of market fluctuation contribute to financial regrets? A big part is luck, but other factors are also at play.
King: Scott, that’s the first thing I would point out—I think there’s a well-documented cognitive bias at play here. We know that people have a cognitive bias against losses.
For example, you could buy a home for $250,000 and sell it for $750,000, making a $500,000 profit. But if, a month later, you learn that you could have sold it for $850,000, you might suddenly feel like you lost something—even though you made a huge gain.
We tend to fixate on what we missed out on rather than appreciating what we gained. We don’t value the positive as much as we should. Instead of seeing the $500,000 profit, we focus on the $100,000 we didn’t make.
One of the key things I’ve written and spoken about regarding homeownership is this: when buying a home, you must understand that it is not solely a financial decision. I’m very clear about that.
What do I mean by that? While math and finances should be factors, they should not be the sole determinants of what you buy. Life decisions dictate home purchases.
For example, you may want to live near a particular school if you have a family. That priority will shape what and where you buy. If a townhouse in that school district is within your budget, that may be a better home for you than a larger detached house in a less desirable neighbourhood.
Ultimately, buying a home is an emotional decision about safety, community, and security.
That being said, finances do play a role. You shouldn’t buy a home that stretches beyond your means. If you max out your housing budget and an unexpected expense arises—like a roof repair, plumbing issues, or a major appliance breaking down—you may have to take on high-interest debt to cover it. That kind of financial strain can derail all your future goals.
I’ve seen people in unfortunate situations, particularly during the pandemic. Some were dealing with both a housing market crisis and the end of a relationship, leading to divorce. Sure, they could sell their home at a fantastic profit, but they were forced to buy in an overheated market.
That’s a terrible situation because you’re not making decisions but being forced into action. And when you’re forced into financial decisions, you often lose. Statistically speaking, you might come out ahead, but it’s risky, and much luck is involved.
You asked how homeownership—and the roller-coaster ride of real estate prices in Canada—affects personal finances. The impact has been massive because saving up for a down payment now takes significantly more time.
It takes significantly more to purchase a home now than it did in previous generations. Homeownership is a much larger piece of our financial puzzle when creating a solid financial plan.
I would say that people need to be realistic about what they can afford—both in the short term and the long term—and understand that they may have to adjust their expectations.
Not everyone will get the showcase home that looks like it belongs in a glossy magazine. Instead, we should redefine what a home means—a safe place, something financially sustainable, and a purchase that won’t prevent us from reaching other financial goals.
When friends or family often call me and ask, “Should I buy this house?” The first thing I ask them is:
“If their household has two income earners, should you afford to keep this home on just one salary in a pinch?”
If one person lost their job, could the other person cover all the bills for six months to a year until you get back on your feet?
For me, that’s a critical benchmark. If the answer is yes, that home is within your budget. You may be taking on too much financial risk if the answer is no.
I say this because life happens. Unexpected events—like the pandemic—threw many people into financial uncertainty. Some found themselves wondering, “How am I going to afford this when neither of us is earning?”
Part of responsible financial planning is treating homeownership like an insurance policy—you need to ensure that your finances can withstand unexpected hits rather than collapsing under pressure.
Jacobsen: If people make a financial mistake, how do they recover? How do they aim for long-term stability after that mistake?
King: The hardest part of making a mistake is owning it—just being aware of it, acknowledging it, and understanding what went wrong. Then, the next step is figuring out how to fix it—which can sometimes require making tough choices.
Yes, I might need to cut expenses. That’s difficult. People often say, “I work really hard and deserve to treat myself—whether it’s meals out, shopping, or vacations.” That may be true, but pausing those expenses—even temporarily—can be the best way to get back on track.
The key word here is pausing, not denying. It’s about making temporary adjustments to regain financial stability rather than permanently cutting out things that bring joy.
The most critical factor in financial recovery is a clear view of the mistake and an understanding of what is needed to correct it. The mistake itself does not define you—how you respond to it matters.
Jacobsen: Where can Canadians find reliable government sources of financial knowledge for decision-making? Where can they find independent, trustworthy sources for financial literacy and education?
King: I’m a huge fan of the federal government’s financial resources. They provide extensive documentation on various financial topics, from buying a home to understanding buy-now-pay-later loans and short-term financing options available through credit cards and store cards. These government resources are incredibly valuable, and more Canadians should know them. A wealth of information is available if people are willing to tap into it.
I’m also a big fan of local knowledge dissemination. If you visit your local library, you’ll often find free financial seminars, especially around tax season, designed to help people navigate financial decisions. I’ve personally led sessions at the Toronto Public Library, offering insights to attendees who can ask questions in a supportive environment. These sessions are free, accessible, and a great way for people to educate themselves on financial matters.
Books are another excellent resource. And the best part? You don’t have to buy them—go to the library. Books allow you to learn at your own pace, putting them down and picking them back up as needed. I also believe that online forumscan be useful for starting your research, but I always caution people never to rely on them for definitive answers. Instead, use them as a launching point and verify the information through reputable sources like government websites or books written by credible personal finance experts.
For independent sources, there are many reputable voices in the field. I’ll do a shameless plug here—you can check out my book, website, or money.ca. Beyond that, many newspapers still have personal finance columnists who consistently provide authoritative and well-researched insights. My biggest piece of advice is to read as much as you can. If one financial expert doesn’t resonate with you—whether on topics like exchange-traded funds or building a financial plan—shop around. There are plenty of knowledgeable writers and experts covering these topics. Find someone who speaks in a way that makes sense to you and stick with them.
Jacobsen: Romana, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was great to meet you.
King: Thank you, Scott. Take care.
Jacobsen: Take care. Bye.
King: Bye 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/21
Professor Christophe Courchesne, Director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Vermont Law and Graduate School, discusses the challenges of integrating social equity into environmental sustainability. He highlights how environmental laws often lack equity considerations and how enforcement strategies can advance environmental justice. Courchesne shares examples from his legal career, including cases in Massachusetts and advocacy for Oklahoma’s Tar Creek community. He emphasizes the need for policies addressing cumulative impacts and expanding public participation in environmental decisions. He also predicts growing youth activism and a shift toward state-level climate action in response to federal policy changes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Prof. Christophe Courchesne. He is the Director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic and an Assistant Professor of Law at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Before joining Vermont Law and Graduate School in 2022, he served as Deputy Chief of the Energy and Environment Bureau and Assistant Attorney General in Massachusetts, where he led initiatives addressing the climate crisis and advancing environmental and racial justice.
Christophe has dedicated his career to integrating environmental law with clean energy solutions while ensuring equitable outcomes for marginalized communities. His expertise in environmental law and advocacy continues to drive impactful, systemic changes in policy and practice nationwide. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Prof. Christophe Courchesne: You’re welcome.
Jacobsen: From your perspective, what are the most significant challenges in integrating social equity into environmental sustainability initiatives? For example, legal frameworks might present challenges at some point.
Courchesne: One of the most significant challenges is that many environmental laws were not originally written with social equity goals in mind. They were primarily designed to achieve public health and environmental protection objectives, often with a strong focus on economic feasibility. These laws typically assume the continuation of the existing industrial and regulatory frameworks, which can inadvertently reinforce existing social inequities.
Many environmental laws promote gradual technological advancements within economic constraints rather than encouraging transformative change. As a result, systemic inequities persist, and in some cases, legal structures even maintain these inequities.
A clear example of this is land use policy. Regulations such as wetland protection laws and zoning ordinances often prioritize preserving existing land use patterns. This means that communities with abundant green space and environmental amenities remain protected. In contrast, those experiencing environmental degradation or economic disadvantages do not necessarily benefit from the same legal protection or investment level.
Over the past two decades, significant efforts have been made to incorporate environmental justice and social equity into policymaking. These efforts have influenced decision-making processes and expanded community participation in environmental law. However, many of these gains have been incremental, fragile, and incomplete.
At the federal level in the United States, we now witness significant pushback against environmental justice initiatives. Much of the environmental justice policy has been implemented through executive actions rather than permanent legislative reforms, making it vulnerable to political shifts. Without durable legislative integration, environmental justice remains susceptible to changes in administration and policy priorities.
In summary, environmental policy does not inherently prioritize social equity. While efforts to integrate equity considerations into environmental law have progressed, they have not yet achieved lasting, structural change.
Jacobsen: So, what are examples in your own work where environmental activism has been positive and constructive in advancing social justice for communities that have been overlooked, either by derivation or directly?
Courchesne: I will mention two examples from my current and prior positions.
The first example is my previous leadership role at the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, where I focused on energy and environmental litigation. One area we successfully prioritized was ensuring that when the state—in this case, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts—took enforcement action against a polluter or a violator of environmental laws, we would proactively consider environmental justice in our decisions.
We carefully examined the impacts associated with each violation. Where appropriate, we engaged community members and local organizations to assess the significance of these violations for affected communities. We then directed enforcement resources to those communities and violations to promote equity in environmental outcomes, particularly for communities historically marginalized in environmental decision-making.
Many of these communities had been subjected to land use decisions that placed highways directly through their neighbourhoods, close to residential areas, or exposed them to industrial activities that polluted their air and water. By prioritizing enforcement in these areas, we significantly improved environmental conditions and provided tangible benefits to those affected.
On the other hand, when we reached settlements or favourable outcomes in cases—whether by taking polluters to court or negotiating agreements to settle environmental violations—we worked to address existing environmental harms.
In both efforts—selecting cases and determining remedies—community activism was critical in shaping government action. Local advocacy drove awareness, concern, and, ultimately, meaningful change. We actively engaged with community members in environmental justice communities to help shape how we exercised our enforcement discretion.
This example illustrates how environmental justice considerations and efforts to address inequities often emerge from grassroots activism, leading to partnerships between communities and government agencies tasked with environmental protection.
One specific example from that prior role is the numerous settlements we reached, which directly benefited affected communities. In some cases, we secured funding for air filters in homes in environmental justice communities as part of pollution settlements. In other cases, we focused enforcement efforts on asbestos violations in urban neighbourhoods with high public health risks.
By allocating enforcement resources to these critical issues, we were able to address dangerous, ongoing violations of environmental laws—violations that affected communities daily.
So, that’s one key example of how enforcement strategies can be leveraged to advance environmental justice.
Now, moving to another context—my current position as a clinical law professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School—I am leading the Environmental Advocacy Clinic. One of our wonderful clients is an environmental justice organization in northeast Oklahoma. That community has faced decades of degradation from toxic pollution caused by legacy mining operations upstream.
The hazardous waste site associated with these mines is known as Tar Creek, and it has been one of the longest-standing Superfund sites in the country. This has resulted in large-scale lead poisoning among the local population, particularly affecting many children who have suffered severe health consequences due to environmental lead contamination.
Our client, an environmental justice organization called LEAD Agency, has been fighting for this community for years, drawing significant attention to the cleanup of the legacy mining area. This effort has been made even more challenging due to the bankruptcy and dissolution of the mining companies that once operated there, leaving few private entities to fund the massive cleanup required.
Despite these obstacles, our client has engaged in advocacy efforts alongside my students, working to address legal issues affecting the community and collaborating to improve environmental conditions and restore the health of the local waterway.
This example reflects a broader pattern across the country, where community groups have mobilized, utilized legal resources where available, and brought attention to pressing environmental harms affecting their neighbourhoods. These two distinct success stories demonstrate how social equity issues can be integrated into the environmental space. They illustrate the progress and advocacy that have taken place over the last several decades.
Jacobsen: Figuring out that big policy or law—what’s your policy? What progressive policies are most effective, or sufficiently effective, in merging environmental sustainability with equitable outcomes at the federal and state levels?
Courchesne: That’s a big question.
One important policy that is much needed—and is in the early stages of implementation in certain states—is the focus on cumulative impacts. This concept recognizes that new industrial projects and pollution sources cannot be considered in isolation when approving them.
You must consider new projects in the context of the history of environmental pollution and harm that the host community has already endured. You also need to assess the contributions of a new facility or modifications to an existing project seeking government approval. It is essential to determine how these changes will exacerbate existing problems rather than evaluating them in a vacuum against some abstract standard of environmental performance or pollution control.
The policy of integrating cumulative impacts into environmental project analysis is still in its early stages of implementation across various states. We are just now seeing efforts to give this policy real enforcement power—so that if a proposed project is located in a disadvantaged community, it will face greater scrutiny and may be difficult to approve.
Federal law already requires considering cumulative impacts when analyzing and approving projects. This information must be publicly available to increase transparency about potential environmental effects. However, it has historically been rare for cumulative impacts to lead to the denial of a project at either the federal or state level. Changing that precedent is long overdue.
Another critical progressive policy—one that has been much more widely adopted and continues to have significant impacts—is enhancing public participation in environmental decision-making at the federal, state, and local levels.
This policy has roots in the early days of environmental law. However, over the past decade, there has been a renewed focus on ensuring that the communities affected by projects and policy decisions have a genuine opportunity to participate—not just on paper but in reality.
Efforts to improve public participation include increased translation and language interpretation services, adjustments to public meeting schedules to accommodate working people, and ensuring that hearings do not only occur during inaccessible times—such as 10 a.m. on a Tuesday—but instead take place in the evenings or on weekends when more community members can attend.
Another key improvement has been the expansion of electronic participation options. Previously, people had to visit government offices during business hours to access permits or project documents. Many agencies have made these materials available online, allowing the public to review and comment on projects from anywhere.
These efforts to expand public participation in environmental decision-making have been highly successful. However, they remain a work in progress. Public notice provisions and opportunities for the public to provide input still need improvement.
In recent years, efforts have also been made to compensate grassroots organizations for their time intervening or participating in public processes. This is another important progressive policy that helps promote social equity by ensuring that impacted communities have the resources and capacity to engage meaningfully in environmental decision-making.
Jacobsen: What are the emerging trends for advocates and legal professionals in climate justice?
Courchesne: One of the key emerging trends is a renewed focus on state and local governments. We saw this shift during the Trump administration. We will likely see it again as the federal government retreats from climate action. As a result, there will be increased pressure on state and local governments to take meaningful steps to address climate change.
Youth climate activism will continue to grow. Young people’s leadership in the climate movement has already had a significant impact over the past decade. I expect this momentum to build as younger generations remain deeply concerned about their futures and the threats that climate change poses to their dreams and long-term plans.
We will see increasing pressure from young people demanding policy reforms that more effectively address the risks of climate change. Their advocacy drives the conversation and pushes for stronger, more urgent climate policies.
Jacobsen: Professor Courchesne, thank you very much for your time today.
Courchesne: You’re welcome.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/20
Maurice Gregoire, an expert in school bus safety, discusses the development of CrossSafe 360, a perimeter visibility system designed to prevent low-speed collisions involving students and pedestrians. With four HD wide-angle cameras and AI-powered monitoring, the system provides a 360° bird’s-eye view, enhancing driver awareness. Gregoire, a member of Transport Canada’s Advisory Committee, highlights the role of perimeter visibility mandates and explains how 4G/LTE connectivity enables real-time incident response and driver training. While CrossSafe 360 aligns with Canada’s 2027 mandate, expansion into the U.S. is not currently planned due to trade challenges.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What challenges in school bus safety led to CrossSafe 360?
Maurice Gregoire: In recent years there has been an increase of low speed collisions with students and pedestrians leading to injury and death. There seems to be a reduced respect for the size and awkwardness of a Big Yellow School Bus with inherent Blind Spots. School Bus Drivers can no longer rely on “common sense” and need a tool that can provide them with eyes all around the school bus, especially during low speeds. CrossSafe 360 provides this tool.
Jacobsen: How does this system address those challenges more effectively?
Gregoire: With 4 HD wide angle cameras installed on the perimeter of the bus above the windows, CrossSafe 360 effectively provides the School Bus Driver with a complete view of the perimeter of the bus, from the ground at the sides of the bus to about 15 – 25 meters out. Using the systems Blind Spot Monitoring system, the images are stitched together for a birdseye view hovering above the bus 6 – 10 meters, and provides an audible and visual alert if motion is detected in the area around the school bus.
Jacobsen: What is your role with the Transport Canada’s Advisory Committee?
Gregoire: Our role on the Advisory was mainly passive on the Perimeter Visibility segment. While we learned more about the technical requirements, we already knew the School Bus Driver benefits and had already started our system development. Our interest was session decorum and program rollout processes. We were more active in the infraction camera and ESA (Extended Stop Arm) segments of the Transport Canada initiative as this has been our forte for the past 8 – 15 years.
Jacobsen: How has this role led to the mandate for perimeter visibility on school buses?
Gregoire: General consensus on the Perimeter Visibility solution seemed to be “yes, this makes sense and would greatly improve the Bus Drivers ability to see all around the bus”. Actually, the focus on the Perimeter Visibility segment being approved came as a bit of a surprise to us, and to many Student Transportation Departments across Canada. The main concern was the monitor distracting the School Bus Driver at speed, we resolved with CrossSafe 360 by turning off the monitor at a programmed speed.
Jacobsen: How do the ultra-wide-angle HD cameras and the AI-powered HD DVR create a 360° view?
Gregoire: Basically, each wide angle HD camera “sees” 180º, the images from all 4 cameras are then stitched together, much like a panoramic image on your smartphone. The School Bus Driver can view all 4 cameras individually, or view the birdseye view and see the entire area around the school bus. Using AI and advanced stitching algorithms, we produce this bird’s eye view. The BSM (Blind Spot Monitoring) system looks for motion while filtering out the background using similar motion detection technology found in modern CCTV surveillance camera systems.
Jacobsen: What are the benefits of an audio-visual blind spot monitoring system for school bus drivers? What firmware upgrades may be added over time?
Gregoire: This feature is a tool used by the School Bus Driver to enhance thier ability to drive the bus safely. It is not meant to replace the bus driver’s own eyes, but to provide an additional level of visibility to see people and objects moving around the bus while at low speeds. With an audible notification, the School Bus Driver can quickly see where the issue is located with an Icon on the screen, then take corrective action if required. As the system is currently stable, firmware upgrades would only take place if Transport Canada or the D250 changes the current perimeter visibility project system’s specifications. Our system is designed with sufficient power to add features with a firmware upgrade. This is performed by simply inserting the SD card with the new firmware into the device and powering up. The firmware is upgraded automatically. Our new revision CrossSafe 360 will allow for remote firmware upgrades via 4G/LTE.
Jacobsen: How does 4G/LTE contribute to immediate incident response and driver training?
Gregoire: Our 4G/LTE IVMS (Intelligent Video Monitoring System) provides a wealth of functions and features, including G-Force and Alarm/Event notifications. This is where an event such as an impact or School Bus Driver triggered event (button push), sends an SMS or Email to the administration. The Administration can then view the cameras in real-time and take appropriate action. As the recorded video shows the entire area around the bus, this can be turned into a Bus Driver Training tool. Also, remotely viewing the camera in real time can provide valuable live training opportunities.
Jacobsen: The mandate takes effect in November 2027, and the system is tailored to meet Canadian standards; any plans to expand CrossSafe 360 for markets in the U.S.?
Gregoire: CMVTC MJG Technologies will be ready to roll out to meet this timeline, and we will have retrofit equipment ready by summer 2025. With this being a system designed for Canadian School Buses, and the trading turmoil with the USA, we do not have plans to market to the USA. Traditionally, we have stayed focused on developing equipment for Canadian School Buses and providing our technologies to Canadian clients. This business model has worked well for us and provided substantial growth in Canada.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Maurice.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/19 (Unpublished)
Simple, founded by Mike Prytkov, emerged from his personal health journey, leading to a 45-pound weight loss through intermittent fasting and whole-food nutrition. Recognizing a need for sustainable weight management, Simple launched in 2019, culminating in Coach Avo™—an AI-driven health coach supporting over 1.5 million users. Avo™ personalizes nutrition, detects eating patterns, and provides real-time coaching without calorie counting. Future advancements include AI voice coaching and customized workout plans. Ro Huntriss, Chief Nutrition Officer at Simple, is a UK-based Consultant Dietitian with expertise in fertility nutrition, gut health, and weight management, contributing her evidence-based approach to the app’s success.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration behind the app, Simple?
Ro Huntriss: Simple was founded on CEO Mike Prytkov’s personal health transformation. While Mike is now exceptionally fit, several years ago, he weighed 210 pounds, struggling with fatigue and stress. Between running a business and raising a family, traditional dieting—such as calorie counting and restrictive meal plans—felt impractical and unsustainable.
Determined to find a simpler, more effective approach, his journey took a lot of trial and error and filtering out misinformation. Ultimately, he discovered intermittent fasting, combined with eating more high-protein, high-fiber, whole food – this helped him lose 45 pounds effortlessly, without any stress.
Recognizing that millions of people faced similar struggles, he saw an opportunity to redefine weight loss by making it science-backed, sustainable, and easy to follow. His vision extended beyond weight loss—he wanted to create a credible health coach accessible to everyone, providing actionable insights and support anytime, anywhere. While Simple launched as a fasting-focused app in 2019, his vision was fulfilled in 2023 when Simple launched Coach Avo™—an AI-powered coach designed to provide personalized, real-time guidance to help users develop lasting habits. Since its launch, Avo™ has supported over 1.5 million clients, keeping them motivated, accountable, and on track toward their goals.
Jacobsen: How does the smart coaching technology work?
Huntriss: Launched in June 2023, Avo™ is one of the world’s first AI-powered weight loss coaches, built into the Simple App to deliver hyper-personalized, evidence-based coaching 24/7. Unlike static meal plans or generic advice, Avo™ adapts to each user’s unique lifestyle, habits, and goals — providing real-time guidance, motivation, and accountability.
How Avo™ Works:
- Scientific Personalization – Using evidence-based nutrition and behavioral science, Avo™ fine-tunes recommendations based on user behavior, progress, preferences
- Proactive Support – Avo™ detects patterns, such as stress eating or plateaus, and provides tailored strategies to overcome obstacles.
- Check-Ins and Chat Support – Avo™ monitors progress, asks about challenges, and adjusts recommendations based on real-life behaviors.
- Smart Habit Coaching – Avo™ assigns small, achievable tasks to help users improve their eating habits, activity levels, and mindset — one step at a time.
By combining empathetic coaching, scientific rigor, and AI-driven insights, Avo™ makes sustainable weight loss easier, more accessible, and more effective than ever before.
Jacobsen: How do you make sure this app differentiates from others with some science-based strategies?
Huntriss: Simple differentiates itself from other health and weight loss apps through a science-based, user-friendly approach that removes common barriers to success while leveraging cutting-edge AI technology. Some of our differentiating features include:
- No Calorie Counting or Food Weighing – Unlike many traditional weight loss programs, Simple program does not require calorie tracking or food weighing to work. Our users see results following the Simple rules of the program
- Simple Yet Effective Rules – Instead of using complex methods, users are encouraged to engage with our core strategies, including intermittent fasting – simple eating within an eating window, logging foods with a Good or Optimal nutrition score and reaching the activity and hydration targets set out each day.
- Technology-Driven Simplicity – The app harnesses AI to simplify and augment the user experience, providing personalized recommendations and nudges to support habit formation with ease. Our tech allows users to log a food simply by taking a picture, it doesn’t get much easier than that!
- AI Health Coaching – Our AI-powered coach, Avo™, offers real-time guidance, motivation, and support tailored to each user’s unique needs, making sustainable health changes more accessible than ever. Avo™ is also available 24/7 which is beyond what is experienced with Human coaching.
- Holistic Approach – Simple integrates multiple pillars of health, including nutrition, activity, and hydration, ensuring a well-rounded and comprehensive program.
- Focus on Inclusion Over Restriction – Instead of fixating on what to cut out (like calories), the program emphasizes what to add, such as protein and fiber, to naturally support satiety, metabolic health and weight loss.
- User-Led Development – We prioritize user feedback and behavioral insights, continuously refining and improving the app’s features to ensure they align with real-world needs and preferences based on what the users want, not the developers.
Jacobsen: Why do people tend to fail at building sustainable habits?
Huntriss: People struggle with habits when they set unrealistic goals. Extreme changes, like daily workouts or cutting entire food groups, lead to burnout. Smaller, sustainable goals work better long term.
Habits need to be lifelong, not quick fixes. Many focus on short-term results, but real change comes from consistency over time. Shifting to a long-term mindset makes habits stick.
Being ready for change matters. Doing something because you “should” won’t last. True commitment comes from personal reasons, not external pressure. Reflection helps build a strong foundation.
Your environment shapes success. Support from friends, family, or a coach helps, as does making your physical environment work for you too. Keep nutritious foods visible and don’t keep too many tempting, less nutritious foods in the house – it makes things much easier.
Self-compassion is key. Setbacks happen, but they don’t mean failure. Progress, not perfection, builds lasting habits. Learning from challenges keeps you moving forward.
Jacobsen: How do you build in a personalized approach to effectively adapt individual user needs and preferences?
Huntriss: At Simple, we build a personalized approach by adapting to individual user needs and preferences through several tailored strategies. We start by taking into account demographic information such as age and gender, which can influence nutritional needs and activity levels. This allows us to provide more relevant recommendations and support for each user.
We also consider the user’s preferences and behaviors. By understanding their daily routines, habits, and engagement with the app, we can suggest tasks and challenges that feel natural and motivating. This helps users stay on track and achieve their goals without feeling overwhelmed.
Food preferences are another key area we personalize. By factoring in users’ likes and dislikes, we ensure that meal suggestions, fasting protocols, and other recommendations align with what they enjoy eating, making the process more enjoyable and sustainable.
We believe in setting realistic and agreeable targets. Goals are co-created with the user, ensuring that they feel empowered and motivated to reach them. These targets are customized to fit each individual’s circumstances and preferences, ensuring they are challenging yet achievable.
Finally, we personalize based on user activity. If a user shows greater competency or adherence to tasks, we offer more challenging activities and goals to further their progress. Our AI coach tailors its approach accordingly, offering a variety of personalized tasks, such as fasting protocols, hydration, and activity targets. The AI coach even has memory, meaning it can tailor its conversations and guidance based on the user’s progress and preferences, providing a truly customized experience every step of the way.
Jacobsen: Any success stories of the app you’d like to share?
Huntriss: Simple has helped countless users not only achieve significant weight loss but also experience meaningful improvements in their health and well-being. Among them is Jessica, who lost 60 pounds in just five months and saw a profound transformation in her overall health.
“I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and fibromyalgia and always felt horrible,” Jessica said. “I knew losing weight would help, but I didn’t realize how much better I would feel. Simple tailored my program specifically for me—my age, my body type—and it’s definitely the easiest, most sustainable weight loss system I’ve ever tried.”
Jessica proclaims that her health markers have improved dramatically. “My A1C levels have dropped, my insulin resistance has decreased, and my hormones have leveled out. I no longer experience fibromyalgia flares, and I feel my absolute best,” she said.
Jessica’s story is just one example of how Simple is helping users achieve lasting, life-changing results.
Jacobsen: What are the common misconceptions about weight loss and healthy weight maintenance?
Huntriss: Nutrition generally plays a bigger role than activity in successful in achieving weight loss over the long-term (ref). Although exercise remains to be very important for health and still supports weight management, for the best long-term results, it’s really important not to just focus on exercise alone.
Muscle loss can occur with weight loss. When losing weight, some muscle mass is often lost along with fat. Prioritizing protein intake and incorporating strength training helps preserve muscle and maintain metabolism.
Weight loss is more complex than “eat less, move more”. Factors like metabolism, hormones, stress, sleep, and genetics all play a role, in addition to our mental and emotional health, and the environments around us.
Weight loss is easier for some people. Genetics, metabolism, medical conditions, and lifestyle factors can make weight loss more challenging for some individuals than others – it’s important to be aware of this and show yourself compassion when things may not be moving as quickly as you’d like.
Maintaining weight loss can be more challenging than losing weight. Many people regain weight after reaching their goal, so focusing on long-term habits and sustainable changes is essential.
Weight loss isn’t linear. Progress will include fluctuations, plateaus, and setbacks. This is normal and doesn’t mean failure—it’s part of the journey.
Jacobsen: What are potential evolutions of the app in 2025 to improve services?
Huntriss: In 2025, Simple will continue enhancing personalization within the app, ensuring users receive more tailored support on their weight loss journey. A key development will be the introduction of voice calls from Coach Avo™, allowing the AI-powered coach to provide real-time motivation, accountability, and timely nudges to keep users on track.
As a comprehensive weight-loss platform, Simple is expanding its features to support holistic health. This includes the rollout of customized workout plans designed to be accessible and enjoyable, making it easier for users to incorporate movement into their daily routines.
By continuously evolving its technology and features, Simple remains committed to making sustainable weight loss more effective, engaging, and accessible for all users.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Ro.AI-Powered Weight Loss with Intermittent Fasting
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/19
The Office of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is responsible for leading Canada’s national response to substance use and mental health challenges. The ministry focuses on harm reduction, treatment access, prevention, and awareness, working with provinces, territories, and community organizations to implement evidence-based policies. Key initiatives include the Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP), which has allocated over $740 million since 2017 to support 450+ community-based projects focusing on prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. The government has expanded opioid agonist therapy (OAT), streamlined regulations for methadone access, and funded safe consumption sites, which have prevented over 60,000 overdoses since 2017. The Emergency Treatment Fund 2024 ($150M) aims to help municipalities and Indigenous communities address critical needs. In 2023, the federal government committed $200 billion over ten years to healthcare, with $25 billion dedicated to mental health and substance use services. The Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS)integrates public health and safety, addressing prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, enforcement, and research. The Know More Opioids campaign has reached over 192,000 youth since 2018 through in-person and virtual sessions, with new awareness tours planned in 2025. Additionally, Health Canada has launched the Reduce Your Risks of Substance Use campaign, which includes post-secondary outreach from February to March 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does this compassionate approach differ from previous strategies to address substance use?
Office of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions: The Government of Canada recognizes that substance use is first and foremost, a health care issue. Unlike the Harper government and Poilievre’s Conservatives, our government supports measures that divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards appropriate health and social services, while maintaining the safety of communities.
Action has been taken to improve access to health services for people who are struggling.
- While the previous government cut Health Canada’s Drug Treatment Funding Program by two-thirds, we’ve committed over $740 million through the Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP) since 2017 to support more than 450 community-based projects including those related to treatment, such as expanding opioid agonist therapy (OAT), and prevention.
- Launching the Youth Substance Use Prevention Program and supporting seven projects in four provinces to implement it. This program is based on the Icelandic Prevention Model approach to preventing substance use among youth.
- Launched the $150 million Emergency Treatment Fund 2024, which is aimed at supporting municipalities and Indigenous communities rapidly respond to critical needs related to the overdose crisis. This builds off the one-time emergency funding of $150 million through Emergency Treatment Fund 2018 for provinces and territories to improve access to evidence-based treatment services.
- Removing certain regulatory constraints imposed on methadone so that exemptions are no longer required from Health Canada for practitioners to prescribe, administer, sell, or provide methadone to their patients. Under the previous government, these constraints were in place. There are also now additional options for those seeking treatment through the approvals of Injectable hydromorphone and injectable diacetylmorphine.
Additionally, safe consumption sites have responded to more than 60,000 overdoses since 2017. They are saving lives, helping to reduce public drug use and stopping the spread of infectious diseases. Prior to 2017, there was only one federally approved supervised consumption site in the entire country and since then, there have been up to 40 operating.
In 2023, the federal government made an investment of close to $200 billion over ten years in health care through the Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians Plan. This investment included $25 billion to support shared health priorities, including mental health and substance use, through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. All provinces and territories have included mental health and substance use in their action plans as part of these bilateral agreements. Provinces and territories have dedicated more than a third of the funding of these bilateral agreements to improving access to mental health and substance use services.
Jacobsen: Budget 2023 allocates $144 million for the Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP). Does this link to larger federal initiatives addressing the overdose crisis?
Office of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions: We continue to leverage tools available to address the overdose crisis. The renewed Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS) is our comprehensive and compassionate approach to tackling this tragic public health crisis. The Substance Use and Addictions Program provide funds to community and not-for-profit organizations across the country. Since 2017, it has supported more than 450 community projects.
SUAP is one part of the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy.
The Strategy works with all orders of government and stakeholders, focuses on a full spectrum of services and supports,and takes a comprehensive approach that balances public health and public safety. It is focused on four key integrated priority areas for action: prevention and education, substance use services and supports (harm reduction, treatment and recovery), evidence, and enforcement.
Jacobsen: Any final updates, e.g., regarding the Know More Opioids public awareness campaign in schools?
Office of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions: Since 2018, the Know More Opioids awareness program has been engaging with teens and youth across Canada on the facts about the overdose crisis, fentanyl, signs of an overdose, naloxone, the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act and the impacts of stigma on people who use drugs.
Since 2018:
- We have conducted over 900 in person sessions to schools across the country
- We have conducted over 1,763 virtual sessions
- We have reached 1,312 schools
- Between April 2018 and December 2024, we engaged 192,459 teens and young adults through high school and post-secondary awareness program.
In January-March 2025, Health Canada will run two in-person tours:
- The Know More in-person tour will resume in February 2025. The tour will include 33 days in secondary schools in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI.
- Health Canada recently launched the Reduce Your Risks of Substance Use campaign in February 2025. This campaign includes a tour of campuses of post-secondary institutions across Canada from February 3rd until March 15th. The campaign, comprised of live events and student engagement, aims to increase awareness among young adults of the risks associated with substance use and polysubstance use, how to recognize substance poisoning and overdose and what to do. A digital toolkit was also developed to support the Reduce Your Risk of Substance Usecampaign and will be sent to all post-secondary institutions in Canada.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/18
Sherwin Dane Zauro Haro is the Chief HAPI Scholars and Editor in Chief. Humanism in the Philippines is often linked to traditional Filipino values like respect and hospitality but is typically attributed to Christianity. HAPI works to demonstrate that ethical behavior exists beyond religious doctrine. Digital media plays a key role in spreading humanist values, with HAPI producing high-quality animated videos addressing topics like feminism and atheism. The HAPI website highlights humanism through personal blogs and media works. Scholars undergo rigorous selection and contribute through writing, design, and activism. Despite limited mainstream visibility, HAPI promotes secular values through campaigns, events, and media, advocating critical thinking and social justice in an increasingly polarized world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is humanism within the cultural and historical landscape of the Philippines?
Sherwin Dane Zauro Haro: Humanism is closely linked to traditional Filipino values like respect and hospitality. We Filipinos are taught early on that treating guests like they’re family is a virtue, and customs like “mano po” are practically mandated among kids. The difference is that Filipinos will usually attribute these particular flavors of humanism to Christianity by default. If you ask a Filipino why one should act compassionate towards their neighbor, most will probably tell you that it is because God encourages it. I have people in my circles who’ve never been able to get why I identify as a secular humanist; to them, humanist thinking was born of Christianity, there’s no way it could be a separate entity. I guess that’s why I find HAPI’s work to be so vital: Filipinos need to know that there are reasons to be good beyond the fact that their religion insists it.
Jacobsen: Digital media dominates many spaces. What strategies ensure humanistic values and are both represented and engaged with online audiences?
Haro: We at HAPI have started to put out more ambitious animated videos that tackle various aspects of humanism these past two years. I produce them myself with the help of the HAPI Scholars, especially Kelly Sepida (who’s our art director) and Kryshia Solon. From the outset, we felt that mixing high-quality animations with deeper humanistic themes would net us more engagement on Facebook—and we were mostly right! Our cartoon shorts helped make feminism, queerphobia, and atheism more “palatable” to Filipino audiences. In my opinion, Kelly’s work already approaches Dreamworks-level so the notably wider reach that these videos achieved made me so proud. HAPI has an active social media team led by Irine Dipano, another HAPI Scholar, who makes sure our videos plus the rest of the regular content developed by HAPI officers get shared punctually.
Jacobsen: What feature on the HAPI Website encapsulates humanist ideals?
Haro: The HAPI blog features intimate accounts of key experiences that our members have had as humanist activists. We’re also working on a gallery of all our media works that highlight various aspects of humanism, which we’re looking to launch soon. Apart from these, I think the hundreds of articles we’ve published over the years (and the sheer variety of their tones, intentions, and styles) encapsulate the reality of being a humanist in the Philippines.
For the Chief of the HAPI Scholars:
Jacobsen: How are humanistic values incorporated into the training and mentorship of emerging scholars?
Haro: It starts as early as their initial interview. Ms. M a/k/a Marissa Langseth, HAPI’s founder and creator of its Scholars department, insists that we push interviewees to think critically about matters of social justice, international and local issues, and religiosity. If we find that an applicant has a nuanced enough view of the world that we can foster, they’d probably have a strong chance of making the cut. The main job of a Scholar is to write compelling articles for the website, so if they’re a gifted writer and freethinker, all the better. Glemir Sordilla, who was among the first batch of Scholars in 2020, got promoted to Associate Editor of the website thanks to her diligence and marked improvement as a writer. On the other hand, Scholars whose skills lean more toward graphic design (like Kelly and Kryshia) and photography are given alternate tasks that allow them to take advantage of their strengths.
Jacobsen: What opportunities for the promotion of humanism exist in the Philippine context?
Haro: Honestly, having been a humanist for five years now, I feel like humanism is still too niche of a concept for local mass media outlets to cover. Atheism, after all, is a core aspect of humanism and Filipinos tend to avoid the topic (or dismiss it outright if it is brought up). Opportunities do exist—in the opinion columns of left-leaning media like Rappler, for instance, or when one of the Scholars’ old pubmats randomly go viral again—but they’re few and far between. I feel proud whenever I see HAPI hold events across the country because they openly promote humanism without being preachy about it. HAPI is made up of people who don’t have a religion but believe you could positively impact your community regardless; things don’t have to be more complicated than that.
Jacobsen: What initiatives led by HAPI Scholars embody the spirit of humanism?
Haro: The HAPI Scholars were one of the groups who joined the online campaign to free Mubarak Bala when he was first detained in 2020. We’re a primarily online-based team—in fact, we’ve only ever been able to partially meet up in person—so to compensate, we’ve made articles and artwork our bread and butter. Since our inception, we’ve made four social media campaigns focusing on our individual opinions regarding issues like superstitious beliefs, critical thinking, and basic empathy. For us, being young Filipino humanists means coming together in any way we can to shine a secular light on the issues that persist in the world. With the way that fascist thinking has been on the rise lately, that light is needed more than ever.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sherwin.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/17
Uladzimir Sevruk is the Founder and CEO of Cata-Kor, leading advancements in NAD+ supplements and anti-aging solutions through scientific innovation, ethical longevity, and wellness. Sevruk, Founder and CEO of Cata-Kor, discusses ethical dilemmas in anti-aging interventions. He emphasizes balancing longevity benefits with societal concerns, advocating for transparency in research and equitable access to life extension technologies. Sevruk argues that longer lifespans should not exacerbate economic inequality or resource depletion, highlighting the importance of sustainability. He stresses that public involvement in these discussions ensures responsible innovation, making longevity advancements beneficial for all rather than a privileged few.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Experts can be split on more life. Some see these technologies as potentially revolutionary medical breakthroughs. Others are skeptical and might see them as leading to societal burden. How do you view this dichotomy?
Uladzimir Sevruk: Some people believe that life extension technologies are a discovery that will help people live longer and stay healthy. Others believe that these discoveries could create new problems, such as too many people, which will put pressure on the world economy as a whole. But people forget that everything has its pros and cons. We need to approach this issue sensibly so we can find a balance where people will live longer and it will not create problems. Also, new life extension technologies help to find cures for many diseases, which does not only prolong life but ensures quality of life.
Jacobsen: Anti-aging interventions may be inaccessible to most. What are the ethics of diverse accessibility to longevity technologies?
Sevruk: No proof-of-work for the average human of life extension techniques. But who among us doesn’t want to be healthy and live longer? And it is critical these technologies become more broadly available over time, as medicine once did. A few decades ago, surgeries and drugs were only possible for a few; now hundreds of millions of people are able to take them. The crux is that this does not turn into something dividing people into “the rich and long-lived” and “everyone else.”
Jacobsen: How can we address the ethical challenges there?
Sevruk: Life extension can only be done transparently to resolve the ethical questions around it. Companies developing these technologies need to be transparent about how they work, what risks are involved, and what benefits they provide. It shouldn’t only be scientists and business leaders who are involved in the conversation, but regular people too, to ensure decisions are made for the benefit of everyone and not just a few.
Jacobsen: Will longer lives put increased pressure on natural resources?
Sevruk: Naturally, the longer a person lives, the more food, water, housing, and energy all of humanity will need. But we can solve all of these problems if we invest in recycling and renewable energy. We have faced population growth before, this is nothing new for humanity, and we have always managed to find solutions. Technology does not stand still and is looking for a solution. The day we stop caring about the earth is our last day. And one of the ways to live longer, to live better, to live well, not just longer, is for society to be better, and that means simply caring about the environment.
Jacobsen: With Cata-Kor, how do companies ensure scientific integrity while navigating the ethical dilemmas in ambiguous emerging trends or breakthroughs in anti-aging research?
Sevruk: Companies that work on life extension must be completely transparent. Research must inspire confidence, be transparent to people, show how the methods work, open the research to the public, and pay attention to experts. This is what we at Cata-Kor believe in and uphold from our side, to provide you with the transparency and ethical accountability.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Uladzimir.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/17 (Unpublished)
Kuty Shalev is the Founder and CEO of Lumenalta. Lumenalta defines emotional intelligence (EQ) in IT as the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes collaborations with empathy, adaptability, and self-awareness, combined with technical communication and problem-solving skills. They integrate EQ into daily workflows through simulation-based coaching and commitment-based communication, ensuring clear articulation of concerns and concrete commitments aligned with business outcomes. This approach fosters stakeholder alignment, reduces ambiguity, and improves client satisfaction. Despite challenges like strict deadlines and remote work barriers, IT leaders report significant benefits. Leadership plays a key role by modeling effective communication and continuously reinforcing EQ through coaching and mentoring. Overall, this strategy transforms IT culture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Lumenalta define emotional intelligence within IT teams?
Kuty Shalev: At Lumenalta, we see emotional intelligence (EQ) as the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes collaborations with empathy, adaptability, and self-awareness. It’s not just about interpersonal skills—it’s about creating an environment where technical and non-technical team members can align on priorities, manage conflict constructively, and drive innovation.
A key part of our approach is commitment-based communication. This means that instead of vague discussions or assumptions, our teams are trained to articulate their concerns clearly, identify the hidden concerns of others, and create commitments that are specific, validated, and aligned with business outcomes. This structured way of communicating ensures that nothing is left ambiguous—whether in a client meeting, a project plan, or even when prompting an AI model.
Jacobsen: Does this differ much from more general definitions of emotional intelligence?
Shalev: Yes, in many ways. While general definitions of emotional intelligence focus on self-awareness, empathy, and interpersonal effectiveness, EQ within IT teams also encompasses technical communication, problem-solving under pressure, and cross-cultural collaboration—especially in remote environments. IT professionals must translate technical concepts into business outcomes, prioritize conflicting demands, and adapt to evolving requirements—all of which require a blend of emotional and cognitive intelligence.
Jacobsen: How have IT leaders overcome the challenge of strict deadlines limiting the development of EQ?
Shalev: Lumenalta has tackled this challenge by integrating EQ development directly into how teams work. Instead of separating “soft skills” training from technical training, we embed emotional intelligence into real-world practice. For example, our teams participate in simulation-based coaching that mimics high-pressure client scenarios, helping them refine their communication, negotiation, and problem-solving skills in real time. This ensures that EQ development isn’t an extracurricular activity—it’s a core part of how we deliver results.
Jacobsen: What companies have integrated EQ into IT culture to provide measurable improvements?
Shalev: Many forward-thinking organizations have embraced EQ-driven approaches to IT. Our own experience at Lumenalta has shown that when developers are trained to navigate stakeholder dynamics, project outcomes improve. According to our research, 87% of IT leaders reported that
investing in EQ directly improved client satisfaction, and 81% saw a positive impact on technology adoption. Companies that embed emotional intelligence into daily workflows—rather than relying on one-off training—see the most significant gains.
Jacobsen: What factors can blunt the positive effects of improved EQ in the IT workplace?
Shalev: One major factor is a lack of structural reinforcement. If EQ training isn’t backed by a workplace culture that values open communication, psychological safety, and constructive feedback, it won’t stick. Another challenge is time pressure—if teams are constantly in reactive mode, they may default to transactional communication rather than thoughtful collaboration. Finally, hybrid and remote work environments can create EQ barriers if companies don’t establish clear norms for engagement and relationship-building.
Jacobsen: How are facets of emotional intelligence—self-awareness, adaptability, and empathy—quantified and measured to improve workplace productivity?
Shalev: One way Lumenalta measures the impact of EQ training is through the clarity and effectiveness of communication. Are teams making and keeping better commitments? Are they reducing ambiguity in client interactions? Are they proactively uncovering concerns before they become roadblocks?
Interestingly, this same discipline in language and clarity extends to AI development. The best AI outputs come from well-structured prompts, and the ability to construct these prompts effectively comes from the same EQ skills we cultivate in our teams. A great AI prompt, much like a great commitment, is clear, concise, and validated against the outcomes we are targeting.
Jacobsen: Do generational culture differences affect the workforce perception of EQ in IT teams?
Shalev: Absolutely. Younger IT professionals often expect EQ to be embedded into company culture and value ongoing coaching, while more experienced team members may have developed technical expertise in environments where EQ wasn’t prioritized. Our research found that perspectives on
EQ varied based on years of experience, but across the board, IT leaders recognized its importance—90% said it was essential for success.
Jacobsen: How can leadership and management style foster more emotionally intelligent work environments in tech companies?
Shalev: Leadership plays a crucial role in setting the tone for EQ in IT teams. At Lumenalta, we focus on leading by example—our senior engineers and product leads model effective communication, client engagement, and conflict resolution. We also emphasize continuous learning, using both AI-powered coaching tools and human-led mentoring to reinforce key EQ skills. Creating an
environment where engineers feel heard, valued, and empowered to solve problems autonomously is key to long-term success.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kuty.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/17 (Unpublished)
Swapnil Shinde, CEO and Co-Founder of Zeni, talks about Zeni’s AI-powered bookkeeping streamlines financial operations by providing real-time insights and automation while ensuring transparency, data privacy, and compliance. Shinde speaks to the ethical considerations that are crucial, especially in financial services, where AI-driven decisions impact lives, where transparency, minimizing bias, and privacy protection are fundamental pillars. As AI and nanoscale engineering evolve, ethical models must adapt to safeguard human interests.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With financial institutions and tech startups, how do ethical considerations come into AI strategy?
Swapnil Shinde: Ethical considerations are fundamental to building trust in AI, especially in financial services where decisions directly impact people’s lives. Ensuring transparency, minimizing bias, and prioritizing data privacy are critical pillars in shaping responsible AI strategies.
Jacobsen: How do innovations in AI and nanoscale engineering challenge traditional ethical models?
Shinde: The convergence of AI and nanoscale engineering pushes the boundaries of what’s possible, often outpacing existing ethical frameworks. This requires a shift toward dynamic, principles-based governance models that can evolve with technology while safeguarding human interests.
Jacobsen: With more sophistication in cybersecurity and data integration challenges, how can ethical AI practices protect sensitive information?
Shinde: Ethical AI practices must prioritize data minimization, encryption, and transparent decision-making to protect sensitive information. By aligning AI design with privacy-first principles, organizations can mitigate risk and build long-term trust with users.
Jacobsen: How do you balance commercial innovation with robust ethical safeguards?
Shinde: It’s about integrating ethical considerations directly into the innovation lifecycle. When companies view ethical safeguards as catalysts for innovation rather than roadblocks, they’re able to deliver transformative solutions while upholding public trust.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Swapnil.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/17
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. He discusses the most sinful states in America for 2025 with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. Nevada ranks first, followed by California, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Gambling, drug use, and alcohol abuse significantly impact rankings, with Nevada’s Las Vegas driving its position. Texas moved from seventh to fifth, while Tennessee dropped out of the top five. The least sinful states—Idaho, New Hampshire, Vermont, Utah, and Wyoming—show regional and cultural influences, including religion and low urbanization. The seven-category index tracks vice-related metrics yearly, revealing trends in crime, financial recklessness, and social behaviours. Rankings remain relatively consistent over time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are back with Chip Lupo, a WalletHub analyst. We will discuss the most sinful states in America in 2025.
New Mexico has one of the highest rates of drug use, Nevada has the most gambling addictions, and gambling alone in the United States results in losses of approximately $100 billion per year.
Someone call DOGE immediately! The amount of money lost due to smoking-related health issues and productivity loss exceeds $600 billion per year. Harmful behaviour at an individual level, based on personal choices, can lead to high economic costs on a national scale. So, the first big question: Why is this particular report on sinful behaviour important, and how do you frame this study?
Chip Lupo: It’s important because, as you mentioned, each of the 50 states has its vices and virtues, and some states are generally more well-behaved than others. We compare the states across key indicators of immoral or illicit behaviour.
This study goes beyond typical vices like gambling, smoking, and alcohol use—many of which serve as gateways to more serious issues such as domestic abuse, hate crimes, bullying, sex offences, and violent crimes.
Jacobsen: Now, the top five—are these the most sinful states? Nevada is the most sinful state by a landslide, followed by California, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas.
Some of these rankings are surprising. While Nevada ranks first in multiple categories, some of these states rank lower in certain areas, such as excesses, vices, or violent crime. It’s interesting because there isn’t always a clear-cut reason why these five states rank the highest, aside from the index itself, which factors in multiple elements, including anger and hatred, jealousy, excesses, greed, lust, vanity, and laziness.
So why do these rankings vary so much? In other studies, it’s often clear why a state ranks first, second, or third, but that’s not always the case here.
Lupo: Let’s start with Nevada. Of course, Las Vegas is the gambling capital, and unfortunately, in a state like Nevada, what happens in Las Vegas influences the entire state. Las Vegas drives many of Nevada’s issues, both positive and negative.
This is largely gambling-driven, and as I mentioned before, gambling often triggers other illicit behaviours. But what’s particularly interesting about Nevada is that, aside from gambling, it ranks high in other vices. For example, it has a high number of fast-food establishments per capita, ranks fourth overall in the share of adult coffee drinkers, and ranks seventh in the share of the population using marijuana.
Then, of course, we get into gambling itself. Nevada ranks first for the number of casinos, first for gambling-related arrests, first for the share of the population with gambling disorders, and first for persons arrested for embezzlement per capita.
That last statistic is key because embezzlement is often tied to gambling. Many casinos and gentlemen’s clubs operate as cash-only businesses, making it difficult to track where all the money is going.
So, it’s not surprising that Nevada ranks high for embezzlement arrests. Additionally, it ranks first for the number of persons arrested for prostitution or commercialized vice per capita.
Now, looking at some of these other states—take, for example, California and Louisiana—both have high violent crime rates. Louisiana ranks fifth, while California ranks sixth. Whether or not that directly ties into vices, a lot of it could be influenced by illicit drug use and alcoholism. In many cases, these two factors go hand in hand.
Texas, however, presents an interesting case. Overall, Texas has a fairly low crime rate and a relatively low number of registered sex offenders. However, it ranks high in bullying, hate crimes, and the number of hate groups per capita. As Texas continues to grow as a business hub, with more companies relocating to the state due to its business-friendly climate, it also ranks high in identity theft complaints per capita, fraud complaints per capita and thefts per capita.
Texas ranks high in adult coffee consumption and other lifestyle indicators in other areas. Interestingly, Texas ranks second overall in Google search interest for adult entertainment, which measures searches for pornographic websites. The state also ranks high for persons arrested for prostitution and commercialized vice. In summary, across all these states, crime and other societal issues often correlate with vices such as drug use, alcohol abuse, and excessive gambling.
Jacobsen: If we look at the least sinful states, the bottom five—Idaho, New Hampshire, Vermont, Utah, and Wyoming—we see an interesting trend. These states rank much closer than the top five, which are significantly spread apart, particularly when you factor in Nevada’s extreme scores. Although these states rank lower on the “sinfulness” scale, they aren’t necessarily morality outliers. What explains their rankings?
Lupo: This is where regional trends come into play. The bottom-ranking states share some common characteristics. Many are in the Mountain West, while two—New Hampshire and Vermont—are in Northern New England. One key factor is that these states tend to have a more homogenous population with a predominantly white demographic.
The areas where these states tend to falter are in bullying and hate crimes. However, their overall violent crime rates remain relatively low. A major reason for this is that these states are sparsely populated and lack major urban centers. Unlike California, which has Los Angeles and San Francisco, or states like Nevada, Louisiana, or Texas, which have large cities such as Las Vegas, New Orleans, Houston, or Dallas, the bottom-ranking states do not have large metro areas where crime rates typically surge.
Because of this, inner-city crime is not as much of an issue in these states. Another interesting factor is the religious influence in Idaho and Utah. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has a strong presence in both states, shaping cultural attitudes toward vices. Residents in these states tend to have lower rates of alcohol abuse, and even caffeine consumption is lower than the national average. Additionally, gambling is nearly nonexistent—neither Idaho nor Utah has commercial casinos, and Utah is one of the few states without a state lottery. The cultural deterrent against gambling is deeply embedded in these states, influencing overall behaviour and vice-related activities.
Jacobsen: The metrics in this study are particularly interesting because they first include the most categories of any of the reports you’ve shared with me. There’s also a wide range within each category. The weighting system scales from less than one point to over four points, ensuring an even distribution of how different factors are valued.
However, when looking at categories like vanity, excesses and vices, and anger and hatred, the index is highly detailed, with many subcategories. In contrast, jealousy and lust only have three subcategories each. What does this mean in terms of data analysis and metric construction? Given the large number of subcategories, how do you ensure the balance and accuracy of such a robust index?
Lupo: That’s where it gets tricky. This hasThis study has seven major dimensions, and within those, we’re breaking things down into 55 individual metrics. The challenge is ensuring that each of those metrics is fairly represented without overemphasizing one aspect over another.
When people hear the term “sinful,” their minds often jump to vices like lust or greed. However, these vices intersect with other factors, snowballing into broader issues such as crime rates, economic instability, or social behaviour. For example, under the excesses and vices category, we include a debt-to-income ratio metric, which measures how much debt residents have relative to their household income.
This is significant because high debt levels can be linked to gambling behaviour. If someone excessively gambles, they likely accumulate debt to cover daily expenses. While this metric may have a lower weighting, it’s an important indicator of financial recklessness. Including such nuanced measures makes the study more comprehensive, highlighting individual behaviours and their wider economic and social consequences.
Jacobsen: Can you track changes year over year? By this metric, or a similar one, are states becoming more virtuous or sinful over time? I’d be curious about that.
Lupo: The rankings are fairly consistent from year to year. Most metrics have remained unchanged from 2024 to 2025, so much of the 2025 rankings are based on 2024 data.
Nevada is still ranked number one as the most sinful state. The top five states have remained mostly the same, but there was one notable change: Tennessee was ranked fifth in 2024, scoring high in anger and hatred, excesses and vices, and lust. However, it dropped out of the top five in 2025. It’s also not in the bottom five, meaning it likely saw a significant decline in sinful behaviours overall. That’s an interesting shift.
Meanwhile, Texas moved up from seventh to fifth. The other rankings saw minor changes:
- Nevada remains first.
- Louisiana dropped from second to fourth.
- California moved up from third to second.
- Florida moved up from fourth to third.
The biggest takeaway is Tennessee’s sharp decline, which is worth noting, even if the 2025 numbers aren’t fully available yet.
Jacobsen: Chip, that’s all the questions I have for today. I appreciate your time again.
Lupo: All right, Scott. As always, we appreciate your interest.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/16
Scott Hamm Duenas is an actor, producer, and martial artist known for Final Wager and ReBroken. With over 15 years in SAG/AFTRA, he has appeared in General Hospital and The Bold and the Beautiful. Passionate about storytelling, he blends physicality and visionary filmmaking in his dynamic performances and productions.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What might happen with these appointments of conservative ambassadors?
Scott Hamm Duenas: President Trump appointing Jon Voight, Mel Gibson, and Sylvester Stallone as Hollywood ambassadors would add to his list of appointing change agents to his new administration.
Having leaders in Hollywood who are huge stars but also happen to be conservatives could potentially cause a lot of friction. Since becoming president in 2016, Hollywood, Trump, and Trump supporters are like oil and water; they do not mix. I think you would have to influence many very important people to open their minds to the thought of taking these people and their ambassadorship seriously.
Although, if they don’t come in overly aggressive, trying to force their views on people and instead come up with a plan to push for a return to more traditional forms of storytelling, emphasizing themes like patriotism and resilience, which are often associated with their work, I think that could possibly work, especially if that type of programming is a hit with audiences. At the end of the day, the industry is all about making a profit. If that type of contest equates to clicks, streams, and butts in seats, Hollywood will shift its content without hesitation. That being said, it wouldn’t alter Hollywood’s core values or diminish its commitment to telling progressive stories and giving a platform to issues they deeply believe in and feel deserve to be heard.
Jacobsen: How might this come across to the industry as a whole?
Duenas: Realistically, the ambassadors’ involvement could really rub a lot of heavy hitters, including studios, producers, actors, directors, and writers, the wrong way. This could even deepen existing divides within the industry, as Hollywood is very proud of its liberal stance, and the last thing they want is lectures about how to do business from conservatives.
No matter how their ideas are presented, they will definitely conjure up mixed reactions. Some stars may support their initiatives, some will stay neutral, and others—I think the majority—will oppose them.
While they could advocate for bringing production back to California, I don’t know how much credit they would get, as things are already moving in that direction for 2025. Plans for tax incentives are already in the works to bring more production back from other states and countries, which would be huge for California and the enormous number of people this industry provides income for in the Golden State.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Scott.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/16
Dr. Justin Allen Rose, a political scientist and media analyst, discusses the intersection of religion, politics, and authoritarianism in the U.S. and abroad. He explores religious devotion and political allegiance, noting how dogma and punishment reinforce control in Christian nationalism and North Korea alike. Rose examines biblical literalism’s role in legislation, citing State Senator Dusty Deevers and Trump’s Christian bias initiatives as evidence of religion-driven policymaking. He warns of a post-constitutional America where free thought is suppressed, and laws increasingly reflect evangelical ideology. Ultimately, he underscores the danger of blind faith and its societal consequences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Dr. Justin Allen Rose, a political science researcher, lecturer, and media analyst in the United States. He earned his PhD in political science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where he focused on social media’s influence on political polarization. Rose is greatly interested in the intersection of religion and politics, examining how faith shapes political behavior and opinions. He is currently a journalist living in Oklahoma. Contrary to what one might assume from Free Inquiry magazine, he was raised in a religious town. However, he comes from a nonreligious family and advocates for safeguarding civil liberties.
Thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it on such short notice. Let’s dive into the first question: What are the key similarities between religious devotion and political allegiance in authoritarian regimes? The fundamental basis for both is religious or political dogma.
Dr. Justin Allen Rose: Yes. That is a very good question to start with.
And you’ll notice throughout this conversation that I’m not afraid of tackling these topics.
I know you—I’ve seen your work before. I don’t mean to backtrack or anything, but I love listening to and reading Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They’re truly intellectual figures. And while I have a PhD, I didn’t grow up in an academic household. My dad dropped out of high school. My mom has a high school diploma.
So, in my language—you’re here, I’m here—I come from a blue-collar background.
I’m educated, but my language is still very blue-collar.
It really does seem like religion and political allegiance are one and the same, especially nowadays. In religion, people hold onto their beliefs no matter what. I love analyzing the logical processes that people go through to reach their opinions and allegiances.
That’s what led me to study political psychology.
And that is because anytime you see it, this whole religion topic is somewhat cyclical for me in terms of interest. I write about it and read about it, and then I step away from it.
At some point, you talk to a religious individual—let’s talk Christianity since we’re in America, and that’s the dominant religious framework here—you reach a situation where you ask them a question about a contradiction you’ve noticed, something that they logically cannot fully support.
Whether it’s a moral dilemma or a textual inconsistency, they’ll often respond with something like, “Well, you’re interpreting it wrong,” or, “God is mysterious.” It becomes a way to reinforce what they already believe.
We see the same phenomenon with political allegiances nowadays on both sides. Among Republicans and Democrats—though to different degrees—you often see partisans treating their political affiliation like a sports team. When a Democrat does something questionable, a hardcore Democrat will often try to justify it, even if it contradicts their previous opinions. The same happens with Republicans.
We see this pattern clearly in political science and public opinion research. When people consume information, they tend to read it in a way that reinforces their preexisting beliefs. If someone already has a strong opinion—whether it’s about God’s existence or their political party’s righteousness—they struggle to admit they might be wrong.
That cognitive dissonance people talk about? They don’t want to feel it. So, they’ll do anything to mentally flip the switch, convincing themselves that reality isn’t what it appears to be. Instead, they might say, “The liberal elites are manipulating the narrative,” or, “They’re trying to deceive me.” Their actual thoughts become their version of reality, and they reject any contradiction as a fabricated lie.
Jacobsen: Now, in a recent article, you argued that Kim Jong Un and the Christian God (I’m unsure whether you’re making a distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism here) share similar mechanisms of control over their followers.
So, how do you conceptually distinguish these forms of control? And how does this play out when one authority figure is a living person—like Kim Jong Un—while the other, like the Christian God, is believed to be real but remains intangible? Or, in the case of North Korea, how does the “dead dad and granddad” system function in what Hitchens might call a “necrocracy”? A tripartite comparison—Kim Jong Un, and the deceased leaders of North Korea.
Rose: For me, the mechanisms of control all center on getting people to believe in something unquestioningly. And in religion, the Christian God is God himself. In North Korea, Kim Jong Un is the absolute authority. The mechanism of control is always punishment. The question becomes: what is the consequence of not believing in this being?
This ties back to religion. Even within Christianity, different sects hold different beliefs about hell. Some believe in eternal damnation, while others think nonbelievers exist apart from God. Regardless, in their minds, separation from God is still a form of punishment—whether it’s eternal torment or spiritual exile.
Punishment is always central. In Christianity, punishment means being sent to hell. In North Korea, under Kim Jong Un, punishment means death or being sent to a concentration camp. That’s the core mechanism I focus on—punishment—because that ultimately compels people to conform.
Beyond punishment, there is also the element of solidarity. I can’t claim to know exactly what North Korean subjects truly believe in their hearts. But based on past research, historical patterns, and my reflections on belief systems, I see a recurring theme.
Even in oppressive groups—whether it’s a theocracy, a dictatorship, or a cult—people often remain loyal despite the harm they suffer. There’s a psychological benefit to group belonging. We see this in political interest groups as well. The same dynamic applies to Christianity:
It enforces belief through fear of punishment.
It fosters a sense of solidarity, even when the belief system may harm the individual or society.
Now, I don’t separate the two very much when we compare devotion to a living leader versus a deity. As I wrote in my article, let’s hypothetically assume, for argument’s sake, that God exists—setting aside any controversy.
Even if God is not a person but an entity, belief in him shapes society. It influences laws, behaviours, and human interactions, just as belief in Kim Jong Un dictates life in North Korea.
So, whether we view God as imaginary or real, the comparison holds. It’s all about effect—how belief in a real-life dictator versus a deity influences human beings. If you ever want me to elaborate on a specific point, just ask. I know my thoughts can sometimes branch off in multiple directions.
Jacobsen: But you have something that many Americans have—much more than many Canadians—something that may be more familiar to older generations who left religion in North America than younger generations who never had religion.
In a way, you are culturally bilingual regarding religion and nonreligion. You understand what religious people mean when they say certain things. It can be as simple as “God bless you,” essentially the secular equivalent of “Good luck.”
I don’t have any personal attachment to that phrase, but I understand the sentiment behind it. You grew up in a religious environment so that you can navigate both perspectives. So, how do you distinguish between faith and blind faith?
From the perspective of religious people in the United States—Christians in particular—how do they differentiate the two?
Because often in religious debates—or what are called debates—you’ll see people pivot to “By faith, I mean trust. I trust that God is good.” It’s clever rhetoric but doesn’t add anything substantive to the conversation.
Rose: I totally see where you’re coming from. And yeah, that’s exactly why I lose interest in the battle between religion and nonreligion—it always comes down to semantics. One minute, someone claims to mean one thing, and then suddenly, “Oh, I didn’t mean that I meant this.”
Or you get the argument that “Everyone has some kind of religion.” It might not be believing in God, but they’ll insist it’s still a religion.
That’s when words start to lose meaning. What are we even doing if you redefine terms to justify your position? We’re not getting any closer to the truth.
And that’s what I’m after—the truth of what is actually real.
So, in terms of faith versus blind faith—Yes, I did grow up in a nonreligious household. For the first sixteen years of my life, I was born and raised in Virginia, which is a completely different environment from small-town Oklahoma, where we moved when I turned 16.
In Virginia, we never really talked about religion at home. Occasionally, it would come up on TV, but that was about it. Religion wasn’t present in schools. Then I moved to small-town Oklahoma, and it was a completely different world. The high school I graduated from was in a town one mile wide; within that one mile, there were six churches.
Religion and God were talked about constantly in that environment. I don’t think negatively about that experience because I had a good time at that school, but it was a strange experience. As you mentioned, I got to immerse myself in a completely different culture.
Take politics, for example. My parents always watched the news when I was growing up, so I heard their opinions. But never once did I hear religion as the justification for their views. It was never, “I believe this because of my faith.”
Politics came up in school as well—whether in conversations among students or even when teachers discussed it. But again, religion wasn’t a factor. Then, in Oklahoma, it was completely different. Almost every political opinion seemed to be tied directly back to religion, which was wild to experience.
That sparked my curiosity. I wanted to understand how religion could shape someone’s worldview, even though for me, that wasn’t the case at all.
I don’t have that religious framework in my head. So why does this one belief influence every other belief they hold? Now, getting into faith versus blind faith— I don’t think they see it as blind faith. Even though you and I might classify it that way, they don’t consider it faith.
You see this all the time on TikTok or other platforms. People ask, “How can you believe in something you haven’t seen?”Or, “You’re just reading words off a page—how do you believe in it without evidence?” But they genuinely think they do have evidence.
I saw a video of a woman claiming that God appeared in her house, in her room, and that she was able to hug God or Jesus—whichever entity she was referring to that day.
And honestly, how do you argue against that? You can’t. If they truly believe it, there’s nothing you can say to combat that. You have two possibilities:
They’re lying to themselves or others because they desperately want to convince people (and themselves) that this is real.
They truly believe it, which raises the question: Which is worse?
Is it scarier that they’ve lost their grip on reality to that degree? Or that they don’t believe it—but are deliberately lying and will do whatever it takes to get others to believe? Lately, I think it’s more of the latter—a calculated effort to push belief no matter what. And we see that happening through Christian nationalism. Oklahoma is the premier testing ground for that experiment.
Jacobsen: So, how do they use biblical literalism— through a fully literal reading or a selective literalist approach—to consolidate power and enforce obedience?
Rose: I’m not sure how familiar you are with Oklahoma politics, but judging by the topic, I’ll go ahead and name names—I don’t care.
Take Senator Dusty Deevers from Elgin, Oklahoma. If you scroll through his X (formerly Twitter) account, you’ll see biblical literalism on full display in the bills he’s trying to pass through the Oklahoma legislature.
For example, he has proposed legislation related to abortion—I believe he refers to it as chemical abortion, though not chemical castration. He’s also pushing bills targeting same-sex marriage and other issues in line with Christian nationalist ideology.
Now, you’d expect a deeply religious person—especially a pastor-turned-politician—to legislate based on his beliefs. And that’s exactly what he’s doing. This all ties back to punishment, whether in Christianity or North Korea.
When Christian nationalists like Deevers draft legislation, they often frame it in terms of God’s will. The underlying idea is that laws should punish those deviating from their Christian interpretation.
Deevers is an open Christian nationalist—he wrote a manifesto on the subject before he was even elected. So, he’s not just pandering when he pushes these laws—he genuinely believes in his actions.
And I can say this with some certainty because I’ve spoken to Senator Deevers in his office before. When we were discussing policy—purely political issues—you wouldn’t have guessed he was a pastor. But the moment he mentioned God, his entire demeanor changed. You could see it in his eyes.
Now, some people argue that politicians like Deevers are just using religion as a tool for power. That’s a fair argument. But there’s another possibility—some of these people truly believe everything they’re saying and genuinely want to implement it—not just in Oklahoma but nationwide.
And that’s a powerful thing to witness—the shift in his eyes, his energy—when he speaks about religion. If someone like Deevers truly believes in biblical literalism, then he will do everything in his power to enforce what he thinks the Bible demands.
The Bible suggests that if a land does not follow God’s will, it will be punished. Conversely, if a nation embraces God, it will prosper. If Deevers believes that literally, then his legislative efforts—banning gay marriage, outlawing abortion, and enforcing Christian moral codes—are all part of his mission.
Never mind the contradictions in the Bible itself—like God wiping out entire populations in the Great Flood—because biblical literalists rarely address those inconsistencies. However, the key takeaway is that we are witnessing real-life biblical literalism in action.
Some people, yes, are using Christian nationalism for power. But again, I truly believe that some people genuinely believe every word of the Bible and are acting on it. Dusty Deevers is one of them. And that brings us right back to the question—which is worse?
Is it more dangerous when someone doesn’t believe in biblical literalism but still tries to enforce it for political gain? Or is it worse when someone truly believes every word of the Bible and tries to legislate it into reality? Either way, this ideology affects more than just Oklahoma—we now see it at the federal level.
Take Trump’s recent initiatives, for example. His administration has been forming committees and groups dedicated to rooting out so-called ‘anti-Christian bias’ within the federal government.
Jacobsen: But we know that’s not happening. If anything, we’ve seen the opposite—for a long time, there has been a pro-Christian bias in American politics.
Rose: All of these efforts fly in the face of reality. They contradict all the available evidence. So, what’s the purpose? It’s signalling about letting the so-called “good Christian people” know they’re on their side.
And if we set aside the courts and the power of Congress for a moment, we seem to be creeping toward a post-constitutional stage—where checks and balances are losing effectiveness. Yes, technically, we still have checks and balances. That’s the go-to response when someone points out that a president—whether Trump or anyone else—is overreaching. People say, “Don’t worry, we have the courts, we have Congress—they’ll push back.”
But we’re not seeing that. For decades, Congress has willingly handed more and more power over to the executive branch, and now, it’s on full display. So, when we talk about a post-constitutional era and what that means for Christian nationalism, it doesn’t bode well for those who don’t subscribe to their religious ideology.
And what does that mean for my family? My wife is an atheist, just like me. My daughter is only two years old, but what will life look like when she grows up if we’re still in Oklahoma? Because, in my view, the Bible—and Christianity in general—is deeply anti-woman. That’s clear as day to me.
So, if literal biblical interpretations start shaping our laws—whether at the state level in Oklahoma or at the federal level—what does that mean? What does that mean for women? What does that mean for nonbelievers?
And this is something I think many people fail to understand. Being an atheist isn’t a choice—it’s not about wanting to be an atheist or wanting to reject religion. No. It’s about reading the Bible, listening to the arguments, and saying: “I don’t buy it.”
It’s not as if I can wake up tomorrow and say, “You know what?” I could say, “I believe in God.” It is all day long. But would that make it true?
Because I would always have that doubt, and I truly believe—probably always, though I won’t say always with absolute certainty—that it’s not true. That belief is outside of my control.
And that ties right back into the argument: If God created everyone and made them the way they are, then He made me this way—to send me to hell?
Jacobsen: What are the biggest parallels between the desired Christian nation of many Protestants—particularly white evangelical Christians in the United States—and authoritarian North Korea?
Rose: Uniform thought. It all goes back to the First Amendment—freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the ability to reason freely in this country.
To truly control whether someone believes in God or anything—a political party, a social ideology—you have to control the flow of information. The more this country moves toward what they call a Christian nation or a Christian nationalist state, the greater the push will be to suppress dissenting voices.
We’ll see increased efforts to ban articles, shut down media companies, and restrict books from libraries because that’s how you control people. I’m sure—I’ve never been to North Korea—but I highly doubt they have vast, uncensored libraries on every corner.
Jacobsen: Dr. Rose, thank you very much for your time today. It was lovely to meet you.
Rose: Let me know anytime you want to talk. Bye.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Bye-bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/15
Henri Chelhot is the CEO of FlightHub and a travel expert at Momentum Ventures. With extensive experience in the travel industry, he provides insights into tourism trends, flight services, and customer experiences. He is represented by Olivia LaBorde of Society22 PR and frequently shares expertise on travel and aviation topics. Movie-related travel is booming, with over half of travelers influenced by films and TV shows when choosing destinations. A survey by JustFly.com found Emily in Paris (24%) and Game of Thrones (23%) as top travel influencers, with Northern Ireland attracting fans to its Game of Thrones sites. Social media fuels this trend, making locations like Katz’s Deli from When Harry Met Sally viral. Sustainability is gaining importance, with destinations like New Zealand promoting eco-friendly tourism. Advances in AR and VR enhance experiences, allowing virtual explorations and interactive on-site elements. Despite TikTok disruptions, film tourism remains strong across platforms.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are iconic movie destinations attracting tourists now?
Henri Chelhot: I’m excited to discuss this topic because my company, justfly.com, recently conducted a survey on movie-related travel destinations. More than half of the participants admitted to selecting travel destinations after seeing them featured in a movie, TV series, or show.
In the survey, 24% of respondents said that *Emily in Paris* had the most significant impact on their travel choices, while *Game of Thrones* followed closely at 23%. *Game of Thrones* was filmed in several locations worldwide, but the top destination is Northern Ireland, where you can find The Game of Thrones Studio Tour at Linen Mill Studios. Iconic sites depicted as Winterfell, Castle Black, and the Kingsroad are also located in Northern Ireland.
Jacobsen: How do these spots remain relevant year-on-year?
Chelhot: These locations, like other popular film sites, stay relevant year after year because the characters and stories resonate with viewers on a deeper level. Even though we know
the actors and sets aren’t real, when fans travel to these places, they feel a connection to the movie. It’s as if they’ve experienced a part of the story or the journey of the characters they love.
Jacobsen: Are customers attuned to values like authenticity, environmentalism, and sustainability when touring?
Chelhot: We’re certainly noticing that more travelers value authenticity, environmentalism, and sustainability during their travels, and film tourism is no exception.
Jacobsen: How has the rise of social media influenced the popularity of cinematic locations among travelers?
Chelhot: Social media has significantly influenced the popularity of traveling to movie locations, just like it has affected many aspects of our culture. For example, lets say you’re a fan of “When Harry Met Sally”, and the iconic restaurant scene is your favorite part. You might be scrolling through your phone and come across a group of friends visiting Katz’sDeli in New York, where that scene was filmed. This realization can make you decide to add that location to your travel list.
Jacobsen: How has the disruption in access to TikTok changed social media usage and impacted trends in movie-based travel?
Chelhot: When TikTok was shut down, panic struck for many users around the world. However, it seems that people are now using it again without worrying about it going away. I don’t believe these disruptions have significantly impacted trends in movie-related travel. Social media remains a powerful tool for influencing travel choices, as illustrated by the “When Harry Met Sally” example. If TikTok were to disappear, travelers would likely transition to another platform.
Jacobsen: Are/should movie destination tours be shifting to incorporate cultural or educational elements to align with the values mentioned earlier?
Chelhot: Movie destination tours are shifting to include cultural and educational elements to align with tourists’ increasing values around environmentalism and sustainability.
For instance, New Zealand, known for filming “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit,” is a leader in sustainable tourism. Many tours there emphasize preserving the land and wildlife. Both the government and tour operators encourage tourists to respect nature by
adopting sustainable travel practices, such as minimizing waste, avoiding harm to plants or animals, and participating in conservation projects.
Jacobsen: How do advancements in AR and VR affect film tourism?
Chelhot: Advancements in Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) have significantly impacted film tourism. For example, Google Earth provides an incredible tool that allows users to virtually explore various filming locations. Additionally, tourism departments in states like New York, Nevada, and California have incorporated virtual reality tours on their websites, enhancing the travel experience for potential visitors.
As for AR, many filming locations have added that element. Some have virtual character interactions on-site, enhanced experiences through apps, and so on. For example, going back to “Games of Thrones.” At their filming locations in Northern Ireland, there are several AR elements. Through AR apps, tourists can use their smartphones or AR glasses to see how scenes were shot, adding visual effects that match the show.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Henri.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/13
Steve Nixon is a world-touring jazz and blues pianist and the founder of FreeJazzLessons.com. A Berklee College of Music graduate, he has performed with legends like B.B. King, Buddy Guy, and Shemekia Copeland. Nixon is also an accomplished session musician and educator, sharing his expertise worldwide. Nixon discusses the impact of rising costs under the second Trump administration, emphasizing cost-saving measures like automation and careful expense tracking. He advises small businesses to prepare for tax changes, diversify income sources, and build customer loyalty. Nixon highlights networking, mental resilience, and strategic decision-making as keys to long-term business stability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the effects of the second Trump administration on rising costs so far?
Steve Nixon: One of the things you worry about the most is the rapid rise in costs. Everything from rent, wages, and materials appears to be rising. In business, you double-check all things so you don’t squander your capital. Saving is possible by being observant about small things, such as small service contracts or even the computer packages you pay for and fail to use.
I have automated much. Automating some bookings and customer support has saved me dozens of hours. I don’t waste time figuring things out anymore, and this has provided me with spare time to expand the business. Work smarter, not harder.
Jacobsen: How are you adapting to tax changes upcoming?
Nixon: Small businesses need to prepare for the tax changes looming ahead. My advice is prepare beforehand, not when tax season is here and you hear about it. One has to work with the right accounting firm that is informed about the tax changes. My accounting firm and I sit together quarterly to ensure that I am doing the right things.
While it may seem obvious, keeping track of every expense is huge. A lot of business owners miss out on deductions they could be taking advantage of. Staying organized can go a long way in making sure you’re not paying more than you need to.
Long-Term Stability: One thing I learned from all this is you can’t sit around when things aren’t good and only worry about making it through the day. You need to prepare for the future. Having multiple sources for making money has helped me a great deal. I don’t rely only on one source; rather, I have multiple sources for making money, such as conducting classes, consultancy, and doing some sort of performance. In this manner, when one is not good, the others can sustain the business.
Creating a solid brand and holding onto loyal customers is essential when the future is not clear. Customers prefer to stick around the people they know and can trust. My emphasis is building relationships, keeping them informed, and demonstrating you care about them beyond the sale. If you make your customers feel like you care about them and their business, you can count on them when you need them.
Jacobsen: How do you create support networks?
Nixon: The business arena can also be isolating, but support can make all the difference. One method for coping is by sitting and conferring with fellow small business proprietors and comparing notes. If you know that others experience similar things, you can handle them easier. Networking groups online or offline assist you in establishing relationships that can translate into business connections, acquiring new clients, and acquiring the support you require for your mental attitude.
Customers can assist you also. Be truthful and transparent about the issues your business is encountering, and you can gain their trust. Inform them you will do your best to maintain things operating smoothly and you will bring them back.
Jacobsen: What about the need for resilience and being mentally tough in conditions shaky for business?
Nixon: During hard times, you need to pay close attention to your mental state. My idea is that when you don’t like the way you feel mentally, you can’t make good business decisions. If you’re always “trying to survive,” you can easily get exhausted, and you need some space for yourself. For me, some space for yourself to walk around, work out, or something like this to break from work for a few minutes, helps you clear your head. When things turn tough, you need to remain cool and flexible. If you maintain your composure and remain focused, you can make sound judgments for the business to expand, rather than being agitated amidst the turmoil. I hope this is useful for you and provides you with good starting points for your work. If you require anything else or need clarification about something, please let me know.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Steve.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/13
Adam Elmasri is an Australian Egyptian free thinker, human rights activist, author, and content creator. He is widely recognized as a strong religious critic whose viewpoints are based on academic studies and as a supporter of the LGBTQ+ and women’s rights in the Middle East. As an author, Adam Elmasri has published two books and numberous articles on various topics, including religion, politics, and human rights. His work has been praised for its insightful and thought-provoking analysis, and he is considered one of the leading voices in his field. In addition to his YouTube channels and writing, Adam Elmasri is also a popular speaker and commentator. He has appeared on numerous media outlets to share his expertise and insights, and he is often invited to speak at conferences, universities and community based events around Australia. He examines antisemitic narratives woven into Christian and Islamic texts, which continue to shape hostile attitudes toward Jews today. They note how scriptures like Matthew 27:25 and Surah 5:82 historically demonize Jews and incite hatred. Elmasri emphasizes that apocalyptic, end-times beliefs in the Middle East further reinforce these biases, conflating Jewish identity with political actions of Israel. He calls for a clear separation between legitimate critique of state policies and antisemitism, urging religious leaders to reinterpret sacred texts as historical artifacts rather than immutable moral guides, to dismantle ingrained prejudice and promote human dignity worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you see a pattern of antisemitic narratives woven into their sacred texts or commentaries, and how do these influence contemporary cultural attitudes toward Jewish people?
Adam Elmasri: Absolutely—antisemitic narratives are deeply embedded in both Christian and Islamic sacred texts, with Islamic texts being particularly severe in their portrayal of Jewish people.
In Christian scripture, the Gospels depict Jews as responsible for inciting the crucifixion of Jesus, with verses like Matthew 27:25—”His blood is on us and our children”—framing Jewish people as collectively culpable. This passage, among others, has historically fuelled antisemitic sentiments and persecution.
Islamic texts go even further. Both the Quran and Hadith contain explicit hostility toward Jews. For instance, Surah 5:82states:
“You will surely find that the most hostile people toward the believers are the Jews and those who associate partners with Allah.”
While these texts may not always command direct action against Jewish people in a contemporary sense, they undeniably shape negative perceptions. They portray Jews as enemies of God, the betrayers of Christ, and inherently corrupt, often implying that they are somehow “deserving” of misfortune.
It is important to clarify that I am not claiming all Christians or Muslims hate Jewish people. Many believers interpret their faith differently and do not harbor these views. However, the issue is that these texts explicitly paint a deeply negative and hostile image of Jews, and because they are regarded as sacred and divine, they serve as a foundational perspective on Jewish people within these religious traditions. Whether consciously or unconsciously, these portrayals continue to influence attitudes and perceptions, making it difficult to separate theological beliefs from ingrained prejudice.
Jacobsen: What sub-cultures of Middle Eastern culture and history might perpetuate antisemitic sentiments?
Elmasri: One particularly interesting sub-culture that perpetuates antisemitic sentiments in the Middle East is the apocalyptic, end-of-days worldview. Across nearly all Abrahamic faiths — including many Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects — there is a deep-rooted belief that the end of days is inevitable and that Jewish people, Jerusalem, the Jewish temple, and Al-Aqsa Mosque will be central to the catastrophic events leading up to it.
In Islamic eschatology, for example, one of the most notorious hadiths states:
“The Final Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill them until the Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will speak up: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, so come and kill him.’”
The implications of such narrative are deeply troubling. The logic that follows is this: whenever major global crises or disturbing events occur, many people in the region interpret them as signs that the end times are near. This belief, in turn, subconsciously reinforces antisemitic attitudes. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy — one that fuels hostility toward Jewish people, whether through direct action or passive endorsement.
Some individuals, believing they are fulfilling divine prophecy, may feel justified in harming Jewish people, while others, convinced that Jewish suffering is predestined, may choose to stand by and do nothing. In either case, whether through violence or silent complicity, this apocalyptic narrative perpetuates antisemitism both in thought and in action. It’s a profoundly disturbing worldview that continues to shape cultural attitudes in the region and globally.
Jacobsen: As a religious critic, what interpretations or teachings in Islamic commentaries have been used as justification for antisemitism?
Elmasri: On the surface, contemporary Islamic commentary and apologetic responses often condemn violence against Jewish people, citing hadiths such as:
“Whoever kills a person with whom he has a covenant will never enter Paradise.”
This is frequently used to promote a more tolerant stance, suggesting that as long as Jewish people are not seen as aggressors — meaning they exist under a state of peace or a covenant (a ceasefire or non-hostile agreement) — they should be spared and “should not be killed.”
However, the problem with this apologetic framing is that it collapses entirely with the establishment of the State of Israel. From an Islamic perspective, particularly within traditional jurisprudence and commentary, Israel’s creation was not just a political event — it was an act of aggression against what is considered sacred Islamic and Palestinian land. By this interpretation, Jewish people are no longer seen as being under a covenant but rather as violators of Islamic territorial sanctity.
As a result, the apocalyptic narrative resurfaces, fuelling deep-seated hostility. Since many Islamic eschatological texts already frame Jews as enemies of God and the believers, Israel’s existence becomes the ultimate trigger for viewing Jewish people around the world as “out of covenant” — no longer protected under Islamic law but rather positioned as adversaries. This creates a ticking time bomb of tension and hostility, where antisemitic justifications are not only tolerated but, in some circles, actively reinforced as part of a divinely sanctioned struggle.
Jacobsen: What is important to distinguish between critiques of political actions of the Israeli state versus challenging antisemitic narratives around Jewish identity? Sometimes, these can be conflated conceptual spaces.
Elmasri: The fundamental issue is that many belief systems do not make this distinction—they fail to separate Jewish identity from the political actions of the Israeli state.
Historically, Jewish people have been referred to as “Banu Isra’il” (the Children of Israel), a term that links Jewish identity with the concept of Israel itself. This linguistic and historical association leads many — especially in the Middle East—to view all Jewish people, regardless of nationality or personal beliefs, as inherently tied to the Israeli state. The result is a widespread inability to distinguish between an individual of Jewish descent (as an ethnic or cultural identity) and Israel as a political entity.
This confusion is precisely why, whenever the Israeli government engages in military actions, Jewish individuals around the world often become targets of hostility. In the eyes of many, being Jewish and being Israeli are seen as one and the same, which fuels global antisemitic attacks in response to conflicts in the Middle East.
So, to answer the question precisely: the most critical distinction we must make is that political actions of a government should never be equated with the identity of an entire people. We need more advocates, thinkers, and voices across the world to actively challenge this conflation. A person can rightfully critique or condemn the actions of the Israeli government while still recognizing that their Jewish neighbour in Canada, the U.S., or Europe is simply an individual with Jewish heritage—not a representative of Israel’s policies.
I find it baffling that this is so difficult for some to grasp. If conflict or war erupts between African nations, does that justify hostility toward Black people worldwide? Do we not recognize that Black Americans, for example, have nothing to do with what happens in Africa beyond shared ancestry? This is exactly the distinction that must be made — politics are politics, with all their complexities, but people are people, individuals who come from diverse races and cultures and should never be held accountable for the actions of governments the represent them or not.
Jacobsen: Are there ex-believer communities who carry over antisemitic views rooted in their former religious lives?
Elmasri: Yes, absolutely—ex-believers can and often do carry over antisemitic views from their former religious lives, even after they leave their faith.
The reason for this is that religion is not just a set of doctrines that a person can simply abandon—it is a deeply ingrained cultural framework that shapes identity, worldview, and subconscious biases. Even when someone intellectually rejects their former religious beliefs, many of the implicit attitudes and prejudices they were raised with can persist, sometimes unnoticed.
A good example of this is gender inequality. Despite radical shifts in global beliefs about gender equality, we are still fighting deeply embedded prejudices against women today. That’s because centuries of religious and cultural conditioning do not disappear overnight—they linger in our social structures, legal systems, and personal biases. The same applies to antisemitic views among ex-religious individuals.
Many former believers may have left their faith but still retain anti-Israel sentiments due to their upbringing. In many environments, anti-Zionism and antisemitism are conflated (which is a complex topic on its own), making it difficult for people to recognize that their stance may still be rooted in biases carried over from religious teachings.
For instance, a former believer might reject religious justifications for antisemitism but still hold onto the political, social, or conspiratorial narratives they grew up with. They may continue to see Israel not as a political entity, but as an enemy of “their own people” or “their race.” A false but deeply ingrained notion like “I’m no longer Muslim, but the Jewish people are still killing my brothers and sisters” may still influence their thinking.
Ultimately, deconstructing faith does not automatically mean deconstructing everything faith taught them. Cultural prejudices, especially those reinforced over generations, can persist long after belief is gone. Unlearning them requires conscious effort, self-awareness, and a willingness to question not just religious teachings but the broader narratives inherited from them.
Jacobsen: What is the role of broader religious educations in dismantling harmful cultural misconceptions about Jewish people? How can religious leaders address antisemitic references in teachings and texts?
Elmasri: Allow me to combine these two questions. I fully acknowledge my own biases as an ex-religious person—I don’t have much faith left in religious leadership (pun intended). This is not to say that I lack faith in religious individuals themselves or in those who genuinely try to create change from within. My skepticism, however, comes from the limitations imposed by the religious texts themselves.
Take, for example, the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights. It has taken centuries to even begin shifting perspectives on homosexuality, and despite the efforts of progressive religious leaders, we are still far from full acceptance. Why?Because religious texts, when viewed through a sacred lens, do not change. The same applies to antisemitism. No matter how well-intentioned a religious leader may be, they are bound by the authority of texts that contain harmful narratives.
In my view, dismantling antisemitic misconceptions requires a shift away from strict religious frameworks and toward a more spiritual and secular approach. At this point in history, kindness, acceptance, and equality cannot be contingent upon what is “permissible” in sacred texts. These values must instead be rooted in spiritual and psychological awareness—an understanding of human dignity that transcends ancient dogmas.
One way forward is to recontextualize religious texts as historical artifacts rather than moral absolutes. We can acknowledge that these scriptures served a role in shaping civilizations, but that role must end where it ceases to serve humanity today. Antisemitic passages can be rendered historical, referring to conflicts of the past rather than dictating attitudes in the present. The apocalyptic narratives that continue to fuel hostility can be reframed—not as an impending future, but as a metaphor for an era we have already left behind.
These are just ideas, and I remain uncertain how effective they can be within a religious mindset that still holds these texts as sacred. But what I do know is this: the more we cling to religious texts and depend on religious leadership for moral progress, the more we risk being trapped in historical narratives that no longer serve humanity today.
Jacobsen: Where are the opportunities to challenge antisemitism in volatile geopolitical contexts shaped by long-standing historical conflicts, e.g., the Israel–occupied Palestinian territories?
Elmasri: One of the biggest challenges in addressing antisemitism in the Middle East is that it is not perceived as “hatred” in the traditional sense — rather, it is embedded in theology, education, and political discourse as an accepted “fact” about the world. It is a worldview rather than hatred, if that makes sense! This makes it even harder to confront because those who hold antisemitic beliefs do not necessarily see themselves as bigoted. Instead, their hostility toward Jewish people is often framed as justified by one or more of these factors, religious texts, historical conflicts, and/or ongoing geopolitical struggles.
The opportunities to challenge antisemitism, as I have outlined throughout my responses above, lie in several key areas. Religious texts that demonize Jewish people must be openly discussed and reinterpreted, shifting from being seen as eternal truths to historical contexts that no longer apply today. The idea that Jewish people are divinely cursed or that conflict with them is inevitable must be dismantled at the theological level, because as long as these beliefs remain untouched, they will continue to shape perceptions and fuel hostility. Furthermore, one of the most critical steps in addressing antisemitism is to consistently separate criticism of Israel’s political actions from hostility toward Jewish people. In many parts of the Middle East, the equation of Jewish = Israel = enemy is so deeply ingrained that people fail to distinguish between Jewish individuals and the actions of the Israeli government. This conflation must be broken if we are to make any meaningful progress.
I have also encountered many individuals who, even after leaving religion, continue to carry remnants of antisemitic thinking without realizing it. This is why deeper deconstruction is necessary. Not just of religious beliefs, but also of the political and psychological biases that have been inherited from them. Acknowledging these deeply rooted attitudes is crucial, even beyond ex-religious perspectives, because many of these biases exist at a subconscious level. One issue I find especially important to recognize is the mistaken idea that acknowledging the suffering of one group somehow diminishes the suffering of another. But challenging antisemitism does not mean ignoring the suffering of Palestinians or downplaying the realities of occupation and displacement. The key is to promote a worldview in which the humanity of one group does not (and should not) come at the expense of another.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Adam.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/12
Star Kashman is a legal expert specializing in cybersecurity, privacy, and social media law. She authored the first scholarly article on Search Engine Hacking (Google Dorking) in the Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts and expanded on this research in Law360. She has led discussions on cybersecurity law, including an event at Brooklyn Law School’s Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP) with top legal and security experts. Recognized by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for her research, she now works at C.A. Goldberg PLLC, tackling cyberstalking, doxing, deep fakes, and tech-based personal injury litigation. Social media platforms amplify antisemitism by prioritizing high-engagement content, often driven by outrage and emotional responses. Algorithms inadvertently promote harmful narratives, as seen with Osama bin Laden’s letter circulating on TikTok. Additionally, paid promotion allows the spread of antisemitic content. Legal challenges exist both domestically and internationally, with the U.S. prioritizing free speech under Section 230. Misinformation distorts history and current events, fueling conspiracy theories that reframe antisemitic rhetoric in “woke” narratives. AI tools can help detect antisemitism but require human oversight. Global jurisdictions complicate accountability, and while networks combat online hate, platforms often prioritize profits over regulation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do social media amplify antisemitic content?
Star Kashman: Social media amplifies antisemitic content by blindly rewarding posts that receive high engagement. This can often prioritize content that brings a strong emotional response from a user, like outrage, shock, or disbelief. Algorithms push out high engagement content because it leads to more comments, debates, shares, and longer watch times from the platforms users. For example, when Osama bin Laden’s letter circulated on TikTok, it gained traction not just among those who agreed with it but also probably due to those who were outraged, which inadvertently boosted its visibility. This amplification is algorithm-driven and often leads to harmful narratives spreading faster and further. Also, social media platforms tend to blindly accept funding from nearly anyone, allowing users to pay to push out their content and accounts or pay for advertisements. For example, Meta admitted that Russia had paid around 150,000 to push out misinformation during the US 2016 election. It will likely come out in a few years that anti-israel and anti-jewish organizations and terrorist groups funded content, content creators, and accounts. Additionally, funding can be put behind creating artificial engagement to push out antisemitic content, and this is something that the public has already recognized. There are bots on numerous social media applications that will automatically either leave boiler-plate hate comments or arguments on jewish creators content, or template supportive comments on hateful antisemitic posts to push them out.
Jacobsen: Does this pose legal challenges domestically more or internationally more?
Kashman: Legal challenges exist in both domestic and international contexts, but they are more complex internationally due to vastly different regulations and goals. In the U.S., Section 230 protects platforms from liability for third-party content. We have laws in place to protect tech companies because US courts have in the past prioritized innovation, even sometimes over safety. Meanwhile, other areas like China or Iran have stricter regulations on platform accountability. Globally, balancing free speech with combating harmful content is challenging, especially when each country has different standards for what constitutes hate speech or propaganda.
Jacobsen: How do mis- and dis-information play roles in the spread of both antisemitism and conspiracy theories?
Kashman: Mis- and disinformation play a big role in spreading antisemitism by rewriting history and distorting current events to dehumanize jews, and brainwash the public into thinking they are justified or even noble for having antisemitic or hateful thoughts against jews and israel. For instance, after the October 7 attacks in Israel, fabricated stories and AI-generated images were used to discredit verified accounts of violence against Israelis. For example, content was generated of a dog on a bed replacing visual evidence of burned israeli babies and children, which was disseminated to say that Israel lies and pushes out fake information. This was to stop a narrative that would cause people to empathize with israelis or jewish people, and to create distrust against jews and israelis so when something unfavorable was seen in the media it would not be trusted. So much misinformation and disinformation was pushed out regarding evidence of crimes to the point where people can almost only believe what they want to and not distinguish the truth from fiction. Similarly, misinformation about the Jewish community’s origins, and historical presence in the Middle East is frequently shared to justify harmful actions and make it appear as if they are unrelated settlers randomly choosing Israel to invade and “steal” from palestinians, in order to justify the actions taken on October 7. Such disinformation dehumanizes Jewish individuals and feeds into broader conspiracy theories that further spread hate.
Jacobsen: How do conspiracy theories, e.g., ‘globalists,’ ‘international banksters,’ etc., merge with antisemitic language for virulent narratives online?
Kashman: Conspiracy theories have evolved into a more “woke” narrative to blend into current cultural discussions while maintaining their antisemitic roots. Instead of using overtly racist language, modern narratives frame Jews as oppressors, calling them “globalists” or falsely accusing them of controlling media and finance. Terms like “Zio-Nazi” and references to “apartheid” and “genocide” are new iterations of old hate, cloaked in political activism to make them more palatable and less obvious to casual observers, more importantly using such sensitive language to jewish people against them. Jews are now often compared directly to their oppressor who actually tried to commit genocide against them, in order to dehumanize jews and make them appear as an oppressor.
Jacobsen: How can AI tools detect and mitigate antisemitism?
Kashman: AI tools can play a significant role in mitigating antisemitism by flagging patterns of harmful language for human review. Certain keywords and phrases—such as references to “genocide,” “apartheid,” or “Zio-Nazi”—should trigger content moderation systems. However, human oversight is crucial to avoid false positives. For example, while a Palestinian flag itself isn’t harmful, spamming it on unrelated Jewish creators’ content as a form of intimidation could be detected by AI systems and flagged for review, which would need human oversight so as to not suppress the comments in a place where it would not be deemed as hateful or antisemitic.
Jacobsen: What barriers do global jurisdictions present online platform accountability?
Kashman: Global jurisdictions present major challenges due to differing legal standards for speech and platform regulation. The U.S. prioritizes free speech and innovation, often under-regulating platforms, while countries like China and Iran impose heavy restrictions. This disparity makes it difficult to enforce consistent accountability, as platforms must comply with local laws that may conflict with each other.
Jacobsen: Are there networks of legal experts, tech companies, and policymakers, to combat antisemitism? If so, who? (If not, why not?)
Kashman: While networks to combat antisemitism exist in traditional advocacy spaces, similar networks for the digital space are still underdeveloped. Tech companies often avoid forming such coalitions or hosting such discussions to minimize liability and costs, preferring to focus on maximizing engagement and profitability. Some organizations have taken steps to engage with tech companies, but a broader, more organized coalition is needed to address online antisemitism. Especially because reducing hateful content on platforms often directly contrasts with platforms intent to profit from high engagement and rage-bait, there needs to be a more serious matter to encourage platforms to go against profitability for good moral reason.
Jacobsen: What legal precedents have been set to address antisemitic harm?
Kashman: Legal precedent in the U.S. for addressing online antisemitism is limited due to Section 230 protections and free speech law which have in the past been broadly over-applied even in irrelevant cases. The other issue in the new wave of antisemitism, is often it looks very different than the already pre-established old, more often recognized form of antisemitism that is likely backed by case law and statutory language as well. For example, now it may be antisemitic to call a jew a “zio-nazi”, compare them to hitler, say that israel is committing genocide by ignoring the harms that occurred on October 7, etc. These are very different than what had been said in the past, which was already deemed antisemitic in courts of law and statutes. This means that these new cases are going to struggle because we have broad free speech rights, and we would have to prove new speech as hate speech without past precedent or statutory language to rely on. As for the legal protections for tech companies as well, things may be looking more positive in recent years. Recent cases have begun to chip away at these broad protections like section 230 and free speech. The TikTok ban bill and emerging product liability cases involving social media suggest a shift toward holding platforms more accountable. Courts have also started recognizing that algorithmic promotion of harmful content may constitute the platform’s speech, potentially opening the door for new legal carveouts.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Star.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/12
Health Canada is the federal department responsible for ensuring that Canadians have access to safe and effective health products, services, and regulations. Public Health Agency of Canada focuses on disease prevention, health promotion, and emergency preparedness at the national level. Health Canada’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund launched a $17.7 million Call for Proposals in May 2024, funding 23 projects from December 2024 to March 2027. Projects focus on training healthcare providers, supporting abortion access, and providing culturally relevant resources. Success is measured through performance indicators, including accessibility and effectiveness for underserved communities. The fund was expanded in 2024’s Fall Economic Statement, securing $90 million over six years. Initiatives address barriers for Indigenous, racialized, and 2SLGBTQI+ populations, ensuring culturally safe care. Future planning includes ongoing evaluation and stakeholder collaboration to improve access and health outcomes nationwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What specific timelines/ milestones are there for rolling out the funded projects?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: Health Canada’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund launched a third targeted Call for Proposals in May 2024 that committed up to $17.7 million to community-based organizations delivering innovative activities to underserved communities across Canada. Approved projects began in December 2024 and will end by March 31, 2027.
Jacobsen: What measurable indicators/ criteria will assess the success of these initiatives in the improvement of access to sexual and reproductive health services?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada:All projects funded through the Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund must demonstrate clear plans to publicly disseminate evidence-based information and resources. Funding recipients are required to measure and report on outcomes through performance indicators (e.g., the number of targeted health care providers who access information resources; percentage of individuals served who report application of knowledge to manage their sexual and reproductive health; percentage of surveyed participants from the target population who agree that the information and activities were culturally appropriate and in the official language of their choice).
Jacobsen: What criteria were targeted / what process was used in the selection of the 23 projects funded by the Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund? How do these initiatives integrate into existing sexual and reproductive health programs?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada:In 2024, Health Canada launched a targeted Call for Proposals focused on specific priority areas: training resources and materials for health care providers; travel and logistical support for people seeking abortion services; and, tools, awareness activities and resources for populations who face the greatest barriers to access.
A Health Canada review committee evaluated all submitted proposals against merit-based criteria, including the specificity and feasibility of proposed project activities and outputs, national or regional mandate or reach, organizational capacity as well as the level of stakeholder collaboration.
Jacobsen: What strategies ensure the care is culturally safe and relevant for Indigenous, racialized, and 2SLGBTQI+ populations? How will the training for healthcare providers address unique barriers faced by these underserved groups?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada:Issues such as stigma and discrimination, geographic isolation in rural communities, and lack of access to primary care can impede access to sexual and reproductive health services and supports. Addressing these barriers and challenges is complex, yet can also provide new opportunities to improve culturally safe and relevant care and, ultimately, health outcomes for underserved populations.
For example, the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada carried out the Addressing Sexual Health Education Misinformation Among Parents/Caregivers project, which will equip health educators with information and resources to address sexual and reproductive health misinformation among parents and/or caregivers of school-aged youth. The project will consult parents and/or caregivers from under-served populations, with the aim of integrating their perspectives into the resources in a culturally appropriate manner.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada carried out the Beyond the Hot Flash project, which will develop and distribute evidence-based tools and resources for those going through menopause, as well as for health providers, with the aim of improving access to health services related to menopause. The project will also produce updated clinical practice guidelines for menopause care with significant attention on under-served women and non-binary people with the aim of supporting Canadians to manage their menopause more effectively and improve their quality of life.
Jacobsen: What was involved in the formation of the advisory council guiding this initiative and what was the role of the advisory council helping address sexual health misinformation?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: Please contact the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada on their advisory council.
Jacobsen: Are there any plans in discussions beyond the three-year funding period?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada:The Government of Canada established Health Canada’s Sexual and Reproductive Health fund in 2021, with $81 million invested through the 2021 and 2023 federal budgets ($45 million and $36 million respectively). Additionally, in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement, the government committed a further $90 million over six years, starting in 2024-25, with $20 million ongoing, to expand and make permanent the Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, along with funding for Statistics Canada to undertake related surveys ($7.5 million over four years, starting in 2025-26).
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/10
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission explained its Broadband Fund, launched in 2019, has committed over $730 million across more than 270 communities, connecting essential institutions and households. Recently, $14 million was allocated to CityWest Cable for 250 kilometres of fibre infrastructure in British Columbia and Yukon. Community letters emphasized benefits including improved local business opportunities and healthcare access. The CRTC is refining the Broadband Fund to support Indigenous networks and launching an Indigenous Stream, with further funding and policy updates expected soon as announced recently.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which regions are targeted by CRTC’s new fibre Internet initiative?
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: The CRTC is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates the Canadian communications sector in the public interest. The CRTC holds public consultations on telecommunications and broadcasting matters and makes decisions based on the public record. Canadians need access to reliable, affordable, and high-quality Internet and cellphone services for every part of their daily lives.
Jacobsen: How is the CRTC implementing through its Broadband Fund to facilitate high-speed fibre Internet?
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: In 2019, the CRTC launched the Broadband Fundto help connect rural, remote, and Indigenous communities across Canada. Through its Broadband Fund, the CRTC contributes to a broad effort by federal, provincial, and territorial governments to address the gap in connectivity in underserved areas across Canada, including rural, remote, and Indigenous communities. The CRTC has held three calls for applications to its Broadband Fund, which resulted in over 700 applications. To date, the Broadband Fund has committed over $730 million to improve high-speed Internet and cellphone services for over 270 communities, connecting essential institutions such as schools, band offices and health care and community centres. This represents over 47,000 households and over 630 kilometres of major transportation roads. Further details are available on our website.
Jacobsen: What is the total funding allocated for this project?
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Most recently, on January 30, 2025, the CRTC committed over $14 million to CityWest Cable and Telephone Corp. to build approximately 250 kilometres of new transport fibre infrastructure to bring high-capacity transport services to the communities of Jade City and Good Hope Lake (Dease River) in British Columbia, as well as Upper Liard in the Yukon. The project will improve access to reliable and high-quality Internet service.
Jacobsen: What is the scope of the infrastructure development? Since 2019, how has the CRTC’s Broadband Fund impacted rural, remote, and Indigenous communities?
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: The project received support from the impacted communities. Letters of support emphasized the positive impact the project will have on daily life in these regions, including new opportunities for local businesses and improved access to health care.
A summary of these letters was included in Telecom Decision 2025-30 | CRTC:
- CityWest provided evidence of direct notification to all affected communities and received letters of support, including from the 3Nations Society, a partnership between Tahltan, Kaska, and Taku River Tlingit First Nations (the Kaska Nation is made up of five Kaska First Nations, which cover two of the affected communities), and the Premier of the Yukon. The 3Nations Society stated that collaborative efforts with CityWest have fostered a sense of shared purpose, and it anticipates that this collective support will significantly contribute to the success of the project.
The Premier of the Yukon noted that dependable high-speed Internet can open new economic and social possibilities for Yukoners and support healthy, vibrant, and sustainable communities.
For further information on their views, we encourage you to reach out to them directly.
The CRTC continues to assess Broadband Fund applications and will make more funding announcements in the coming months.
Jacobsen: What benefits have the impacted communities highlighted in letters of support for this project?
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: The CRTC is also continuing to make improvements to the Broadband Fund. In December 2024, the CRTC announced its first decision to improve the fund and to help advance reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. During its consultation, the CRTC received comments from 75 groups and individuals, including consumer groups, Indigenous organizations and governments, and Internet and cellphone service providers. As part of this decision, the CRTC is working to better support Indigenous applicants and communities by providing funding to build skills and support Indigenous-owned networks. The CRTC is also requiring applicants to engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities and provide proof of consent from any Indigenous community where they plan to build infrastructure. The CRTC will issue more decisions as part of its review and will launch the Indigenous Stream of the Broadband Fund later this year.
Jacobsen: What are forthcoming initiatives or policy revisions including Indigenous Stream of the Broadband Fund?
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: As part of its broader efforts to improve Internet and cellphone services across Canada, the CRTC is taking action to help ensure residents of the Far North have access to reliable and affordable Internet services. The CRTC also created an Indigenous Relations Team to support Indigenous participation in its proceedings and ensure the distinct nature and lived experiences of Indigenous peoples are considered across the CRTC’s work.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/10
Natural Resources Canada develops policies and programs that enhance the contribution of the natural resources sector to the economy, improve the quality of life for all Canadians and conducts innovative science in facilities across Canada to generate ideas and transfer technologies. The Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities (CRCC) Program is funding two Ontario Great Lakes projects with $4.1 million from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Conservation Ontario leads the $3.1 million Adaptation to Coastal Hazards project, developing resilience plans for Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario. Zuzek Inc. leads the $1 million Pelee Coastal Climate Resilience Plan for Point Pelee Peninsula. The CRCC supports Indigenous-led projects, including initiatives in Passamaquoddy Bay and the Fraser River Estuary. The Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program (FHIMP) provides updated flood maps to enhance public safety, planning, and response. Canada prioritizes climate adaptation for long-term resilience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the funding for Ontario’s Great Lakes, under the Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities (CRCC) Program?
Natural Resources Canada (Government of Canada): The Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities (CRCC) Program is co-funding two CRCC pilot projects in the Ontario Great Lakes, which represents $4.1 million in NRCan funding.
Jacobsen: Who will lead these new projects?
Natural Resources Canada: A backgrounder was included in the news release (Canada Invests in Climate Change Adaptation Around Ontario’s Great Lakes) with the project details below:
Project Name: Adaptation to Coastal Hazards across the Great Lakes Region
Recipient (project lead): Conservation Ontario
Reach: Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Ontario, Ontario
Location: Northern Lake Superiors shoreline within the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction; Southern Lake Huron shoreline within Maitland Conservation Authority jurisdiction; Western Lake Ontario shoreline from Niagara River to Joshua’s Creek
Funding from the CRCC Program: $3,100,000
Project Summary: This project will develop regional coastal resilience plans by working collaboratively with a broad range of stakeholders, including governments, Indigenous communities, businesses and experts, for three pilot project regions within the Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Ontario, and Lake Superior). Each coastal resilience plan will identify adaptation actions, building on baseline science and risk assessments, to address climate change risks in these communities.
Project Name: Pelee Coastal Climate Resilience and Adaptation Action Plan
Recipient (project lead): Zuzek Inc.
Reach: Pelee Peninsula Region, Lake Eerie, Ontario
Location: Point Pelee East and Point Pelee West littoral cells converging at Point Pelee National Park
Funding from the CRCC Program: $1,000,000
Project Summary: This project will develop a coastal climate resilience and adaptation action plan in Point Pelee Peninsula in southwestern Ontario, a coastal community that is at risk from flooding, erosion and loss of coastal wetlands. Through the leadership of a multi-stakeholder Coastal Resilience Committee, this project will conduct a vulnerability assessment to future climate change impacts and co-develop integrated regional resilience plans and adaptation actions that are equitable, sustainable and transformative.
For more information, please contact Zuzek Inc. and Conservation Ontario.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives in supporting coastal communities?
Natural Resources Canada: The Government of Canada remains committed to advancing climate change adaptation efforts to reduce risks and protect Canadians, communities, businesses, and the economy more broadly, as well as prepare for current and future impacts of climate change. Canada’s coastal communities are on the front lines of climate change, facing rising sea levels, extreme weather, and erosion that threaten homes, businesses, and ecosystems.
That’s why the Government of Canada has invested over $6.6 billion in climate adaptation since 2015, including $2.1 billion in new commitments since Fall 2022.
Through the CRCC Program, in support of the National Adaptation Strategy (NAS), Canada is funding 21 regional-scale pilot projects across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts, as well as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region. These projects bring together local partners to enhance climate resilience, reduce risks, and develop innovative solutions tailored to each region’s unique challenges.
By integrating research, collaboration, and real-world action, these projects will not only strengthen coastal communities today but also provide insights to scale up adaptation efforts to other coastal communities and nationwide ensuring a safer, more resilient future for all Canadians.
Jacobsen: Why should Canada invest in climate change adaptation now? (What are future projections?)
Natural Resources Canada: Every year, Canadians are facing more frequent and extreme climate events such as floods, wildfires and heat waves, as well as gradual climate change impacts like thawing permafrost and rising sea levels. These challenges affect the quality of life, health, environment and economy of communities across the country.
Adapting to a changing climate is important to build resilient communities and protect Canadians’ homes and livelihoods. Investing in climate change adaptation also means that Canada can better plan for, withstand and recover from climate impacts and reduce disaster recovery costs.
Action and investments to build resilience helps avoid future costs and ensures long-term viability of assets and investments. The Government of Canada is supporting Canadians as they incorporate climate change considerations in their decision-making processes in response to Canada’s rapidly changing climate. Canadians can access, visualize, and analyze climate data, and access information and tools to support adaptation planning and decision-making at https://climatedata.ca/. This platform is a free open access climate data portal produced collaboratively by the country’s leading climate organizations and supported, in part, by the Government of Canada.
Of note, Canadians can also access information on climate change adaptation actions through the Map of Adaptation Actions, a collaboration between Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and NRCan. The Map is an interactive, searchable tool housing a collection of climate change adaptation examples, including from coastal communities, that provide useful information to decision-makers and those taking action on climate change adaptation.
Jacobsen: What are the justifications by the Government of Canada for cost efficacy of climate change adaptation measures?
Natural Resources Canada: Adaptation is about reducing risks related to climate change for Canadians, communities, businesses, and the economy more broadly, and being better prepared for current and future changes in climate through planning and action.
Every $1 spent on climate adaptation measures saves up to $15 in terms of the long-term costs involved in mitigating climate change and extreme weather events (Canadian Climate Institute, Damage Control: Reducing the Costs of Climate Impacts in Canada).
The CRCC Program will achieve benefits by working at a regional scale, such as more efficient alignment of resources and adaptation actions, innovative solutions, co-benefits and reduced risks of maladaptation.
Jacobsen: How can Indigenous communities play integral collaborations in these projects and in research?
Natural Resources Canada: The CRCC Program supports a range of communities, including rural, remote, and Indigenous communities that are disproportionately impacted by climate change due to complex and often interconnected factors that limit their adaptive capacity, including higher social vulnerability and increased exposure.
Recognizing the need to reduce barriers to accessing federal funding for climate change adaptation initiatives, the CRCC Program included an Indigenous-led Project Stream ($2.5 million). Indigenous applicants were also eligible to apply for project funding through the Open Call for Proposals Stream. The CRCC Program is funding five Indigenous-led projects of which the details on two out of the five projects announced are available on the CRCC website.
Project Name: Indigenous-led Climate Change Adaptation in the Passamaquoddy Bay
Recipient: Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc.
Reach: Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick
Location: Passamaquoddy Bay, St. Stephen
Funding from the CRCC Program: $800,000
Project Summary: This project will coordinate adaptation actions between the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik and partners in the Passamaquoddy Bay region to increase resilience to future climate change risks. This work will identify actions to protect archaeological sites of cultural, spiritual and historical importance from sea level rise and erosion and develop policies and regional land-use plans that incorporate Indigenous knowledge and future climate change risks to protect residential and municipal shorelines.
Project Name: Lifelines in the Fraser Estuary: Taking Care of Each Other for a Climate Resilient Future
Recipient: Emergency Planning Secretariat
Reach: Lower Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia (Pacific Region)
Location: Lower Fraser River Estuary, Abbotsford, B.C.
Funding from CRCC: $1,791,265
Project Summary: This project will develop priority adaptation actions and address climate risks from sea level rise, flooding and erosion to local essential services across the Fraser River Estuary. This work will increase the capacity, knowledge and engagement of communities to take coordinated short- and long-term adaptation action and will be driven by collaboration with First Nations and local governments.
CRCC pilot projects include meaningful involvement of Indigenous communities, rights-holders, and organizations as appropriate to ensure that their interests and perspectives are reflected.
Indigenous communities and organizations are involved in CRCC pilot projects in various ways, depending on the unique context of each project. For example, among the CRCC projects, Indigenous communities and organizations are involved as project leads or partners, as members of steering committees or advisory tables, and as key audiences for engagement and collaboration.
The CRCC Program also encourages projects to integrate Indigenous knowledge where possible and appropriate, in collaboration with Indigenous partners, to ensure that project results are useful and relevant for Indigenous communities. The Program acknowledges that there may be protected knowledge within the CRCC proponents’ possession that they choose not to share publicly and supports Indigenous proponents to integrate Indigenous Knowledge in products developed for their own use.
Jacobsen: How extensive is the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program (FHIMP)?
Natural Resources Canada: Canadians across the country are already facing the consequences of climate change, contributing to more frequent and severe weather events like floods. Flood events cause significant damage and result in an annual average loss of over 2 billion dollars in Canada.
Launched November 2021, the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program (FHIMP) provides essential information through current and accessible flood hazard maps to enable individuals, governments, and Indigenous communities to understand flood risks better, make informed decisions about land use and infrastructure development, and effectively plan and prepare for floods. Under the National Adaptation Strategy, the FHIMP has been extended to advance flood mapping until 2028.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) leads the FHIMP, with support from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Public Safety Canada. In partnership with provinces, territories and other key stakeholders, the program aims to fill in flood hazard information gaps by modelling and supporting the creation of flood hazard maps for areas at higher risk of flooding across Canada.
There are currently over 200 flood mapping projects impacting over 800 communities across Canada. FHIMP also reduces flood-related information gaps. The Canada Flood Map Inventory showcases areas in Canada where NRCan has collected a copy of a flood hazard study and maps and provides information on how to access the maps and data elsewhere: Canada Flood Map Inventory — GEO.CA
Jacobsen: How do updated flood maps benefit local communities?
Natural Resources Canada: Engineered flood hazard maps produced under the FHIMP can help strengthen public safety by informing land use planning (locating development away risky areas), emergency response plans (e.g. showing evacuation routes), insurability, structural flood mitigation options (e.g. where to build dykes), among other activities, thereby helping governments decide how to allocate resources necessary to protect properties and lives.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/09
Christo Roberts, a writer and secular humanist, discusses Christianity’s role in Slavery. Roberts argues that Christian institutions actively supported Slavery for centuries, only abandoning it due to secular pressures. He critiques religious narratives that falsely credit Christianity with abolition, emphasizing that secular Enlightenment thinkers played a more significant role. The conversation explores theological justifications for Slavery, the Catholic Church’s involvement, and the abolitionist movement. Roberts also discusses modern perceptions of Slavery, the South African context, and the Church’s reluctance to acknowledge its historical complicity fully.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Christo Roberts, a writer and secular humanist, to critically examine religious claims, particularly those related to history and morality. He has contributed to Free Inquiry and written the article Christianity’s Supposed Role in Ending Slavery, which challenges the notion that Christianity was a driving force in abolition.
He argues that Christian institutions supported Slavery for centuries and only abandoned it due to secular pressures. Roberts’ work focuses on the historical entanglement of religion and human rights issues, advocating for evidence-based perspectives. While details on his background are limited, his writing contributes to broader discussions on religion and ethics.
Thank you for calling today from Cape Town, South Africa. What was the inspiration for writing Christianity’s Supposed Role in Ending Slavery? What misconceptions were you aiming to correct?
Christo Roberts: Well, several books have been published on this topic. The one I quote in my article is by a religious studies professor named Stephen Prothero, who argues that nonbelievers ought to acknowledge Christianity’s role in abolishing Slavery. Based on what I had previously read, I knew it was incorrect, so I decided to investigate the matter further and write a well-researched article. That’s why I did it.
Incidentally, I don’t have access to any large university libraries. I have a personal library, and I have sufficient information available. So, everything I’ve written comes from my books.
Jacobsen: How were Christian institutions and biblical texts used to justify Slavery historically?
Roberts: That’s a difficult question—it depends on the context. In my article, I quoted several Christian theologians and clergy members who, even before Slavery was abolished, attempted to justify their opposition to it using the Bible. However, they often provided strained interpretations of various passages, misreading them sometimes. That’s how they tried to reconcile their faith with abolitionist ideas.
Interestingly, some of these individuals even went beyond the Bible and appealed to general moral principles, arguing that Slavery was inherently wrong. It is also worth noting that, had it not been for the Transatlantic slave trade—particularly between Africa and the Americas—it is unlikely that there would have been as much opposition to Slavery. In the ancient world, Slavery existed, but some enslaved people were treated relatively well and were even valued for their skills or knowledge in some cases.
But the way that Black people were treated—the way they were shackled, forcibly placed onto ships, and the fact that large numbers of them died—caused some people to question the entire institution of Slavery. They had to develop arguments to oppose it, and that’s why, in some instances, they used the Bible to express their opposition to Slavery.
Jacobsen: What was the extent of the Roman Catholic Church’s active participation in Slavery—specifically, in the buying and selling of enslaved people?
Roberts: Well, the Church bought enslaved people on a large scale and used them in religious institutions, including monasteries, to perform manual labour. When the first enslaved Africans were captured, it was the Pope—though I’ve forgotten his name—who granted Spain and Portugal, particularly Portugal, the right to subjugate these people and sell them into perpetual Slavery. According to him, they were heathens and, therefore, fair game.
That’s how it started, and afterward, the Church actively bought enslaved people. Those who were brought from Africa to other parts of the world, including Europe, were purchased by Church institutions and forced into servitude, performing tasks that no one else would do.
Jacobsen: You used the term heathens. Did the word have the same meaning then as today, or did it carry a specific connotation in the context of Slavery and religious justification?
Roberts: According to them, a heathen was someone who didn’t believe in Christianity. It didn’t matter if the person followed another religion—he could even be a Muslim, and he would still be considered a heathen.
As such, Christian nations believed they were entitled to capture and enslave them. They justified this practice under the notion that these people were outside the Christian faith and thus could be subjugated.
Jacobsen: How did secular Enlightenment thinkers push for and contribute to the abolitionist movement?
Roberts: The leading secular figures advocating against Slavery were primarily from France, especially around the time of the French Revolution. Many opposed the Church, and some, like Voltaire and Denis Diderot, were not believers. They argued on secular grounds that Slavery was immoral.
Their arguments were later taken up by Scottish thinkers in Edinburgh, particularly David Hume and Adam Smith—and there was another one, but I’ve forgotten his name. They argued that Slavery was fundamentally incompatible with the principles of laissez-faire economics.
These thinkers played a significant role in influencing public opinion, and their ideas helped persuade the revolutionary French government, after the fall of the Bastille, to abolish Slavery in its colonies. However, there were not many enslaved people in France.
But when Napoleon took over as emperor in 1804, he was a Christian, and he reintroduced Slavery. It was only after the English took up the cause of abolitionism that France decided once again to abolish Slavery. That happened in the 1840s or even the 1850s—much later than in England.
Jacobsen: How did these secular Enlightenment thinkers differ from religious figures in their contributions to abolitionism?
Roberts: Well, as I said, they didn’t refer to the Bible at all. If you look at those who were Christian abolitionists, they dug up biblical texts. They interpreted them in unusual ways to convince others that Slavery was wrong—that it was not by Christian ideals or even the Old Testament.
So, for religious abolitionists, everything revolved around biblical interpretation. The battle was fought on that ground.
Interestingly, the leading abolitionist in England, William Wilberforce, who played a central role in the abolition of Slavery, never referred to the Bible at all. The people who led the movement against Slavery in Britain were part of a specific group—I’ve forgotten their name—but they never used religious arguments to justify abolition.
Instead, they argued that Slavery was immoral, and it was on that basis that the British Parliament abolished it.
Jacobsen: What is the narrative that Christianity was a leading force in abolition, and why does it remain popular despite historical evidence to the contrary?
Roberts: If I had to guess, I’d say one of the most commonly cited biblical justifications for Slavery comes from Genesis. After the flood, Noah and his family—according to the Bible—were the only people left on Earth.
One of Noah’s sons, Ham, did something that Noah found unacceptable. He saw his father lying drunk and naked in his tent. In response, Noah cursed him and declared that Ham and all his descendants would be enslaved people in perpetuity.
That’s probably one of the main reasons people have said, “Look, it’s in the Bible—one-third of the world must be enslaved.”
And no other passage in the Bible clearly refutes or overrides that curse. That’s my interpretation of why this narrative persisted for so long.
Jacobsen: Are there figures who wrote historical texts, who are seen as supporting abolition outside of the contexts you’ve already described?
Roberts: Yes, there were some individuals. In my article, I mentioned one of them as a law professor at the University of Mexico—though his name escapes me now.
He wrote a book in which he accused the clergy of collaborating with slave traders and participating in a disreputable enterprise. His arguments were based on secular principles. In response, the Church retaliated by placing his book on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the Index of Forbidden Books), meaning no one could read it.
No copies of the book exist today, but he was one of the only figures I can recall who was both secular and opposed to Slavery. He wasn’t necessarily a freethinker in the modern sense.
Jacobsen: Side question—what does the term freethinker mean in the context of South Africa?
Roberts: Very few people in South Africa use that word. I know what it means in Britain—more broadly in Great Britain—but it simply means someone nonconformist in South Africa. It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who rejects Christianity or is not religious. The term is much broader here and can even relate to politics.
For example, in the 1970s, I was part of the Progressive Federal Party, which advocated for extending the vote to Black South Africans. At the time, I was accused of being an atheist—which, well, I won’t deny—but also of being a freethinker because I held those political views.
Jacobsen: Is there much prejudice against freethinkers in South Africa today?
Roberts: No, I don’t think so. One thing I must say about the new dispensation ushered in after 1994 is that it is very liberal.
Of course, there are problems with the Constitution—I don’t agree with everything in it—but even so, people are generally free to hold unorthodox views without being silenced or persecuted.
That wasn’t always the case. In the old South Africa—before 1994—opposition to mainstream religious and political ideas could get you into serious trouble. But today, I don’t think we can complain about that.
Jacobsen: Are there significant differences between Christian denominations in their historical and present attitudes toward Slavery—whether by denomination, region, or ideology?
Roberts: About Slavery? That’s an interesting question. I don’t have clear evidence of that. The group I referred to earlier—the one associated with Wilberforce—certainly took a strong stand against Slavery. But beyond that, I’d need to look into the denominational positions.
The Quakers and similar groups tended to be more liberal and likely opposed Slavery in principle. However, some of the more orthodox and right-wing Protestant denominations saw nothing wrong with the institution of Slavery whatsoever.
Strangely, it played out this way because, in many cases, those groups were more religious than the Quakers and similar sects. But that was their stance.
Jacobsen: What about Christianity in the broader mix of other religions? Countries have diverse religious compositions—some are majority Islamic, Hindu, or Christian.
How does Christianity adapt its views on Slavery when compared to other religious traditions in a country? Is there a difference in how Christianity approaches the issue when it is the dominant religion versus when it is a minority religion? I’m unsure if that’s a factor, but I figured you’d be better positioned to answer.
Roberts: Well, it’s interesting—I don’t think Christianity historically paid much attention to what other religions thought about Slavery. Not as far as I can tell.
We know for a fact that Slavery was permitted under Islam. I also wrote in my article—though I couldn’t find the original text—that one writer claimed the Qur’an states that if you free a slave, you are guaranteed a place in heaven.
That suggests Islam may have had a more liberal attitude toward Slavery than Christianity did.
In the American South during the antebellum period, state legislatures made it as difficult as possible for enslaved people to be freed. This process, called manumission, was legally restricted in many cases. That directly contradicts what is written in the Qur’an.
So, in a certain sense, this makes Christianity look even worse than usual because people often claim that Islam is the more intolerant religion. But when you examine the issue of Slavery, Christianity appears to have been even more rigid.
As for other religions, I can’t say for sure. But we know that in India, the caste system has created social hierarchies that resemble Slavery.
While lower castes are not legally classified as property (chattel), they have been treated extremely poorly, and the system has functioned in a way that is similar to institutionalized Slavery.
Jacobsen: What lessons do you derive from Christianity’s long historical support for Slavery, followed by more recent attempts by some Christians to use the Bible to support abolition?
Roberts: Well, what’s interesting to me is that the history of Slavery and Christianity has been a cycle—an up-and-down dynamic.You may recall that, initially, there were very few enslaved people in Europe.
I’m talking about the period after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century until the Portuguese began exploring the coast of Africa. During that period, there were very few enslaved people in Europe, so there was no real opposition to Slavery—it simply wasn’t an issue that affected most people. They didn’t see enslaved people in their daily lives, so they had no strong opinions on the matter.
However, after the Portuguese and other European powers began capturing and enslaving Black people from Africa, we started to see more individuals—not necessarily churches—becoming deeply concerned about the institution of Slavery. Many intellectuals and reformers found it completely objectionable.
It’s difficult to say whether church leaders were ever fully aware of the concerns raised by secular thinkers and intellectuals. They likely felt secure in their position, believing they had biblical justification for Slavery and, therefore, had no reason to listen to dissenting voices.
Jacobsen: When secular reformers first introduced laws to challenge Slavery, how did the churches respond? At that time, churches held enormous power and controlled much of society. They had nearly every advantage in terms of influence and authority.
Roberts: Well, you must remember that churches couldn’t act alone.
This was the same situation with the Roman Catholic Church. If they found someone guilty of heresy or apostasy, they couldn’t execute them themselves; they had to collaborate with secular authorities.
The same was true for Slavery. If the Church wanted Slavery to be upheld and enforced, they had to rely on governments to pass and maintain laws supporting it. Many government officials were Christians, and they were often eager to appease the Church.
So, enforcing Slavery was a collaborative effort between religious and secular institutions.
It’s important to note that legal challenges began before Slavery was abolished. A key turning point was the Somerset case in England around 1770. The ruling in that case declared that no person could be forcibly taken to England and held as an enslaved person.
After that decision, abolitionist movements gained momentum, and laws gradually began restricting and eventually abolishing Slavery. Once that process started, other countries followed suit.
Jacobsen: As secular abolitionists gained ground, how did church-sanctioned policies shift? Did churches relinquish control voluntarily or by force?
Roberts: They don’t have much of a choice.
I’m not aware of any cases where the Church excommunicated people for opposing Slavery or freeing enslaved people in defiance of church doctrine. They seemed to accept abolition reluctantly when it became inevitable.
Eventually, many within the Church began to reinterpret their stance and acknowledge that Slavery was wrong. However, the Roman Catholic Church tried its best to maintain its slaves for as long as possible, even after Slavery was abolished in various countries.
They held onto their slaves for as long as they could.
Jacobsen: Based on primary sources and archival records, how extensive was the Roman Catholic Church’s Involvement in Slavery—specifically in terms of trade and ownership?
Roberts: It was very extensive. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the records themselves. But yes, you’re right. There must have been proper records because if you sell someone, there must be a deed of sale. There must be a record of ownership documenting what happened when a slaver handed over a person to a new owner.
However, I don’t know what happened to those records. I suspect they were probably destroyed by the Church when they saw that the tide was turning and there was nothing they could do about it. That’s likely what happened in the end.
Jacobsen: Which Christian denomination had the most laudable history in abolitionist efforts? For instance, did any small sect, like the Quakers, actively work internally to begin abolitionist efforts without secular pressure? Did any group truly lead the way in social, civic, or legal reforms?
Roberts: The only group I can think of is the Quakers.
It may sound surprising, but there aren’t any other Christian sects that took the lead. You have to remember that Christianity includes both liberal and extremely conservative sects. The more conservative ones likely saw no issue with Slavery and took no steps to oppose it.
So, as far as I know, the Quakers were the only group that actively wrote against Slavery, formed abolitionist committees, and directly influenced legislation—particularly in the British Parliament. And they were ultimately successful. They persisted until Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833.
Jacobsen: Was the Church broadly committed to the slave trade due to racial, theological, hermeneutical, or economic motivations? What was the primary driving force?
Roberts: It was probably economic.
I’m speculating here, but I don’t think race played the dominant role. The fundamental issue was that enslaved people provided free labour—not just cheap labour, but completely unpaid labour after the initial purchase. Once an enslaved person was bought, the owner could use them for any purpose.
That’s likely why the Church supported Slavery.
And, of course, there was biblical justification—which mattered a great deal. If they hadn’t believed they had religious sanction, they might not have been so invested in maintaining Slavery.
But beyond economics and biblical justification, I can’t think of another strong reason for their support. They would never have admitted it outright, but that was the core of it.
Jacobsen: On the opposite end of the spectrum—what Christian sect was the most abhorrent in its endorsement, participation, and treatment of enslaved people?
Roberts: That’s a tough one.
Generally, the more conservative branches of Christianity were most complicit. That might include certain Baptist groups, though I’m not sure whether the Baptist Church as we know it today existed in quite the same form back then.
Particularly in the United States, many conservative churches were adamantly opposed to freeing enslaved people.
In contrast, churches in England and other parts of Europe weren’t as aggressively invested in defending Slavery. But in the American South, conservative Christian churches fought hard to maintain the institution until the very end.
And the funny thing is, once the tide started turning and they had to give way, they quickly changed their stance.
It’s interesting. Mark Twain wrote an essay, which I have but didn’t quote in my article, in which he said—this was around 1880—that churches had previously opposed freeing enslaved people, but in the future, they would claim to have been the ones responsible for abolishing Slavery.
Jacobsen: Did you examine internal church documents—debates, reforms, or papal encyclicals—that reveal any internal conflict over Slavery?
Roberts: I don’t know if such a document exists—I can’t say for sure. But I suspect that if any clergymen opposed Slavery, they probably kept their views to themselves. I do quote one clergyman in my article. He was a Roman Catholic priest sent to the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean Sea.
From his pulpit, he openly condemned the Roman Catholic Church for forcing the Indigenous people—the Amerindians, as they are now called—into Slavery. He declared it scandalous and said God would never forgive the Church for such actions.
The Church was furious at him for making these remarks publicly, and he was sanctioned for speaking out.
The other clergy members I mentioned in my article took a different approach—they wrote articles arguing for the abolition of Slavery. However, I don’t think it was widely known at the time that some clergymen were against Slavery—these discussions were largely kept within the Church.
Jacobsen: Looking at the present moment, are there Christian denominations that are taking an honest, evidence-based approach to examining Christianity’s role in Slavery? Are interfaith or interdenominational discussions happening in South Africa or elsewhere to encourage a more realistic historical perspective?
Roberts: Are you talking about right now or the 19th century?
Jacobsen: That’s a good question. Let’s start with the 19th century, and if similar discussions are happening today, that would also be relevant.
Roberts: I don’t know.
If I had to guess, many of these discussions have been kept from the public, and many writers and scholars cannot access the full historical details.
So, I wouldn’t want to speculate too much on that.
Jacobsen: Beyond economic motivations, were there any competing economic factors that might have accidentally prevented the Church from engaging in Slavery? Or was the fact that the Bible endorses Slavery in many parts of the Old Testament enough to make it inevitable?
Roberts: The Bible certainly played a role, but you’re also right to point out that religion was another factor.
The people being enslaved were considered heathens—they belonged to different religious traditions than their Christian captors. That likely gave Christian slave traders a sense of justification—a carte blanche, if you will.
They probably reasoned that since these people were not Christians, they could capture them, sell them, and enslave them.
That said, enslaving fellow Christians was seen as taboo. You weren’t allowed to go from one Christian nation in Europe to another, capture people, and bring them back as enslaved people.
There were even cases where enslaved people in Europe converted to Christianity after being brought over, and many of them were then freed. This practice wasn’t widespread, but it did happen.
Jacobsen: There must have been a historical moment when the modern conception of Slavery—the sale and ownership of people for indentured servitude—was at its peak and another time when it was barely present. Then, there must have been a tipping point—a fulcrum in history when the system of Slavery began to collapse. When was that?
Roberts: Well, we know that the Romans were ambiguous about Slavery.
The reason is that Slavery fundamentally contradicted a core principle of Roman law—that all people should be treated equally before the law.
However, in the case of Slavery, some people were treated as legal objects, while others were considered legal subjects. That’s why the Roman jurist Florentinus, writing under Emperor Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire, described Slavery as an institution against nature.
He believed that Slavery was incompatible with legal principles.
However, there were two major justifications for why Slavery was still permitted:
- Biblical sanction – Since Slavery was endorsed in the Bible, many justified it on religious grounds.
- Jus Gentium (Law of Nations) – Slavery was recognized as part of international law. As far as the Romans knew, every civilization practiced Slavery in some form.
Because of this, Roman authorities flip-flopped on the issue. At times, enslaved people were treated very harshly, particularly in certain periods of Roman history.
Jacobsen: What was the name of that 15th- or 16th-century doctrine issued by the Catholic Church?
It was their version of Manifest Destiny, similar to what the Americans had—a Doctrine of Discovery or something like that?
Roberts: Yes, you’re referring to the Doctrine of Discovery.
It was based on a series of papal bulls, most notably Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Inter Caetera (1493).
These decrees essentially authorized European Christian nations to conquer non-Christian lands, subjugate indigenous peoples, and claim their territories.
The Doctrine of Discovery played a major role in colonial expansion, particularly in the Americas and Africa, and it was frequently used to justify Slavery and the forced conversion of indigenous populations.
It’s almost a given that the papal bulls were the key documents that sanctioned the capture of enslaved people in Africa and their transportation to the New World. Without those decrees, I don’t think the transatlantic slave trade would have developed the way it did.
Jacobsen: So, would you place most of the blame on the Catholic Church hierarchy?
Roberts: Yes, I would. And that’s just speaking in terms of the last five or six hundred years. The practice of Slavery stretches across many different eras, societies, and religious interpretations. However, in terms of formally sanctioning the transatlantic slave trade, the papacy played a pivotal role.
Remember, the popes played a key role in dividing the New World between the Spanish and the Portuguese. They wanted to keep both sides happy, so they issued the papal bulls. The Portuguese were already a dominant seafaring nation, more so than the Spanish, and they were deeply invested in the capture and transportation of enslaved people. The papacy likely understood this and wanted to maintain their influence over both empires, so they sanctioned the practice in a way that justified both colonization and Slavery.
Jacobsen: Up until the early 1900s, how did the colonial context in places that are now post-colonial—such as South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and Canada—evolve from those papal decrees to the point where colonial legal structures were no longer viable and were eventually discarded?
Roberts: Well, I can tell you about South Africa. After Slavery was abolished in the British colonies through the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act, there were immediate effects in the Cape Colony—which is where I am at the moment. The colonists were instructed to release all their slaves. However, the reaction wasn’t solely based on opposition to emancipation itself. The major complaint among slaveholders was that they had received inadequate compensation from the British government for their loss of labour.
This grievance was one of the factors that led to the Great Trek—the migration of Afrikaner (Boer) settlers from the Cape Colony to the regions that eventually became the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State. The Trek began around 1836–1838, and the settlers moved nearly a thousand miles north, carrying all their possessions with them. They sought to establish self-governing settlements, partly in reaction to British policies, including abolition.
Jacobsen: Within South Africa, how did different racial and ethnic groups—such as Afrikaners, Black South Africans, and the Indian population—engage with the practice of Slavery within Christian churches? Did they have their versions of the institution? Did they participate, or was it more of a European practice?
Roberts: It’s interesting because one reason I believe the Great Trek narrative must be correct is that if those settlers had been fully committed to Slavery, one would expect that after moving north, they would have enslaved Black people and continued the practice. But that didn’t happen.
Instead, the Boers often negotiated with Black communities where possible, purchasing land or maintaining diplomatic relations with the local African kingdoms they encountered as they expanded northward. There were, of course, conflicts between Boers and various African groups. Still, outright enslavement of local populations in the manner of the transatlantic slave trade was not widespread.
So, after 1833, there was no more officially sanctioned slavery in the British Empire, and even where the Boers later founded their republics, they never reinstated Slavery. That chapter of history had ended for them.
Jacobsen: Where was the last place in Africa to have Christian-based Slavery?
Roberts: It was in Ethiopia, which was historically known as Abyssinia. They officially abolished Slavery in 1940, more than a hundred years after Slavery had been outlawed in places like the United Kingdom. Despite its deep historical ties to Christianity, Ethiopia was the last African country to end the practice formally.
Jacobsen: How is this history of religious-based Slavery perceived by different groups within Africa today—including white Africans, Black Africans, Indian Africans, and others?
Roberts: That isn’t easy to determine. I don’t know how much of this history is widely known among Africans today. They would probably be outraged if they were fully aware of the extent of what happened. However, I get the impression—though I hesitate to say this—that some people now demand compensation for what was done to their ancestors hundreds of years ago.
The issue with this argument is that we don’t even know if the people demanding compensation are directly descended from enslaved individuals. And in many cases, it seems to be motivated more by financial gain than a desire for historical justice. There has been increasing pressure on former colonial powers—such as Britain, France, and Spain—to pay reparations for the transatlantic slave trade.
But it doesn’t make much sense if you think about it logically. Normally, you want to seek legal compensation. In that case, it must be for something that happened directly to you or someone very close to you—someone still within living memory. In this case, the people affected lived centuries ago. Those demanding compensation today never knew them personally, and it has now turned into a broad demand for financial restitution from former colonial powers.
Unfortunately, this issue is being misused in some cases. I don’t agree with the idea of paying compensation centuries later when we don’t even know who the victims were, how many there were, or how to distribute compensation fairly.
Jacobsen: Even though Slavery was officially abolished in 1940 in Ethiopia—making it the last African nation to do so—are there still cultural remnants of slave-era attitudes among Black, White, or Indian Africans today? Even if Slavery itself is gone, do some social hierarchies or prejudices remain that were originally tied to that system?
Roberts: That’s an interesting question. I don’t know whether Black Africans themselves continue to capture or enslave people from other tribes. However, ethnic rivalries and social hierarchies still exist in many places. For example, there have been long-standing tensions between the Tutsi and the Hutu groups in Rwanda and Burundi. In many societies, the dominant group often sees itself as superior to those they consider inferior. However, whether that amounts to Slavery is another question. I don’t think you can equate it with chattel Slavery in the historical sense.
What we do know for a fact is that until very recently, some Arab nations were still making raids into Africa, capturing people, and possibly selling them into servitude. Whether they are being legally sold as modern enslaved people is unclear, but many are still held in captivity and treated as objects—which is functionally very similar to Slavery.
Things are happening behind the scenes that we don’t fully understand. Human trafficking and forced labour still exist in many parts of the world, but the mechanisms have changed.
Jacobsen: On an intellectual level, what was the Enlightenment challenge to theological justifications for Slavery? I’m not asking about history, specific figures, or political reactions—I’m asking about the philosophical and ethical framework of the Enlightenment critique.
I’m talking about philosophy—or, more specifically, the epistemology of how we understand human nature—as a foundation for making a principled, ethical, and objective stand against the ownership of other human beings.
Roberts: The most important thing is recognizing that science has shown us that we are all part of a single human family. That doesn’t mean we are identical—of course, we have different abilities, strengths, and weaknesses—but the things that unite us as human beings are far more significant than the differences that separate us.
Acknowledging that we are autonomous beings who can make our own decisions is crucial. The act of enslaving someone—of stripping away their freedom and their right to self-determination—is not only a moral crime but also a denial of their humanity. To enslave someone is, in effect, to refuse to recognize them as a member of the species Homo sapiens with full moral and legal personhood. I believe that is the most fundamental principle upon which we should oppose Slavery.
Jacobsen: Gaps in history, interpolations, and national myths shape how people interpret the past. When you analyze the history of Slavery in the Christian Church, what cautionary notes should people consider regarding methodological challenges in interpreting historical evidence about the Church’s involvement in Slavery? We know what happened, and we have historical documents. But what are some key points where a careful reading of history is necessary?
Roberts: The first and most important thing is to use common sense and critical thinking when evaluating historical narratives. We should assess right and wrong based on what we know—both from historical records and our legal and moral frameworks regarding human rights.
It is also essential to consider insights from psychology about human behaviour and social interactions. We must avoid justifying past actions simply because they were accepted then. If something was wrong by today’s ethical standards, it was still wrong back then—even if people did not recognize it.
The Church’s role in Slavery should be examined honestly, without attempts to sanitize or excuse what happened. A proper historical analysis acknowledges moral failures and progress rather than glossing over the uncomfortable parts.
Jacobsen: How does the Church—particularly the Roman Catholic Church—stand on Slavery today?
I can take a contemporary example from Canadian society. At one point, the Pope had an opportunity to apologize for the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the residential school system, which affected over 150,000 children over a century. The trauma caused by these institutions was widespread and affected many communities and individuals.
Some Indigenous groups have since repurposed former residential schools for positive community purposes, but that’s a separate issue. My point is about the Church having a second chance to apologize—and, as far as I recall, actually issuing a formal apology. At the very least, they acknowledged wrongdoing, which is the easiest thing to do.
As the saying goes, words are cheap. What is the Church’s stance on Slavery today?
Roberts: I think the Church acknowledges that what happened was wrong. The real question is whether their apologies are sincere or just lip service.
Most Church leaders today understand that Slavery was a moral atrocity. However, my problem is that many of them are still reluctant to acknowledge that Christianity itself—and the Bible—played a direct role in justifying and sustaining Slavery.
Suppose the Church truly wants to be honest. In that case, it cannot simply condemn Slavery while refusing to confront the role that biblical teachings and Christian institutions played in supporting it for centuries. To say, “Slavery was wrong,” while denying the Church’s past complicity, makes the apology sound hollow.
I think the Church will have to go all the way and come clean by saying, “Yes, the Bible was wrong. It should never have sanctioned Slavery. We should never have followed what is in the Bible because it completely contradicts everything we now stand for.” But as far as I know, they have never done that.
Jacobsen: How do they address any of this history? Are they even broadly aware of it?
Take South Africa as an example. The average churchgoer, whether an Afrikaner, Black South African or someone from another community who attends a local church, is aware of this history. Is it a topic of debate, or does it not really come up?
Roberts: I don’t know whether they are fully aware of it. I haven’t found any book that shows the Church has come clean on this issue. I haven’t seen any clergy openly explaining to their congregants that there are passages in the Bible where Slavery is condoned if not outright encouraged or justified.
Until the Church acknowledges that history within its ranks, we cannot say they have truly come to terms with Christianity’s involvement in Slavery.
Jacobsen: Elon Musk has been making statements recently about Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in South Africa. Is this inflaming old ethnic tensions?
He made public statements about Malema, buying into certain narratives about Africa and South Africa’s leadership. Do people in South Africa care about what a North American billionaire with South African roots thinks?
Roberts: Yes, now that you mention it, I know Musk attacked Malema at some stage—I don’t recall exactly what he called him. But I do know that Malema dislikes him intensely.
That being said, I doubt this has anything to do with Slavery or South Africa’s historical past. Malema, like South Africa’s recently elected president, thrives on being in the spotlight. He loves media attention, enjoys hearing his own voice, and frequently makes provocative statements—much like Donald Trump does.
His strategy is to stir controversy, and when he is criticized; he overreacts and goes overboard. That’s what he enjoys—it keeps him relevant. So even if Musk’s statements were meant as an insult, Malema probably sees them as an opportunity rather than an offence.
Jacobsen: Are there explicit laws in South Africa against Slavery, or is it simply that social and public pressure ensures that it is not tolerated?
For example, in some countries, you don’t need a law saying you can’t deny the Holocaust—because doing so would push you to the margins of society. Is Slavery treated similarly in South Africa, or are there specific legal prohibitions against it?
In some countries, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust or spread false narratives about it. Does South Africa have legal nuances around similar historical issues, or is everything handled through social norms?
Roberts: Well, the South African Constitution explicitly forbids Slavery. It clearly states that no form of Slavery or forced servitude is permitted. There are also specific laws against human trafficking, particularly sex trafficking, which is often referred to as sexual Slavery.
These laws were only recently enacted after 1994 when the ANC government came into power, and the so-called New South Africa was established. Before that, there were no specific laws banning Slavery, but it was never something that the old apartheid government would have condoned either.
Slavery was not a political issue or a rallying point for opposition groups at the time. However, under the new legal framework, South Africa now prohibits all forms of Slavery, including modern Slavery, where people may not be bought and sold in a traditional sense but are still exploited and controlled.
Jacobsen: I think we’ve covered just about everything.
Roberts: Yes, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground.
Jacobsen: It was lovely talking with you today. I appreciate your time and thank you for this extensive conversation on Christianity and Slavery. It’s a big topic.
Roberts: Yes, these are my personal views—everyone may not share them. But they are sincerely held, and I hope I’ve been able to provide some insight into my perspective on what it’s all about.
Jacobsen: I really appreciate it.
Roberts: Thanks a lot, Scott, and it was nice talking to you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08
Dr. Anmol Kapoor, MD, a cardiologist, healthcare innovator, and BioAro founder, advocates excluding life sciences from U.S. tariffs. He highlights the U.S.-Canada healthcare interdependence and warns that tariffs could disrupt medical innovation, increase costs, and delay treatment access. Kapoor stresses the need for stronger cross-border collaboration, elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, and domestic investment in life sciences. He also underscores the risks of AI restrictions, manufacturing relocations, and brain drain. While hopeful tariffs are temporary, he warns of long-term industry consequences. Kapoor urges policymakers to prioritize human lives over economic policies that hinder medical progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Anmol Kapoor, MD. He is a distinguished cardiologist, healthcare innovator, and entrepreneur who advocates for excluding life sciences from U.S. tariffs.
As the founder of BioAro, he leads advancements in genomic precision health, nuclear imaging isotopes, and AI-driven medical breakthroughs. A key figure in the Canadian life sciences sector, Dr. Kapoor collaborates with high-complexity laboratories in the U.S., particularly in California, emphasizing the deep interconnection between the two countries’ healthcare systems. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate your time.
Dr. Anmol Kapoor: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Why should life sciences be exempt from U.S. tariffs?
Kapoor: At the time of publication, this discussion may be more relevant than ever. Life sciences should be excluded from tariffs because they impact human life directly. There should be no debate about placing tariffs on medical advancements that save lives. Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right.
The best healthcare should be available, enabling longer, healthier lives. If we begin taxing life sciences, we create barriers to access. Restrictions on medical innovation and distribution don’t just affect one country-they create a ripple effect globally. If my neighbour’s house is on fire, I will feel the heat too. Similarly, if my community faces a healthcare crisis-an epidemic or pandemic-it affects everyone.
No one can isolate themselves from healthcare challenges. Canada, the U.S., and the global medical community are deeply interconnected.
One major area is research and academia. Universities, clinicians, and medical scientists in North America collaborate with biotech firms and pharmaceutical companies to develop life-saving treatments. These partnerships transcend national borders. A research breakthrough in Canada could lead to a new drug developed in the U.S., or a clinical trial in the U.S. could help refine a therapy that benefits patients worldwide. The question isn’t about where a company is headquartered-it’s about ensuring the free flow of scientific knowledge that drives medical progress.
It is seamless. When ideas emerge, they are implemented immediately. However, imposing taxes or tariffs on them could harm them.
The second aspect is manufacturing, which is deeply intertwined. Some facilities are in Canada, some in the U.S., and different parts of the manufacturing process occur in different locations. One part of a medical device may be produced in Canada, another in the U.S., and another overseas. These processes are interconnected.
If you impose a tax on one side, the other will respond with tariffs. Ultimately, Americans and Canadians will bear the financial burden- effectively paying a tax on their lives.
So, the first is R&D, and the second is manufacturing.
The third issue is medical isotopes. Nearly all medical isotopes used in Canada-particularly for cardiac patients- come from the U.S. We do not have domestic production. We used to be an exporter, with the Chalk River nuclear reactor producing these critical isotopes. However, that facility was shut down, and we never revived it. Canada chose not to reinvest in this area, leaving us dependent on U.S. suppliers.
There are European sources, but they represent a small supply chain with high global demand. As a result, Canada is now a newt importer of medical isotopes, relying on the U.S. for supply.
Who will ultimately pay the price if counter-tariffs are imposed on life sciences products?
Canadians.
No special government billing code compensates for these tariffs in clinical settings. Canada does not have any domestic manufacturing of imaging equipment, such as MRIs and CT scans. We rely on American companies.
Yes, some of these companies manufacture in China, Israel, or other regions. Still, both countries bear the cost. Many software technologies essential for MRI and other imaging evaluations are developed through U.S.-Canadian innovation partnerships. Who will ultimately pay if tariffs and taxes are imposed on these technologies?
We will- through human lives. Delays in diagnosis. Delays in access to care. Increased healthcare costs. Healthcare systems in Canada and the U.S. are already under immense strain. Demand is skyrocketing. Instead of increasing tariffs and taxes, we should work together to lower costs.
At a time when we should be collaborating to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, imposing tariffs is equivalent to endangering human lives. That is wrong. That is unethical. It should not be done.
Jacobsen: Ethical, economic, and diplomatic frameworks are all built upon fundamental principles. Medical doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, committing not to harm. The United Nations bases its geopolitical and diplomatic efforts on universal human rights and consensus-building principles. In economics, the central concept is trade-offs. What are we willing to trade for innovation and healthcare access? If the price of tariffs is human lives, is it worth it?What is the opportunity cost of prioritizing one sector over another? Regarding life sciences and tariffs, beyond the critical impact on human well-being, are there other sectors that should also be exempt from tariffs? If we broaden the argument to include additional industries, could this make the case for life sciences exemptions more substantive? Is there another sector that could be paired with life sciences to strengthen the overall argument?
Kapoor: Absolutely. One major sector is pharmaceutical manufacturing, specifically Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). APIs are the chemical components of medications, and their production depends on a complex network of chemical manufacturing facilities across North America.
These chemicals are essential for drug formulation. The packaging of medications, vaccines, and vials also relies on plastics and specialized materials, which tariffs could negatively impact. The entire pharmaceutical supply chain will be affected if tariffs are imposed on any of these components.
Beyond medications, we must also consider medical supplies and devices- critical items for patient care. This includes:
- Medical gloves
- Wearable health devices (e.g., heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, insulin pumps)
- Pacemakers
- Diabetes consumables (e.g., test strips, glucose monitors)
- Cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy drugs)
You cannot isolate one sector of life sciences- everything is interconnected. Manufacturing, packaging, and consumables are all part of the same ecosystem.
If tariffs are imposed, what happens?
- Medication costs will increase, making life-saving drugs inaccessible for many patients.
- Diabetic patients may struggle to afford glucose test strips and insulin pumps.
- Heart disease patients could lose access to pacemakers.
- Cancer patients might face higher costs for chemotherapy.
The repercussions are enormous-affecting millions of lives.
Jacobsen: AI-driven medical technologies are increasingly important in global healthcare. Could tariffs slow the development of these technologies? If so, how would that impact healthcare systems in the United States and Canada? Would this create economic, healthcare, and public health consequences-perhaps even exacerbating existing cost and accessibility issues?
Kapoor: Definitely. AI-powered medical technology is revolutionizing healthcare. It is helping to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and bridge gaps in healthcare access. Tariffs could stifle AI-driven diagnostics, personalized medicine, and genomic research innovation.
Take genomics, for example. BioAro is one of the leading global companies in genomics. Why does this matter? Because genomic medicine is the future- it allows for:
- Early disease detection
- Precision medicine tailored to individuals
- More effective treatment strategies
Suppose tariffs slow progress in AI-driven medical research. In that case, it would have a ripple effect across the entire healthcare system. This is especially problematic for the U.S., where healthcare costs are already a major issue. Though somewhat insulated, Canada would also feel the economic and healthcare consequences.
At a time when we should be investing in AI-driven healthcare innovations, imposing tariffs would be a step backward- increasing costs, delaying access, and ultimately harming patients.
Because of the PanOmiQ technology we developed, we are currently the only company globally with this advanced computing power and proprietary AI algorithms. This technology was built entirely in Canada, enabling us to analyze vast amounts of sequencing data from DNA, microbiomics, and epigenomics in real time.
No other company or country has this real-time whole genome analysis sequencing level. It typically takes days to weeks, sometimes even months, for patients to receive clinical reports from genetic sequencing.
However, our technology eliminates those delays, allowing instant genomic insights.
Our AI-driven genomics platform and advanced software algorithms were built locally in Calgary. If tariffs are imposed, this would have serious consequences, especially since American patients and researchers rely on fast genomics data for:
- Cancer diagnostics
- Dementia research
- Heart disease screening
- Pharmacogenomic analysis for personalized medicine
The new FDA Director has emphasized the need for faster adoption of new science to provide rapid access to innovative healthcare solutions. However, if tariffs are implemented, this will negatively impact the U.S. in several ways:
- Higher sequencing costs- making advanced genomic testing more expensive.
- Delayed access to care- slowing down diagnoses and treatment plans.
Today, labs can use PanOmiQ technology without additional taxes. But if tariffs are imposed, they will face two bad choices:
- Option A: Pay the extra tariff and pass the cost to patients with high medical expenses.
- Option B: Avoid AI-powered technology, revert to manual methods, and delay diagnoses, which could potentially lead to medical complications later on.
With the power of AI and genomics, we can revolutionize healthcare in America. AI is not just about cost-efficiency- it helps people live longer, healthier lives.
Jacobsen: AI-driven genomics is becoming a cornerstone of modern healthcare. If these tariffs delay AI adoption, what are the broader implications for genomics and the entire medical ecosystem?
Kapoor: There are two major impacts: Combining AI, genomics, and IoT (Internet of Things) data is already transforming medicine. AI processes massive amounts of wearable health data from devices like smartwatches, heart monitors, and glucose sensors- all integrated into real-time decision-making systems.
If tariffs increase costs, it will slow adoption at the hospital level and increase expenses for patients. Many AI models in Canada and the U.S. are trained on shared scientific data. AI models developed in the U.S. often rely on Canadian datasets and vice versa. If tariffs disrupt this collaboration, it will severely impact:
- Medical research
- Drug discovery
- AI-driven diagnostics
A prime example is electronic health records (EHRs).
Most Canadian hospitals use American-built health record systems, such as:
- Epic (used in Alberta, costing over $1 billion)
- Cerner (used in British Columbia and Ontario)
These systems are already considered outdated by today’s standards. They lack AI-driven functionality, making them inefficient in clinical decision-making.
By failing to update healthcare AI integration, we are slowing medical progress in Canada and across North America.
This is why tariffs on life sciences and AI-driven healthcare are a fundamental mistake- they don’t just increase costs; they set back medical innovation, reduce access to critical healthcare, and ultimately harm patients.
Due to compatibility issues, the datasets generated in Canada are often difficult to integrate with current AI models. As a result, billions of dollars are spent in Canada, but much of that money ultimately flows back to American companies.
Canada has an opportunity to develop our own AI-driven health record systems- or even create some of the best in the world- so we can be self-reliant. Much of our healthcare data is transferred to and accessed by American systems. If we establish our AI-powered ecosystem, this data could remain in Canada, enhancing domestic innovation while reducing reliance on foreign-built platforms.
So, while tariffs create chaos, they also present opportunities. We must identify the right opportunities and leverage AI as an enabler. It is up to us how we choose to use AI.
Tariffs can have a negative impact, but they also force us to innovate. If we invest in our healthcare AI infrastructure, Canada could become less dependent on systems like Epic and Cerner, creating a stronger, self-sustaining ecosystem for healthcare technology.
Jacobsen: With trade policies under the Trump administration and this interview occurring on February 28, the extension on tariffs expires tomorrow, formally imposing new trade barriers across multiple sectors. Beyond just tariffs, what alternative strategies could protect life sciences from broader economic barriers?
Kapoor: The best protection is collaboration.
Canadian and American life sciences companies have a long history of working together. Now is the time to strengthen that relationship even further.
We already have robust academic collaborations across universities in North America. Industry partnerships between Canadian and U.S. biotech firms are also well-established. Now is the moment to reinforce those ties.
That is the most effective way to counteract tariffs.
Suppose we allow isolationist policies to disrupt this life-saving supply chain. In that case, the consequences will be severe for both Canada and the U.S.:
- Rising costs for medications, supplies, and diagnostics
- Delays in access to medical isotopes (critical for cancer treatments)
- Increased costs for AI-driven diagnostics
We must intensify cross-border collaboration, invest in each other’s life sciences sectors, and grow the industry together.
The life sciences sector should be completely exempt from tariffs for humanitarian and economic reasons.
Jacobsen: Could you provide a historical example where international collaboration in life sciences was prioritized over economic restrictions?
Kapoor: Absolutely. Look at the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the crisis, the United States did not have an mRNA vaccine of its own. The technology came from Europe. European researchers had already developed the foundation for mRNA-based vaccines.
The vaccine was manufactured in the U.S., but the scientific breakthrough originated elsewhere. Imagine if Europe had imposed strict trade barriers or tariffs on that technology. If they had said:
“We will not allow you to access this innovation unless you pay more.”
That would have been disastrous. But they did not do that because it was a global health emergency. Yes, companies profited from the vaccine, but at its core, scientific collaboration saved lives.
Another example is insulin. When Canadian scientist Frederick Banting discovered insulin, he refused to patent it for profit. He believed that insulin should be accessible to all people and not controlled by a single corporation for financial gain.
That is the right model for life sciences. It is about humanity first, not profit. Life sciences must be exempt from tariffs. It is not just about economics-it is about saving lives.
We need to show a bigger heart. I ask our American friends to extend the same generosity toward the life sciences sector. Do not even consider imposing tariffs. If tariffs are in place, remove them- because lives depend on them.
Jacobsen: What ethical considerations should policymakers consider when crafting trade policies that affect the life sciences sector? I’m not talking about political appeals to leaders or calls for scientific collaboration- though those are important in global geopolitics. I mean policymakers- the people who set the tone for trade regulations.
Kapoor: From a policy perspective, there are multiple ways to support the life sciences sector. One crucial step is to loosen intellectual property (IP) laws to allow university research commercialization. Many groundbreaking technologies originate in academic institutions across North America. Yet, due to restrictive IP regulations, startups often struggle to bring these innovations to market. Policymakers should ensure that startups can take risks and test the market with these advancements.
Life sciences startups also need easier access to capital to develop new drugs, software technologies, and AI-driven healthcare models. To support innovation, policymakers should streamline funding opportunities for early-stage companies, making it easier for them to secure investment and scale.
Additionally, regulatory sandboxes can provide startups with a controlled environment to test new healthcare models without taking on excessive financial burdens. These IT and medical innovation sandboxes allow companies to:
- Experiment safely in the healthcare sector.
- Refine technologies before large-scale deployment.
- Reduce costs while improving patient outcomes.
Further, policymakers should offer better tax credits for companies investing in research and development (R&D). Allowing businesses to reinvest their earnings into expansion, innovation, and scaling projects will strengthen the industry and enhance global competitiveness.
North America lags in pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing, creating a strategic vulnerability as most life sciences companies rely on overseas production. Policies should incentivize domestic manufacturing by encouraging:
- “Made in Canada” and “Made in America” initiatives.
- Local procurement of medical technology.
By investing in local manufacturing, Canada and the U.S. can:
- Retain scientific talent.
- Build a sustainable ecosystem.
- Reduce dependency on foreign supply chains.
Startups in the life sciences sector follow a cycle similar to students in education. They need the right environment to learn, grow, and innovate. They also require mentorship, education, and competition to succeed. The best ideas should rise to the top only if policy frameworks support their development.
Some countries are already investing heavily in the life sciences sector. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, for example, aims to position the country as a global leader in:
- Precision healthcare
- Multi-omics research
- Real-time genomic analysis
North America must take similar steps to enhance innovation, support startups, and strengthen life sciences infrastructure to remain competitive.
They recognize the potential of life sciences and are moving aggressively to lead in biotechnology and medical innovation. Meanwhile, Canada has underinvested in life sciences compared to other sectors like energy and mining.
Policymakers must take life sciences seriously. They are not just an industry-they are a humanitarian necessity. Strong policies will drive economic growth and save lives.
The pandemic has shown us that we are vulnerable. We relied on masks and medical gowns from other countries. We found ourselves in a position where we were begging for essential supplies. That should never happen again. Canada and the United States have more than enough resources to manufacture these necessities domestically.
Jacobsen: You live in Alberta. I live in British Columbia. We often see stereotypes about our provinces- Alberta as “Canada’s Texas” and British Columbia as “Canada’s California.” A bunch of cowboys in Alberta, a bunch of hippies in B.C. These are stereotypes, but like most, they contain a grain of truth. That said, do you think different provincial and territorial strategies will be needed to mitigate the effects of these tariffs? While tariffs may apply across the board, their impact on business networks and industries varies from province to territory and territory to territory.
Kapoor: Absolutely. As Canadians, we need to think nationally about life sciences. If Canada wants to be a global leader in this sector, we must address one of our biggest domestic barriers- interprovincial trade restrictions. Currently, Canada operates with fragmented healthcare systems, which hurts us.
Medical data is not easily shared between provinces. Physicians face bureaucratic barriers when trying to practice across provincial lines. This creates inefficiencies and hinders innovation. Canada claims to have a universal healthcare system, but in reality, each province operates in its silo. Some aspects of healthcare in British Columbia are superior, while others in Alberta are stronger. From a cardiology perspective, Alberta’s system is more efficient. We can perform more outpatient procedures than our counterparts in British Columbia, which means patients in B.C. often experience delays in care.
I see where the cowboy vs. hippie stereotype comes from. Albertans tend to be entrepreneurial, risk-takers, and innovators. That does not mean British Columbians are not, but restrictive policies often stifle innovation in certain provinces. Life sciences startups face barriers that prevent them from growing, whether unnecessary regulations, slow licensing processes, or a lack of investment incentives. If there is one major policy shift Canada should prioritize, it is the elimination of interprovincial barriers.
If Europe- a continent with multiple languages, cultures, and political systems- can break down trade barriers between its provinces, Canada should be able to do the same. Canada has more restrictive trade barriers between its provinces than the European Union does between its member states. This is unacceptable.
It is time to implement a free trade agreement covering life sciences and other industries in Canada. This would unify our markets, allow talent to move freely, and accelerate innovation. That should be step one. Next, we must mobilize talent nationally and encourage cross-border collaboration between provinces.
Jacobsen: Will these tariffs impact specific areas within the life sciences sector more than others? With tariffs being implemented across the board, are there specific subfields within life sciences that will be severely impacted while others may experience minimal disruption?
Kapoor: It depends on which products are affected. If radioisotopes are included in the tariffs, that would be catastrophic. Canada does not produce radioisotopes for medical use- we import them entirely from the U.S. These isotopes are essential for cardiac imaging and cancer treatments. If tariffs make them more expensive or less accessible, it will harm patients.
We also do not manufacture medical devices in Canada. The vast majority of diagnostic and treatment devices- from MRI machines to pacemakers- come from American manufacturers. Some small-scale manufacturing is done in Europe, but it is nowhere near enough to replace U.S. imports.
Canada excels in software development for medical applications. We are leaders in AI-driven diagnostics, health data analytics, and medical software innovations. However, even in this area, we depend on U.S. data, computing infrastructure, and partnerships. If tariffs or other trade restrictions disrupt this collaboration, it will slow innovation and increase costs.
Ultimately, the effects will be devastating if these tariffs target critical medical imports. The worst-case scenario involves delays in medical procedures, increased costs for patients, and restricted access to life-saving treatments. That is why the life sciences sector must be exempt from tariffs- this is about human lives, not just economics.
The impact may be less severe in some areas, but it could be significant in medical diagnostics. Items like diabetic supplies, glucose monitors, home healthcare services, and essential medical equipment are largely manufactured in the U.S. and imported into Canada. If tariffs increase costs, we need to find alternative suppliers internationally- which is easier said than done, especially in medical manufacturing.
Pharmaceuticals will also be affected. Many brand-name drugs are manufactured in the U.S., and while Canada produces some generics, we still rely heavily on American manufacturers. Generics might remain stable, but branded medications could become more expensive, leading to supply chain issues. The difficulty is that everything in life sciences is interconnected- it’s hard to predict which areas will suffer most.
I hope we never reach a point where patients have to choose between diabetic medical supplies and home healthcare essentials due to budget cuts caused by tariffs. The entire sector is deeply intertwined, and restrictions on one area will inevitably ripple across the healthcare ecosystem.
Jacobsen: Is there any indication that these tariffs will at least be temporary if they do not include an exemption for life sciences? Could they last only for 2025 or remain in place until the next U.S. election cycle, when a new administration might lift them? Or do you think this is part of a longer-term pattern where the U.S. moves toward imposing broad tariffs across multiple industries, including life sciences?
Kapoor: I hope these tariffs are short-term. I hope they are primarily a political play, a negotiation tactic aimed at domestic audiences, and they do not escalate into lasting trade restrictions.
That said, even if tariffs are eventually lifted, they could still have long-term consequences. Companies that relocate manufacturing overseas in response to tariffs may not return unless significant tax incentives or policy shifts make it financially viable. A brain drain could also occur, with Canadian scientists and life sciences experts moving to countries with more favourable business environments. If that happens, rebuilding Canada’s position in the life sciences sector will take years.
Looking at historical precedent, during President Trump’s first term, tariffs were imposed but later adjusted or lifted as compromises were reached. If that pattern repeats, we could expect a similar outcome this time. I am optimistic that these restrictions will not become permanent, but the uncertainty damages the industry.
Jacobsen: Let’s hope for the best. That concludes all my questions for today, Dr. Kapoor. Thank you for your time- I truly appreciate it. It was great to meet you.
Kapoor: Thank you. It was great meeting you as well. I always try to be honest and insightful, and I hope I provided useful perspectives.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08
David Grasso, founder and CEO of Project Amicus, discusses the organization’s mission to promote LGBTQ+ rights abroad through policy, media, and diplomacy. He highlights the influence of North American advocacy and partnerships, such as with Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Grasso details decriminalization trends in the Caribbean, the mental health impacts of criminalization, and how grassroots activism fosters change. He addresses corporate influence, geopolitical challenges, and backlash against LGBTQ+ progress. Project Amicus aims to reduce the global criminalization of same-sex relations and push for legal equality, emphasizing strategic advocacy, international pressure, and engagement with diverse stakeholders.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with David Grasso, the founder and CEO of Project Amicus. Project Amicus promotes LGBTQ+ rights abroad and raises awareness of which countries are making positive strides and which still have significant progress to make. I will use “still have work to do” as an euphemistic language. So, the first question is: How does Project Amicus leverage policy innovation to promote LGBTQ+ rights abroad? What successes have you seen so far?
David Grasso: Essentially, we strive to initiate conversations through American levers of power—whether in public policy, media, or diplomacy—to inspire change.
People often overlook the significant influence that North Americans wield through culture, politics, public policy, funding, and the nonprofit sector in shaping the reality of LGBTQ+ people worldwide. That influence is at the core of our mission at Project Amicus.
Our successes include a partnership with a program at Harvard University, where I studied at the Harvard Kennedy School, specifically at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and its LGBTQ+ Justice Initiative, which launched a little over a year ago.
This initiative has already sponsored two workshops for activists worldwide, training them in strategies to help them succeed—especially in countries where same-sex relations remain illegal. That is the primary focus of both Project Amicus and the Carr Center.
Currently, many discussions in North America and Western Europe revolve around what we might call second-generation issues, such as transgender rights, reproductive rights, and intersectional protections. However, we focus on the fundamentals: Is same-sex life even legal in a given country? If it is, we support that country’s progress. If not, we leverage the power available to us as North Americans to help change that reality.
Jacobsen: What groundbreaking legal shifts have recently redefined protections for LGBTQ+ communities, and how do these changes compare across different regions?
Grasso: One of the most significant yet underreported developments has been the wave of decriminalization efforts in the Caribbean, particularly over the past few years.
Due to their colonial histories, many Caribbean nations inherited anti-LGBTQ+ laws from British rule. However, in recent years, there has been a strong movement toward decriminalization in several countries.
Notable examples include Barbados, which struck down its anti-sodomy law in 2022, and Trinidad and Tobago, where a high court ruled in 2018 that laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy were unconstitutional.
There is a general pattern in the legal evolution of same-sex relations laws, which typically unfolds in three stages:
- In many countries with a British colonial legacy, same-sex relations were historically codified as illegal and remain so if the laws have not been reformed since colonial rule.
- Some countries have stopped enforcing these laws, meaning they remain on the books but are no longer actively prosecuted.
- The final stage is the formal repeal of these laws through legislative action or court rulings.
Nearly all countries in the Caribbean—aside from a few holdouts—are on this path toward full decriminalization.
We are only a few years away from achieving a Caribbean region free of these outdated and discriminatory laws.
Jacobsen: One thing we should probably note on a personal level is the impact on individuals. What do mental health literature and research tell us about the effects of criminalization—and, conversely, decriminalization—on LGBTQ+ people?
Grasso: It’s a huge deal.
I still remember when I was in college and lived in a state where, until 2003, same-sex relations were still criminalized in the United States. The Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws that year, and as I sit here in Texas conducting this interview, it’s remarkable to think that, back then, I could have been arrested for sodomy.
Criminalization creates a culture of fear. It is incredibly difficult to demand acceptance when the state itself claims that any outward expression of LGBTQ+ identity is illegal.
And what does that do to someone’s psychology? By existing, you are treated as an enemy of the state by design. So what does repealing such laws do? It is the first step in a long journey toward full equality.
Right now, at least 64 countries still criminalize same-sex relations—and that number does not even account for places like Russia, which are regressing on LGBTQ+ rights. This is the daily reality for millions of people. And the fight for equality cannot even begin when same-sex relations remain illegal.
Jacobsen: In what ways do grassroots activism and policy reform reinforce each other in advancing LGBTQ+ rights globally?
Grasso: Grassroots activism humanizes the issue.
We all know that when people personally know someone who is LGBTQ+, they are far more likely to support equality. People often say, “I had a different opinion, but knowing you changed my mind.”
This applies broadly—whether you are from a religious background, a sexual minority, or any identity that diverges from the social norm. Or, rather, let’s call it any non-standard identity—”divergence” might not be the right word.
Grassroots activism gives a face to the issue. It humanizes the struggle. And fundamentally, whether in activism, politics, or business, the world is small. But on an individual level, our worlds are even smaller.
Activists play a crucial role because they live this reality. They have skin in the game, and they can show people—including those who may not initially agree with us—that LGBTQ+ individuals are human and deserve equal rights.
Jacobsen: Are governments and international bodies adapting legal frameworks to accommodate the evolving understanding of gender identity and sexual orientation?
Grasso: Well, I don’t know if governments fundamentally operate in any language other than money. Many countries are waking up to the reality that being unfriendly to certain demographics translates into fewer tourism dollars, less trade, and greater opprobrium from the international partners they rely on for aid and economic cooperation. This reality has become even more pronounced with the recent closure of USAID programs.
I think many countries recognize that, while LGBTQ+ rights may be seen as antithetical to their cultural traditions, maintaining discriminatory policies does not make sense from a business perspective—regardless of how they frame the morality of the issue.
We realize this in places like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, where tourism boards explicitly state that they welcome LGBTQ+ travellers. That acknowledgment is significant. It signals the first step in a broader transformation because, as more LGBTQ+ tourists visit, the local population is exposed to people who openly express LGBTQ+ identities.
That exposure catalyzes change in societies where progress has historically been difficult.
Jacobsen: How can we leverage corporate and business advocacy to influence LGBTQ+ protections in places where political leadership resists change? I am aware of the draconian anti-LGBTQ+ bill that was recently proposed in Ghana, which had strong backing from American evangelicals. A similar case occurred in Uganda as well.
Grasso: Yes, it’s a major issue.
If you’re interested in a deeper dive, I highly recommend speaking with Dr. Christopher Velasco at Princeton University. He is currently writing a book on the role of the American nonprofit sector in shaping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation worldwide. He travelled to Ghana to interview the people responsible for passing these laws. He is the foremost expert on this topic and would provide invaluable insights.
As for what the business community can do—corporations wield significant influence and can use that leverage to improve conditions.
One of the strongest arguments businesses can make is that they need access to top talent. Any legal framework that restricts LGBTQ+ employees from freely living and working in emerging markets is disastrous for global business operations.
As countries seek to modernize, they need the best and brightest minds from every part of the world. Restricting LGBTQ+ populations—who make up 5–10% of the workforce in many Western nations—means leaving an enormous amount of talent untapped.
Jacobsen: What about internal disagreements within activist groups and organizations? When is it legitimate to create space for those conversations, and when is it more pressing to set differences aside and focus on enacting legal change at the federal or state level?
Grasso: That’s one of the biggest challenges in activism—whether in the United States or abroad. Activists often don’t agree on priorities, and different factions emphasize different aspects of the struggle.
Right now, for example, there is a significant push to separate trans issues from the broader LGBTQ+ rights movement. This is deeply controversial, given the long history of trans activists’ contributions to LGBTQ+ advocacy.
Ultimately, this is an ongoing conversation, and no one has yet figured out the perfect answer. Activist movements evolve, and these debates will continue to shape the direction of advocacy efforts.
Jacobsen: What legal trends are you observing in the West? Are you seeing a parallel between the progress of decolonization and advancements in LGBTQ+ rights in certain regions?
At the same time, we see regression in places like Russia or more authoritarian states like China. Even in large democracies such as India, political blockades sometimes slow progress. Given this diverse international landscape, what are the major positive and negative legal trends that stand out to you?
Grasso: I’m heading to India in two weeks to work with university students there. India recently took a major step forward by decriminalizing same-sex relations in 2018, thanks to the landmark Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling by the Supreme Court of India.
That decision was a huge milestone for LGBTQ+ rights in the world’s largest democracy, and it’s certainly a positive development.
Overall, we are seeing a global trend toward legalization and liberalization. However, there are notable counterexamples, including Ghana, Uganda, and Russia, where laws have become more restrictive. In addition, there are entire regions—particularly the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa—where progress has been extremely slow and resistance to change remains strong.
It’s not just Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa also remains deeply resistant to reform. Entrenched legal frameworks and cultural conservatism make even small policy shifts incredibly difficult in many of these countries.
Most of the world is moving in the right direction, but unfortunately, some areas are regressing.
Right now, in this geopolitical climate, the situation is unpredictable. As Dr. Velasco often points out, there is a significant amount of money and political interest behind the push to use American power to advance anti-LGBTQ+ movements abroad. That is why staying engaged is more important than ever—starting with advocacy efforts here at home.
Jacobsen: What are the primary factors driving this cultural and legal regression in Africa and the Middle East? There are some broad similarities, but I imagine there are also significant regional differences. What do you see as the key reasons behind these setbacks? Would you say that the Middle East is regressing on LGBTQ+ rights, or is it more a case of resistance to change?
Grasso: We’ve seen any regression in the Middle East. Rather, what we’re witnessing is a strong resistance to change.
Countries considered “modern”—such as Qatar—remain outwardly uninterested in shifting their stance. They view LGBTQ+ rights as antithetical to Islam and their indigenous culture. However, some of their neighbours take a different approach, leading to a divided landscape.
Africa presents a different challenge because most nations there are democracies rather than top-down monarchies like those found in the Middle East. Change is often slower in democratic systems because multiple interest groups are competing for influence simultaneously.
Now, to answer your question—why is there a counter-movement?
When studying the theory of change, it’s clear that every social movement experiences backlash. In fact, backlash often indicates that a movement has made significant progress quickly.
As a 40-year-old gay man, I can say that my life has been split into two completely different halves. The first 20 years were nothing like the second 20 years in terms of societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people. That rapid progress inevitably triggers opposition.
Jacobsen: For activists reading this, from your experience, what works that people assume does not? And what does not work that people assume does?
Grasso: That’s a tough question, Scott.
One thing that always works is being kind. However, we’ve lost much of our humanity in how we engage online. Many people cosplay as different versions of themselves on social media, often embracing aggression that they wouldn’t use in real life.
But in activism, human connection carries you far. It is crucial to look your opposition in the eye, acknowledge their humanity, and recognize that they are still human even if they are diametrically opposed to your views.
This element is often lost in activism today. We must treat people with the same respect we demand for ourselves.
What does not work? Honestly, I have no clue. But maintaining our humanity, even in the face of hostility, is one of the most effective strategies we can adopt.
Jacobsen: That’s an important takeaway—everyone must occasionally check in with reality. You mentioned using American power to influence global LGBTQ+ rights. How can diplomatic and economic pressure be used responsibly? And how has it been used irresponsibly? A clear example of irresponsible use would be Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ+ bill, which American evangelical groups with significant financial influence heavily backed. How can these levers of power be used more effectively in the broader interest of human rights?
Grasso: We have to recognize that this is a complex society. In democratic systems, there are always opposing interests at play, making it difficult to predict the future. However, the reality for billions of people worldwide is often shaped by decisions made here—for better or worse.
That is why we must be thoughtful and strategic in engaging with our opposition. Otherwise, the unintended consequences of our actions can manifest in places like Ghana, where external influences have played a major role in shaping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.
It is critical to maintain an open-door policy with people we disagree with. That includes engaging with Evangelicals, who are often portrayed as a monolithic group but, in reality, hold diverse views. Many Evangelicals today support LGBTQ+ rights and reject conversion therapy, and their numbers are growing.
We cannot simply divide people into those who support us and those who oppose us—the reality is much more nuanced. If we completely shut down dialogue, we risk alienating individuals who might otherwise be open to change, pushing them toward advocacy against LGBTQ+ rights in regions where they still hold influence.
At the same time, engaging in dialogue does not mean surrendering the fight. We must counterbalance anti-LGBTQ+ efforts by investing resources into human rights advocacy in countries like Ghana. We can be strategic and diplomatic while taking firm action to oppose those seeking to roll back rights.
There is a way to walk and chew gum simultaneously when dealing with these issues.
Jacobsen: Or pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time. Now, let’s shift to international protections. What global agreements have served as bulwarks in protecting LGBTQ+ rights? We have institutions like the LGBTI Core Group at the United Nations. While symbolic, these mechanisms don’t always carry as much leverage as we would like. What do you make of their role?
Grasso: The power of international multilateral institutions is clearly declining, so this question does not perfectly align with our current geopolitical reality. That said, just because the world is shifting doesn’t mean we cannot continue to drive progress using the levers of power we still have.
Many people would be shocked to learn that during the Trump administration, there was a concerted effort—led by Ric Grenell, the former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Director of National Intelligence—to pressure countries to decriminalize same-sex relations.
Of course, that does not negate the very real setbacks that the LGBTQ+ community faced under that administration. However, it is important to recognize that progress can still be made even in challenging political environments. We must remain open-minded to opportunities for advancing LGBTQ+ rights, even in situations that seem adverse at first glance.
Jacobsen: What do you hope to accomplish through Project Amicus in the next administration?
Grasso: Our primary goal is to see more countries decriminalize same-sex relations.
That is the fundamental issue we are focused on. We want to see more governments recognize that, regardless of their wealth or power, they cannot call themselves modern nations if they continue to persecute LGBTQ+ people.
A nation’s true value is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable populations—minorities, older people, children, and LGBTQ+ individuals. A country that still criminalizes same-sex relationships cannot be considered a civilized society by modern human rights standards.
We hope to see that list of 64 countries shrink significantly. Our mission is to bring more nations into the global fold—so that we can ultimately live in a world where being LGBTQ+ is tolerated and fully accepted.
Jacobsen: David, thank you for your time and insights today. It was a pleasure speaking with you.
Grasso: Likewise. Thanks, Scott.
Jacobsen: Take care!
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/07
Natural Resources Canada is committed to improving the quality of life of Canadians by ensuring the country’s abundant natural resources are developed sustainably, competitively and inclusively. Canada’s Climate Change Adaptation Program (CCAP) invests $2.7 million in five projects across Northern Ontario, leveraging an additional $1.8 million in partner investments. These initiatives enhance climate resilience through workforce training, Indigenous-led adaptation tools, and professional development. With $6.6 billion committed to adaptation since 2015, Canada aims to reduce climate risks, strengthen infrastructure, and protect communities. Research suggests that every $1 spent on adaptation saves up to $15 in long-term disaster recovery costs, reinforcing the economic benefits of proactive climate measures. The National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) integrates these efforts, fostering a sustainable, climate-resilient economy nationwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are these investments by Canada’s investment in climate change adaptation also going to help reach net zero by 2050?
Natural Resources Canada: The focus of this funding is climate change adaptation. Climate change adaptation focuses on reducing risks associated with climate change impacts. Along with climate change mitigation, which focuses on avoiding or minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, these efforts are necessary to protect communities and industries from the worst impacts of climate change. Adaptation is about reducing risks and embracing new opportunities related to climate change for Canadians, communities, businesses, and the economy more broadly, and being better prepared for current and future changes in climate through proactive planning and action.
Climate change adaptation actions often generate a range of co-benefits (e.g., flood protection, erosion prevention, etc.), which can also include reducing GHG emissions. Restoring natural ecosystems like wetlands, forests, and peatlands not only helps communities adapt to climate impacts but also sequesters carbon. Every $1 spent on climate change adaptation measures saves up to $15 in terms of the long-term costs involved in addressing climate change and extreme weather events, based on research by the Canadian Climate Institute (Damage Control: Reducing the Costs of Climate Impacts in Canada).
Investing in climate-resilient infrastructure reduces the risk of damage from extreme weather, which in turn minimizes the carbon footprint associated with rebuilding and repairing.
Jacobsen: For the five projects in northern Ontario under the Climate Change Adaptation Program (CCAP), how much was invested for each and in total?
Natural Resources Canada: A total of $2.7 million in NRCan funding was provided for these five projects.
NRCan contributions leverage investments by project partners that total $1.8 million. The total value of these five projects, including in-kind contributions, is more than $4.5 million.
A backgrounder was included in the news release (Canada Invests in Climate Change Adaptation to Keep Communities Safe in Northern Ontario and Across Canada), which includes the project details below. Please find a brief overview of each project below.
- The CanAdapt: Advancing a Climate-Ready Workforce Through Courses and Networks project ($1,300,000 in NRCan funding) will enhance access to climate change adaptation education, training, resources, and networks for professionals through the online CanAdapt portal.
- The Partnership for Indigenous Climate Change Adaptation GeoHub and Microcredential Capacity Building Tools project ($546,195 in NRCan funding) will support staff in First Nation communities and Councils to assess climate change impacts and risks, develop adaptation plans, and identify adaptation actions.
- The Professions Advancing Adaptation Competencies (PAAC): An Initiative of Canada’s National Engineering, Planning, Accounting and Landscape Architecture Associations project ($442,851 in NRCan funding) will help national professional associations integrate climate change adaptation into the profiles and responsibilities of specific professions (e.g., engineers, planners, accountants, landscape architects).
- The Analysis and Reporting on Lessons Learned from Adaptation Implementation project ($259,045 in NRCan funding) will advance adaptation in the natural resource sectors by assessing and sharing best practices and lessons learned from previously implemented adaptation actions.
- The Development of a National Climate Adaptation and Resilience Professional Development Program for Forest Professionals project ($190,687 in NRCan funding) will advance climate change adaptation in the forestry sector through targeted adaptation training for forest professionals across Canada.
Jacobsen: Which officials and Members of Parliament have been integral to this funding and its announcement?
Natural Resources Canada: This funding was announced by Marc G. Serré, Parliamentary Secretary to the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, along with Member
of Parliament Viviane Lapointe and Member of Parliament Anthony Rota. Their ridings are in Northern Ontario, where several of the proponents leading these projects are located (although the focus for many of these projects are national and not limited to Northern Ontario).
Jacobsen: What extreme weather events and long-term climate impacts were the reasons for these investments by Canada?
Natural Resources Canada: There was no specific extreme weather event that was the reason for these investments. Climate change impacts are regional in nature, and each community and business have their own needs and considerations. NRCan’s climate change adaptation actions are designed to be flexible and support regions, communities, and businesses, and the professionals that they rely on, in addressing their individual needs and priorities.
NRCan has been working on climate change adaptation for over two decades, providing science to strengthen understanding of how our lands, forests, and coasts will change with the climate, convening experts and leaders, and delivering programs that help businesses and communities acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and tools they need for adaptation.
We know that Canadians are facing more frequent and extreme climate events such as floods, wildfires and heat waves, as well as gradual climate change impacts like thawing permafrost and rising sea levels, as detailed in Canada’s Changing Climate Report. These challenges affect the quality of life, health, environment and economy of communities across the country.
We also know that costs associated with damage from extreme weather events in Canada are significant and rising. According to the Canada in a Changing Climate: National Issues Report, the scale of costs suggests that households, communities, businesses, and infrastructure are not currently prepared for current climate conditions and variability.
Adapting to a changing climate is important to build climate resilient businesses and communities and protect Canadians’ homes and livelihoods. Investing in climate change adaptation also means that Canada can better plan for, withstand, and recover from climate impacts and reduce disaster recovery costs.
Adaptation helps to avoid future costs associated with climate change impacts and ensures long-term viability of assets and investments.
Additional information resources for Canadians: Canadians can access, visualize, and analyze climate data, and access information and tools to support adaptation planning and decision-making atclimatedata.ca. This platform is a free open access climate data portal produced collaboratively by the country’s leading climate organizations and supported, in part, by the Government of Canada. Canadians can also access information on climate change adaptation actions through the Map of Adaptation Actions, a collaboration between Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and NRCan. The Map is an interactive and searchable tool housing a collection of climate change adaptation examples that provide useful information to decision-makers and those taking action on climate change adaptation.
Jacobsen: What are the expected outcomes from CCAP projects?
Natural Resources Canada: CCAP is co-funding projects across Canada that enhance skills for adapting to climate change, advance adaptation in the natural resource sectors (forestry, mining, and energy), and expand knowledge on the economics of adaptation and on key emerging issues.
NRCan works to help Canadian communities and industries adapt to climate change. To be more resilient to the impacts of climate change, they need to include adaptation in their plans and strategies and implement climate adaptation measures that address their region and sector-specific risks.
Communities and industries rely on skilled professionals that have access to adaptation-related tools and information and know how to use these to inform their plans, strategies and overall adaptation decision-making.
CCAP-supported projects equip these skilled professionals with tools, information and knowledge to support adaptation decision-making and actions by:
- Increasing access to and use of information, tools, and resources to inform adaptation actions (e.g., guidance documents, case studies, business cases, economic tools, good practices, guidelines for meaningful engagement).
- Enhancing adaptation knowledge and skills among Canada’s workforce and professionals (e.g., new requirements for professionals, delivery of training, peer-learning networks, adaptation in post-secondary curricula).
Ultimately, these skilled professionals play a key role in increasing the number of Canadian communities and businesses that are identifying and implementing actions and helping them adapt to a changing climate.
Additional information about CCAP and project updates are available on the NRCan website: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/climate-change/climate-change-adaptation/climate-change-adaptation-program
Please find some examples of previous success of the CCAP, below:
- CCAP builds on two decades of past NRCan adaptation research, analysis and programming that has advanced our understanding of climate change impacts, approaches to adaptation, and how to help businesses and communities adapt to a changing climate. Many of the assessments, adaptation tools and resources continue to benefit the natural resource sectors.
- NRCan supported projects led by Electricity Canada (EC) that produced Adaptation guidance for the electricity sector. 85% of EC’s members have used these guidance tools and 60% have completed detailed climate change risk assessments within their organizations.
- With support from NRCan, the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) produced a Guide on Climate Change Adaptation in the Mining Sector. This guide helps mining companies to plan and report on their management of climate change impacts.
- NRCan supported Engineers Canada in developing the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol – a risk assessment tool for Engineers that includes training, a practitioners’ network, and many case studies showing how the tool was implemented.
- The tool has also been expanded to include options for single assets, groups of assets, PIEVC green, and an Indigenous focus.
- They now have international partnerships with Germany (GIZ) and are using the tool around the world.
- The Climate Risk Institute (CRI) and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR) are now delivering the program, but the work started with Engineers Canada in 2005.
- NRCan funded the University of British Columbia Faculty of Forestry’s Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Micro-Certificate – a flexible, online program that provides working forest professionals (e.g., foresters, technicians, tree planters, policy makers) with an understanding of climate science, vulnerability and adaptation, and how to apply both the theory and the science of vulnerability assessments in their work.
- NRCan provided funding to the Stewardship Centre for British Columbia for the Green Shores program. Launched in 2010, the Green Shores program encourages adoption of sustainability principles in the design and construction of projects on coastal and lake shores. Professionals and landowners can access tools for planning, design, and construction that minimizes the environmental impacts and costs of their projects.
- The Manitoba Climate Resilience Training Project, funded by the NRCan, created tailored approaches to integrate climate risk and opportunities into decision-making and planning within the Northern Business, Indigenous, Planning, and Infrastructure sectors in Manitoba. The project included development and delivery of a suite of training and capacity building courses.
Jacobsen: How will the $2.7 million fit within the broader investment framework?
Natural Resources Canada: The Government of Canada remains committed to advancing climate change adaptation to reduce risks and protect Canadians, communities, businesses, and the economy more broadly, as well as prepare for current and future impacts of climate change. That’s why Canada has invested over $6.6 billion in climate change adaptation since 2015, including $2.1 billion in new commitments since Fall 2022.
NRCan’s Climate Change Adaptation Program (CCAP) (2022-2027) is a $39.5 million initiative that advances the National Adaptation Strategy, along with the Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities Program (CRCC), by supporting Canada’s regions and sectors to adapt to a changing climate by:
- supporting decision-makers in identifying and implementing adaptation actions;
- enhancing adaptation knowledge and skills among Canada’s workforce;
- and increasing access to climate change adaptation tools and resources.
Jacobsen: How much long-term cost saving is associated with each $1 spent on climate change adaptation measures?
Natural Resources Canada: Every $1 spent on climate change adaptation measures saves up to $15 in terms of the long-term costs involved in addressing climate change and extreme weather events, based on research by the Canadian Climate Institute (Damage Control: Reducing the Costs of Climate Impacts in Canada).
According to the Canada in a Changing Climate: Synthesis Report, there is a strong business case for adaptation, with the benefits (including avoided costs) gained through adaptation measures generally exceeding the costs of implementation. For instance, a review of 60 Canadian adaptation projects found that “soft-engineering” actions, such as beach nourishment, were more efficient investments than “hard-engineering” measures, such as concrete walls and rock armour. Soft-engineering solutions saved on average $10 for each $1 invested, compared with savings of $3 for each $1 invested in hard-engineering.
In 2024, for the first time in Canadian history, insured damage caused by severe weather events surpassed $8 billion, according to Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. The previous record was $6 billion from 2016, following the Fort McMurray wildfires. (Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2024 shatters record for costliest year for severe weather-related losses in Canadian history at $8.5 billion)
Jacobsen: How does the National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) connect to the initiatives and funding programs?
Natural Resources Canada: Canada released its first National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) in June 2023. It provides a whole-of-society plan focused on protecting Canadian lives and building more resilient and prosperous communities.
NRCan is also supporting coastal regions across Canada to adapt to climate challenges through its $41 million Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities Program (2023-2028) (CRCC) under the Government of Canada Adaptation Action Plan (GOCAAP), linked to the National Adaptation Strategy.
Both the Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities Program (2023-2028) (CRCC) and Climate Change Adaptation Program (CCAP) (2022-2027) contribute to the goals of the National Adaptation Strategy by supporting initiatives that help to build climate resilience in Canadian communities and industries.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/07
Pregnancy Justice, a legal advocacy organization, works to protect pregnant individuals from criminalization and state control. Caitlyn Garcia, a staff attorney, discusses how fetal personhood laws assert that embryos or fetuses have legal rights, leading to the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes. These laws restrict abortion, contraception, IVF, and prenatal care while increasing surveillance and prosecution. Garcia highlights the ideological roots of these policies and their role in reinforcing traditional gender roles. She advocates for litigation, legislative reform, and public education to counteract these laws and emphasizes the broader struggle for reproductive justice and autonomy in the U.S.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Caitlyn Garcia, a staff attorney at Pregnancy Justice. To ensure my facts are correct, Pregnancy Justice is a legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that no one loses their rights due to pregnancy or the capacity for pregnancy.
The organization focuses on protecting pregnant individuals, particularly those most vulnerable to state control and criminalization, such as low-income individuals, people of color, and those who use drugs. Through litigation, policy advocacy, and public education, Pregnancy Justice challenges laws and policies that undermine reproductive rights, including fetal personhood laws, the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes, and restrictions on abortion, contraception, and IVF. The organization works to safeguard bodily autonomy and reproductive justice in the post-Dobbs legal landscape. So, in the United States’ legal context, how is fetal personhood defined, and how is this concept used to justify laws that restrict or deny reproductive rights?
Caitlyn Garcia: Fetal personhood is a radical legal doctrine that underlies abortion bans, the criminalization of pregnancy, and certain civil and criminal laws. It is the idea that a fetus or embryo has legal rights that supersede the rights of the pregnant person and therefore requires state protection. We have seen this doctrine applied in numerous cases across the country, as Pregnancy Justice has represented individuals in multiple states.
For example, fetal personhood is the basis of legal arguments seeking to grant frozen embryos legal protections. Because of this, when medical providers dispose of frozen embryos, there is significant legal uncertainty. Could they be held civilly or criminally liable? Fetal personhood is dangerous because it creates ambiguity in the law and generates conflicts between the alleged rights of the embryo or fetus and the rights of the pregnant person—ultimately undermining the rights of the pregnant person.
Jacobsen: Fetal personhood is based on the idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception. However, this is fundamentally a religious and ideological position, not a medical or scientific one. So, how might fetal personhood laws impact access to prenatal care, abortion, IVF, and contraception?
Garcia: Definitely. Because fetal personhood is the foundation of many abortion bans—asserting that the fetus requires legal protection—access to abortion is often severely restricted. This contributes to maternal health care deserts, where individuals lack access to essential reproductive health services. Many states have also passed laws explicitly criminalizing abortion.
As a result, individuals who seek an abortion may face criminal prosecution. Pregnancy Justice released a report, Pregnancy as a Crime, in September 2024. In that report, we documented the highest number of pregnancy-related criminalization cases in a single year since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. We recorded 210 cases in which people were criminally charged for their pregnancy outcomes. These charges included allegations related to substance use during pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and abortion. (More info: New Pregnancy Justice Report Shows High Number of Pregnancy-Related Prosecutions in the Year After Dobbs | Pregnancy Justice)
We found that five cases in that report specifically referenced abortion. In those cases, either the individual had an abortion, or merely contemplating an abortion was used against them. I am currently working on a case in which an individual’s past contemplation of abortion is being used against her in a murder case—arguing that because she previously considered having an abortion, it indicates intent to harm a newborn or a living child later. This is extremely dangerous.
However, we cannot focus solely on abortion, as that would overlook the broader issue of pregnancy criminalization, which affects individuals in multiple ways. We need to separate access to reproductive health care from punitive measures, ensuring that people can consider their options without fear that their decisions might later be used against them in a legal case.
Jacobsen: Beyond the laws themselves, how does this lead to increased criminalization and state surveillance of pregnant individuals?
Garcia: Definitely. In many cases, for example, a mother with a substance use disorder may seek care at a hospital or from a doctor, hoping to receive medical support, including prenatal care. However, she may be subjected to drug testing—often without her consent. If she tests positive, she may then be reported to Child Protective Services (CPS), leading to a family court case. In some situations, law enforcement becomes involved, escalating the situation into a criminal case.
This legal entanglement discourages individuals from disclosing critical information to their health care providers—whether about substance use or other medical conditions—out of fear that it may be used against them. Additionally, the collaboration between the medical system, CPS, and law enforcement fosters distrust in health care providers and increases surveillance and intrusion into the lives of pregnant individuals and their families.
Jacobsen: One issue that is not discussed as much is the derivative effects of this atmosphere of criminalization—particularly the psychological toll, stress, and mental health impacts. Do you hear about this from individuals seeking your assistance?
Garcia: Definitely. We see this distrust in the medical system firsthand. Many of our clients feel betrayed after being drug tested without their consent, leading them to avoid medical providers altogether. Some of these cases result in CPS investigations, forcing individuals to endure months of home visits—both scheduled and unannounced.
We have also seen this occur during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was already a period of heightened anxiety. Despite this, individuals were still forced to open their homes for government inspections, adding to their distress.
In addition to criminal and family court cases, we are also witnessing a breakdown of trust within communities. A particularly troubling trend has emerged in cases documented in our Harming Fathersreport, in which fathers are being deemed neglectful if they fail to control their pregnant partner’s behavior. For example, a father may try to support his pregnant partner by helping her access substance use treatment, but if the court determines that his actions were not sufficient, he may still be charged with neglect—on the grounds that he failed to prevent harm to the fetus.
This is another example of fetal personhood being weaponized in the legal system, reinforcing the dangerous notion that a fetus has independent rights that override the rights of the pregnant person.
Jacobsen: But then, there is distrust and a breakdown within families themselves. If one partner is deemed neglectful for not controlling the actions of another partner, how can they rely on or trust one another? This creates tension within families, and it is happening not just in certain states—it is happening in New York as well.
I have conducted interviews with colleagues in Ghana, where we discussed Ghana and Uganda. In both countries, two of the most regressive LGBTQ+ bills in the world were posed. These bills received financing and support primarily from American evangelicals, who influenced the political and legal landscapes in ways that attempted to undermine human rights.
Similarly, in the United States, the origins of fetal personhood laws can also be traced back. There is a clear pattern of ideological and financial backing behind these regressive legal frameworks. Running the clock back here, where do fetal personhood laws originate?
Garcia: We have seen these laws embedded in state legal systems for decades. Alabama is a prime example. In 2013, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are children at any stage of gestation under the state’s criminal and child abuse laws. This decision opened the door to pregnancy-related prosecutions.
More recently, in 2024, an Alabama court ruled that frozen embryos are children or, at the very least, should be legally protected as such. This ruling set a precedent that could be used to further criminalize pregnancy-related decisions.
In states like Alabama, existing laws are being manipulated to criminalize pregnancy. For example:
- Chemical endangerment of a child law: Originally intended to protect children from being exposed to illicit substances in places like meth labs, these laws are now being applied to pregnant individuals. Prosecutors have equated the womb to a drug lab, arguing that pregnancy while using substances constitutes endangerment.
- Mississippi’s aggravated domestic violence laws: Initially designed to protect individuals from harm, these laws have been repurposed to prosecute pregnant individuals who use substances—on the grounds that they are causing harm to their fetuses.
These examples demonstrate how laws that were never originally intended to regulate pregnancy are now weaponized against pregnant individuals. The broader trend of pregnancy criminalization dates back many years, but its use has accelerated in recent times.
Jacobsen: What can be done legally and through policy advocacy? As a Canadian, I recognize that my commentary comes from an external perspective, but there are three possible paths forward: Slow the spread, halt their enforcement, or reverse these laws
Garcia: In legal and policy advocacy, there are key strategies that can be used to fight back:
- Litigation: Civil rights organizations can challenge fetal personhood laws as unconstitutional, arguing that they violate due process and bodily autonomy.
- Legislative advocacy: Advocates can push for state-level protections that explicitly prevent pregnancy criminalization and repeal existing fetal personhood laws.
- Public education and awareness: Raising public awareness about the consequences of these laws can shift public opinion, which in turn pressures lawmakers.
- Intersectional coalition-building: Collaborating with reproductive rights, racial justice, and civil liberties organizations can strengthen opposition efforts.
Ultimately, the fight against fetal personhood laws is part of a larger struggle for reproductive justice. It requires legal, legislative, and grassroots mobilization to ensure that pregnant individuals are not criminalized for their reproductive choices.
We saw an example of positive policy change in Hennepin County, where the prosecutor’s office announced that it would no longer pursue criminal charges against pregnant individuals for substance use. In a sweeping decision, they determined that pregnant individuals need care, maternal health services, and medical assistance, rather than punishment for substance use or seeking treatment. This was a major step toward reversing the harms caused by previous prosecutions. Additionally, the office stated that it would review and address past cases, providing a pathway for individuals previously charged to seek relief.
This demonstrates that prosecutors can take action to reverse past harms caused by pregnancy criminalization. Prosecutors need to recognize that their intentions to “protect” individuals often have the opposite effect, leading to harm instead. This is particularly evident in Mississippi, where aggravated domestic violence laws have been misused against pregnant individuals. Legal professionals must critically assess how existing laws impact communities and consider whether certain legal applications should be abandoned or repealed entirely—as was done in Hennepin County.
Jacobsen: Where do you see the most pushback against efforts to challenge fetal personhood laws?
Garcia: I cannot pinpoint a single location where resistance is strongest because we see pushback in numerous states across a wide range of cases. You might assume that in a state with constitutional protections for reproductive rights, such as Michigan, these types of prosecutions would not happen. However, we have seen cases in Michigan where individuals have been charged with murder after experiencing a stillbirth—despite the state’s legal protections for reproductive freedom.
Much of this resistance stems from a lack of education. Many prosecutors believe they are protecting fetuses, but in reality, their actions harm pregnant individuals and their families instead. Rather than offering protection, these prosecutions traumatize people, criminalize pregnancy outcomes, and worsen already difficult situations.
The pushback often comes from officials who believe they are acting with good intentions but are operating under misinformation, nonfactual legal reasoning, or faulty premises. Unfortunately, these misguided policies cause real harm—even when framed as “protective” measures.
Jacobsen: This pattern of state intervention into private reproductive decisions is not new. For example, under Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime in Romania, the government enacted Decree 770 in July 1966, which severely restricted abortion in an effort to increase birth rates. The law mandated that women have a minimum number of children, subjected them to routine government inspections, and created a system of surveillance over their reproductive choices.
This is a clear example of how state control over pregnancy can lead to oppressive and long-lasting intergenerational harm. While the American case is distinct in many ways, it is striking how policies around reproductive rights can shift drastically depending on political changes and ideological agendas.
Garcia: Another key issue is that many of these prosecutions are not backed by science. In many cases, there is no medical or scientific support for the claims being made against pregnant individuals. Criminalizing pregnancy outcomes is often based on ideology rather than medical evidence, making these policies even more dangerous. At the end of the day, the legal system should not be punishing people based on pseudoscience or political agendas—especially when it comes to reproductive health.
Jacobsen: I think there’s a strong analogy to be made here. If you look at the creationism and intelligent design cases, there was a clear attempt to bypass scientific review and use the legal system to push religious ideology into high school science classrooms. These efforts were ultimately defeated through lawsuits, including some prominent ones. I think a similar dynamic is at play here.
Garcia: Legal challenges are essential to push back against fetal personhood laws, but litigation is costly. I also want to add some context to your point. If you step back and take a wider lens, it becomes clear that this is about much more than just “protecting fetuses”—even though that is the justification given. When we examine broader legislative trends, we see lawmakers pushing for policies that reinforce traditional gender roles.
For example:
- Some lawmakers are now proposing the elimination of no-fault divorce.
- There has been a rollback of affirmative action and DEI initiatives.
- The pushback against racial and gender equity programs is accelerating.
It is critical to recognize that people of color are not the only beneficiaries of these programs. When you look at the full picture, the underlying agenda becomes clear: there is an effort to push women back into traditional roles—into a subservient position focused on childbearing.
Jacobsen: This goes beyond just promoting traditional motherhood—it is an idyllicized or romanticized vision of motherhood that ignores reality. This reminds me of Margaret Atwood’s comments about how she incorporated Nicolae Ceaușescu’s policies into The Handmaid’s Tale. Under Ceaușescu’s regime, women were forced to have children, but without state support. This is the same contradiction we see today:
- The state pushes for more births but refuses to invest in health care, education, or family support.
Garcia: This issue is not just about whether women want children or how many children they want—it is about controlling their choices. The long-term effects of these policies are devastating, particularly for low-income individuals and marginalized communities.
The long-term consequences of forced birth policies have been well-documented in other countries and historical contexts. Countries that have restricted reproductive rights without providing adequate social support have seen generations of children born into poverty, with limited access to education, health care, and stable family structures.
Jacobsen: This is not speculation—we have concrete evidence from history that these policies create systemic, intergenerational harm. And the people who suffer the most are those who already lack family wealth, decent income, and access to essential services.
Garcia: You are absolutely right—fetal personhood laws are just one piece of a much larger, coordinated strategy. The regressive policy agenda is multi-pronged, and many people focus only on abortion rights, missing the broader legal shifts happening in parallel. This is why it is essential to connect the dots between:
- Abortion bans
- The criminalization of pregnancy outcomes
- The erosion of protections for women’s autonomy
- Broader legal changes that restrict gender and racial equity initiatives
For decades, the criminalization of pregnant individuals for substance use has been used as a backdoor method to control and punish them. However, every major medical and public health organization opposes these policies because they do not create a safe environment where people can seek care.
These laws discourage pregnant individuals from seeking medical help. Instead of promoting health and safety, they create fear and uncertainty, making it less likely that people will feel safe discussing their medical needs with providers.
At the end of the day, these policies are not rooted in medical science—they are ideological tools designed to enforce a specific social order. That is why the fight against fetal personhood laws must be part of a broader movement for reproductive justice, gender equality, and human rights.
If you are pregnant and struggling with substance use, Suboxone is one of the recommended medications for treatment. But if you cannot access it, what happens? You may avoid seeking care altogether. And when that happens, pregnancy outcomes worsen—not just for the pregnant person, but also for the fetus and newborn. This leads to higher rates of maternal and infant complications.
There is a report you might want to reference called State-Created Harm, which examined the consequences of Tennessee’s fetal assault law. In 2014, Tennessee explicitly criminalized substance use during pregnancy. However, the law was so harmful that it was allowed to sunset after only two years. The data showed an increase in fetal and infant deaths because pregnant individuals were afraid to be honest with their health care providers or avoided medical care entirely.
From a Canadian perspective, this situation is shocking for two reasons:
- Canada has an integrated public health care system.
- While there are challenges—such as doctor shortages and immigration-related pressures—there is universal access to medical care.
- We also have a partially implemented national pharmacare program, which reduces financial barriers to prescription medications. In contrast, the U.S. system creates enormous disparities in access to care.
- Medical decisions should remain between a physician and their patient.
- What happens between a trained medical professional and a pregnant individual should be a private medical matter—not something dictated by policy or law.
- The intrusion of legal and state intervention into these decisions is a serious violation of privacy and autonomy.
Another problem is that hospitals and medical providers are mandated reporters, meaning they believe they are legally required to report certain cases. However, hospital policies themselves can be examined and changed.
For example, we have seen cases where a pregnant individual tested positive for opioids—only for it to be traced back to eating poppy seeds. If the hospital had properly reviewed its testing thresholds, it could have prevented unnecessary harm. Similarly, some patients test positive for a substance they have a valid prescription for, yet the result is still used against them.
Jacobsen: I have interviewed Dr. Gordon Guyatt, one of the most-cited epidemiologists in the world and a co-founder of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). In 1991, he co-authored a paper introducing EBM, which has since been widely adopted in medical decision-making.
One key point he has emphasized is that countries with national health care systems prioritize equity in health care access. This is evident in Western Europe and North America—outside of the United States.
In contrast, the United States places greater emphasis on individual privacy or autonomy, which can sometimes come at the expense of equitable health care access. This contradiction—criminalizing pregnancy while also valuing autonomy—reveals deeper issues in U.S. health policy.
The American emphasis on autonomy shifts the focus toward private health care rather than public health care. However, there is little evidence to suggest that private health care systems are more efficient or provide better services than public health care. Additionally, private systems cannot take full advantage of economies of scale in the way that national health care and national pharmacare programs can.
What cultural barriers do you see in challenging fetal personhood laws within the broader American value system? I see this as part of the argument that life begins at conception, which is fundamentally a religious and socially conservative viewpoint. These differences in values and preferences influence health care policy across advanced industrial economies.
So, how do you effectively challenge fetal personhood laws in a context where significant portions of the American population hold a different set of values and preferences compared to other high-income nations?
Garcia: Absolutely. Autonomy and privacy are deeply embedded in American values—particularly in medical privacy and patient confidentiality. However, in many of our cases, we see privacy violations that contradict these values.
For example:
- Hospitals reporting patients to Child Protective Services (CPS) without informing them.
- Medical providers sharing private medical information without consent.
- Pregnant individuals believing their information was confidential, only to face surveillance and legal consequences.
The tension is that this sharing of private medical information is not being used to support families—it is leading to family policing and surveillance. Instead of protecting individuals, it creates additional harm.
This is why many advocates oppose mandated reporting in these contexts. It is not being implemented in a way that helps families—it is being used to criminalize pregnancy outcomes and restrict reproductive autonomy.
There is a societal tension between:
- A desire to “protect” families and fetuses.
- A commitment to respecting autonomy and individual decision-making.
At the end of the day, we must separate punishment from health care. If pregnant individuals fear criminalization, they will avoid seeking medical care—which worsens health outcomes for both them and their families.
Privacy protections, such as HIPAA, should ensure that medical records remain confidential and are not used for surveillance or prosecution. If patients trust that their information will not be shared with law enforcement or CPS, they are more likely to seek care and have better health outcomes.
One of the key contradictions in this debate is the gap between the American ideal of self-determination and the reality of reproductive control.
In theory:
- The United States prides itself on individual freedom and self-determination.
- Americans value privacy, autonomy, and the right to make personal choices.
In practice:
- Pregnant individuals are being criminalized for their medical decisions.
- Mandated reporting is leading to surveillance, not support.
- Reproductive rights are increasingly restricted, contradicting the rhetoric of personal freedom.
This contradiction—claiming to champion autonomy while simultaneously imposing reproductive control—is at the heart of the issue. At the end of the day, privacy should be a tool for protecting individuals, not a selective value used to justify harmful policies.
But then, as soon as a fetus is involved, the entire framework shifts. Suddenly, if you do not have the capacity to be pregnant, these policies no longer apply to you. However, if you are a person of color, low-income, or otherwise marginalized, the state intervenes and dictates what you can and cannot do with your own body.
Another issue at odds with this is the American tendency to rely on the criminal legal system for everything.
- If there is a health emergency, people call 911.
- If someone is experiencing a mental health crisis, people call the police.
- If there is a pregnancy-related issue, the criminal legal system steps in instead of the health care system.
But the police are not trained for these situations. That is not their role—yet, for some reason, they are frequently the default response.
This one-size-fits-all approach is harmful. We should not be using law enforcement as the primary response to:
- Pregnancy and substance use.
- The opioid crisis affecting pregnant individuals.
- Medical conditions that require specialized care—not criminalization.
The increased opioid-related deaths among pregnant individuals are further proof that what is needed is care, not punishment.
We must completely separate medical care, pregnancy and reproductive rights, access to abortion, from the criminal legal system.
Jacobsen: America is an extremely litigious society. As the saying goes—maybe the solution is to just declare war on it. That seems to be the go-to strategy in the U.S. Whether it’s the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, or the War on Poverty, the framing is often about punitive measures.
But as we have seen in the last few weeks, this approach does not work. If anything, the language and framing of these policies matter just as much as their content. So, what should I be asking next?
Garcia: At the end of the day:
- Health care must be separated from punishment.
- Pregnant individuals must be allowed to make decisions for their own bodies and families.
- The state should not be intervening in private medical decisions.
- Autonomy must be protected, not restricted.
We also need to pay attention to what is coming next. The attacks on reproductive rights are not happening in isolation. The same forces targeting pregnant individuals are also targeting trans and nonbinary people, and other marginalized communities This is not just a single issue—it is part of a larger system of control over bodily autonomy.
This is an attack on all of our clients. These issues are deeply interconnected, and that is an important takeaway. This is not just about abortion. This is about reproductive justice as a whole. Pregnancy criminalization is a key part of this broader issue and must be actively fought against That is exactly what we are doing at Pregnancy Justice.
Jacobsen: I want to share a quick anecdote.
Last year, I took an Amtrak trip across the United States, traveling from Montreal to New York, Boston, Atlanta, Charleston, New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Seattle—a journey that lasted three weeks.
Along the way, I met a wide range of Americans. One person I met was a cowboy who owned 400 acres of land, which had been gifted to his family by the King of Spain over 400 years ago.
Another person who had my seat, I said, “You can take my seat if you want. I’ll be working in the snack cart on my laptop.” They replied, “Nah, boo. I am Black. I am trans. I am six months pregnant. I don’t want any weirdo sitting next to me.” America is an incredibly diverse place.
It is important to keep in mind that these laws and policies have real, explicit consequences. Organizations must consider not just the legal aspects of these issues, but also the real-world impact on people’s lives. Many of these policies lack scientific evidence, and people often do not reflect deeply enough on the philosophical foundations of their beliefs.
Garcia: Scott, if you have additional questions, I’d be happy to follow up. Thank you so much—it was great having you here today.
Jacobsen: Enjoy your chaotic America and occasional good weather.
Garcia: Haha, thank you! Take care.
Jacobsen: Ciao.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/06
Manuela Barzan is a professional with extensive experience in designing and coordinating projects aimed at promoting tourism, locally produced food products, and traditional crafts. She has served as the Project Coordinator for the “I Love Fruit & Veg from Europe” initiative, focusing on increasing exports of European fruits and vegetables. Additionally, she has been involved in the “Pure Olive Oil from Europe” project, which aims to promote the export and consumption of European olive oil in Canada. Her work emphasizes the development and promotion of European agricultural products in international markets.The Pure Olive Oil from Europe project, co-funded by the European Union and promoted by L’Olivicola Cosentina, aims to increase awareness and consumption of European extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) in Canada. EVOO’s versatility in Mediterranean cuisine stems from its rich flavor, health benefits, and stability at high temperatures. It is widely used in dressings, marinades, sauces, and desserts while also playing a role in food preservation. Consumers can learn more through the project’s website and social media platforms. The initiative highlights EVOO’s nutritional advantages and culinary applications, making it a staple in both traditional and modern cooking.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the “Pure Olive Oil from Europe” project?
Manuela Barzan: The Pure Olive Oil from Europe project is co-funded by the European Union and promoted by the producer association L’Olivicola Cosentina. The initiative aims to capture the attention of chefs, restaurateurs, hospitality professionals, consumers and opinion leaders in Canada to promote the export and consumption of oil and extra virgin olive oil produced in the EU and, more particularly, in Italy. A unique opportunity to explore the distinctive characteristics of oil and extra virgin olive oil and its extraordinary versatility in cooking.
Jacobsen: What makes extra virgin olive oil a versatile ingredient in the Mediterranean diet?
Barzan: Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is a staple in Mediterranean cuisines for several reasons:
– Flavor: EVOO has a rich, robust flavor that can enhance the taste of various dishes, from salads to stews. Its flavor profile can range from fruity to peppery, adding complexity to meals.
– Health Benefits: It is high in monounsaturated fats and antioxidants, making it a healthier choice for cooking and dressing. Its anti-inflammatory properties and contributions to heart health align with the Mediterranean diet.
– Culinary Uses: EVOO can be used in a variety of ways, including sautéing, frying, drizzling, and as a base for dressings and marinades. It’s suitable for cold dishes, like salads, and can withstand moderate heat, making it ideal for various cooking methods.
– Versatility: It complements a wide range of ingredients commonly found in Mediterranean cuisine, such as vegetables, grains, fish, and meats, allowing for creative and flavorful combinations.
– Traditional Practices: The long-standing tradition of olive oil production in Mediterranean countries contributes to its cultural significance and widespread use in regional recipes.
– Finishing Touch: Many chefs use EVOO as a finishing touch to add flavor and richness to cooked dishes, enhancing the overall dining experience.
These factors combine to make extra virgin olive oil an essential and versatile ingredient in Mediterranean cooking, contributing both to the flavor and the healthfulness of the cuisine.
Jacobsen: How does the monounsaturated fat content contribute to stability at high temperatures in cooking ?
Barzan: Monounsaturated fats, like those found in extra virgin olive oil (EVOO), have several characteristics that contribute to their stability during cooking at high temperatures:
– Chemical Structure: Monounsaturated fats have only one double bond in their fatty acid chains. This structure makes them more resistant to oxidation compared to polyunsaturated fats, which have multiple double bonds and are more prone to breaking down at high temperatures.
– Higher Smoke Point: EVOO typically has a higher smoke point (around 375-410°F or 190-210°C) than many other oils high in polyunsaturated fats. This means it can be heated to higher temperatures before it begins to smoke and degrade, making it suitable for various cooking methods like sautéing and roasting.
– Stability During Cooking: The resistance to oxidation means that monounsaturated fats in EVOO maintain their integrity and nutritional properties better than oils with a higher proportion of polyunsaturated fats, which can produce harmful compounds when heated excessively.
– Flavor Preservation: The more stable nature of these fats helps preserve the flavor compounds in EVOO, allowing them to contribute taste even after cooking.
In summary, the monounsaturated fat content of extra virgin olive oil contributes to its stability at high temperatures through its chemical structure, higher smoke point, oxidative stability, and ability to preserve flavor, making it a reliable choice for cooking.
Jacobsen: What are some common uses in raw preparation including dressings, sauces, and marinades ?
Barzan: Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is a versatile ingredient in raw preparations, offering flavor and health benefits. Here are some common uses:
– Salad Dressings: EVOO is often used as a base for vinaigrettes. Mixing it with vinegar (like balsamic or red wine vinegar) or citrus juice, along with herbs, garlic, and seasonings, creates a flavorful dressing.
– Dipping Oil: EVOO can be served plain or mixed with balsamic vinegar, herbs, or spices for dipping bread. It enhances the sensory experience with its rich flavor.
– Marinades: EVOO is frequently used in marinades for its ability to tenderize meats and infuse flavors. It can be combined with lemon juice, garlic, herbs, and spices to marinate vegetables, fish, or meats.
– Pesto and Sauces: EVOO is a key ingredient in pesto, blending basil, garlic, pine nuts, and parmesan cheese. It is also used in other fresh sauces, enhancing texture and flavor.
– Finishing Oil: Drizzling EVOO over finished dishes, like grilled vegetables or soups, adds a rich flavor and visual appeal. It can elevate the dish’s overall taste profile.
– Cold Pasta Dishes: In pasta salads, EVOO enhances flavor and prevents sticking while adding moisture and depth to the ingredients.
– Bruschetta: EVOO is often drizzled on toasted bread topped with tomatoes, garlic, basil, and cheese, enhancing the dish’s flavor and richness.
These uses showcase EVOO’s versatility and ability to enhance raw preparations in various cuisines, especially in Mediterranean dishes.
Jacobsen: Basic recipe for a tomato sauce with olive oil
Barzan: Basic Tomato Sauce with Olive Oil
Ingredients:
- 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
- 1 medium onion, finely chopped
- 2-3 cloves garlic, minced
- 1 (28-ounce) can crushed tomatoes (or 2-3 cups fresh tomatoes, peeled and chopped)
- 1 teaspoon salt (adjust to taste)
- 1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
- 1 teaspoon sugar (optional, to balance acidity)
- 1 teaspoon dried oregano (or fresh, if available)
- 1 teaspoon dried basil (or fresh, if available)
- Red pepper flakes (optional, for heat)
- Fresh basil leaves (for garnish, optional)
Instructions:
– Sauté Aromatics: In a large saucepan, heat the extra virgin olive oil over medium heat. Add the chopped onion and sauté until it becomes translucent, about 5-7 minutes. Then add the minced garlic and cook for an additional minute, until fragrant.
– Add Tomatoes: Stir in the crushed tomatoes. If using fresh tomatoes, cook for a minute until they start to break down.
– Season the Sauce: Add salt, pepper, sugar (if using), oregano, and basil. Stir to combine.
– Simmer: Bring the sauce to a gentle simmer. Reduce the heat to low and let it cook uncovered for about 20-30 minutes, stirring occasionally. This will help thicken the sauce and enhance the flavors.
– Taste and Adjust: Taste the sauce and adjust the seasoning if necessary, adding more salt, pepper, or herbs as desired.
– Serve: Remove from heat and serve immediately over pasta, or as a base for pizzas, or with your favorite dishes. Garnish with fresh basil leaves if desired.
Tips:
- For added depth of flavor, consider incorporating a splash of red wine or a tablespoon of tomato paste during cooking.
- You can blend the sauce for a smoother texture if preferred.
Jacobsen: How does olive oil enhance desserts and pastries by being healthier and such ?
Barzan: Olive oil can enhance desserts and pastries in several ways, making them not only healthier but also adding unique flavors and textures. Here are some benefits and roles that olive oil plays in sweet recipes:
– Healthier Fat Option: Olive oil is high in monounsaturated fats, which are healthier compared to saturated fats found in butter. This can make desserts less guilt-inducing without compromising on taste.
– Lower Saturated Fat Content: By substituting olive oil for butter or other solid fats, you reduce the overall saturated fat content of the dessert, which can be beneficial for heart health.
– Flavor Profile: Extra virgin olive oil adds a subtle fruitiness and complexity to desserts, enhancing flavors. The specific notes (fruity, peppery, or grassy) can complement ingredients like chocolate and citrus.
– Moisture: Using olive oil can contribute to a moist texture in baked goods. It helps to create tender cakes and cookies, preventing them from becoming dry.
-Nutrient-Rich: Olive oil contains antioxidants and vitamins (like vitamin E) that can contribute to the nutritional profile of desserts, adding health benefits along with indulgence.
– Versatile Ingredient: Olive oil can be used in a variety of desserts, from cakes and muffins to custards and even ice creams. Its versatility allows for creative adaptations of classic recipes.
– Lower Caloric Density: While olive oil is calorie-dense, its high flavor intensity allows for smaller quantities to achieve desired results, which can lead to lower overall caloric intake in some recipes.
– Accessibility: Olive oil is often a more accessible and shelf-stable option than butter, making it easier to incorporate into a variety of dessert recipes such as:
- Olive Oil Cakes: Olive oil can be a key ingredient in cakes, providing moisture and a unique flavor that pairs well with citrus and herbs.
- Cookies: It can be used in recipes for chewy or crisp cookies, enhancing texture while keeping them tender.
- Dressing for Fruit: A drizzle of olive oil over fresh fruit can enhance their sweetness and add richness.
Jacobsen: What are some preservation methods that inviolve olive oil?
Barzan: Olive oil is not only used in cooking but also serves as an effective ingredient in various preservation methods. Here are some common techniques that involve olive oil:
– Oil Infusion: You can infuse olive oil with herbs, spices, or garlic to enhance flavor and preserve the ingredients. The oil acts as a barrier, preventing exposure to air and moisture, which helps maintain the freshness of the infusions.
– Vegetable Preservation: Olive oil can be used to preserve vegetables, such as sun-dried tomatoes, artichokes, or peppers. After roasting or drying the vegetables, they can be submerged in olive oil, which helps inhibit bacterial growth and spoilage.
– Cured Meats and Fish: Olive oil can be used to preserve cured meats (like salami) and fish (like anchovies). The oil creates an oxygen-free environment, preventing spoilage and enhancing flavor.
– Marinated Delicacies: Marinating foods like olives or feta cheese in olive oil with seasonings not only adds flavor but also acts as a preservation method. The oil helps keep these items fresh for longer periods.
– Compressed Ingredients: In some culinary techniques, ingredients (such as fruits and vegetables) can be compressed and then submerged in olive oil to prolong their shelf life while adding richness to the flavor.
– Oiled Baking Dishes: Coating baking dishes with olive oil before storing prepared foods can help create a moisture barrier, keeping dishes fresher for longer.
– Vinegar and Oil Preservation: Vegetables (like pickles) can be preserved using a mixture of vinegar and olive oil. This combination can help extend the shelf life while adding delightful flavors.
Tips for Preservation:
- Always ensure that the jars or containers used for preservation are clean and sterilized to avoid contamination.
- Store preserved foods in a cool, dark place, or refrigerate if necessary, especially for items with fresh ingredients.
- Check preserved items periodically for signs of spoilage, such as off smells or unusual textures.
Jacobsen: How can consumers learn more about the « Pure Olive Oil from Europe”
Barzan: https://www.oliveoilfromeurope.eu
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Manuela.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05
Mark Temnycky is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and an accredited freelance journalist specializing in Eurasian affairs, European energy security, and Ukrainian football. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Forbes, The Hill, Newsweek, Euronews, EUobserver, Defense News, the Kyiv Post, and The Diplomat, among others. He has also contributed to think tanks like the Atlantic Council, Wilson Center, and Center for European Policy Analysis. His reporting has been cited by the European Parliament, NATO, the Helsinki Commission, the United Nations University, and Transparency International. Temnycky has been interviewed by BBC, France 24, NBC, Al Jazeera English, and FIFA, and has appeared on podcasts for The Telegraph, Chatham House, and Razom for Ukraine. He has guest lectured at West Point, Columbia University, NYU, and Boston University. Recognized by the International Sports Press Association and the Ukrainian World Congress, he holds master’s degrees in Public Administration and International Relations from Syracuse University and a history degree from Le Moyne College. Throughout the Russian invasion of Ukraine, organizations such as the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have documented severe human rights violations, including torture, rape, and executions. The U.S., NATO, and allied nations have condemned these atrocities, imposing sanctions and removing Russia from international organizations. The invasion has reshaped Europe’s energy landscape, accelerating diversification efforts and reducing reliance on Russian gas. Ukrainian civil society and NGOs collaborate with international bodies to document war crimes. The Biden administration has supported investigations, leading to ICC charges against Putin. The conflict highlights the necessity of timely military aid and strategic decision-making in warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What have been the most egregious documented human rights violations committed in Ukraine?
Mark Temnycky: Throughout the Russian invasion of Ukraine, organizations such as the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others have conducted research and written reports about human rights violations during the war. In a report issued by the U.S. Department of State, “significant human rights abuses committed by Russia’s forces in areas that were under Russian control involved severe and wide-ranging cases and included credible reports.” Some of the most egregious document human rights violations committed by the Russians are torturing, mutilating, raping, and executing Ukrainian men, women, and children. Many Ukrainian bodies were then left on the streets or dumped into unmarked graves. These Russian atrocities were discovered in the cities of Bucha and Izyum, and were reported elsewhere across the country.
Jacobsen: How have the U.S. and NATO responded to the war crimes?
Temnycky: The United States, NATO, EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, and many other countries and collectives have condemned war crimes committed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They have sought to punish Russia for committing these atrocities. For example, the United Nations General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council in April 2022. Russia was also removed from the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe, as well as several other international organizations. The removal from various political, cultural, business, and sports organizations has seen Russia lose hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, the international community has imposed stiff sanctions on the Russian gas industry, Russian businesses, and Russian officials.
Jacobsen: How has Russia’s invasion affected Europe’s energy landscape?
Temnycky: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced the European continent to reevaluate its energy market and prioritize energy security. There were also swift actions taken by Europe to distance itself from Russia. For example, when the war began, the operation of Nord Stream 2 was halted (the pipeline was later damaged). The EU and UK banned seaborne imports of crude oil in December 2022, and a ban on Russian imports of diesel fuel and other products made from crude oil in Russian refineries occurred in February 2023. Furthermore, Europe has opted to diversify its energy market by purchasing larger quantities of liquid natural gas from countries such as the United States and Qatar. In addition, several European countries are pursuing clean energy and alternative energy options to further strengthen energy independence. Finally, Ukraine let its gas deal with Russia expire on January 1, 2025, meaning several countries would no longer receive Russian gas via Ukraine. This has forced Europe to further accelerate its plans for energy diversification.
Jacobsen: How are Ukrainian civil society and local NGOs documenting human rights violations?
Temnycky: The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner is one of the organizations that has worked with Ukrainian civil society and local NGOs to document grave human rights violations. Furthermore, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation has stated that members of Ukrainian civil society and NGOs have spoken with Ukrainians who have eyewitness accounts of human rights violations. They will speak with individuals who saw the Russians conduct atrocities, they will travel to areas where violations occurred so that they can collect information and document the events that unfolded in the area, and they will write summaries or reports about the events that unfolded. These accounts and the information are then shared with news outlets, international organizations, and governments so that they can be aware of the atrocities that are committed.
Jacobsen: How would you assess the previous (Biden) Administration’s approach to Ukrainian human rights concerns?
Temnycky: Throughout Russia’s invasion, President Biden called on the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate human rights violations committed by the Russians. The Biden administration also worked with officials from the UN, ICC, and the Ukrainian government to collect information and document human rights violations during the war. The evidence that was collected then led to the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Outside of the White House, the U.S. Department of State constantly identified and publicly condemned Russian war crimes committed in Ukraine. In addition, throughout the war, the United States Congress introduced resolutions which have condemned and opposed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Jacobsen: What legal precedents exist for prosecuting Russian officials or military personnel for human rights violations?
Temnycky: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is examining and reading documentation and cases presented by Ukraine on human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation. The ICC has already issued an arrest warrant for President Putin. The international legal body is also exploring options on how to try and prosecute Russian officials and Russian military personnel for their involvement and participation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Based on experience lecturing at military academies, what key lessons should future leaders learn from this conflict?
Temnycky: Defense aid needed to be provided to Ukraine faster. For several years, numerous Western governments put self-imposed restrictions on Western aid used by the Ukrainians. They did not allow the Ukrainians to use Western weapons to strike Russian military targets within the Russian Federation. In addition, various forms of high-tech equipment were delayed. Imposing these restrictions, and with the delays in providing defense aid needed to defend Ukrainians from Russian attacks, allowed the Russians to regroup and re-strategize in the occupied regions. Ukraine also did not have the proper equipment to fully protect its citizens against the Russian incursion, and this led to additional deaths.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mark.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04 (Unpublished)
Seyfi Tomar, Vice President of EBS Global, discusses his firm’s commitment to sustainable construction in Ukraine. Recently, EBS secured office space in Kyiv, initiated company registration, and engaged in partnerships. Tomar highlights Canada-Ukraine trade opportunities, emphasizing prefabricated steel systems and AI-driven construction. He notes challenges like tariffs but sees automation reducing labor needs. Tomar praises Ukrainian resilience, contrasts global construction practices, and stresses the role of international institutions. He anticipates AI and robotics transforming construction, shifting human roles to software development. Future Canadian leadership, he suggests, should prioritize economic diversification and strengthening global trade relationships.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Seyfi Tomar.
He is the Vice President of EBS Global, a Canadian construction firm focused on creating durable and sustainable structures, from hospitals and schools to mid-rise buildings, emphasizing cost efficiency and environmental responsibility. Seyfi passionately advocates for prefabricated steel systems, customizing designs to reflect local culture while delivering eco-friendly solutions.
As a key sponsor of the Rebuild Ukraine Initiative, Seyfi spearheads efforts to restore infrastructure in war-torn regions, blending Canadian expertise with international collaboration. His approach combines advanced technologies, including recycled galvanized steel, to address housing shortages and infrastructure demands. Despite challenges such as securing funding from organizations like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Export Development Canada (EDC), Seyfi remains committed to scaling sustainable solutions while prioritizing speed, affordability, and cultural integrity.
Early projects include rebuilding Bakhmut, emphasizing innovation and resilience in the face of immense challenges. Thank you so much for joining me again today, Seyfi. I appreciate it.
Seyfi Tomar: Thank you, Scott. Thank you for inviting me.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome.
There have been some updates since the last interview for International Policy Digest. This interview is conducted on March 3 and published much later. Some updates we are looking at involve company registration, lease agreements, and on-the-ground operations. You have recently travelled or are currently travelling. So, what are the immediate logistical hurdles regarding lease agreements and company registration?
Tomar: We have overcome those hurdles. This is my third visit to Ukraine since the war began. I was also here before the war. Today, we secured our office. We signed a letter of intent, and the lease agreement will be finalized in the morning.
It was not difficult. The landlords were cooperative and understanding of our situation, particularly since we have closed all operations in Turkey. Previously, we specialized in constructing high-rises and other large-scale projects in Turkey. Still, now we are transitioning all operations and personnel to Kyiv as our central hub before expanding to other parts of Ukraine as part of the Rebuild Ukraine effort.
We have already initiated discussions with our legal advisors in Kyiv. Tomorrow, we will formally begin the company registration process. This includes registering:
- Our general contracting division (part of Van Horn)
- Our manufacturing facilities under EBS Global
- Our EU consulting division, Planet Turkey
These registrations will be officially launched tomorrow.
We will then focus on setting up our office space and acquiring furniture and other essentials. We have already hired a Ukrainian director, who will oversee operations full-time. Our Ukrainian partners have assisted with logistics, including securing office space, registering employees, and handling administrative processes.
Regarding banking operations, we expect that process to be completed within two weeks, as we first need to finalize our company registrations before initiating fund transfers.
We are fully engaged in these efforts, and progress is steady.
Tomar: On the same note, I have had meetings with the Canadian Embassy since I arrived here. They have been extremely helpful, as I expected. From the very first day, they have worked hard and remained accessible. They are available and always willing to assist whenever I need to reach them.
They invited us to the embassy today, where we had a very productive meeting. They provided us with all the data and information we needed. As we have done so far, we will continue to stay in close contact with them.
We will keep them informed and work alongside them. They are the best resource for scrutinizing Ukrainian companies, evaluating tendering processes, and obtaining reliable information. They have been great resources and valuable allies in our work.
Beyond the Canadian Embassy, we have also met with several major Ukrainian companies. We have tentatively agreed on upcoming joint ventures with some of them, though these discussions are still in their preliminary stages. We will continue meeting with them over the next few days until Friday. If additional discussions are necessary, I will return.
We are excited to contribute to Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts. Being here allows us to support the Ukrainian economy while diversifying the Canadian economy, particularly in light of the 25% tariffs we face. Who knows what changes might come next? This is just one aspect, and we encourage others in Canada to explore their strengths in different markets.
For too long, we have been overly dependent on the U.S. Diversifying trade and investments will strengthen the Canadian economy.
Jacobsen: When it comes to construction, there is a need for fire-resistant and more durable materials. What about sourcing materials from within Ukraine? In doing so, wouldn’t that bolster the construction economy and the material sourcing and manufacturing industries within Ukraine?
Tomar: Yes. For prefabricated metal production, all we need are coils. Our machines, including mobile prefabricated metal systems factories, are already in place. Currently, we have them in Barrie, Ontario, where they are stored in our yard. We may move a few mobile factories to Ukraine. If demand increases, we can purchase additional machines to scale up production.
We are analyzing the global market for galvanized coils. We have previously sourced them from Canada’s local market, but we will now compare prices from Canada, Turkey, Egypt, and India and choose the most feasible option.
Jacobsen: What about local zoning laws and building permits in Ukraine? Does the war affect these processes, or are they expedited?
Tomar: We have not encountered any issues so far. The Ukrainian authorities handle the planning and approval processes, and everything has proceeded smoothly within their established framework.
I do not foresee any issues because, on my previous visit, I have a four-hour meeting with the Director of the Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture and the Head of the Veteran Institute, Artem. If any issues arise, we will get their assistance. Therefore, I do not anticipate any problems regarding zoning.
What about integrating subcontractors and suppliers to streamline the supply chain, ensuring a seamless process from sourcing materials to manufacturing and construction?
We are currently in the pricing phase for the projects we are securing. As a general contractor or through joint ventures, we are committed to using our manufactured products. We have not subcontracted our materials to third-party builders or undertaken projects for them. At present, our priority is to manage construction for ourselves.
However, if a construction company from Finland, Switzerland or Denmark is interested in collaborating with us, we are open to it. We welcome partnerships with any reliable company, regardless of their country of origin. However, we must conduct due diligence and thoroughly vet their credibility. We have no objections to working with other builders and general contractors.
Regarding the tariffs you mentioned, we will rapidly revise our free trade agreements. Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business, and Economic Development Mary Ng works diligently. What types of free trade agreements would be most beneficial for your test projects? Whether the 25% tariff takes effect tomorrow or not, it is crucial to consider its impact on the Canadian economy and trade policy.
We are currently reshaping and diversifying our economy, and Minister Ng has been working extensively over the past few months. Similarly, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly has been actively signing new free trade agreements with as many countries as possible. If I recall correctly, Canada now has free trade agreements with over 50 countries, covering approximately two-thirds of the global GDP.
These agreements strengthen Canadian businesses because, as a multicultural nation, we have vast global connections. Many communities in Canada have ties to their countries of origin, enabling the creation of new import and export relationships. This is precisely what we have done with Turkey. Currently, our primary focus is Ukraine. Other Canadian construction firms or businesses may establish trade relations with their respective ancestral homelands. This approach will help mitigate the impact of the 25% tariff in Canada. Any negative effects will be short-term; in the long run, we will recover and reshape our economy sustainably and resiliently. That is my belief.
Jacobsen: What financial and legal guarantees do Canadian companies require to secure land leases or property reconstruction projects in Ukraine? How does the bilateral or binational aspect of this arrangement function?
Tomar: We have not encountered such issues because our company has operated for 53 years. We have a proven track record of completing projects in Canada and Turkey. Our financial stability and credibility are well established, as demonstrated by the six subdivisions we are developing in Canada. We are neither a new company in Canada nor Turkey. Our strength comes from our history and the projects we have completed over time.
We have built airports, hospitals, schools, women’s shelters, shopping malls, and numerous high-rise buildings in Canada and Turkey. We have no difficulty securing projects because of our extensive experience and financial stability. Additionally, we do not seek bank loans. Our primary objective is to obtain government contracts in Ukraine or develop our projects within the country.
Jacobsen: Aside from Minister Mary Ng or Minister Mélanie Joly signing new contracts and looking for alternative trade agreements to bypass the 25% tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in the United States, what about emerging trade agreements or economic partnerships between Canada and Ukraine? Are there any new contracts or deals that could accelerate investment in infrastructure projects, such as those led by EBS Global in Ukraine? If we set aside the tariffs and the efforts by Ministers Ng and Joly to mitigate them, what about emerging economic partnerships or trade agreements with Ukraine or neighbouring countries? Are there any agreements that could benefit EBS Global, Canada, and Turkey directly by accelerating investment and expediting reconstruction projects?
Tomar: All these initiatives started before Trump was re-elected. We had already begun the process. To accelerate our work, the Canadian government could make Export Development Canada (EDC) and other financial entities more useful by allocating more resources to assist Canadian companies facing funding challenges or other issues.
Another solution is to restructure how aid is distributed. Funds could be channelled through Canadian companies instead of directly providing financial assistance to Ukrainian ministries. That could be a more effective approach.
For example, if the military requires modular housing or other infrastructure, rather than distributing aid directly, it could allocate those funds to Canadian companies—including us or any other Canadian firms interested in working in Ukraine. There are many competitors in this space. If a company like Aecon wanted to construct a major hydroelectric dam, aid funds could be allocated to them as part of the support package. Similarly, they could collaborate with us if the military needs geodesic domes or modular housing.
That approach would accelerate reconstruction efforts while ensuring Canadian taxpayers see a return on investment through the aid provided.
Jacobsen: Are there unique taxation structures or investment incentives associated with these projects, particularly when registering and operating in another country while maintaining a bilateral business model?
Tomar: I don’t have much information on that. It’s not within my scope. That falls under a different department within our company, and I am not directly involved. My role is as Vice President of Business Development, but I do not handle taxation matters. I am not familiar with the specific details of how that works.
Jacobsen: To give people an idea of the scale of the construction industry, it is a massive business. In British Columbia, where I am located, long-standing Italian Roman Catholic families—such as the Bosas—own some of the largest construction firms in Downtown Vancouver.
In terms of context regarding EBS Global, your company has been around for two years. When you say you will reconstruct Bakhmut, how much money should people consider when considering the cost of rebuilding an entire city?
Tomar: To clarify, we are in a preliminary agreement to reconstruct a town named “Steel Bakhmut” in a different region. It has a population of approximately 3,500 people. The budget for this project is estimated at over 100 million USD.
So that’s one project, and we are also working on other projects. We are budgeting for additional projects, and that is where we currently stand. Right now, 13% of Ukrainian housing has been damaged due to the war, in addition to the aged properties that need to be rebuilt. If a ceasefire takes effect, displaced Ukrainians will return, increasing demand. The housing demand in Ukraine is enormous.
It is a massive undertaking—far greater than the housing crisis in Canada. Ukraine needs to rebuild its homes, hospitals, and schools. The total estimated cost for rebuilding Ukraine is approximately $500 billion. Still, I am unsure what percentage is allocated specifically for housing. However, it is certainly a significant portion.
Given that many builders in Ontario and British Columbia are struggling due to the housing market slowdown and declining buyer confidence, the Canadian government might consider studying the potential for redirecting them to projects in Ukraine. I do not know if that would be feasible, but it is worth analyzing.
Jacobsen: One topic we briefly touched on in our last interview, around the time of the Rebuild Ukraine conference in Toronto, was the integration of automation with human labour. Machines, if well-maintained, can operate 24/7. At the same time, under labour protection laws, human workers typically work 40-hour weeks with eight-hour shifts over five days. Any additional work requires overtime pay.
Are there incentive structures to encourage workers to take on longer hours? Additionally, how much automation is being implemented to accelerate production speed? If you compare a typical building timeline to an accelerated construction model, what kind of time reduction are we looking at?
Tomar: Accelerating construction is based on off-site construction, which involves integrating automation. We have been building the same way for over a hundred years. Still, companies in the U.S. and Canada are adopting new technologies that will save millions of work hours and significantly reduce costs, leading to faster housing development.
Our system produces non-combustible, earthquake-resistant houses. I do not have an exact figure for how much time this process will save. Still, we can significantly speed up production by implementing three shifts that run 24 hours a day and employing Ukrainian veterans who primarily oversee machine operations.
Highly skilled labour is not required for these roles, contributing to faster, more affordable, and attainable housing solutions. That is the direction we are moving toward.
Jacobsen: If someone is interested in getting into your line of work, especially given the increasing demand, what qualities are necessary? Additionally, what skills, while not essential, would be beneficial for building partnerships, driving business development, and advancing in this industry?
Tomar: Partnering with local companies is always beneficial, and that is what we are prioritizing now. Previously, we were mostly focused on handling projects independently. Still, we have been meeting with and negotiating partnerships with local companies over the last few days. They bring valuable expertise, and collaboration will accelerate reconstruction efforts.
They might specialize in one area, while we have our strength in automation and building higher-quality housing. Regarding workforce qualifications, workers in our manufacturing process do not need to be highly skilled. However, we require skilled workers for on-site assembly, though not in large numbers. We have those resources and the necessary workforce.
In traditional construction methods, you typically need five to ten times more workers than we do. Building the same house on-site using conventional methods would take significantly longer and require more workforce.
Jacobsen: What areas do you see need further efficiency improvements? What would be the next step at the cutting edge of construction technology?
Tomar: That could involve AI. We have not implemented AI extensively but are currently exploring its potential. We are researching AI applications in different countries and evaluating how to integrate them into our processes.
AI could optimize material usage, workforce efficiency, and assembly methods, making construction even faster and more cost-effective. Another possibility is further advancing off-site customized home assembly rather than traditional on-site construction. However, given current transportation, logistics, and highway infrastructure limitations, this is not yet a feasible solution, but we are studying it.
Jacobsen: Let’s give a contrast effect for perception. You have experience in Turkey, Canada, and Ukraine. How do each country’s cultural and business environments help or hinder construction, efficiency, materials, and processes? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Tomar: Every country has its pros and cons.
Once we secure a project in Canada, the approval process takes a long time. Zoning, permitting, and regulatory approvals can take years before construction begins. For example, we tendered a hospital this year, and even though there is a commitment to start soon, it could still take years before actual construction begins.
The process in Turkey moves much faster, but you must be more cautious about business practices. The system is not as transparent, so you must be careful in negotiations and contracts.
Ukraine presents similar challenges. That is why we work closely with Canadian embassies when operating abroad. We consult them and seek advice from international consulting firms before making major business decisions.
Jacobsen: Do you think that if Canada or Turkey were in a wartime scenario, they would respond in the same way as Ukrainians—beginning reconstruction efforts immediately and continuing them even during active bombings?
Tomar: I don’t believe so. But I deeply admire Ukrainians. They are incredibly brave and composed. Everyone remains focused on living their daily lives without significant change, even though they experience drone and missile alerts every day. It amazes me.
I am truly impressed with how they continue rebuilding. It is admirable. I admire their resilience and their way of life. It is inspiring.
Jacobsen: When you considered expanding your business, developing partnerships, and growing your construction efforts, you could have done more in Turkey or Canada. What made Ukraine the natural choice for your expansion, particularly since, during wartime, much of your work has been pre-construction?
Tomar: Why did we choose Ukraine? That’s a good question.
First, there is an obvious need. There is a pragmatic aspect to it—Ukraine requires extensive reconstruction. But beyond that, there is a moral dimension. We see the need, and we want to help.
There is also an emotional connection. We want to contribute to our Ukrainian friends. Over the past ten years, I have developed strong relationships with my Ukrainian colleagues through my involvement with FIABCI, the International Real Estate Federation affiliated with the United Nations. These connections were a major factor in our decision.
When we visited Ukraine and saw the situation firsthand, we knew we had made the right choice to expand here.
Jacobsen: In the modern era, we are experiencing unprecedented international networking. Over the last eighty years, particularly since World War II, global interconnectedness has grown exponentially—not only through trade and the passage of traditional ideas such as religion but also through the rapid exchange of new ideas, information technology, communications, culture, media, and entertainment.
Institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and other international bodies help govern this interconnected world. Regardless of their bureaucratic challenges, how important do you think these international institutions will be in the future? As the world becomes more interconnected, will these organizations be essential in enforcing universal rules and preventing crises like the Russo-Ukrainian War?
Tomar: To me, networking is everything.
These international organizations are crucial because they allow us to stay informed about what is happening on the other side of the world. The way we operate today is completely different from the past. In the old days, businesses were restricted to their cities or countries. We have discovered that we can do the same or even better work in different countries.
Even though our company has been based in Ontario for over fifty years, it was only nine years ago that we decided to expand internationally. We have been successful because, in many ways, moving a construction company from Ontario to British Columbia is no different than expanding from Ontario to Turkey or Ukraine.
There are often better opportunities abroad, and businesses must be open to them. However, no matter where you go, you must thoroughly study local business practices and adapt accordingly.
Tomar: You have to adapt to local business habits, labour laws, and regulations—that is what we have been doing. I would recommend that other companies do the same. Instead of struggling in Ontario, they can expand abroad. This applies not only to construction companies but to other industries as well.
Jacobsen: I have recently interviewed business leaders, economists, and international law experts about tariffs, non-consensus decision-making, and the increasingly unilateral, winner-takes-all approach to business and international law. This trend is problematic because it disrupts the free flow of goods and services. Are tariffs a wise strategy in the short or long term? And do you believe they will remain in place for the long term?
Tomar: Tariffs are a short-term measure. They will not last long because they harm both economies. In the short term, particularly in a political context, Trump and others may use them to appeal to their base. Still, they will not be sustainable in the long run.
This is exactly why organizations like the European Union and trade agreements like NAFTA were created—the world needs free trade agreements. Without them, tariffs will make goods more expensive on both the U.S. and Canadian sides.
During the Cold War, we were united against the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Today, we face another major geopolitical force—China and its allies. Suppose North America and Europe do not eliminate these tariffs and work together. In that case, China will continue expanding its influence, particularly in Africa and other regions.
Tariffs raise prices significantly. Whether it is the automobile sector or construction, we can expect prices to rise by 3–7%, which fuels inflation that we cannot afford. That is why I do not see tariffs as a viable long-term strategy.
Trump and J.D. Vance are implementing these tariffs to appeal to their voters in the short term—that is all. That is my belief.
Jacobsen: Since 2021, China has reached its peak population. There are well-known cases of over-construction in China, which—though often criticized—can be somewhat understandable given the sheer scale of urbanization. Large-scale construction is inevitable when over a billion people are trying to transition hundreds of millions from rural areas to cities.
Tomar: Especially in an authoritarian system where a single leader makes all the decisions, it is much easier to mobilize populations and execute massive infrastructure projects. Whether it is Putin’s Russia, China, or North Korea, bureaucratic resistance is minimal. When the leader makes a decision, it is implemented immediately—you do not need to seek public consent or navigate democratic approval processes.
Jacobsen: That is correct. Many years ago, Russia reached its peak population. It is projected to lose tens of millions of people by mid-century, with even greater declines by the end of the century.
There seems to be a pattern in authoritarian regimes with nine—or ten-figure populations led by aging leaders (70+ years old). These governments often become sclerotic and resistant to change, and their populations lose the dynamism seen in more open societies.
What happens when a country’s population shrinks? China has been experiencing population decline for four years, while Russia has dealt with it for much longer. What happens to the construction industry when populations decline rapidly—when a country reaches its peak population, but the rate of decline accelerates each year?
Tomar: Population shrinkage used to be a major concern. It was considered a serious issue five, ten, or twenty years ago. However, with the advancements in AI and robotics—which we have been discussing for two decades but are now actively adopting—the demand for a large workforce is decreasing daily.
That is why I do not foresee population shrinkage as a problem. I do not see an issue because robots and AI will replace the need for human labour in many areas.
On the other hand, China is not Russia. Neither country is stagnant, but China, unlike Russia, continuously expands. The U.S. did the same 60–70 years ago with the Marshall Plan, spreading its economic influence globally. Today, China follows a similar pattern, expanding its economy every five years and consistently exceeding expectations. Their presence in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond continues to grow.
China will not face a major crisis due to population decline. The real issue is that Western countries must recognize this trend and eliminate tariffs. We must move beyond the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to form a stronger economic alliance. If we do not, we risk losing ground to China’s expanding influence.
Jacobsen: Given that outlook, where do you see the future of construction? Specifically, with robots performing essential tasks—from sourcing and fabricating materials to assembling entire buildings—how do you envision their role in the industry?
Tomar: Any repetitive work—regardless of industry—can be replaced by robots.
It does not matter whether the worker is a cashier, a handyman, a carpenter, or a steelworker. If the task is repetitive, it can be automated. The same applies to construction. If a worker does the same tasks every morning, those tasks can be automated with AI and robotics.
We have been discussing this for 30 to 40 years, but our technology is far beyond what we previously had. This is a transformational era in history. The pandemic accelerated our adoption of technology. We had to adapt quickly, and now we rapidly shift toward automation.
Jacobsen: What does this mean for materials development? Do you think AI will be used to design advanced construction materials that are cheaper, more durable, and more fire-resistant than we have today?
Tomar: Absolutely.
Our judgment can be flawed as humans, but AI makes fewer mistakes. When robots and AI are combined, the efficiency of building, assembling, and innovating increases dramatically.
Humans get tired, make mistakes, and have misleading judgments. Even in traffic, we cause millions of accidents every year. However, with AI-driven traffic management, accidents will become increasingly rare.
In five to ten years, having a car accident will be an anomaly—it will make the news because it will be so unusual. AI-powered vehicles do not drive with two eyes; they process the environment using 200 sensors, making them 200 times more perceptive than a human driver.
The same applies to construction. A carpenter has two hands and two eyes, but a robotic system can be designed with ten hands and ten eyes, making it five times more efficient.
We already have the technology—it is just a matter of adoption. How we think about construction, labour, and efficiency is still based on the limitations of human anatomy (two arms, two eyes). Once we fully integrate AI and robotics, those limitations will disappear, and construction will be faster, safer, and more cost-effective.
Now, we are going beyond what we traditionally know. Even when designing robots, we often model them after human capabilities, but we do not need to.
There is no reason we must limit robots to two eyes or two arms. We could design a single robot with 200 sensors or 10 arms, making it exponentially more efficient at constructing a house. With just four or five advanced robots, entire buildings could be assembled. The technology exists, and this is the future.
Jacobsen: Where do you see this industry expanding regarding human capital? What sectors will grow? Construction, business development, technology development—where will the focus be?
Tomar: As Canadians, we are conservative when adopting new technology—especially compared to Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. I have been to many countries, and I have seen this firsthand.
When new technologies emerge—AI, the metaverse, or automation—Canadian companies often develop the software. However, other countries purchase and implement it first. In Canada, construction and automotive manufacturing industries tend to stick with traditional methods until these technologies are adopted elsewhere. Then, and only then, do we integrate them. That is the difference.
Jacobsen: Given that shift, what role do you see for human workers in your industry?
Tomar: We must shift human labour toward software development and quality control.
Instead of working in physically demanding, high-risk environments, such as construction sites in extreme weather or driving long-haul trucks from Toronto to Miami, workers should transition to software engineering, automation control, and system monitoring.
That is where the new jobs will be created—software development, AI integration, and quality assurance.
Jacobsen: After the upcoming Canadian federal election, what should the next political leader and cabinet prioritize regarding construction partnerships—particularly with President Erdoğan in Turkey and President Zelensky in Ukraine? Or, more broadly, with the ministers responsible for these economic sectors?
Tomar: In three weeks, we will have a clearer picture.
Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre will likely compete in the election in three months. Right now, Poilievre appears to be leading. Whoever forms a government and appoints a new cabinet in May or June must rebuild the public sector.
Many experienced bureaucrats have retired or left Canada, which has weakened policy development. We need to rehire skilled policymakers and bring in stronger leadership than before.
Additionally, new ministers must focus on diversifying Canada’s economy by expanding global trade and strengthening relationships with Ukraine, European nations, and African markets. I would like to see that.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Seyfi, thank you for your time today. I appreciate the updates and the deeper, exploratory questions—which I tend to ask.
Tomar: No, it is all good. Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: We will be in touch.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04
Leah Notarianni is a transformational speaker, business mentor, and Co-Founder and CEO of Legacy & Leverage. She empowers leaders to align business strategies with personal values, driving sustainable success. Leah’s clients include Global organizations, c-suite executives, industry leading CEO’s and wellness experts. Her programs blend cutting-edge strategy with mindset work, redefining leadership to prioritize impact and alignment. Specializing in scaling purposefully and building lasting legacies, Leah inspires transformative leadership and innovation across industries. She advises against burnout, instead advocating sustainable success through daily habits that balance work, health, and relationships. She highlights the importance of aligning business goals with personal values, understanding the seasons of growth, and pursuing intentional, meaningful actions. She helps clients scale businesses by addressing challenges holistically and aligning with their desired lifestyles and priorities. Her insights inspire reflection on balancing ambition with personal fulfillment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Leah Notarianni. She is a speaker, business mentor, co-founder and CEO of Legacy and Leverage. She specializes in guiding entrepreneurs to align their values with business strategies. She offers mentorship programs, live events, and retreats through Legacy and Leverage. These programs are designed for industry leaders, coaches, and speakers to help them effectively scale their businesses. Regarding how you approach the development of programs for industry leaders, coaches, and speakers, there is a highly specialized group of business and entrepreneurial individuals. How do you approach conveying your lessons to them?
Notarianni: We work with a variety of entrepreneurs, including people who are also speakers and coaches like ourselves. However, we also work across various industries. The lane we truly focus on is transformation.
I operate at the intersection of mindset, strategy, and healing. When building a business and examining the mindset of its leaders, it becomes clear that internal transformation is essential for external success. Of course, there are specific strategies for building a speaking business, consultancy agency, or company.
We also encounter CEOs in different sectors who often feel stuck. Their mindset and what they bring significantly influence how they lead, show up, grow their business, and choose to grow it. This dynamic creates both challenges and opportunities.
Our role is to design transformational experiences that help individuals see themselves clearly, enabling them to reach their next potential level.
Jacobsen: What challenges do high achievers face when scaling their companies? For instance, I was listening to a business leader. They pointed out that as businesses scale up, the skill sets needed at each stage expand, evolve, and change.
Notarianni: Absolutely. The person who builds a million-dollar business is very different from the person you need to become to run a ten-million- or hundred-million-dollar business. How you operate changes and approach challenges changes, and your mindset and personal growth evolve along the way.
Everything changes, both externally and internally. While there are fundamental principles in how businesses operate, growth strategies must evolve. Your skill sets, emotional intelligence, and capacity to manage greater responsibilities must also increase because the challenges are different at each level.
Jacobsen: How do you define sustainable success?
Notarianni: Sustainable success is when someone is truly living in alignment with the value they want to provide to the world. It’s about living in alignment with their integrity, who they are, and how they appear. Sustained success is different because it comes from a more integrative space. It’s not about running at full speed, doing everything you can until the point of burnout, and then crashing.
Instead, it’s about caring for your mind, body, and mental health. You must address these things along the way because sustainable success isn’t just about getting somewhere; it’s about staying there. To sustain success, you must have reverence for creating space that’s just for you, both within and outside your business.
It is crucial to ensure that your values are aligned, spend time with family, and prevent one difficult season from turning into years of hardship. Growth can be demanding, but you must take space for yourself and build practices and systems to support you in the short and long term.
Jacobsen: Different people have different values. Clients can bring very diverse personal values to their businesses. How do you help people align their values, as varied as they may be, with their business strategies?
Notarianni: We design and support someone in their business by looking at it holistically. Many people focus solely on the growth and scaling of a company, which is great, and plenty of people, including us, do that well. However, we go beyond that by looking at the person’s life.
Business is just one part of life. If someone’s home life is out of alignment or filled with challenges, they might think it’s unrelated to their business, but that’s not true—it impacts their work. So, when we work with someone, we take a comprehensive approach. We don’t just look at them as businesspersons but as whole individuals.
We examine their health, spirituality, relationships, finances, connections, family, and life overall. For us, success comes from addressing a person’s wholeness so that they can thrive at work and in every aspect of life.
Jacobsen: Terms like “resilience,” “self-actualization,” and “growth’ are often used in business. These ideas can mean different things depending on the type of business—for instance, restaurants in my resort town experience seasonal ebbs and flows. There’s a rush during late spring to early fall, followed by a slow period where businesses either shut down completely or operate at a reduced capacity, often laying off staff to manage overhead.
How do you coach people to build resilience appropriate to their specific business and the seasonality of their operations?
Notarianni: I love what you shared there, Scott because certain business structures have an ebb and flow. How can you innovate within the current industry model? How do you cross-pollinate strategies from other industries to create new revenue streams and provide value in ways that others haven’t thought of?
Too often, people stay in a self-limiting box, doing only what they think they need to do. There’s a significant opportunity to think outside the box and add value in different industries or places. We can innovate and find creative approaches to solve problems and stand out.
That’s one part of it. The second part is that every business has its seasons. Whether you’re in a build phase, a growth phase, or a scaling phase, each stage requires something different from you. Having a clear start and endpoint for each season is crucial—not just for the business but for you as a person. Whether you’re a parent, spouse, or someone with responsibilities outside of work, it’s easier to manage the process when you know you’re working toward a specific goal within a set timeframe.
Understanding that you’re in a particular season and the next season will bring its rewards helps you stay focused and balanced.
Jacobsen: Do you find that people’s choice of business or entrepreneurship tends to align with their personality style?
Notarianni: Absolutely. It’s critical to understand your lifestyle goals. Earlier, you asked how I coach entrepreneurs. I always start with the person as a whole. You can have an incredible leader—someone who loves working 50, 60, 70, or even 80 hours a week—and they thrive in that environment.
On the other hand, you might have someone very different. They might say, “I’m great owning this business at this level of profitability, but I have clear constraints: I need to finish work by 4 PM, I don’t work weekends, and I’m unwilling to travel.”
People can and should design their businesses to fit their lifestyles, values, and how they want to present themselves in the world. It’s entirely possible to build a business that aligns with the life you want rather than chasing an outcome that doesn’t suit your needs or values.
Jacobsen: People often lose stamina as they age. This could be due to normal aging or lifestyle habits like diet and exercise.
For individuals who want to keep working 60- or 80-hour weeks but find themselves losing energy—falling asleep during the day or hitting a slump around 1 PM—how do you guide them? How do you nudge them to consider other factors affecting their capacity to perform at their best throughout the day?
They can have their values, goals, and a business structure that aligns with their personality and boundaries. But what about the intrinsic factors that could be modified, even as stamina naturally declines with age?
Notarianni: That’s such an important question. First, it’s about helping people understand the connection between their energy levels and daily habits. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, and even hydration can significantly affect how someone sustains energy throughout the day.
I often encourage those who want to maintain high productivity to optimize their physical and mental health. Simple adjustments—such as incorporating movement breaks, prioritizing high-quality sleep, or shifting to nutrient-dense meals—can make a big difference.
It’s also about self-awareness. Helping people recognize when they’re overexerting themselves or ignoring their body’s signals can prevent burnout. Suppose they’re falling asleep in the middle of the day or losing focus. In that case, it’s worth exploring whether they need to delegate more, adjust their schedule, or take better care of themselves physically.
Lastly, reminding people that sustainable success involves pacing themselves is crucial. Even with age-related changes, it’s possible to remain highly effective by aligning one’s work style with one’s capacity and making proactive choices to enhance one’s stamina and overall well-being.
I wouldn’t connect those two ideas directly. But I often work with people who are overworked and exhausted yet don’t know how to step off the hamster wheel. That’s when I step into the lane of healing and ask deeper questions like: What are you running from?
Sometimes, people run so fast toward something they aren’t even happy with. They’re overworked, their health is suffering, their family relationships are strained—perhaps even on the verge of separation. They need to take a step back and examine all the pieces. Why are they taking action the way they are? What’s driving them?
What’s available to them beyond this constant striving? People can work as long and hard as they want, but if they aren’t taking care of themselves, there’s likely an underlying issue. I always ask my clients to reflect on their intrinsic motivation: Does it come from needing to prove or achieve something?
This work is deep and meaningful because it allows people to shift from working 80 hours a week to a more sustainable and intentional pace. By doing this, they often create far more leverage and results. They stop working just for the sake of working and instead allow themselves the space to breathe, gain insights, and make meaningful changes in their business and life.
Jacobsen: What is the most significant challenge in your business and entrepreneurial development?
Notarianni: There have been many challenges throughout my journey. As an entrepreneur, a mother of three, and someone who started as a single parent with two kids, I’ve had to play every role—whether at home, in my company, with my team, or with my clients. I’ve had to wear many hats and fill many roles, which has always been challenging.
Looking back over the past decade, that challenge has not completely disappeared. However, I’ve found new ways to innovate and manage my energy, connecting it to my priorities while staying mindful of the seasons in my life, my children’s lives, and my business.
For example, I’ve taken a different approach to growing and scaling my company. I’ve intentionally chosen not to pursue certain things as aggressively during specific periods, like when my daughter was in her first 18 months or during her early childhood. I’ve designed a business model that allowed me to spend far more time with my children, especially when they were young.
This has always been a challenge, but it’s also been my greatest opportunity. It has inspired me to create innovative business models I haven’t seen elsewhere. I’m grateful for how this experience has allowed me to grow as a human being overall.
Jacobsen: When people want to scale—say they’ve built a business that generates half a million or a million dollars and is looking to grow it to $10 million—it’s an uncommon leap. Many fail, and I’m sure quite a few declare bankruptcy. What do you notice, not as a hard and fast rule but as a heuristic, to guide people during such business expansions? What should they avoid, and what should they focus on?
Notarianni: When looking at a business, it’s not always about growing the top line. You can have a $10 million company making a million dollars a month but only keeping $100K. On the other hand, you can have a company making $120K a month but keeping $100K.
Many people get stuck here, focused solely on top-line revenue, building a massive team, and scaling a big business. Sometimes, I step in and ask, “But for what? What are you trying to create? Do you know what the outcome is?”
What kind of lifestyle do you want? What do you want to keep? What are you going to net versus gross? Many people don’t consider these questions when scaling their businesses. It’s important to check whether their need for significance or validation drives their growth.
That said, there are incredible benefits to growing a $10 million company—supporting a team, building a healthy and efficient operation, and making a meaningful impact globally. There’s value and health in that.
I’ve seen both sides of it. I’ve coached $100 million, $1 million, and $100K companies and witnessed their growth over time. Ultimately, it depends on where someone is, where they want to go, and how they want to get there. There are many ways to reach a goal, but ensuring that the path aligns with the person’s wants is key.
Jacobsen: Do you see many cases where people want a big business to have a big business?
Notarianni: Absolutely—a thousand percent. Many of the people who come to us are at a breaking point. They’ll say, “Everything’s broken. I don’t know what to do.”
Usually, two types of people come to us: one who has done everything but isn’t happy and genuinely wants to grow, and the other who wants to grow to build a massive company.
Once, I was in a room with a mentor who had eight or ten eight-figure companies. I asked him about his strategies—how he scaled and grew different verticals across his businesses. He said, “Leah, I make more money in this room than maybe you do, but people would trade to have your life.”
That moment hit me. I looked at my husband and said, “Maybe we need to evaluate what we’re doing well, why we want to grow, and what that growth could look like. Should we stretch our timeline, scale back, or focus on consistency in different areas? Or is this just a different season of life?”
That conversation was meaningful, and I often shared it with others. It’s critical to take inventory and ask yourself if you’re enjoying the life you’ve built.
I’ve worked with people making $100 million who struggle to carve out time for a simple walk, take their family on vacation, or even spend meaningful time with loved ones. I hope everyone reading this takes a moment to evaluate their life. Ensure you’re truly enjoying the life you’ve built, and prioritize what matters most to you.
Jacobsen: Despite the value of persistence and grit, what are some dangerous myths that pervade the mentorship, speaker series, business classes, and entrepreneurial landscape that people should avoid? What are things that sound good but don’t work in the long term?
Notarianni: You should not burn yourself out for long periods. Learning to live an intentionally healthy life is crucial. There’s a lot of noise out there—different advice from different people—and much of it can be misleading.
For example, some encourage you to work a million hours a week, pushing the “hustle at all costs” mentality. Then, some people believe in manifesting everything without taking meaningful action.
The truth is, there’s a middle ground. Having a clear vision of who you are, what you value, and your purpose. Deep inner work is essential, but equally important is taking action.
If you start from scratch, the energy and focus required to move forward will be intense for some time. Growth takes time, deliberate effort, and significant change. Unfortunately, many don’t paint an honest picture of the entrepreneurial journey.
As a mother and someone who’s gone from nothing to where I am now, I can tell you—it’s not glamorous. People often see the “after”—the beautiful office, the beach houses, the ideal family—but they don’t see the losses, challenges, and sacrifices along the way. Even when people share their struggles, others don’t realize how significant those losses can be.
It’s also important to remember that not everything happens in a year, as you might see on Instagram. And that’s okay. It doesn’t mean you’ve failed. It just means you’re growing, and things will come in the right time and season they’re meant to.
Jacobsen: Leah, thank you for today’s time and this opportunity. I appreciate it.
Notarianni: Awesome. Thank you so much, Scott.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Scott Hamm Duenas is an American actor and producer based in Southern California. He co-wrote, starred in, and produced the award-winning film ReBroken. With over 15 years in SAG-AFTRA, his career includes roles on Bold and the Beautiful. A martial artist, he integrates physicality into his performances and filmmaking.
Chris Hite is a filmmaker, screenwriter, animator, and film historian specializing in European cinema. His research on Italian film history appears in TransAtlantic Visions (2023), and he has presented at major academic conferences. His films have screened at over 80 international festivals, and his documentary FireStorm ’77 won “Best U.S. Documentary” at the Big Bear Film Summit.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you see your artistic identity evolving over the decades? Was David Lynch an influence on this?
Scott Hamm Duenas: David Lynch’s work is known to be unconventional. His ability to mix the plain with the bizarre has encouraged me to take chances, especially when I’m auditioning for roles. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, but I never have any regrets afterward if I know I’ve made a bold choice.
Jacobsen: How has Lynch’s legacy influenced your artistic or philosophical approach to storytelling?
Duenas: Lynch’s work has always inspired me to trust my instincts and embrace the unknown. If you’re scared to take a chance or make a strong choice, how will you ever know how good you can really be?
Jacobsen: What did David Lynch mean to artists, producers, and directors in the Hollywood landscape who followed his work?
Duenas: To many artists, David Lynch represents creativity and thinking outside the box. His willingness to go against conventional storytelling and create unique films has no doubt inspired others. People love that Lynch will take risks and not compromise his artistic integrity just for commercial success.
Jacobsen: What is your favorite Lynch quote?
Duenas: My favorite David Lynch quote is: “Ideas are like fish. If you want to catch little fish, you can stay in the shallow water. But if you want to catch the big fish, you’ve got to go deeper.” I love this quote because it’s so true for me when it comes to anything in life. Certainly in the entertainment business, but I also apply it to my family, fitness, and martial arts journey all the time. It serves as a reminder to be persistent in your pursuits, but make sure you challenge yourself because it’s the only way you will get better.
Jacobsen: What was Lynch’s overall influence?
Hite: David Lynch’s influence on the artistic community is legendary.
Pioneers like Lynch, Stan Brakhage, Luis Buñuel and more were considered avant-garde and experimental during their time, but their explorations have since been co-opted into mainstream filmmaking, and more so, marketing strategies as an extension of style.
Lynch, perhaps more than any modern filmmaker, challenged Hollywood dogma and proved that a film can have commercial appeal, name actors, and still delve into the realms of surrealism.
The Hollywood mentality, at least from the executives’ perspective, was very narrowly defined through most of the 20th century. They only considered film a business and felt that overly artistic approaches would alienate audience members. Filmmakers like Lynch made them uncomfortable by foregrounding the artistry of the medium but proved that audiences enjoy boundary pushing approaches.
As a commercial director, Lynch’s year 2000 Play Station ad demonstrated that product shots were dispensable and that a unusual narrative with a defined mood and tone was just as valuable in creating interest and demand.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03
Prof. Paul Robbins is a renowned biochemistry, molecular biology, and biophysics professor at the University of Minnesota. He is Associate Director of the Institute on the Biology of Aging and Metabolism (iBAM). He is a leading researcher in aging science, pioneering gene therapies for autoimmune diseases and developing chemotherapeutics, including senolytics and senomorphic, to target senescent cells. With a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley and postdoctoral training at MIT’s Whitehead Institute, Dr. Robbins has held prominent roles at Scripps Research and the University of Pittsburgh. His groundbreaking work advances healthspan and lifespan science, aiming to improve aging-related health worldwide. Robbins discusses chemotherapeutics, targeting senescent cells, and advancing healthspan and lifespan science. He explains how senolytics kill harmful senescent cells while senomorphics suppress their damaging effects. Highlighting the importance of immune function, Robbins notes that improving immune health can help clear senescent cells and enhance resilience to aging-related diseases. He emphasizes the need for rigorous, well-controlled clinical trials to validate treatments for slowing aging, such as senolytics and NAD precursors. Robbins remains optimistic about the field’s progress, predicting a future of combination therapies addressing various hallmarks of aging for healthier, longer lives.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Paul Robbins, a professor of biochemistry, molecular biology, and biophysics. He also serves as the Associate Director of the Institute on the Biology of Aging and Metabolism (iBAM) at the University of Minnesota. His work has advanced healthspan and lifespan science globally. What inspired the transition from studying gene regulation and transcriptional enhancers to senescence and longevity research?
Prof. Paul Robbins: Right. I started at the University of Pittsburgh in the gene therapy field, where I ran a gene therapy core facility. We developed viral vectors for various investigators on campus, working on approaches to treat numerous diseases. As I collaborated with these researchers, I realized that the same molecular pathways and targets were implicated across multiple diseases. The same things going wrong in one disease were going wrong in others.
I quickly embraced the concept of geroscience: the idea that aging is the greatest risk factor for disease and involves common pathways linked to various conditions. By developing ways to target aging, I could reduce the risk, mitigate the severity, or even prevent the onset of many age-related diseases. This realization led to a transition from focusing on treating individual diseases to addressing the root cause of many—aging itself. Whether it’s cancer, osteoarthritis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or muscle wasting, the biggest risk factor is the aging process itself.
Jacobsen: How do chemotherapeutic compounds reduce senescent cell burdens, and what are the mechanisms involved?
Robbins: There are now two types of chemotherapeutics, and we coined terms for these categories. First, there are drugs called senolytics, which preferentially kill senescent cells. Second, there are compounds called senomorphic, which suppress the adverse effects of senescent cells.
Cellular senescence is a cell fate that evolved in mammals and other vertebrates. It primarily acts as a cancer prevention mechanism. When cells are damaged or at risk of acquiring mutations that could lead to cancer, they activate pathways that induce senescence. This halts their proliferation and prompts them to release inflammatory factors that signal the immune system to clear them. A healthy individual’s immune system likely clears these senescent cells daily. A young, healthy immune system efficiently removes thousands of these cells regularly.
Since senescence is an anticancer mechanism, many cleared cells exhibit changes that could make them pre-tumorigenic or precancerous. Interestingly, many senolytics that target senescent cells also target pathways active in tumour cells. These pathways are upregulated in senescent cells because they are precancerous. Essentially, senolytics target similar pathways to those addressed by anticancer drugs.
Conversely, senomorphic targets the factors released by senescent cells, which are responsible for the adverse effects of these cells on surrounding tissues. These compounds can suppress senescent cells’ inflammatory and damaging signals without necessarily killing them.
They’ll target activated pathways leading to this inflammatory response. Many of them are anti-inflammatory, suppressing the chronic inflammation caused by the increase in the senescent cell burden with age, as the immune system does not clear these cells as effectively. So, senomorphic drugs are, in most cases, suppressing inflammatory factors. Senolytics target the same pathways that anticancer drugs target.
Jacobsen: Side question. Does this mean one could chart, across age, two lines of best fit? One from 0 to, let’s say, 80—a decrease in healing factors and an increase in inflammatory response over time. Is that generally the picture?
Robbins: That’s the hypothesis. I didn’t mention earlier that there is evidence for “good” senescence. For example, in wound healing, there’s evidence that senescent cells transiently accumulate at damage sites. These cells release beneficial factors, such as growth factors, that promote healing, especially in the skin. However, this likely applies to other tissues as well. Then, these senescent cells are cleared, presumably by the immune system or possibly other mechanisms. So, these are the “good” senescent cells.
Then there are the senescent cells that accumulate in older individuals, which chronically release factors that cause harmful effects. Though experimental methods vary between labs and age models, the data supports this idea. When you’re younger, the senescence you see in many cases is “good” senescence. Those cells appear, serve their function, and disappear. They are not a response to extensive damage or mutations that might lead to cancer. Instead, this is a natural process to promote wound healing.
The question is: Is a good senescent cell the same as a bad senescent cell? The answer is no. Drugs targeting bad senescent cells will not necessarily affect good senescent cells. There is ongoing discussion about whether senolytics might have adverse effects on processes like wound healing or even development in pregnant women, etc. These questions are still being investigated, but the consensus is that there are different classes of senescent cells—good and bad—and that the developed drugs aim to target only the subset of bad senescent cells.
Jacobsen: Regarding clinical trials, what are the mechanisms and the prospects for increasing health span and lifespan via a chemotherapeutic compound?
Robbins: This field took off in 2012 with pioneering work. It’s considered pioneering because nobody expected it to work. They created transgenic mice that could selectively kill cells expressing certain senescence markers. They used a marker that regulates the cell cycle called p16. When p16 is activated, it stops cells from growing, and many senescent cells express this marker. These transgenic mice were engineered so that if given a drug, it would kill p16-positive cells.
That study showed that clearing these cells could extend the median lifespan of mice. It delayed the onset of many age-related pathologies and the onset of cancer. However, it didn’t necessarily lead to a significant extension of lifespan—perhaps a minor increase.
A paper published this past year by a faculty member we recruited to the University of Minnesota, Ming Xu, demonstrated that clearing a different type of senescent cell—those positive for another cell cycle regulator called p21—led to mice being healthier and living about 10 to 15% longer. This suggests that targeting specific types of senescent cells could both increase health span and extend lifespan.
The hypothesis is—and these experiments are ongoing—that eliminating both p16-positive and p21-positive senescent cells would have a pronounced effect. Many of the chemotherapeutics that we’re developing appear to target both p16-positive and p21-positive cells. However, we don’t believe our approaches eliminate all types of senescent cells. Instead, we’re reducing their overall numbers but not clearing every subtype.
We still don’t know which senescent cell types in the body are the most critical to target. Is it senescent cells in the liver, brain, muscle, or cartilage? We don’t yet know which types to focus on with our senolytics. We’re reducing the total burden of senescent cells, but the specific subtypes remain uncertain. There’s still much work to be done. If we identify the senescent cell types that are most detrimental, we could develop more effective therapeutics, resulting in clearer benefits like extending the median lifespan, increasing the maximal lifespan, and improving healthspan. How much we can achieve remains to be seen.
Jacobsen: Imagine you have a dumpster pile. It’s as if one company only deals with cardboard waste—they clean that up. Similarly, by identifying specific genetic markers of senescent cells, you might work with another company specializing in copper waste, reducing the overall load but still leaving a significant pile of unknowns.
Robbins: That’s a good senology. In the last few years, the NIH recognized the importance of senescence across all its institutes. Whether it’s heart, blood, and lung; cancer; allergy and infectious diseases; or aging, senescence has been acknowledged as a significant factor. The NIH Director’s Common Fund has been supporting the SenNet Consortium in addressing this. You can find it online at sennet.org or sennet.gov. This consortium comprises hundreds of scientists working to identify, characterize, and spatially map senescent cells across 18 tissues during normal human and mouse aging.
We’re trying to determine what senescent cell types emerge with age, where they accumulate, and their roles. In the second phase of the grant, we plan to conduct perturbation studies to determine which of these senescent cells are the most important to target. We’ll also have molecular characterizations of these cells, allowing us to leverage bioinformatics, AI approaches, and other techniques to identify compounds that can selectively clear them. At this stage, we know senescent cells accumulate with age, but we don’t know all their types or which drive disease pathology. This may vary depending on the disease, which raises additional questions that must be addressed.
Not all senescence is the same. The concept we’re introducing—and there’s a Nature Magazine perspective under review—is called genotypes. We think there are many different genotypes, much like many tumour types. Understanding these differences will be crucial for developing therapeutics that extend healthy aging and possibly increase lifespan.
Jacobsen: What challenges arise in translating chemotherapeutic research in mouse models to human clinical trials? People who may not know much about this might wonder why researchers work with organisms like Drosophila or mice. They might think, “Those are completely different from humans—why are they even relevant?” Can you explain the connection between clinical trials and these model organisms?
Robbins: Yes. Unfortunately, those working with mice often use genetically homogeneous strains. In theory, all the mice are genetically identical, though there are always slight variations in practice. Because of this, genetic uniformity makes their lifespans and molecular processes fairly consistent. Even then, we see variability—for example, some mice treated with senolytics live longer than others.
When you transition to humans, the situation becomes far more complex. There are likely subsets of people with a higher senescent cell burden and would benefit most from senolytics. Conversely, others may be aging more healthfully or whose diseases are driven by different hallmarks of aging rather than senescence. One of the first challenges we face is identifying the right population of patients to treat—the right diseases, conditions, dose, and timing. The process becomes an even bigger black box when treating people without a specific disease to extend their lifespan.
What we need are biomarkers to assess the burden of harmful senescent cells. Biomarkers could also help us determine which type of senolytic to use, as there isn’t a single drug that can effectively eliminate all senescent cell types. Ideally, we’d like to predict the most effective senolytic for a given biomarker profile. However, not everything that works in mice works in humans. For example, a senescent mouse cell doesn’t have identical molecular characteristics to a senescent human cell. Drugs that kill senescent mouse fibroblasts don’t always work on senescent human fibroblasts, even in cell cultures. These are some of the hurdles we’re dealing with.
That being said, the initial evidence is promising. In early-phase clinical trials, the first-generation senolytic drugs we’ve developed appear to reduce senescence markers, at least for inflammatory markers. Whether this translates to improved health span or reduced disease severity is unclear. Still, initial trials suggest some target engagement with the current drugs.
Jacobsen: That raises an interesting question about the opposite approach. Could there be conditions under which the accumulation of certain senescent cell types counterintuitively extends lifespan or health span?
Robbins: That’s a great question. Suppose you had asked me that five years ago, I would have said, “Of course not. All senescent cells are bad.” But now, the picture is more nuanced. As I mentioned earlier, transient senescent cells can be beneficial. Some senescent cells, as we currently define them with specific markers, may secrete factors that have positive effects.
These cells likely evolved to provide benefits during our evolutionary history. Most people think of senescent cells as part of an anti-tumour mechanism, and that’s true. However, senescent cells, or at least the senescence process, contribute to antiviral or anti-pathogen responses. For example, we know that cells infected with viruses often enter a senescent state. It’s possible that senescence evolved to prevent cancer and reduce the risk of infection.
The problem arises because, thousands of years ago, humans didn’t live to be 80 or 90 years old. Senescence was doing its job in individuals during their teens, twenties, or thirties—not in their eighties. That’s where the issue changes completely. While there’s clear evidence of beneficial senescence in younger individuals—where these cells emerge, perform their function, and disappear—what happens when people live far longer than our species evolved to? Some of these senescent cells persist, and their prolonged presence likely contributes to the negative effects we see in older individuals.
Robbins: That’s where these cells might start causing problems. Something beneficial when you’re 30 may not be beneficial when you’re 80. That’s the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy—traits advantageous at one stage of life might become detrimental at another. There are many examples of this. What you said is likely correct, but we don’t have definitive proof yet.
Jacobsen: How might chemotherapeutic compounds prevent age-related diseases compared to the treatment of existing conditions?
Robbins: If it’s a senolytic, in theory—not every disease is driven by senescence. There may be diseases where senescence accumulates due to disease rather than being the driver. That’s always the issue: Is senescence the driver, or is it the consequence? For example, if you have much inflammation, that inflammation can drive more senescence.
Each disease might be different. Using a senolytic is something you could do intermittently. You wouldn’t need to give it all the time. It’s like treating a bacterial infection—you take antibiotics to kill the bacteria. Then you’re done unless the bacteria return. Similarly, the thought is that senolytics could be administered intermittently, possibly in combination with standard treatments. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
An example of this is a trial conducted by Unity Biotechnology for macular degeneration. The standard care involves regular injections to prevent angiogenesis in the eye, which helps stop degeneration. Unity Biotechnology found evidence of senescent cells in the back of the eye. It injected a senolytic compound directly into the eye. They observed improvements comparable to the standard care but with a single injection. That single injection provided benefits for a year, whereas the standard treatment requires injections every 1-2 months.
This suggests that senolytics might not need to be administered as frequently, and they could provide an additive—or, in some cases, a synergistic—benefit with standard treatments. However, not every disease will respond to a senolytic. While senescence may be present in every disease context, it might not play as significant a role in some diseases as in others.
Jacobsen: As an aside, this seems like an important question to address in interviews, and it’s worth reiterating ad nauseam. What is your expert perspective on the viability of the multi-billion-dollar industry around supplements, pills, injections, and, as some claim, practices like taking the blood of a young person to rejuvenate themselves? For example, famous individuals taking extraordinary amounts of supplements or adopting practices that make them seem like, for lack of a better phrase, “IV Draculas.”
Robbins: That’s a great question. I always get asked this. I keep my answers PG, but I’ll give it a go. Most of those supplements, and most of the clinical protocols you can go to some foreign country to get, have no clinical evidence from well-controlled trials. There’s no evidence that they work. That’s not to say that some might not work, but there’s no evidence regarding the right dose, timing, or patient population. This is why all these things need well-regulated and controlled clinical studies.
For example, one of the supplements we’ve worked with—and are now trying to test in FDA-approved clinical trials—is a natural product called fisetin. It’s a flavonoid found in the skins of many fruits and vegetables. At higher doses, it appears to have some hemolytic activity. We’re trying to determine if this weak senolytic, being a natural product and safe, could be effective. It doesn’t work at the low doses people typically take—it requires a much higher dose.
As part of the process, we tried to find the right source of fisetin. Our colleagues at the Mayo Clinic conducted mass spectrometry on various commercially available fisetin sources. Some were 50% pure, others 60%, and a few were 95%, which is the FDA’s standard. The FDA requires something over 95% pure. The concern is, if you’re taking something 50% pure, what’s in the other 50%? That raises questions.
No one knows what the right dose is. While some of these supplements may have positive effects, there’s no regulation, quality control, or reliable information about dosing or who should take them. They’re often marketed on late-night TV or in ads in the back of magazines. People buy them, but the products include everything from jellyfish extracts to stem cells from apple seeds. You could go through a long list of unproven substances. Some of these may have effects, but no clinical studies have been done to confirm it. That’s where the field is moving—toward scientific validation rather than unregulated supplements.
Jacobsen: Doubtless, much money is being made off supplements, but I’m paraphrasing here. ‘There’s no clinical trial evidence for most of it.’
Robbins: Yes, exactly. It’s sad, but true.
Jacobsen: Well, let’s move on to other topics. How will current therapies integrate with senescence-targeting treatments in longevity science?
Robbins: That’s still an unanswered question. No one approach will be 100% effective in extending everyone’s health span and lifespan. It will involve cocktails of treatments.
If you look at the aging literature now, there’s this concept of the hallmarks of aging. These include changes in the epigenome, stem cell function, mitochondrial function, the microbiome, inflammation, cellular senescence, etc. These hallmarks are all interconnected and influence each other. However, some people may have one hallmark that’s more prominent than another.
Because of this, future treatments will likely use a cocktail of compounds. Senolytics will likely play a critical role but won’t be the only intervention. In 10, 15, or 20 years, the approach to staying healthier for longer—and potentially living a bit longer—will involve a combination of therapies. It’s going to be a cocktail.
We need to know whether some of these treatments are working in an additive or synergistic way—or are they cancelling each other? For example, how do you proceed if you choose senolytics targeting the same senescent cell without an additive effect? These things will require more preclinical and clinical studies to determine.
Jacobsen: What is the role of inflammation and immune system decline in the aging process? This has been alluded to multiple times in our discussion.
Robbins: Yes, exactly. We published, and others have also reported, that if you age the immune system in mice—at least using a genetic trick—it leads to systemic aging. Conversely, if young immune cells are returned to an old mouse, it seems to slow aging. This happens partly because the functional immune cells can now clear senescent cells. So, we believe that immune aging can drive systemic aging.
The question is: what drives immune aging? Is it senescence? There’s evidence that immune cells can become senescent-like cells. Immune aging is important because improving immune health could help clear other senescent cells and eliminate dysfunctional immune cells. Our team is investing more effort into understanding ways to improve immune function with age. This could be an indirect method to clear senescent cells, improve resilience to pathogen infections, and reduce the negative effects of aged immune cells on the rest of the body.
If you think about it, senescent immune cells—like T cells—can infiltrate into every tissue in the body. Let’s say you have a senescent liver cell, like a hepatocyte. It’s liver-specific but can release factors into the bloodstream, affecting the rest of the body. However, a senescent T cell can infiltrate any tissue in the body. If it’s releasing inflammatory factors and not functioning correctly, it can cause local adverse effects in multiple tissues.
When immune cells are young and healthy, they perform essential functions. But when they become dysfunctional, they start causing problems. They can invade tissues, release inflammatory factors, and contribute to damage across the body. Targeting immune aging—either with senolytics or other classes of drugs—will be a critical area of focus.
One example that has been published and is being developed for clinical application is CAR T cells. These engineered T cells were originally designed to clear cancer cells by targeting specific tumours. Researchers are now using CAR T cells to target senescent cells directly. In mice, this approach has been shown to clear senescent cells, improve health span, and extend lifespan.
Directing immune cells to clear senescent cells has clear benefits. However, there are challenges in translating this to the clinic. One issue is figuring out how to safely target senescent cells, as there isn’t a single protein on the surface of a unique senescent cell. This raises concerns about accidentally killing normal cells alongside senescent cells. Many safety studies still need to be done, but improving immune function will undoubtedly be an important target for the future.
Jacobsen: That was a long answer. Yes, immune function is something we need to be targeting. Now, for the concluding sentence, as is the case with every single paper and poster presentation, what early results could influence future research directions?
Robbins: Yes. Well, the field is now poised for solid, quality-controlled clinical data. Many studies in the clinic are now being conducted under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) applications, ensuring quality control, proper statistical powering, and other rigorous standards. These studies include trials with certain senolytics, NAD precursors, and other factors. While most stem cell studies are still being done in other countries under conditions that may not provide the best evidence, legitimate stem cell clinical trials are underway. There’s also ongoing work with antioxidants and other compounds.
The field needs evidence of success. It doesn’t have to be a home run—it doesn’t have to make us live longer. There is a need for proof that these approaches can slow aging or positively impact an age-related disease or condition. That’s where the field is right now. And it doesn’t necessarily have to involve treating a disease; it could target a condition or a biological process.
For example, clinical trials are beginning to test whether senolytics can allow older organs to be transplanted. If you take a liver from an 80-year-old donor and clear all the senescent cells from it, does that organ engraft and function better following transplantation? That’s not the same as treating an individual directly. Still, it demonstrates that clearing senescent cells could improve tissue function after transplantation.
Another area involves trials we’ve been associated with initially focused on COVID-19. We contributed to some of the preclinical work for those studies. Unfortunately—or fortunately—the development of vaccines changed the landscape, slowing down those trials. However, there’s a trial underway to see if senolytics can improve survival in sepsis patients.
A lot is happening, and within the next year or two, we should know whether these approaches provide meaningful benefits. This will pave the way for the field to develop better drugs. The drugs we’re currently using are first-generation senolytics, senomorphic, and other compounds targeting the hallmarks of aging. They are far from optimal. We’re scratching the surface, but with a few wins in the clinic, the field will gain momentum and progress toward more effective treatments.
There are no setbacks, no poorly designed trials, and no evidence showing that older patients are more susceptible or at greater risk of dying from the treatment. Safety is a large priority. The question is: would you treat your grandmother with these drugs? That’s the standard—you have to prove to yourself that they’re safe enough for your grandmother to take, or, in my case, I would take them myself.
These are the things the field needs. It’s going to require some clinical success. There are a lot of clinical studies starting—some well-controlled, others not—but clinical successes are what will push the field forward. A few wins will also bring big pharma into the picture. Pharma has been hesitant because aging is not officially classified as a disease. As a result, developing drugs to slow aging hasn’t been a priority for them. However, they are interested, and a few successes will let the biotech field take off.
That’s a good enough answer for you. I’m optimistic—I’ll conclude with that. I’m optimistic about the field, where it’s going, and the quality of the science. There are going to be some wins.
Jacobsen: Anyways, thank you so much.
Robbins: Thank you so much. Enjoy yourself and stay warm in Canada. It was nice meeting you, Scott.
Jacobsen: Nice to meet you, too. You take care.
Robbins: Bye.
Jacobsen: All 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Diamond Spratling, MPH, discusses the urgent need to shift climate change communication to a health and economic lens, making it more relatable to communities. She highlights the energy burden crisis in low-income Black and Brown communities, emphasizing systemic issues in housing infrastructure and policy. Spratling underscores the resilience and leadership of Black women in environmental justice, noting their historical role in major movements. She advocates for preventative solutions, policy changes, and community-driven action. Through Girl Plus Environment, she fosters education and empowerment, ensuring marginalized voices shape climate solutions. The conversation concludes with a call to amplify Black women’s leadership.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Diamond Spratling, MPH. She is an environmental health and climate justice activist, author, and public speaker. She grew up in Detroit and founded Girl Plus Environment. This national nonprofit empowered Black and Brown women to lead environmental justice efforts.
As a speaker, Diamond transforms complex environmental and health information into engaging messages for communities most affected by climate change. She has secured funding and developed award-winning equity tools for cities like Atlanta, earning accolades such as the Yale New Horizons in Conservation Award and recognition as an Aspen Institute Future Leader Climate Fellow. Diamond continues to inspire change and build equitable solutions for a healthier, more sustainable future.
What inspired you to found Girl Plus Environment? Did growing up in Detroit uniquely make this work for you?
Diamond Spratling: Yes. Growing up as a Black girl in Detroit, I loved being outdoors. Running up and down the street with all the other kids on the block was fun, especially in the summertime.
I naturally developed an interest in and curiosity about my environment. One moment that stood out to me was a Save the Polar Bears commercial I saw as a kid. It talked about how the ice sheets were melting, and as someone who loved the outdoors and animals, that was devastating. I thought, “Oh my goodness, I have to save the polar bears!” That sparked my deeper interest in the environment.
I started taking environmental science and AP classes in high school, where my interest grew even stronger. When I got to college, I studied Environmental Policy and Analysis. During one of my early internships, I began learning about the relationship between environmental issues and public health, particularly in Black and Brown communities.
I discovered how many Black and Brown children have asthma at disproportionately high rates due to environmental factors like air pollution. I learned how families were impacted—parents missing work, children missing school, and how these health disparities affected education, economic stability, and overall quality of life. It was eye-opening because I realized that environmental issues aren’t just about nature—they are deeply tied to public health, racial justice, and systemic inequalities.
I was frustrated by this realization. I started making Facebook posts to talk to my family about environmental issues and how they impact our health, but they brushed it off. They didn’t seem to care. That wasn’t very pleasant because I was so passionate about it.
I decided to create a space where we could normalize these conversations. I had to create opportunities for engagement. That’s how Girl Plus Environment was born—from my desire to create a safe, fun, and culturally relevant space for Black and Brown women to engage with environmental justice issues that impact us daily. It took off from there, and now, six years later, here we are.
Jacobsen: What strategies do you use to make technical information on policy and environmental justice more accessible and relatable?
Spratling: Yes, well, first, we do a whole lot of social media engagement and outreach. Social media and communications, in general, are our bread and butter because we know how to communicate with people non-technically. I’ve worked in various spaces—federal government, government in general, and academia. Still, I am also a regular Black woman, just like anyone else. So I think a lot about how my cousins, who have never studied environmental issues or set foot in a university, would want to receive this information. We use social media and trending topics to make the information accessible.
For example, last year, we had a campaign about toxic chemicals. We framed it around the movie Mean Girls, which everyone knows. We created content like “Meet the Toxins” and other relatable messaging. It was fun and engaging. We also create a ton of video content and host events that blend fun with education, incorporating culture into our work.
Jacobsen: How do you empower young Black and Brown women to lead and work on climate initiatives in their communities?
Spratling: Yes, well, we follow a strategy of education, engagement, and empowerment. First, education—because we don’t know what we don’t know. The government isn’t knocking on our doors, telling us, “Hey, we’re polluting your neighbourhood.” Often, we don’t even know about these issues.
So, we use visual media and other tools to educate our community, making them aware of environmental issues and how they impact their health and well-being. We ensure the information is easy to understand and relatable—helping people connect it to their daily lives, like how pollution affects their ability to go to work every day or take their kids to play at a park.
We also focus on engagement. We facilitate different training sessions and offer extensive advocacy training in our manual to help our community understand how to get involved. We teach people how to talk to decision-makers, such as legislators and senators, about the issues they care about. We train them to submit public comments, attend hearings, and engage in policymaking.
Finally, one of the most important pieces is empowerment and mobilization. We create safe spaces for these conversations and learning opportunities. People often feel more comfortable surrounded by others who look like them or share similar experiences. So, we cultivate those safe spaces—whether in our training sessions, events, or online content—so that young Black and Brown women feel comfortable learning about these issues and, more importantly, mobilizing their communities to take action.
Jacobsen: Beauty products are common in North America. In the United States, some products are harmless, while others contain harmful ingredients. Which beauty products are marketed to Black and Brown women that may not necessarily be healthy?
Spratling: Well, the sad reality is that an overwhelming number of beauty products are disproportionately marketed to Black women and Black communities. Many times, in beauty supply stores or even at your average corner store, some products contain ingredients harmful to our health.
For example, many products contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which interfere with our endocrine system. These chemicals can increase women’s risk of developing fibroids or experiencing maternal health issues. These concerns are significant, yet many don’t always consider the connection between our beauty products and our health.
The reality is that the things we put on and inside our bodies profoundly impact our well-being.
Jacobsen: Why do low-income Atlanta communities spend over 20% of their income on energy bills? I’ll share a personal experience. Last year, I traveled across the United States by Amtrak, and when I arrived in Atlanta, I had my first Waffle House experience. I ordered a meal with grits.
Later, I walked to a downtown area with high-rises, where I stopped at a Starbucks located at the base of one of the buildings. I don’t remember the street names, but I remember that the cost of my fancy coffee was almost as much as my full breakfast at Waffle House.
These areas were within walking distance of each other, yet the economic divide was stark. The difference between neighbourhoods was clear just by crossing a few streets.
So, how do low-income communities in Atlanta end up spending over 20% of their income on energy bills? What are the reasons for this, and how can it be addressed systematically and responsibly?
Spratling: Yes. I appreciate your personal story—it reflects the deep disparities in Atlanta. These inequalities go beyond economics; they even impact health and life expectancy. In Atlanta, life expectancy can vary by up to 12 years, depending on your zip code. That is significant.
As for energy bills, I’ll first mention that many assume individuals are to blame for their high energy costs. But the reality is that many low-income and Black and Brown communities are already conservative with their energy use—simply because they don’t have the money to waste.
Historically, in Black households, our grandparents and great-grandparents taught us to turn off all the lights, conserve energy, reuse plastic bags, and limit waste. This mindset has been passed down through generations, so it’s not that individuals are careless with their energy consumption.
The real issue is structural and systemic factors, particularly housing quality and infrastructure. Many low-income communities live in older, less energy-efficient homes with poor insulation, outdated appliances, and inefficient heating and cooling systems. These factors force families to use more energy to maintain basic comfort, disproportionately driving up their utility bills.
Addressing this issue requires systematic investment in energy-efficient housing, affordable retrofitting programs, and stronger policies to ensure landlords maintain properties at a standard that doesn’t unfairly burden tenants.
Many of our homes are not setting us up for success. Many homes lack proper infrastructure, including insulation, needed to keep houses warm in the winter. The same issue exists in the summer—we don’t have adequate infrastructure, like proper windows or window treatments, to keep out excess heat.
A lot of this comes down to the structural conditions of our homes, but also the fact that many low-income and Black and Brown communities aren’t earning enough money to begin with. The annual household income in these communities is often between $35,000 and $45,000, yet people pay $400 monthly on energy bills. Of course, they are energy-burdened—because they don’t make enough money in the first place.
The concept of energy burden is interesting because, while it does involve energy conservation and efficiency, it is primarily about structural issues in housing and economic disparities.
So, how do we address and solve this energy burden crisis? A lot of it comes down to how we build and maintain homes. We need policies to ensure that landlords are responsible for maintaining properties—ensuring rentals are properly insulated and energy-efficient. We also need to ensure that wages are equitable so people can afford their energy bills without being financially overwhelmed.
A significant portion of this issue is policy-driven. Here in Georgia, a Public Service Commission repeatedly allows Georgia Power to raise energy rates, forcing residents to pay for projects they never approved. For instance, residents are paying for Georgia Power’s nuclear power plants, which are billions of dollars over budget. These weren’t projects the community demanded—they were corporate decisions, and now the financial burden is unfairly placed on consumers.
Jacobsen: This is a common problem. From my perspective as a Canadian, the American case appears more severe in this regard—where financial consequences and costs are offshored to individuals rather than absorbed by corporations or larger entities. The way these issues are framed and discussed also plays a significant role.
We are now seeing wildfires in California (LA fires) that clearly illustrate the impact of anthropogenic climate change, with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and severe.
How do you work with communities to provide effective education about anthropogenic climate change, its associated health risks, and the increasing intensity and frequency of natural disasters?
Spratling: Yes. What happened in California was a horrifying example of a community that was ultimately unprepared, even at the city level. Los Angeles was not adequately prepared, especially after funding was cut from fire departments.
As you mentioned, when it comes to communication and education, we have to focus on the health angle. How do we shift the narrative on climate change so that it is understood through a health lens?
My background is in public health, and I think a lot about the urgency that health-related messaging creates compared to climate change messaging. The reality is that the environmental and climate sectors have never been great at communication. We’ve traditionally relied on scare tactics—warnings about the sky falling, the world ending, and other apocalyptic predictions. But that approach has not worked.
We must be sensitive to how we communicate climate issues to our communities. Instead of highlighting the dangers, we must emphasize health implications and economic consequences—things people care about now.
Right now, people are struggling with immediate concerns—how to pay rent and put food on the table. Climate change is often perceived as a distant problem, even though we know it is happening now. But for many, it simply does not feel as urgent as putting food on the table today.
So, when it comes to education, it is about shifting the narrative—helping people understand climate change in a way that will ignite action rather than just instilling fear. We need to prepare our communities so that when disasters—like what we saw in Los Angeles and other parts of the world—happen, people are ready to take action rather than being caught off guard.
Jacobsen: Amid challenges, there are also new opportunities. For example, while doing some correspondence in Ukraine, I learned a lot. I came back. Then I attended a conference in Toronto about rebuilding Ukraine.
One of the companies I spoke with was pursuing a large contacts—which, while significant, is perhaps not as large as it might seem in the context of massive rebuilding efforts. But they were focused on durable, fire-resistant building materials.
In that case, you had an entire city, designed for a population of many thousands people, that was flattened—80% to 90% destroyed by bombings. But as they plan to rebuild, they are considering more durable, fire-resistant materials—not just restoring what was lost, but creating something better and more resilient.
Similarly, with climate change and its many negative impacts, how do you shift the narrative toward solutions? How do we move from recognizing the increasing tragedies over time to actively proposing innovative, forward-thinking solutions?
Spratling: As you said, we must approach this from a precautionary standpoint, something the U.S. has historically failed to do. We tend to be reactionary rather than considering long-term impacts and investments.
A significant part of this conversation concerns investing in materials and infrastructure that will support our communities and help protect our environment. It’s critical that people understand this from an economic standpoint—that proactive investment is far more cost-effective than constantly rebuilding from scratch.
Approaching this work through an economic lens allows us to find shared values that resonate with everyone. We all want to live happy, healthy lives and have economic security. Meeting people where they are—by speaking in terms they relate to—works wonders. No one wants to have to rebuild their city.
So, from a mitigation standpoint, we need to focus on preventative measures—how we can lessen the impact of future disasters rather than simply reacting after they happen.
Jacobsen: What makes Black and Brown women in Atlanta and similar cities uniquely positioned to educate themselves and others about climate risks, infrastructure challenges, and the importance of making informed choices about environmental impacts and personal products?
Spratling: First, I would say that Black women are resilient.
Black women have had to endure and lead through countless challenges. Black women are the most educated demographic in the world.
If we look at major social movements—from the Me Too movement to the Civil Rights movement to Black Lives Matter—black women have always been the backbone.
This is no different when it comes to the climate and environmental justice movement. In fact, we must be even more engaged because environmental issues have disproportionate impacts on us and our communities.
Black women should be at the forefront of environmental justice—in conversations, decision-making, solutions, jobs, leadership roles, and every aspect. We understand the stakes because we have lived them.
We have been experiencing environmental burdens our entire lives. That lived experience gives us a unique ability to advocate for ourselves and everyone disproportionately affected by environmental injustice.
When we discuss Black women’s roles and strengths, we focus on our endurance and the fact that we already have what it takes to lead in this movement.
Unfortunately, for too long, we have been ignored and told this is not a space for us—which is completely false. Our grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and ancestors have been engaged in this work for generations. It is our time to amplify their legacy and push it even further.
Jacobsen: Diamond, thank you for taking the time to speak today. It was lovely to meet you.
Spratling: Yes, likewise. Thank you so much! It was great to meet you as well.
Jacobsen: We’ll be in touch shortly.
Spratling: Thank you. Take care.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Diamond Spratling, MPH, discusses the urgent need to shift climate change communication to a health and economic lens, making it more relatable to communities. She highlights the energy burden crisis in low-income Black and Brown communities, emphasizing systemic issues in housing infrastructure and policy. Spratling underscores the resilience and leadership of Black women in environmental justice, noting their historical role in major movements. She advocates for preventative solutions, policy changes, and community-driven action. Through Girl Plus Environment, she fosters education and empowerment, ensuring marginalized voices shape climate solutions. The conversation concludes with a call to amplify Black women’s leadership.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Diamond Spratling, MPH. She is an environmental health and climate justice activist, author, and public speaker. She grew up in Detroit and founded Girl Plus Environment. This national nonprofit empowered Black and Brown women to lead environmental justice efforts.
As a speaker, Diamond transforms complex environmental and health information into engaging messages for communities most affected by climate change. She has secured funding and developed award-winning equity tools for cities like Atlanta, earning accolades such as the Yale New Horizons in Conservation Award and recognition as an Aspen Institute Future Leader Climate Fellow. Diamond continues to inspire change and build equitable solutions for a healthier, more sustainable future.
What inspired you to found Girl Plus Environment? Did growing up in Detroit uniquely make this work for you?
Diamond Spratling: Yes. Growing up as a Black girl in Detroit, I loved being outdoors. Running up and down the street with all the other kids on the block was fun, especially in the summertime.
I naturally developed an interest in and curiosity about my environment. One moment that stood out to me was a Save the Polar Bears commercial I saw as a kid. It talked about how the ice sheets were melting, and as someone who loved the outdoors and animals, that was devastating. I thought, “Oh my goodness, I have to save the polar bears!” That sparked my deeper interest in the environment.
I started taking environmental science and AP classes in high school, where my interest grew even stronger. When I got to college, I studied Environmental Policy and Analysis. During one of my early internships, I began learning about the relationship between environmental issues and public health, particularly in Black and Brown communities.
I discovered how many Black and Brown children have asthma at disproportionately high rates due to environmental factors like air pollution. I learned how families were impacted—parents missing work, children missing school, and how these health disparities affected education, economic stability, and overall quality of life. It was eye-opening because I realized that environmental issues aren’t just about nature—they are deeply tied to public health, racial justice, and systemic inequalities.
I was frustrated by this realization. I started making Facebook posts to talk to my family about environmental issues and how they impact our health, but they brushed it off. They didn’t seem to care. That wasn’t very pleasant because I was so passionate about it.
I decided to create a space where we could normalize these conversations. I had to create opportunities for engagement. That’s how Girl Plus Environment was born—from my desire to create a safe, fun, and culturally relevant space for Black and Brown women to engage with environmental justice issues that impact us daily. It took off from there, and now, six years later, here we are.
Jacobsen: What strategies do you use to make technical information on policy and environmental justice more accessible and relatable?
Spratling: Yes, well, first, we do a whole lot of social media engagement and outreach. Social media and communications, in general, are our bread and butter because we know how to communicate with people non-technically. I’ve worked in various spaces—federal government, government in general, and academia. Still, I am also a regular Black woman, just like anyone else. So I think a lot about how my cousins, who have never studied environmental issues or set foot in a university, would want to receive this information. We use social media and trending topics to make the information accessible.
For example, last year, we had a campaign about toxic chemicals. We framed it around the movie Mean Girls, which everyone knows. We created content like “Meet the Toxins” and other relatable messaging. It was fun and engaging. We also create a ton of video content and host events that blend fun with education, incorporating culture into our work.
Jacobsen: How do you empower young Black and Brown women to lead and work on climate initiatives in their communities?
Spratling: Yes, well, we follow a strategy of education, engagement, and empowerment. First, education—because we don’t know what we don’t know. The government isn’t knocking on our doors, telling us, “Hey, we’re polluting your neighbourhood.” Often, we don’t even know about these issues.
So, we use visual media and other tools to educate our community, making them aware of environmental issues and how they impact their health and well-being. We ensure the information is easy to understand and relatable—helping people connect it to their daily lives, like how pollution affects their ability to go to work every day or take their kids to play at a park.
We also focus on engagement. We facilitate different training sessions and offer extensive advocacy training in our manual to help our community understand how to get involved. We teach people how to talk to decision-makers, such as legislators and senators, about the issues they care about. We train them to submit public comments, attend hearings, and engage in policymaking.
Finally, one of the most important pieces is empowerment and mobilization. We create safe spaces for these conversations and learning opportunities. People often feel more comfortable surrounded by others who look like them or share similar experiences. So, we cultivate those safe spaces—whether in our training sessions, events, or online content—so that young Black and Brown women feel comfortable learning about these issues and, more importantly, mobilizing their communities to take action.
Jacobsen: Beauty products are common in North America. In the United States, some products are harmless, while others contain harmful ingredients. Which beauty products are marketed to Black and Brown women that may not necessarily be healthy?
Spratling: Well, the sad reality is that an overwhelming number of beauty products are disproportionately marketed to Black women and Black communities. Many times, in beauty supply stores or even at your average corner store, some products contain ingredients harmful to our health.
For example, many products contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which interfere with our endocrine system. These chemicals can increase women’s risk of developing fibroids or experiencing maternal health issues. These concerns are significant, yet many don’t always consider the connection between our beauty products and our health.
The reality is that the things we put on and inside our bodies profoundly impact our well-being.
Jacobsen: Why do low-income Atlanta communities spend over 20% of their income on energy bills? I’ll share a personal experience. Last year, I traveled across the United States by Amtrak, and when I arrived in Atlanta, I had my first Waffle House experience. I ordered a meal with grits.
Later, I walked to a downtown area with high-rises, where I stopped at a Starbucks located at the base of one of the buildings. I don’t remember the street names, but I remember that the cost of my fancy coffee was almost as much as my full breakfast at Waffle House.
These areas were within walking distance of each other, yet the economic divide was stark. The difference between neighbourhoods was clear just by crossing a few streets.
So, how do low-income communities in Atlanta end up spending over 20% of their income on energy bills? What are the reasons for this, and how can it be addressed systematically and responsibly?
Spratling: Yes. I appreciate your personal story—it reflects the deep disparities in Atlanta. These inequalities go beyond economics; they even impact health and life expectancy. In Atlanta, life expectancy can vary by up to 12 years, depending on your zip code. That is significant.
As for energy bills, I’ll first mention that many assume individuals are to blame for their high energy costs. But the reality is that many low-income and Black and Brown communities are already conservative with their energy use—simply because they don’t have the money to waste.
Historically, in Black households, our grandparents and great-grandparents taught us to turn off all the lights, conserve energy, reuse plastic bags, and limit waste. This mindset has been passed down through generations, so it’s not that individuals are careless with their energy consumption.
The real issue is structural and systemic factors, particularly housing quality and infrastructure. Many low-income communities live in older, less energy-efficient homes with poor insulation, outdated appliances, and inefficient heating and cooling systems. These factors force families to use more energy to maintain basic comfort, disproportionately driving up their utility bills.
Addressing this issue requires systematic investment in energy-efficient housing, affordable retrofitting programs, and stronger policies to ensure landlords maintain properties at a standard that doesn’t unfairly burden tenants.
Many of our homes are not setting us up for success. Many homes lack proper infrastructure, including insulation, needed to keep houses warm in the winter. The same issue exists in the summer—we don’t have adequate infrastructure, like proper windows or window treatments, to keep out excess heat.
A lot of this comes down to the structural conditions of our homes, but also the fact that many low-income and Black and Brown communities aren’t earning enough money to begin with. The annual household income in these communities is often between $35,000 and $45,000, yet people pay $400 monthly on energy bills. Of course, they are energy-burdened—because they don’t make enough money in the first place.
The concept of energy burden is interesting because, while it does involve energy conservation and efficiency, it is primarily about structural issues in housing and economic disparities.
So, how do we address and solve this energy burden crisis? A lot of it comes down to how we build and maintain homes. We need policies to ensure that landlords are responsible for maintaining properties—ensuring rentals are properly insulated and energy-efficient. We also need to ensure that wages are equitable so people can afford their energy bills without being financially overwhelmed.
A significant portion of this issue is policy-driven. Here in Georgia, a Public Service Commission repeatedly allows Georgia Power to raise energy rates, forcing residents to pay for projects they never approved. For instance, residents are paying for Georgia Power’s nuclear power plants, which are billions of dollars over budget. These weren’t projects the community demanded—they were corporate decisions, and now the financial burden is unfairly placed on consumers.
Jacobsen: This is a common problem. From my perspective as a Canadian, the American case appears more severe in this regard—where financial consequences and costs are offshored to individuals rather than absorbed by corporations or larger entities. The way these issues are framed and discussed also plays a significant role.
We are now seeing wildfires in California (LA fires) that clearly illustrate the impact of anthropogenic climate change, with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and severe.
How do you work with communities to provide effective education about anthropogenic climate change, its associated health risks, and the increasing intensity and frequency of natural disasters?
Spratling: Yes. What happened in California was a horrifying example of a community that was ultimately unprepared, even at the city level. Los Angeles was not adequately prepared, especially after funding was cut from fire departments.
As you mentioned, when it comes to communication and education, we have to focus on the health angle. How do we shift the narrative on climate change so that it is understood through a health lens?
My background is in public health, and I think a lot about the urgency that health-related messaging creates compared to climate change messaging. The reality is that the environmental and climate sectors have never been great at communication. We’ve traditionally relied on scare tactics—warnings about the sky falling, the world ending, and other apocalyptic predictions. But that approach has not worked.
We must be sensitive to how we communicate climate issues to our communities. Instead of highlighting the dangers, we must emphasize health implications and economic consequences—things people care about now.
Right now, people are struggling with immediate concerns—how to pay rent and put food on the table. Climate change is often perceived as a distant problem, even though we know it is happening now. But for many, it simply does not feel as urgent as putting food on the table today.
So, when it comes to education, it is about shifting the narrative—helping people understand climate change in a way that will ignite action rather than just instilling fear. We need to prepare our communities so that when disasters—like what we saw in Los Angeles and other parts of the world—happen, people are ready to take action rather than being caught off guard.
Jacobsen: Amid challenges, there are also new opportunities. For example, while doing some correspondence in Ukraine, I learned a lot. I came back. Then I attended a conference in Toronto about rebuilding Ukraine.
One of the companies I spoke with was pursuing a large contacts—which, while significant, is perhaps not as large as it might seem in the context of massive rebuilding efforts. But they were focused on durable, fire-resistant building materials.
In that case, you had an entire city, designed for a population of many thousands people, that was flattened—80% to 90% destroyed by bombings. But as they plan to rebuild, they are considering more durable, fire-resistant materials—not just restoring what was lost, but creating something better and more resilient.
Similarly, with climate change and its many negative impacts, how do you shift the narrative toward solutions? How do we move from recognizing the increasing tragedies over time to actively proposing innovative, forward-thinking solutions?
Spratling: As you said, we must approach this from a precautionary standpoint, something the U.S. has historically failed to do. We tend to be reactionary rather than considering long-term impacts and investments.
A significant part of this conversation concerns investing in materials and infrastructure that will support our communities and help protect our environment. It’s critical that people understand this from an economic standpoint—that proactive investment is far more cost-effective than constantly rebuilding from scratch.
Approaching this work through an economic lens allows us to find shared values that resonate with everyone. We all want to live happy, healthy lives and have economic security. Meeting people where they are—by speaking in terms they relate to—works wonders. No one wants to have to rebuild their city.
So, from a mitigation standpoint, we need to focus on preventative measures—how we can lessen the impact of future disasters rather than simply reacting after they happen.
Jacobsen: What makes Black and Brown women in Atlanta and similar cities uniquely positioned to educate themselves and others about climate risks, infrastructure challenges, and the importance of making informed choices about environmental impacts and personal products?
Spratling: First, I would say that Black women are resilient.
Black women have had to endure and lead through countless challenges. Black women are the most educated demographic in the world.
If we look at major social movements—from the Me Too movement to the Civil Rights movement to Black Lives Matter—black women have always been the backbone.
This is no different when it comes to the climate and environmental justice movement. In fact, we must be even more engaged because environmental issues have disproportionate impacts on us and our communities.
Black women should be at the forefront of environmental justice—in conversations, decision-making, solutions, jobs, leadership roles, and every aspect. We understand the stakes because we have lived them.
We have been experiencing environmental burdens our entire lives. That lived experience gives us a unique ability to advocate for ourselves and everyone disproportionately affected by environmental injustice.
When we discuss Black women’s roles and strengths, we focus on our endurance and the fact that we already have what it takes to lead in this movement.
Unfortunately, for too long, we have been ignored and told this is not a space for us—which is completely false. Our grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and ancestors have been engaged in this work for generations. It is our time to amplify their legacy and push it even further.
Jacobsen: Diamond, thank you for taking the time to speak today. It was lovely to meet you.
Spratling: Yes, likewise. Thank you so much! It was great to meet you as well.
Jacobsen: We’ll be in touch shortly.
Spratling: Thank you. Take care.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01 (Unpublished)
Ian Fletcher is an economist and author specializing in industrial policy, trade, and economic strategy. His books include Industrial Policy for the United States and Free Trade Doesn’t Work. A former Senior Economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, he now serves on its Advisory Board, shaping U.S. economic policy discussions. James Crask is Managing Director at Marsh, specializing in risk management, resilience, and crisis strategy. A former UK Cabinet Office advisor, he chairs the ISO committee on business continuity and authored a key industry book. Tim Rosenberger is a Legal Policy Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Stanford Graduate School of Business Fellow, specializing in constitutional law, litigation, and public policy. His expertise spans legal research, judicial clerkships, entrepreneurship, urban development, and policy analysis on trade, immigration, and economic reform.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do the tariffs relate to inflation, costs of goods and services, and price increases, generally speaking?
Ian Fletcher: Obviously, if you push tariffs high enough, they will produce inflation, at least for the products in question. But the experience of tariffs during Trump’s first term showed, empirically, that the kind of moderate tariffs the US should be imposing have little or no inflationary impact. This ran directly opposite to mainstream theory on this question, and should make people skeptical of believing what mainstream economists are saying today. For a start, we saw a lot of exporters sacrifice profit margins. Furthermore, imports are only about 16% of the U.S. economy, so 84% of the economy isn’t even potentially exposed to inflationary pressure from tariffs.
James Crask: The Trump administration has outlined proposed tariffs on goods from China, Mexico and Canada and US-based organizations are bracing for significant cost shifts in their supply chains.
Marsh recently analyzed more than 120,000 suppliers that support global clients with significant operations in the US. It found that 40% of their direct and indirect suppliers providing goods to the US are based in Mexico, China, and Canada. This means that, on average, about one-fifth of an organization’s direct supplier base originates from these three countries.
Global events, beyond just tariffs, including geopolitical tensions and climate-related events are challenging organizations’ supply chain resilience and elevating supply chain risk management to the top of every corporate agenda.
Marsh’s analysis also found that:
- More than 1 in 10 supplier sites are at high risk of natural disasters, with flooding and earthquakes representing the greatest risks
- 65% of organizations have at least one single point of failure / bottleneck hidden in their supply chain that is providing something critical.
This data was derived from Sentrisk, Marsh’s AI powered platform that enables companies to comprehensively map their supply chains across all tiers and pinpoint low, medium, and high-risk vulnerabilities down to a site, supplier or component-specific level.
If you would like to speak to James on what the data shows re: possible outcomes of ‘reciprocal tariffs’ on U.S. trading partners, how companies are managing increasing global supply chain risks, and the overall supply chain risk landscape as we head into 2025 – I am happy to schedule a conversation.
Tim Rosenberger: Tariffs generally increase prices. At the same time, President Trump’s tariffs are designed to encourage strategic reshoring of jobs and the reindustrialization of the American heartline. While the tech-fueled economic boom of the coasts masks the collapse of middle America, many communities now have real incomes that are ~half what they were fifty years ago. Almost no family can survive on a single income and countless Americans stitch together a constellation of jobs to eek by on modest incomes and limited benefits. They work longer hours and enjoy fewer protections than the factory workers of yesteryear. So, if President Trump can succeed in his tariff and trade policy, modest price increases will be more than offset by gains in earnings, particularly for working Americans. Expect any short term economic pain and trade conflicts to be well worth a revitalized American middle.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.WalletHub’s report ranks the best and worst cities for weddings based on cost, facilities, services, activities, and attractions. Orlando, Las Vegas, Miami, Atlanta, and Tampa rank highest due to favorable weather and accessibility, despite high costs. Pearl City, Bridgeport, Warwick, South Burlington, and Lewiston rank lowest due to financial and logistical challenges. Memphis frequently appears in negative rankings, prompting public inquiries. Budget is the most weighted factor, as Valentine’s Day spending varies more than weddings. Data sources include the U.S. Census Bureau, Yelp, and Numbeo. Lupo shares insights from his own budget-friendly wedding experience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Chip Lupo again. A recent report from WalletHub highlights the best places to get married. The average couple spends around $35,000—that’s in USD. That amount is significantly more in Canadian dollars for those reading from Canada.
The logistical and financial stresses of planning a wedding can be substantial. According to WalletHub’s analysis, the top cities for weddings are Orlando, Las Vegas, Miami, Atlanta, and Tampa. These cities seem more diverse than those featured in similar reports. Why is that? Looking at the rankings, the costs in these top five cities are quite high. However, they excel in facilities, services, activities, and attractions.
Chip Lupo: Yes, Scott, you’re right. It is a diverse set of cities. One thing they all have in common, for the most part, is favourable weather. Of course, you wouldn’t want to book a wedding in Miami during hurricane season. Still, aside from that, Orlando and Las Vegas generally have warm, stable climates. Atlanta and Tampa, which rank fourth and fifth on the list, also offer relatively mild weather.
Weather and accessibility are significant factors. While these cities may be expensive, they compensate with exceptional facilities, services, and attractions. For example, getting married in Orlando can be costly due to its proximity to Disney World and everything the area offers. However, this is balanced by the abundance of amenities and entertainment options.
Scott, let me share a quick anecdote about wedding costs. About 15 years ago, a co-worker was planning her February wedding. Timing plays a crucial role in wedding expenses, though this study doesn’t emphasize it much. In the U.S., weddings are traditionally held on Saturdays—typically mid-afternoon or early evening, and sometimes on Fridays if venues are available.
She was researching floral arrangements when she realized that Valentine’s Day fell on a Saturday that year—the date she had chosen for her wedding. When the florist quoted her the cost of flowers—roses, in this case—she immediately reconsidered and asked about pricing for the following Saturday. Simply changing the date will cut the cost of the flowers by half.
This highlights an important consideration when planning a wedding—timing. Suppose you schedule your wedding around major holidays, such as Christmas or Valentine’s Day. In that case, you will likely face higher costs, particularly for flowers and other high-demand services.
Returning to our discussion, while these cities may be expensive, they make up for it in other aspects. All of them rank very highly in the categories of facilities, activities, and attractions despite significant cost differences among the top five.
Jacobsen: When I look at the bottom of this ranking, the lowest-ranked cities are Pearl City, Bridgeport, Warwick, South Burlington, and Lewiston. As far as I recall, these cities don’t appear in many of the other surveys we reviewed.
Yet, they have consistently ranked near the bottom out of 182 cities. For instance, Pearl City ranks 180th, 179th, and 177th in three categories, making its overall index score the lowest. What makes these cities particularly poor in this area?
Lupo: Well, Pearl City—no pun intended—is kind of an island on its own, quite literally, since it’s in Hawaii. The cost of weddings there is high no matter when or where you get married. But beyond that, accessibility is a major factor.
Coordinating travel arrangements for family and friends, especially for a large wedding, is a logistical challenge. How many of your guests would be willing—or able—to take on that financial burden? Flying to Hawaii can be expensive, particularly for East Coast people.
So, accessibility hurts Pearl City. It’s obviously in a beautiful location—an ideal setting for a wedding—but the logistical coordination makes it impractical for many couples.
The other cities—South Burlington, Vermont; Warwick, Rhode Island; and Bridgeport, Connecticut—are all situated in the Northeastern New England region, where costs can be high.
None of these cities have wedding-friendly attractions. Accessibility is also an issue. And, of course, the weather this time of year—February—is likely not ideal for a wedding.
Jacobsen: Do you ever get emails from people in these cities, either complimenting or criticizing you?
Lupo: Since I’ve been doing this, we occasionally receive comments from media outlets in specific cities. Their journalists often reach out, looking for information—asking, “Why this?” or “Why that?”
A year or so ago, we received many emails and complaints from city officials and residents in Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis frequently appeared in our rankings concerning crime, affordability, and safety concerns.
That’s the one city that stands out. For the most part, though, media outlets within specific cities are just curious—they want to inform their audiences. They ask why their city ranked a certain way, whether positive or negative. They typically want a breakdown of where their city performed well and where it didn’t.
But yes, to my knowledge, Memphis is the one that keeps coming up—particularly from people outside of the media—questioning why their city frequently ranks at the bottom in some of these reports.
Jacobsen: The ranking had three broad categories: costs, facilities and services, and activities and attractions. Why that particular breakdown? Some might wonder—why not focus entirely on costs? It’s such a major factor. Shouldn’t it be the dominant consideration? Why break things down in a more sophisticated and nuanced way?
Lupo: Well, Scott, if you look at how the rankings are weighted, cost carries a slightly higher weight. Out of a possible 100 points, cost accounts for 40 points because it is likely the primary factor. However, you must also consider availability, which negatively affects some cities.
Some cities performed poorly in the facilities and services category. You want easy access to key wedding-related services such as:
- Bridal shops
- Florists
- Hotels (since you’re hosting many guests)
- Restaurants (for rehearsal dinners)
- Catering companies
- Bartenders (if you’re including alcohol)
- Cake shops
- Makeup artists
That last one is interesting—it didn’t apply to me personally.
Event planners are another key service. You want to ensure that your wedding location can easily access these vendors. Otherwise, outsourcing services from elsewhere may increase your costs significantly.
Activities and attractions also play a role. As we discussed, weather is a major factor. The number of attractions in an area is given full weight. For example, Las Vegas has abundant activities for the couple and their guests.
Another factor is its popularity as a travel destination. If a city is well-known and frequently visited, it can be an advantage. Aside from Pearl City, the cities at the bottom of the list are not popular travel destinations. For example, cities like Warwick, Rhode Island, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, lack broad appeal.
So, while cost carries more weight, we strive to keep the ranking comprehensive by including facilities, services, attractions, and availability.
Jacobsen: And the sources of data—the ones that make the most sense—include the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more well-known sources like Tripadvisor, Yelp, Kayak.com, and your research.
But what about Numbeo, TravBuddy.com, and the Wedding Report?
Lupo: Well, TravBuddy is similar to Tripadvisor. Travel Buddy—if I’m not mistaken, it’s a social networking site for travellers. Yes, users can review destinations like Kayak.com and Tripadvisor. Now, the other one—Numbeo—is a cost-of-living database. You enter data, and it provides an index estimating living costs.
This is useful information because you need to factor in overall expenses when planning a wedding. This includes:
- Hotel prices
- Taxi fares
- Flight costs in and out of a city
These additional expenses can significantly impact the total wedding budget. While we’re on the subject, one thing that may pop up when the survey goes live is that when we got married in 2018, we did a lot of it on our own, and it ended up costing us about $12,000.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a lot less than some of the others.
Lupo: Yes, we found out—and I did a budget breakdown afterward—that about 60% of the total cost was spent on food between the rehearsal dinner and catering. But since we handled a lot of it ourselves, we saved money.
I also designed and printed our wedding invitations because I do some graphic design. It’s more of a hobby than anything else, but it helped cut costs.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Chip.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/28
The Public Health Agency of Canada is an agency of the Government of Canada that is responsible for public health, emergency preparedness and response, and infectious and chronic disease control and prevention. Between 2018 and 2023, infectious syphilis cases in Canada rose by 77% to 12,135 cases (30.5 per 100,000), while congenital syphilis increased by 220% to 53 cases (14.5 per 100,000 live births). Barriers include inequitable access to testing, stigma, and structural inequities. Prevention strategies emphasize regular screening, safer sex practices, and education. The Public Health Agency of Canada collaborates with partners through initiatives like the Syphilis Response Steering Committee and national awareness campaigns. Early and routine screening is crucial, particularly in pregnancy. Improved access includes point-of-care testing and expanded health education efforts to reduce stigma and promote testing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have infectious syphilis and congenital syphilis cases changed between 2018 and 2023?
Public Health Agency of Canada: In 2023, there were 12,135 reported cases of infectious syphilis, equivalent to a rate of 30.5 cases per 100,000 people in Canada, and 53 cases of early congenital syphilis, corresponding to a rate of 14.5 cases per 100,000 live births. These rates represent a 77% and 220% increase since 2018, respectively.
Jacobsen: What barriers contribute to the rise of syphilis and other STBBI?
Public Health Agency of Canada: Syphilis is a preventable and curable sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection. If left untreated, syphilis can increase the risk of acquiring HIV and can cause severe health complications, including damage to the blood vessels, heart, brain and nervous system. Congenital syphilis occurs when a syphilis infection is passed during pregnancy or at delivery, and can cause adverse pregnancy outcomes and severe health effects in newborns and children.
Factors contributing to the rise of syphilis in Canada include inequitable access to testing, treatment, and care, alongside social and systemic barriers such as stigma, discrimination, and structural inequities. Syphilis disproportionately impacts communities and groups experiencing these challenges, including individuals facing housing instability and poverty. The presence of overlapping public health threats, such as HIV and problematic substance use, further increases vulnerability to syphilis infection. These interconnected factors create significant disparities in access to care, making it more difficult for certain affected populations to receive timely testing and treatment.
Jacobsen: What prevention strategies can reduce the spread of STBBI, including syphilis?
Public Health Agency of Canada: Signs and symptoms of syphilis include lesions, rashes, and swollen glands. However, syphilis symptoms can mimic other conditions, and syphilis infection can also be asymptomatic. Even with no symptoms, a person can transmit syphilis to sexual partners and during pregnancy and delivery. That is why it is important to know the risks and how to take preventative and early action.
Timely screening is vital for detecting and treating asymptomatic infections, as well as reducing the risk of transmission and serious complications that may arise from undiagnosed and untreated STBBI. Individuals can reduce their risk of syphilis infection by practicing safer sex (use of barriers such as condoms and dental dams) and getting tested regularly.
Anyone who is sexually active should be aware of risk factors for syphilis such as having barrierless sex, having multiple sexual partners, substance use including chemsex, and having a previous syphilis infection or other STBBI.
Health and social sector professionals can support individuals to make informed choices about their sexual health, and together we can help curb the spread of syphilis, prevent negative health impacts and promote inclusive and equitable sexual health care for all. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) encourages health professionals to integrate syphilis screening into routine health care to reduce stigma and foster a supportive environment for individuals to seek testing and treatment.
Jacobsen: What is being done to increase collaboration across sectors and jurisdictions in addressing syphilis?
Public Health Agency of Canada: PHAC is committed to working with partners and stakeholders across the country in support of the global goal of ending syphilis, viral hepatitis, HIV and other STBBI as public health concerns by 2030. Through the actions outlined in the Pan-Canadian STBBI Framework for Action and the Government of Canada’s STBBI Action Plan, the Government of Canada is working to reduce the impact of syphilis and other STBBI in Canada, and is collaborating with and supporting community-based organizations, Indigenous partners, provinces and territories, researchers, and the health sector towards this goal.
In late 2022, the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network established a federal, provincial, and territorial committee on STBBI, providing a structured approach to strengthen cross-jurisdictional collaboration. The Syphilis Response Steering Committee (SRSC) serves as a key forum to identify opportunities for action based on emerging evidence and national trends. To further support knowledge exchange and collaborative action, PHAC hosted the Taking Action on Congenital Syphilis in Canada: National Conference 2024 in February 2024 in Ottawa. The event brought together 75 delegates from federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, academic, and community sectors, reinforcing the importance of multi-sector collaboration in addressing the rising rates of congenital and infectious syphilis.
Investments in community-based projects continue to be a pillar of the Government of Canada’s strategy and have remained stable for the past decade. The contribution of community-based organizations remains central to Canada’s ability to achieve its public health targets. Projects funded through the HIV and Hepatitis C Community Action Fund (CAF) and the Harm Reduction Fund (HRF) are designed to reach key populations and target regions most affected by HIV, hepatitis C, and other STBBI, including syphilis. To support the coordination of Canada’s response to rising syphilis cases and outbreaks, PHAC established the Syphilis Outbreak Investigation Coordinating Committee (SOICC) in July 2019. Through this committee, provinces and territories share enhanced syphilis surveillance data with PHAC, informing the development of evidence-based policies, programs, and interventions while identifying support needs. Public health surveillance of congenital syphilis is conducted in partnership with provincial and territorial public health authorities. PHAC receives de-identified data on diagnosed cases annually to track trends and inform public health action. More information is available on PHAC’s interactive web platform, Notifiable Diseases Online, and the STBBI surveillance page.
Jacobsen: Why is early and routine screening critical in dealing with syphilis?
Public Health Agency of Canada: Screening is testing that is done to detect conditions in people without any symptoms. Screening is particularly important for STBBI, including syphilis, because symptoms may not be noticed at all, or they may be confused with other conditions, or they may not present until very late, once complications have developed. Syphilis screening and timely treatment are thus essential to prevent complications and reduce ongoing transmission. Syphilis screening is particularly important in pregnancy, because an undetected and untreated infection in pregnancy can be passed during pregnancy or delivery and can cause congenital syphilis for infants.
Jacobsen: How can access to testing and treatment for syphilis be improved?
Health professionals can find PHAC’s syphilis screening recommendations, including recommendations for screening during pregnancy, in the STBBI Guides for Health Professionals. New diagnostic modalities, like point-of-care tests, can expand access to syphilis testing. Health Canada has authorized two dual HIV/syphilis point-of-care tests. These tests can be performed using fingerstick specimens and yield preliminary results for both HIV and syphilis within minutes, providing the opportunity for immediate treatment. It’s important to note that the syphilis component of these tests cannot distinguish between a current or past syphilis infection. Further confirmatory testing with standard laboratory tests and clinical evaluation for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning are necessary. The purchase and implementation of syphilis point-of-care tests falls within the roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories.
Jacobsen: How can ordinary Canadians help to foster an inclusive, culturally safe, and stigma-free health system important for addressing syphilis?
Public Health Agency of Canada: Canadians play a role in educating themselves and others in understanding the facts about syphilis. To raise awareness of syphilis and promote the availability of testing and treatment, PHAC developed a knowledge mobilization strategy in close collaboration with community and key populations. It includes advertising campaigns, conferences, webinar series, toolkits and tailored materials for community groups, key populations and health professionals. In March 2023, PHAC launched a short-term social media campaign targeting provinces and territories most affected by increasing infectious and congenital syphilis rates over the past few years in collaboration with key partners and stakeholders. The advertisements were targeted to people 18-40 yrs., with interests in pregnancy and geotargeted to regions with higher rates of syphilis. This small campaign was very successful, reaching people 5,256,164 times and having 6,072 engagements (liked, clicked, shared). During the campaign period, web visits increased by 228%, resulting in 10,985 visits during the 22-day campaign. Canadians can help by sharing this important information with their social networks to help amplify the message and build more awareness of the high rates of syphilis and congenital syphilis.
Building on last year’s efforts, PHAC launched a new awareness campaign (February–March 2025) to encourage young adults (18–39 years old) and health professionals to discuss sexual health, reduce stigma, and promote STBBI testing and prevention, with a focus on syphilis. It expands messaging to overall sexual health while maintaining a two-pronged approach: a national STBBI awareness campaign and targeted syphilis ads in high-incidence regions. The campaign features digital and social media ads, audio ads, and targeted ads to health professionals. Ads will direct traffic to Canada.ca/STI and Canada.ca/syphilis for accessible, evidence-based information.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/28
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo explains that Washington, D.C., has the largest racial wealth gap due to high-paying jobs concentrated among white residents. At the same time, states like West Virginia and Alaska show smaller gaps but lower overall wealth. Entrepreneurship and financial literacy are key factors, but race-based programs may be ineffective compared to merit-based initiatives. Lupo also discusses income inequality policies, how government data sources influence rankings, and the need for better financial education to foster economic mobility.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Chip Lupo of WalletHub. Today, they will cover the states with the largest and smallest wealth gaps by race. How is wealth being measured in the United States for this study? How are race and ethnicity being defined?
Chip Lupo: Well, Scott, to provide some context, we analyzed all 50 states and the District of Columbia across 21 key metrics. Because white individuals comprise approximately 59% of the US population, we used this racial group as the benchmark against which to measure the wealth gap with the nonwhite population, including Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals. For each metric, we selected the largest disparity among these racial groups.
For example, if the income gap in California was 20% between white and Black individuals, 30% between white and Hispanic individuals, and 0% between white and Asian individuals, we used 30% as the representative figure for that metric.
To measure wealth, we incorporated multiple indicators, including median household income, homeownership rates, unemployment, poverty levels, educational attainment, and gaps in educational attainment. Additionally, given its increasing significance, we examined disparities in health insurance coverage.
By evaluating these factors collectively, we aimed to capture a comprehensive picture of wealth disparities in the United States.
Jacobsen: Which states are performing the best? Why are they performing well? And is there a state that ranks relatively high but is notably unbalanced in its sub-rankings?
Lupo: Interestingly, in this study, lower rankings indicate smaller wealth gaps, so being at the bottom of the list can be seen as a positive outcome. However, this can also reflect low overall wealth levels rather than economic equality.
For example, West Virginia ranked 51st, meaning it had the smallest measured racial wealth gap. The disparities there include an approximate 32% gap in median household income, a 41% gap in homeownership rates, and a 72% gap in poverty between white and Black residents.
Similarly, Alaska, which ranked 50th, follows a comparable trend. Both states are predominantly rural and have lower overall income levels. In such cases, poverty, low wages, and limited economic opportunities affect the population across racial lines, resulting in narrower racial wealth gaps but lower wealth for all groups.
Let’s contrast that with the states at the top of the list, where racial wealth disparities are largest. Washington, D.C., ranks first, meaning it has the widest racial wealth gap. It has a 64% gap in median household income and a homeownership gap exceeding 50%. At the same time, the poverty rate among Black residents is 3.26 times higher than that of white residents.
Washington, D.C., has a unique demographic composition, with approximately 45% of its population being Black. However, as the nation’s capital, it also has a concentration of high-paying jobs in government, law, and consulting, which white residents disproportionately hold. This economic structure creates a sharp divide in income and wealth between racial groups.
In essence, when a minority population has a significant presence in high-income jobs, it can drive up overall income statistics while still leaving a large segment of the population economically disadvantaged, exacerbating wealth inequality.
Jacobsen: Even though white individuals make up a smaller percentage of the population in Washington, D.C., what does Professor Martha Davis attribute to the increase in the wealth gap over the past decade?
Lupo: Okay, now, according to Dr. Martha Davis, a distinguished professor of law at Northeastern University in Boston, and I quote:
“Many recent US tax policies have favoured those who have accumulated wealth. For example, the US Department of the Treasury estimates that 92 percent of the tax value of the preferential rates on long-term capital gains and dividends went to White families in 2023. Racial minorities, particularly Black Americans, bear the legacy of institutionalized slavery followed by decades of de facto segregation, educational bias, and other discriminatory practices. As a group, they start with less, and recent US policies have amply rewarded those who start with more.”
Using that as a starting point, this country must do more to provide economic opportunities. According to Dr. Davis, these efforts should begin at the federal level. However, if you’re going to create real societal change, you have to start locally. To change Washington, you first have to change town hall. You have to begin at the grassroots level—and we’re seeing examples today.
I will go off on a slight tangent here, but take Chicago, for example, amid the current immigration crisis. Issues surrounding undocumented immigrants and rising crime rates in an already crime-stricken city have reached a breaking point. Local leadership has implemented policies that favour undocumented immigrants. In response, residents are mobilizing in what could be considered a grassroots movement.
Where that leads is uncertain. But fundamentally, it comes down to policy decisions relating to employment programs, educational opportunities, or community support initiatives.
If you’re from a background where education is not easily accessible, stronger initiatives are needed to provide better learning opportunities. But real change has to start at the bottom—from the ground up.
Too much of the current approach relies on top-down solutions. Instead, we need bottom-up strategies—starting with education, opportunity creation, and policy reform.
The key is empowering individuals at the lowest economic levels, giving them the belief and the means to succeed. When combined with policies that foster and reward achievement, this can significantly impact wealth disparities.
Jacobsen: Another critical factor is entrepreneurship. Emerita Professor Myra Marx Ferree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison has commented extensively on this topic. Most businesses fail in their early stages, so there’s a risk-reward ratio to consider and a bias when we only focus on success stories. Martha Davis spoke about entrepreneurship programs, too. How should we analyze income inequality by race in the US, particularly business ownership? If most businesses fail, could that be reinforcing false perceptions about the actual success rate of startups?
Lupo: In terms of entrepreneurship—it can be valuable, as Dr. Davis noted. However, to be effective, programs must provide access to capital.
Entrepreneurship highlights a broader issue in the US that affects all racial and ethnic groups: a lack of financial literacy. Businesses fail because of a lack of preparation and fundamental financial or business skills.
Until that issue is addressed, entrepreneurship programs will remain beneficial in theory, but their success will be limited without a foundation in financial literacy. Suppose individuals do not understand how to write a check, calculate interest, manage credits and debits, navigate bank accounts, or handle basic business structures, marketing, and management. In that case, they will struggle to sustain a business.
So, before we can assess the value of an entrepreneurship program, we must ensure that individuals have access to basic financial education.
Furthermore, entrepreneurship is also about instilling a sense of achievement—getting people to believe in themselves. When individuals have confidence in their abilities, they strive for goals they may have once thought were out of reach.
Jacobsen: One of the largest gaps in net household wealth and median household income. Non-Hispanic white Americans have approximately $250,000 in median household wealth. Hispanic Americans have about $50,000, and Black Americans have around $25,000 per household.
So we’re talking about a fivefold to tenfold gap between ethnic groups in the United States.
How does that disparity affect residential patterns, including where people can buy homes, what services they can afford, and the quality across generations?
Lupo: Again, this comes back to localizing these issues. Solutions must begin at local and state levels through incentives, education programs, or policy initiatives. The disparities here are staggering.
Take Washington, D.C., for example. You have a minority population in extreme poverty, yet within that same racial group, there is a wealthy elite. That contrast is stark, and it speaks to broader systemic issues. There must be local initiatives aimed at closing this gap.
Jacobsen: Looking at the highest median household incomes, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, and Nebraska top the ranking. However, these same states also have the largest homeownership rate gaps and the biggest poverty rate gaps among racial groups.
What makes these states stand out significantly—particularly regarding the disparities affecting African Americans?
Lupo: It’s interesting because when you examine the top-ranking states—number one, two, three, four, five, or six—they share a geographic pattern. These states are Upper Midwestern, have predominantly white populations, and experience cold climates. So, from a geographic standpoint, these may not be the most attractive locations for minority populations to settle in the first place.
For the minorities who do live in these states, policies and initiatives need to be developed that make them more attractive to Black and minority residents while also encouraging economic opportunity for those already residing there. This is a fascinating geographic trend—not one I initially expected to see. We often look for regional patterns, and here, we see a cluster of cold-weather, sparsely populated states sharing the same issue.
Take Minnesota and Wisconsin—they have some major metro areas, but these states, like Nebraska, have vast rural areas where economic opportunities are limited for people of all races.
Jacobsen: What policies help reduce income inequality across racial and ethnic groups in the US? And which policies fail to have an impact?
Lupo: When discussing entrepreneurship programs, job training programs, or educational initiatives, they can be effective if they are adequately funded and if participation levels are high. The focus should be on well-structured programs. Now, race-based programs do not work. Everything should be based on achievement. Artificially bending the curve and providing opportunities to individuals who have not earned them—regardless of race—can do more harm than good. That’s why any initiative or opportunity should be merit-based.
Jacobsen: Why is everything weighted equally? That might be a good way to wrap up.
Lupo: That’s a great question—I just noticed that myself. Let’s see if there’s any context provided on why the weights are distributed this way.
That’s an interesting point. This is because the data was compiled from only two government agencies: the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You may not need to assign different weights to each metric when you have such a limited number of sources. Yeah, that’s something to think about—every metric being weighted equally is unusual.
Also, the fact that only two government agencies were used for these rankings stands out. Many other potential data sources could have been incorporated. Yes, I don’t know how to answer that. This is the first time I’ve seen a study in which every metric is weighted equally.
Jacobsen: Hypothetically, if you adjusted the weightings to make them more nuanced, which factors would you weigh more heavily and which would receive less weight?
Lupo: Household income, unemployment, education, and poverty should be weighted the most because they are the biggest drivers of wealth inequality.
The uninsured rate might receive slightly less weight since disparities in health insurance are a more recent trend than structural inequalities in income, education, and employment.
Homeownership could be given less weight since having a high income does not always correlate with high homeownership rates.
So, if I were adjusting the weights, household income and unemployment would carry the most weight, followed by the education gap. Poverty would be weighted less, as it is often a result of high unemployment and lower educational attainment rather than a standalone driver. The highest priority metrics would be income, unemployment, and education gap.
Jacobsen: All right, man. I appreciate your time again. Thank you.
Lupo: Thanks, Scott. Bye 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/27
Erin King is a bestselling author, global keynote speaker, and top authority on personal energy management. She founded and grew three successful ventures, including Socialite Agency, later acquired by Strikepoint. Named one of Success Magazine’s “Top 10 Must-See Motivational Speakers of 2023,” Erin has empowered millions worldwide with her book You’re Kind of a Big Deal and top 1% podcast, On Your Terms with Erin King. Her insights have been featured in Forbes, ABC, and SUCCESS Magazine. Erin enjoys outdoor sports outside of work with her husband, Hartman, and her cavapoo, Miss Betty White, embracing life with her Irish family.
King discusses the crucial role of personal energy in leadership and success. King highlighted how energy, often dismissed as a soft skill, influences leaders’ abilities to inspire and lead effectively, with historical examples like Alexander the Great. The The Energy Exam framework identifies energy levels on a 1-7 scale, categorizing individuals as “Big Energy Beings” when consistently scoring high in energy and life satisfaction. With insights from research on 10,000 people, King explains that understanding one’s unique energy type and managing “superchargers”and “drainers” can optimize personal and professional performance.
You can take the 5-minute, PhD-created test here.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re with Erin King from The Energy Exam. You and your team offer a unique approach to viewing personal energy as a key driver of success—which might often be called “good vibes.” So, what is the foundational metric you’re using with The Energy Exam ?
Erin King: Great question. Interestingly, you bring up “good vibes” because traditionally, discussions of energy in corporate environments, especially among top executives worldwide, were often dismissed as “woo-woo,” “hippie-dippy,”or soft skills. However, history shows that leaders’ energy levels have consistently played a crucial role in their influence. Look at historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. You’ll find references to a leader’s energy as a factor that helped them rally people, mobilize support, and gather momentum for their initiatives or conquests—whether for good or bad. Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, even emphasized that a leader’s personal “chi” is the most critical element in rallying a team. Likewise, in history, leaders like Simón Bolívar or Harriet Tubman exhibited unwavering energy, motivating others to follow; for Tubman, her strength and dedication made the Underground Railroad possible. Across many cultures, this concept appears repeatedly, with terms like “mana” in Polynesian culture or “ka” in ancient Egyptian.
So, energy can be a decisive edge in determining one’s ability to influence, impact, and perform at one’s best. I spent over a year working with a team of PhD researchers, interviewing over 10,000 people across the United States aged 18 to 64 to understand their energy habits—how they source, spend, and conserve their most valuable energy resource. One of our questions asked participants what made a leader successful: their connections, experience, skill set, creativity, moral compass, or work ethic. The number one answer was their “vibe” or “way of being.”
Discussing energy at the highest levels of business, society, and personal growth is not a “nice-to-have” or a superficial concept. It’s become an essential workplace skill for leaders and professionals in the 21st century. Regarding your original question about the metric we use in the assessment, there have been around a dozen academic studies on personal energy management over the past 50 years. The widely accepted metric for personal energy is a scale from 1 to 7. If you ask, “Where’s your energy today?” you’re gauging it on this scale, like checking a personal battery level.
It’s Friday at 3:18 PM here in Utah, so our energy levels may be slightly lower after a long week with meetings and calls. When assessing energy, we should ask, “Where’s your battery now?”
King: The way scientists and psychologists ask us to evaluate our energy is by taking the last 90 days of our lives—the ups and downs, whether we’re morning people or night people, Monday starters or Friday finishers. They suggest we average our general energy level on a scale from 1 to 7, where one is the lowest and seven is fully charged. On this scale, 1 to 4 is considered the lower energy range, and 5 to 7 is the higher range.
Our study found a group that consistently reported higher energy levels in the 5 to 7 range and had high life satisfaction scores. Life satisfaction here means how present and joyful you feel, how successful you consider yourself, and how excited you are for the future. Those who reported both a life satisfaction score of 90 or above and an energetic score of 5 to 7 over the past 90 days are what we call “Big Energy Beings.” This group became the focal point of our research to understand how they source, spend, and save their energy.
The metric, then, revolves around your personal energy “battery.” Energy management isn’t about matching someone else’s energy level or mimicking another person’s style; it’s about finding that version of yourself that feels fully charged and at your best. It’s about bringing your best self to the table personally and professionally.
Jacobsen: So, this approach might sound “woo-woo” to some, especially because in psychology and other social sciences, concepts like this are inherently qualitative. People often semi-dismiss it if it can’t be measured with the same rigour as in the physical sciences. But what you’re presenting here is a qualitative blend: life satisfaction, authentic use of your resources, and how you engage in tasks or lead others.
I’m still working through the nuances, but it’s a more comprehensive concept. Are these people perhaps more likely to be what we’d consider “self-actualized” in common psychological terms? I’m thinking of Maslow’s hierarchy—people who use their energy broadly and deeply across various aspects of their lives.
King: Yes, so, what’s interesting is that when we talk about something like energy, which cannot be created or destroyed—that’s the hard science—even though it’s intangible, its impact is incredibly vast. Your energy introduces you before you even say a word. You might call it nonverbal communication, eye contact, body language, or simply catching someone’s vibe. But the reality is that you’re immediately transmitting a vibe if you step onto a stage, into an elevator, onto a Zoom call, or into an office or room. That vibe reflects how you’re feeling internally.
How you feel individually is what you transmit interactionally, ultimately influencing everything you do. From productivity and performance to influence and impact, and even how aligned or alive you feel personally. In the research we conducted over a year, I worked with 12 PhD researchers. The scores were self-reported, with us interviewing 10,000 people and asking them where they felt they were in terms of energy and how it impacted their lives.
One of the significant findings was the common assumption that energy levels relate to age. Plenty of generational research compares Boomers to Gen Z, for instance. But we found that, across different generations, what energized people and made them feel like their best selves at work or home was similar.
Considering the energy categories—physical, emotional, social, mental, and spiritual—most were consistent across generations. The only major difference was in the physical category, which varied due to obvious generational differences in physical ability. However, when we looked at mental, spiritual, and social energy, the variations were minimal across the 10,000 people surveyed.
However, when we re-categorized participants based on their “energy type,” we identified five distinct types, which showed the differences in what energized people were pronounced. What energizes people is more strongly influenced by their energy type than their age, effectively debunking the idea that energy sources are generational. We found that we aren’t defined by our age but rather by our energy.
Knowing your energy type—what drains you, what charges you, and how the world perceives you—are insights that help you pivot and adjust how you invest your energy in people, places, and projects. It matters far more how you’re wired energetically, at a foundational level, than how old you are or what you were taught growing up. Our “power source” is as distinct as our DNA.
In the last twenty years, there’s been much discussion around introverts and extroverts, with extroverts getting energy from people and introverts from solitude. However, our study found that about 70% of people are ambiverts. It’s situational; if you’re with someone whose energy you’re resonating with, you can feel extroverted, while in other settings, you may feel more introverted. So, ultimately, it’s not fixed—it’s situational.
It’s vibrational. Understanding how you work best energetically and how your team or family operates is crucial for anyone in a leadership or galvanizing role. What makes Jacobsen lean in and say, “Tell me more,” might not be the same for someone else. This whole concept of energy management is the new time management; it’s the currency we use to interact with the world. In a time when artificial intelligence, filters, and fake news often blur reality, energy is a truth-teller. It’s something reliable you can anchor to—someone’s energy or vibe doesn’t lie. Energy is the last remaining truth-teller.
Whether in sales, marketing, collaboration, creativity, or project management, understanding how your energy is perceived and others’ energy works allows for adjustments that lead to better collaboration, productivity, positivity, and profitability. Our research identified five energy types: Synergistic, Responsive, Rigorous, Generative, and Kinetic.
Jacobsen: And with a sample size of 10,000, that’s quite large for a study. Usually, an acceptable sample size is around 2,000 participants.
King: Due to budget constraints, we conducted all interviews within the United States. Patterns emerged from these thousands of conversations regarding how people source, spend, and save energy. This led us to identify five distinct energy types: Kinetic, Responsive, Generative, Rigorous, and Synergistic.
Interestingly, around 5,000 people have taken the Energy Exam since it was launched two months ago. In follow-up emails, we asked participants how accurately their identified type reflected their experience—how the world perceives them, what powers them, and what drains them. The feedback has shown a substantial 97% self-reported accuracy rate.
Even more compelling, each type has a scientifically based shortcut for engineering your energy in high-stakes moments when you need it most. Think about peak performance: we all want to bring our best to valuable or challenging experiences, but sometimes, we’re drained. Each type’s unique “energy hack” enables individuals to channel their energy effectively when it matters most.
We’re exhausted. It’s often due to things within our control, like not enforcing boundaries, making unhealthy decisions, or overcommitting. Maybe we’re making mistakes with our energy—spreading ourselves too thin, not being honest, or adhering too much to societal or familial “shoulds.” These are all controllable energy drainers. Then there are the uncontrollable ones: wars, economic issues, politics, difficult seasons, accidents, trauma, illness, and loss. These factors drain our battery in ways we can’t always control.
So, when you think about what impacts your “battery,” personally and professionally, it’s important to consider what you can and can’t control. The idea behind this movement is that peak performance—being at your best—happens when you’re radically present when you’re “where your feet are.” This is challenging in 2024, with constant notifications, social media, and news feeds designed by the smartest engineers to distract us.
Our study asked people what they admired in someone’s energy. The top three responses were active listening, engaged body language, and authentic empathy. Each of these requires a radical presence—a sense of being fully there with others. Yet, many high achievers struggle with this; they’re constantly “time travelling”—either to the future, anticipating problems and trying to control outcomes (which fuels anxiety), or to the past, dwelling on mistakes, limiting beliefs, or difficult experiences (which can lead to depression).
So, in those key moments—whether it’s a work presentation or a family gathering—if we’re time travelling to the future or the past, we’re not fully present. And if we’re not present, we’re not transmitting the kind of energy that’s admirable. We’re not actively listening, our body language isn’t engaged, and we aren’t showing authentic empathy.
When we’re not where our feet are, we must be fully engaged and take advantage of opportunities to connect meaningfully with others. True presence happens when we’re naturally engaged and energized. That’s when we’re able to show up at our best.
Instead of just telling people to “be present” or “live in the moment,” we need to help them engineer a sense of being engaged in the moment. Suppose you can engineer that state—what science calls being “in flow”—you’re naturally present. It forces you to be “where your feet are.” And when you’re truly present, guess what happens? Your energy reflects all the qualities people admire in “good vibes,” as you said earlier, Scott. You’re actively listening, your body language is engaged, and you’re showing authentic empathy because you’re fully in the moment.
The idea behind this study was to find ways to engineer our energy so that we’re forced to be present, especially when we don’t feel like it. When we’re exhausted, burnt out, overwhelmed, or want to escape. We often escape to the future or the past but escape into our devices. We scroll away our self-awareness, avoiding being “where we are” by seeing who’s having a better time, who’s more successful, or who seems to have the life we want. This escape mechanism keeps us anywhere but the present.
We created a scientifically backed shortcut with the Energy Exam—a “supercharger” for each of the five energy types. You trigger engagement, flow, and presence by introducing this supercharger through people, projects, or places that energize you. This unlocks peak performance because now the energy you transmit is the energy people are naturally drawn to.
What our study showed is that 68% of people—so about 7 out of 10—who were initially in a low energy state (1 to 4 on the 1-7 scale) moved to a higher energy state (5 to 7) just by spending time with someone whose energy they admired. We didn’t phrase it as “someone you want to follow” because not everyone wants to be a follower. We asked about “energy you admire.” After spending time with such a person, we reassessed their energy, and 68% reported a boost.
So, the takeaway is that if you’re a professional, a leader, or anyone working in a low-energy environment, the fastest way to raise the energy isn’t to look around and criticize others’ energy but to raise your own. That’s contagious.
Everyone knows energy is contagious, but our study quantifies it: Seven out of 10 people shift from low to high energy just by being around someone who’s at their best. This isn’t just a soft skill or “woo-woo” idea; it’s a scientifically backed shift. Raising your vibe to raise your value is now an essential skill.
It’s the number one essential skill you can cultivate as a leader today. When people engage with this concept, they should be clear about the impact; it’s not just about “good vibes.” You, Scott, with your expertise in communication, speaking, and authorship, know the importance of carefully using terms like vibes, energy, and vibrational. These terms, while colloquial, convey evidence from studies rather than just empty words.
Jacobsen: Right. So, what are some potential weaknesses of this study?
King: Good question. The primary weaknesses in the study come from the participants themselves. Let’s take the energy types, for example. Say you’re a Rigorous energy type, Scott—I’m not sure if you’ve taken the test yet, but let’s assume that. Rigorous energy types tend to convey a sense of gravitas and discipline. They’re thorough, detail-oriented, and stick to the process. But when they’re drained, it’s often because there’s too much chaos or freewheeling energy around them. For someone with Rigorous energy, their supercharger is “order.” So, if they feel drained, they need to ask themselves, “How can I bring more order to this situation?” They need structure, a game plan, and preparation to unlock their energy and show up at their best.
But every superpower has a shadow side. For instance, Kinetic energy types thrive on motion—the faster, the more energy generated. If a Kinetic type is feeling drained, their supercharger is competition or challenge. When things become too repetitive or formulaic, they must create a sense of competition to re-energize. However, the weakness of this type is that they often ignore physical or emotional signals of exhaustion. They push themselves to burnout by silencing their body’s cues.
Each energy type has a unique strength and a corresponding weakness. Take Responsive energy types, for example. They’re empathetic and often act as listeners or therapists for others. Feeling drained, they need space to process, think, and digest what has transpired. Their superpower is being accessible and caring, but the downside is that they sometimes make themselves too accessible, allowing others to drain their energy because they care too much.
Each energy type has its unique “supercharger” to maintain balance, but it must also be cautious of overextending its strengths, which can turn into weaknesses. It’s about recognizing that each type has a strength and a shadow and learning how to manage both to optimize energy levels.
They often put everyone else ahead of themselves—it’s a classic people-pleaser personality. Each energy type has a superpower but also a shadow side. The same charger that fuels them can also act as their drainer.
So, one of the weaknesses in the study is recognizing that if you’re going through a “rainy season”—I call it “when it rains, it pours”—you may be dealing with multiple drainers in your life. You might think, “Erin, I’m just trying to get myself out of bed right now, let alone raise my vibe.” There are different levels of energy: surviving and thriving are two distinct states. If you’re in a high season, you’re ready to elevate, to “raise your vibe.” But if you’re in survival mode, it’s not about comparing yourself to others; it’s about understanding your baseline, giving yourself grace, and knowing there are small adjustments you can make to bring yourself back to your best gradually.
The biggest challenge in energy management is that social media and phones encourage constant comparison, which drains your energy faster than anything. This process isn’t about emulating your boss, coworkers, or influencers you follow. It’s about looking within and having the courage to search for answers internally rather than externally. Managing your energy isn’t something you master—it’s more like yoga or golf; it’s a practice. You improve each day, finding what works for you to show up at your best.
Our Big Energy Blueprint process uses a five-step, infinity-knot-shaped process to optimize energy daily. The steps are Ask, Assess, Align, Adjust, and Amplify. The third step, Alignment, is the hardest. It requires deleting drainers and leaning into chargers, which takes courage and guts. It means tuning into your gut instinct, which often tells you more than logic alone.
So Alignment is about having the courage to step away from things that should be fulfilling but aren’t, right? Sometimes, we stay in jobs, relationships, or projects that should feel fulfilling or energizing. This “should, should, should” mentality can be a trap. But your body speaks to you if you feel heavy, drained, or exhausted despite how things should be. It doesn’t matter how influential a person is, how smart a project seems, or how promising an environment appears. If your body signals exhaustion, it’s a cue to listen. Yet, we’re often so focused on escaping with our phones or time-travelling forward or backward that we ignore these signals. Especially as a leader, being attuned to your body’s guidance is crucial.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Erin.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26
Mikkel Aaland, a sweat bathing expert, discusses the history, cultural significance, and health benefits of sweat bathing with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. He explores traditions worldwide, from Finnish saunas to Japanese hot springs and Russian banyas. Aaland highlights sweat bathing’s physical benefits, such as improved circulation, cardiovascular health, and immune system support, as well as its social and spiritual aspects. He emphasizes its role in human history, dating back to ancient civilizations. While advocating for sweat bathing, he advises individuals with medical conditions to consult a doctor. He hopes for a growing appreciation of this practice in North America.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Mikkel Aaland, a sweat bathing expert, wellness advocate, author, and cultural historian. He is dedicated to revitalizing and preserving various wellness traditions practiced for centuries. He has nearly five decades of experience and is pivotal in the global wellness movement. His seminal book, Sweat, was first published in 1978. I assume there have been new editions over the years.
He explores diverse forms of sweat bathing practices and their associated benefits. He also was the host, and inspiration behind, the acclaimed seven-part docuseries, Perfect Sweat, which was created (directors per episode) by Bray’s Run Productions (with producer as Cassandra Jabola) and which was featured in multiple countries and showcased traditional and modern sweat practices.
You are based in San Francisco. The West Coast is often stereotyped as a wellness hub, particularly California. Over the past 50 years, what was the first indication that sweat bathing was a legitimate wellness practice worthy of extensive study and mastery that you could then share with others through advocacy?
Mikkel Aaland: That is a good question. My background is that I have lived in San Francisco for half a year and in Norway for the other half, as my father was from there. Norwegian culture has its form of sweat bathing, known as badstue, similar to the Finnish sauna.
I grew up with the bad stuff and took it for granted until I realized that not everyone practiced this tradition. However, as I began to explore further, I discovered that cultures worldwide have their forms of sweat bathing.
The sauna is just one example, so let me define a sweat bath. A sweat bath is any heated chamber where people go to sweat. This includes the Turkish bath, or hammam, common throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Native American cultures in North America have the sweat lodge, a sacred space used for purification and spiritual renewal.
Around the world, the Romans—one of the greatest bathing cultures in history—developed the thermae. What becomes evident is that sweat bathing is a universal and enduring tradition. Yet, for some reason, it has not been as widely practiced in modern North America.
Recognizing this, I set out to help reintroduce and expand the bathing culture in America. When my book Sweat was first published in 1978, I had already spent several years travelling worldwide—visiting Russia, Turkey, Germany, Japan (another great bathing culture), Mexico, North America, and Scandinavia.
In my research, sweat bathing is as fundamental to human culture as baking bread or fermenting beverages. Everywhere you go, there is a form of sweat bathing, varying in architecture, customs, and rituals but ultimately serving the same purpose—a place to cleanse, heal, and renew.
I asked myself, why is this practice so widespread across cultures yet so rare here? Fortunately, that is now changing, Scott. We are beginning to see a real movement toward bathing culture in North America, and I am very excited about that.
Jacobsen: Any basic knowledge of physiology suggests that heat causes blood vessels to dilate—a process known as vasodilation. But what does that mean in terms of blood flow?
What does sweating do beyond expelling a small amount of salt and water from the body’s reserves? Blood vessels open up, and people sweat out some water and salt—but what makes this a significant physiological response?
Aaland: That is a great question. You are referring to the physical effects of heat exposure on the body. What happens when you subject yourself to extreme heat?
We are talking about temperatures around 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit). When you expose your body—or anything, for that matter—to high temperatures, transformation occurs.
You mentioned sweating, which is the body’s natural response to heat. But what happens internally is even more fascinating. Heat stimulates nearly every organ in the body.
Even though you are sitting still, it mimics the physiological effects of running several miles. Circulation increases, and blood flow to the skin is significantly enhanced. Research has shown that heat exposure profoundly affects heart health and brain function.
Studies suggest that while regular sauna use does not cure Alzheimer’s, it may help reduce the risk of developing it. Extensive research on cardiovascular health has also indicated that maintaining a strong, healthy heart is possible through regular heat exposure.
Additionally, numerous studies have examined the impact of heat therapy on depression. When the body is heated, endorphin levels rise, and depressive symptoms often diminish.
There is also compelling research on the immune system benefits of alternating heat exposure with rapid cooling. This process triggers an adrenaline rush while strengthening the body’s natural defences.
So yes, it is an incredibly healthy activity, but that is not the only reason I am such a strong advocate for sweat bathing—though it is certainly a major factor.
Another important aspect is the social element, Scott. Many sweat baths, especially traditional ones, are public. When people bathe together—often minimally clothed—it fosters an uncommon level of openness and connection in other social settings.
The social benefits of sweat bathing are well-documented. We know that individuals who engage in regular social interactions are at a lower risk of depression. The communal aspect of bathing plays a significant role in overall well-being.
The third element is more difficult to articulate. Still, it is spiritual—not in a religious sense, but in a deeply personal way.
When you are immersed in intense heat, you experience a transformative experience. The boundaries between yourself and the external world seem to dissolve, creating a profound sense of connection to something larger than yourself—whether it is nature, community, or simply a heightened awareness of your own body and mind.
That is what I mean by “spiritual.” Under one roof, sweat bathing unites physical, social, and spiritual benefits—something few other human activities can offer. When you examine it closely, it becomes clear why sweat bathing has existed since the dawn of humankind and why it is practiced in cultures worldwide.
Jacobsen: Some individuals may benefit from sweat bathing but also have preexisting conditions that could pose risks—such as heart disease or blood pressure issues. What conditions should be considered for those with underlying health concerns? What are the potential risks?
Aaland: I am not a doctor, but I caution anyone with certain heart conditions or respiratory problems to consult a physician before engaging in intense heat exposure. Heat is powerful. Many traditional sweat baths are heated by fire, which can be beneficial and dangerous. This kind of heat is very intense, and it should not be taken lightly.
Suppose you have any doubts about your physical health. In that case, it is always best to check with a doctor before participating in sweat bathing.
Jacobsen: Of the cultures you have studied—both those still in existence and those long gone, such as the Romans—which do you think had the most technically developed approach to bathing and sweating? Without a full scientific understanding, which cultures had the most structured and therapeutic traditions surrounding heat exposure?
Aaland: Wow, these are great questions.
Regarding a highly developed sweat-bathing culture, the Russians are among the most passionate bathers I have encountered. There is a wonderful book—I am trying to recall the author’s name—titled Without the Banya We Would Perish: A History of the Russian Bathhouse by Ethan Pollock. The banya is the Russian sweat bath, and the book beautifully captures the Russian love for it. That passion has remained strong for thousands of years.
Of course, most people associate sweat bathing with the Finnish sauna, which originated in Finland. The Finns have maintained their sauna tradition for centuries, even during the Middle Ages, when much of Europe abandoned communal bathing due to various factors, including the Black Death and religious influences.
Another fascinating contemporary bathing culture is Japan. The Japanese have an incredible variety of bathing practices, using almost everything. Hot springs (onsen) are prevalent throughout the country. Still, in places with no natural hot springs, they have developed alternatives such as kamma-buro (heated rock baths) and mushi-buro (steam baths).
Jacobsen: What about contrast effects? We all know the experiment attributed to Aristotle: if you place one hand in cold water and the other in warm water, then put both in room-temperature water, the warm-water hand perceives the room-temperature water as cold, while the cold-water hand perceives it as warm.
Are there cultures that have developed a well-entrenched tradition of alternating between hot and cold water immersion to enhance the body’s physiological responses?
Aaland: Yes, absolutely. You are touching on two key aspects here.
Contrast therapy—alternating between hot and cold exposure—has become a popular topic, especially with the rise of cold water immersion. Many people follow instructors who teach them to stay in ice water for extended periods to achieve various health benefits.
It is interesting to me because heat and cold exposure have always been paired historically. In cultures with established sweat-bathing traditions, cooling off in cold water was a natural and necessary counterpart to heat exposure. Only now are people isolating the cold aspect and turning it into its own practice.
There is no question that contrast therapy has a profound physiological effect. The extreme stimulation of the body has been shown to fine-tune the immune system and significantly elevate mood. The rush of adrenaline and endorphins after moving from heat to cold is remarkable.
You also mentioned how temperature perception is relative, which I often discuss. For example, the hammam—commonly known as the Turkish bath—is found in some of the hottest climates on Earth. Many people wonder why someone would want to enter a hot bath when it is already scorching outside.
The answer is that heat can be fought with heat. Suppose you expose yourself to extreme temperatures—say, a 100-degree Celsius bath—then step outside into a 40-degree Celsius environment. In that case, the air will feel refreshingly cool by comparison.
The British learned a similar lesson in India: drinking hot tea in a hot climate can help regulate body temperature more effectively than consuming cold drinks. It seems counterintuitive, but fighting heat with heat is a well-documented phenomenon.
Jacobsen: We have discussed the different bathing traditions, primarily those involving water—whether saltwater, freshwater or even chlorinated water in a hot tub.
You mentioned that the Japanese have one of the most developed and diverse bathing cultures. What are some of the strangest or most unexpected practices you have encountered?
Aaland: Coffee beans—hot coffee beans—electric eels, and immersion into electric baths are some of the stranger practices I have encountered.
Of course, hot springs are a wonderful and natural way to engage in thermal bathing. However, a deep-rooted emphasis on cleanliness is at the core of Japanese culture.
Cleanliness in Japan is not just a physical concept; it extends beyond washing the body. It is also about purifying the mind and soul. Bathing is seen as a spiritual cleansing as much as a physical one. This cultural value has given rise to highly developed and intricate bathing rituals across Japan.
Jacobsen: That is a good point. How far back does this tradition go?
Aaland: That is a great question. We have historical records dating back thousands of years.
Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian, wrote about the Scythians using vapour baths as early as 2,500 years ago. Archaeological evidence supports that many civilizations, including the Mayans, practiced sweat bathing. The Mayans, for example, used the temazcal, a type of sweat lodge, thousands of years ago.
I recently returned from Ireland, where ancient sweat houses—small stone structures used for steam bathing—are believed to date back several thousand years.
But when considering human history, a thousand years is relatively recent. This is speculation on my part, but I imagine that prehistoric humans discovered the benefits of heat exposure very early on.
Picture a fire burning inside a cave—more wood is added, the temperature rises, and it feels good. The warmth relaxes the body, causing sweat to form. Perhaps early humans gathered around these fires, telling stories and experiencing heat’s social and therapeutic effects together.
This practice likely predates civilization itself. As long as humans have been controlling fire, they have probably been bathing in some form of sweat.
Jacobsen: Are there individuals for whom this process is less effective—people with a naturally subdued or blunted sweating response?
Aaland: Humans sweat. It is one of the defining characteristics of our species. If we did not sweat, we would not survive.
Sweat functions as our body’s primary cooling mechanism. Many other mammals do not sweat as effectively—or at all. Our ability to sweat has enabled us to inhabit a wide range of climates across the planet.
Additionally, it allows us to run long distances while staying cool. A lion, for example, can sprint at high speeds but cannot run for extended periods because it does not sweat—it overheats quickly. In contrast, humans can maintain endurance over long distances due to superior thermoregulation.
You previously asked what is in sweat. Sweat is indeed about 99% water and salt. Still, it also contains trace amounts of certain heavy metals and toxins that are not easily excreted through other means. This is why the skin is sometimes referred to as the “third kidney”—it plays an important role in detoxification and is also the body’s largest organ.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Some people do not tolerate heat well. Milder alternatives, such as a Finnish sauna, are available for those who find high-temperature sweat bathing too intense.
For instance, the Turkish hammam tends to be more humid but operates at a lower temperature. There are many different styles of sweat bathing. Finding the one that works best for you is just a matter of finding it. Even if you do not enjoy extreme heat, you can still experience significant benefits from a milder bath.
Ultimately, I want to encourage people to try sweat bathing without being discouraged by a particular style that may not suit them.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts based on our conversation today?
Aaland: No, but I want to say that I have enjoyed your questions—they were excellent.
I am passionate about this subject. When you engage with it and truly experience it as I have, you realize that few things also work across cultures. Sweat bathing has the power to transform people. Sharing the heat, sweat, converse, and cool down together fosters a unique human connection that is difficult to find elsewhere.
Now more than ever, Scott, we need meaningful rituals like this—healthy traditions that bring people together profoundly and authentically. So yes, I am a strong advocate, and I hope others also come to appreciate it.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much for your time today. It was a pleasure to speak with you.
Aaland: Great. As I said, your questions were insightful, and I appreciate you taking the time.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. Take care.
Aaland: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/25
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) works collaboratively with partners to improve access to high quality services for First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is committed to improving the quality of life of Canadians by ensuring the country’s abundant natural resources are developed sustainably, competitively and inclusively. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is committed to protecting and conserving our natural heritage, predicting weather and environmental conditions, preventing and managing pollution, promoting clean growth and a sustainable environment for present and future generations. The Wataynikaneyap Power project is a transformative, Indigenous-led initiative connecting 16 First Nations, including Poplar Hill First Nation, to the Ontario power grid. This shift from diesel-generated electricity improves reliability, economic opportunities, and environmental sustainability while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel spill risks. Indigenous leadership plays a crucial role, with 24 First Nations owning 51% of the project, aiming for full ownership. The initiative fosters capacity building, infrastructure growth, and long-term self-reliance. Government funding and partnerships have been key to success, ensuring cleaner, safer, and more sustainable energy for remote communities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How will connecting to the Ontario power grid improve daily life and opportunities for Poplar Hill First Nation?
Jennifer Cooper for Indigenous Services Canada (ISC): Access to reliable electricity is key to an improved quality of life for First Nation communities in Ontario, which includes Poplar Hill First Nation. Providing reliable energy to the First Nation enables better access to essential services and will improve the local environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and diesel fuel spills.
Connection to the provincial power grid leads the way to new economic and employment opportunities for Poplar Hill First Nation powered by safe, clean and reliable energy.
For more information about the benefits of this project, please visit the Wataynikaneyap Power webpage.
Jacobsen: What challenges did the transition from diesel-generated electricity to a grid-connected system create?Cooper (ISC): As the project lead, Wataynikaneyap Power is best positioned to discuss the challenges as First Nations transitioned away from diesel generation towards grid connection for their communities.
Please visit the Natural Resources Canada website for information on the challenges of powering Canada’s off-grid communities.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan): Poplar Hill First Nation is an Independent Power Authority community; however, the grid connection through the Wataynikaneyap Transmission Project means that the community will now be serviced by Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. for the community’s local distribution of electricity. As articulated by the CEO of Wataynikaneyap Power LP, this affects the community’s desire for ownership, capacity building, and self-reliance in power distribution, and necessitates that, moving forward, the community complete all documentation in line with Hydro One’s requirements (source).
In general, transitioning away from diesel-generated electricity to a grid connected system requires coordinating multiple stakeholders over many years, as well as significant capital investments. There can be additional costs and technical challenges due to remoteness. In their report National Indigenous Electrification Strategy: Strategy to Accelerate Indigenous Ownership of Net Zero Infrastructure in Canada, the First Nations Major Projects Coalition outlines that access to competitively priced capital is often the main challenge for Indigenous ownership of clean energy infrastructure.
Jacobsen: How has Indigenous leadership influenced execution of the Wataynikaneyap Power project?
Cooper (ISC): The Wataynikaneyap Power project is the largest and most far-reaching Indigenous-led transmission project in Ontario’s history. Wataynikaneyap Power is majority owned by 24 First Nation communities and has played a critical role in leading this project. CEO Margaret Kenequanash has demonstrated leadership on this project for many years and her commitment to a better quality of life for First Nation people right across the vast Northern reaches of the province. The Wataynikaneyap Power project represents an Indigenous-led solution to longstanding infrastructure challenges.
Jacobsen: How does reduction of greenhouse gas emissions contribute to environmental and community health objectives?
Cooper (ISC): Greenhouse gas emission reduction aligns with Indigenous values offering holistic benefits that bridge ecological health, cultural vitality, and social justice.
Reliable electrical power is essential for the health, safety, and growth of First Nations communities. For too long, communities faced significant challenges due to reliance on diesel generation, which strained their quality of life and limited opportunities for housing, infrastructure, and development. Connecting to the power grid is transforming First Nation communities, enabling sustainable growth, and improving overall well-being. This partnership, reflected in the Wataynikaneyap Power project has been critical in making this transmission system for First Nations a reality, creating lasting benefits for the communities it serves.
For more information, we recommend that you reach out to First Nation communities to seek Indigenous voices directly for a more accurate and respectful representation of their views.
Jacobsen: How do traditional knowledge and values shape this clean energy initiative?
Cooper (ISC): Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) recognizes that Indigenous traditions and knowledge systems are sources of strength, wisdom and guidance. To learn more about how ISC recognizes and respects the deep knowledge and practices held by Indigenous communities, please consult Indigenous Services Canada: Strategic Plan 2020 to 2025.
To learn about the partnerships that guided the Wataynikaneyap Power project, please contact watayinquiries@wataypower.ca or visit Wataynikaneyap Power for more information.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC): As the impacts of climate change disproportionately affect First Nations communities, reducing emissions can contribute to First Nations’ community health objectives. The legacies of colonization and First Nations’ unique relationship with the land, waters, and ice are factors that compound the effects of climate change, leading to intensified negative cultural, social, and economic impacts for Indigenous Peoples that directly compromise their health and wellbeing. These impacts can be substantially reduced by cutting emissions and pollution.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution can have positive effects on human health. Improving water and air quality and reducing chronic illnesses are some of the most known health-related co-benefits of reducing emissions. Mitigating climate change can also help reduce impacts of temperature increases on humans, such as heart stroke, dehydration, and heat exhaustion. The impacts of extreme weather events can cause death, injury and increase mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
By investing in clean energy, communities can take concrete action to address the causes of climate change.
Jacobsen: How do partnerships with federal agencies and other stakeholders help the project succeed?
Cooper (ISC): Partnerships on the Indigenous-led Wataynikaneyap Power project, including with the Ontario and Canadian governments, have been crucial to the development and building of the transmission system, and enabled regulatory efficiencies, reduced delays and compliance issues, allowed for shared essential resources like funding, technical expertise and knowledge, and distributed responsibilities and risks.
The Government of Canada supported the project with $1.6 billion in federal funding, announced in March 2018, to connect 16 First Nations to the provincial power grid. Ontario will also apply existing ratepayer subsidies to support transmission connection and distribution costs.
The project is providing clean, safe and reliable energy to 15,000 people. Wataynikaneyap Power also estimates that the project has resulted in more than 750 jobs for First Nations.
First Nations are at the forefront of working toward a cleaner environment that will promote the health and safety of community members. Strong partnerships between First Nations and the Government of Canada are a key element of this commitment to foster the growth of Indigenous communities.
To learn about the partnerships that guided the Wataynikaneyap Power project, please contact, watayinquiries@wataypower.ca or visit Wataynikaneyap Power for more information.
Jacobsen: What are the main lessons from these experiences that might guide similar energy projects in other remote First Nation communities?
Cooper (ISC): As the lead of the Wataynikaneyap Power project, they are in a better position to discuss some of the learned experiences. You can reach out to watayinquiries@wataypower.ca for more information.
Jacobsen: How will access to clean and reliable power support remote communities’ long-term self-reliance?
Cooper (ISC): Reliable power is essential for the health, safety, and growth of First Nations communities. Connecting to the power grid is transforming First Nation communities, enabling sustainable growth and improving overall well-being. Thousands of people living in remote First Nations communities are experiencing much higher quality of life as a result of being connected to the grid.
All communities need access to energy that is clean and reliable. By investing in Indigenous-led solutions to long standing infrastructure challenges, the Government of Canada plays an important role to support companies like Wataynikaneyap Power on their Power Transmission Project that will support remote First Nations to power themselves and reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to diesel energy production.
Connecting 16 diesel-dependent First Nations to Ontario’s power grid will provide these communities with clean, safe and reliable energy that will have a significant effect on the health and safety of community members and also expand infrastructure and economic opportunities.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan):
- Indigenous ownership: The Wataynikaneyap Transmission Project is the largest Indigenous-owned and led energy infrastructure project in Canada. Wataynikaneyap Power LP is 51% owned by 24 First Nations, through an entity called the 24 First Nations Limited Partnership (FNLP). The FNLP intends to eventually increase its 51% ownership share to 100%. Project ownership results in positive economic benefits such as local jobs from construction and long-term revenue generation.
- Capacity building: FNLP has 100% ownership of Opiikapawiin Services Limited Partnership (OSLP). OSLP is primarily responsible for administering projects and programs for Wataynikaneyap Power relating to community engagement, education and training, stakeholder engagement, and capacity building. Through OSLP, the communities participating in the transmission project can develop the skills and training required to successfully commission and operate the project.
- Avoided cost of diesel: Access to clean and reliable power supports self-reliance by eliminating the dependence on diesel fuel as the main source of electricity. Based on financial analysis conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) on behalf of Wataynikaneyap, compared to diesel use, grid connection will result in $1.15 billion in net present value savings over 40 years of operation for 16 communities involved.
- Diesel fuel needs to be transported over long distances and stored locally. Remoteness and the potential for extreme climate conditions result in higher transportation costs, in addition to environmental risks (e.g. spills).
- Fuel prices fluctuate with global market conditions, which can add uncertainty and additional cost to the communities.
- Increased energy security: Grid connection will also increase the availability and quality of electricity compared to diesel generators that have limited generation capacity and lead to load restrictions. With a more abundant source of electricity, communities can pursue economic activities that would not have been possible under load restrictions, such as building new schools and health care centers, electrification, and supporting larger scale industries/businesses for the community.
- For additional information on socio-economic benefits, please see: Economy – Watay Power.
Jacobsen: Thank you all for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/25
Michael Dagenais is a seasoned executive with extensive experience in the technology and analytics sectors. Currently serving as the Senior Executive Director of US Manufacturing, Transportation, Entertainment, and Services at SAS, he leads strategic initiatives to drive innovation and operational excellence for clients across industries. Previously, he held the role of Director, Federal Government, for SAS Canada, where he advanced analytics adoption within government operations. With an MBA and a strong background in business administration, Dagenais has also contributed to Canadian corporate leadership. Now based in Wake Forest, North Carolina, he is recognized for his expertise in fostering transformative data-driven solutions. Dagenais discussed the benefits of consolidating annual contracts into a single agreement for the Government of Canada. Dagenais highlighted the efficiency gained by reducing 117 separate contracts into one annual financial transaction, allowing for redirected resources. They also addressed the modernization of SAS software, transitioning from SAS 9 to SAS Viya, which aligns with Canada’s digital transformation goals by shifting to cloud infrastructure. Dagenais emphasized the importance of simplifying contracts and improving flexibility while reducing technical debt. He expressed confidence that future evaluations would be more favorable, with significant savings and alignment with government priorities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How will the consolidation of annual contracts into a single agreement benefit the Government of Canada?
Michael Dagenais: There are several significant ways. The first and most obvious is efficiency for the federal government. Currently, awarding or renewing a contract requires a full review process at the departmental and agency level. After that, it is sent to Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), which repeats the process to validate terms, conditions, pricing, and other details. Additionally, there is a financial validation process to ensure the agency or department has sufficient funds.
By consolidating these steps into a single annual agreement, the process is reduced from 117 separate negotiations, pricing reviews, and validations to one financial transaction per year. This change greatly reduces the man-hours required and allows resources to be redirected to other priorities, making the process much more efficient overall.
Jacobsen: How does SAS Viya align with Canada’s Digital Ambition Plan to prioritize digital initiatives?
Dagenais: The modernization from SAS 9 to SAS Viya represents a major technological leap for the government. This upgrade transitions from an on-premises infrastructure, where data resides on physical servers, to a cloud-based solution. The move to the cloud brings numerous benefits, including cost savings, reduced physical infrastructure, and environmental advantages, all of which align with Canada’s digital transformation and sustainability goals.
Jacobsen: What will be the challenges in modernizing SAS technology?
Dagenais: While modernization offers substantial benefits, there will be some challenges. A primary issue is the learning curve associated with adapting to cloud-based systems. Government employees, who are used to software residing on physical servers or desktops, will need to adjust to the new approach. From a technical perspective, however, the changes are minimal. The backend processes remain largely the same, but with improved speed and efficiency. Once users are familiar with the system, these adjustments will lead to better overall performance.
Jacobsen: How will standardized access to SAS software enhance the digital capabilities of federal employees?
Dagenais: The transition shifts the platform from a compute-based or CPU-based model to a user-based model. This leads to improved productivity and enhances the digital capabilities of federal employees, helping the government achieve its modernization goals.
Providing unlimited ways to access the system will also help the federal government as they navigate their back-to-work program. For example, whether someone is remote due to geography or by choice, we can accommodate that much better from a cloud-based perspective compared to the old on-premises approach.
Jacobsen: How will adopting SAS Viya contribute to reducing technical debt and improving the flexibility of the computing structure?
Dagenais: As we discussed, the flexibility offered by a cloud-native approach will make access easier not only for end-users but also for the technical teams supporting these environments. From an efficiency perspective, we estimate the new platform is 30% faster than the current system.
For example, data analysis that previously required an entire weekend to process can now be completed in an afternoon. This faster processing translates directly into quicker insights and more immediate realization of efficiency and effectiveness.
This aligns with feedback we received starting in October 2022, when the Auditor General issued a critical report on IT environments in the federal government.
Jacobsen: Do you think there will be a more more favorable review next time?
Dagenais: Yes, I do.
This also supports the Government of Canada’s digital ambition. These are key elements we focused on during the process. It wasn’t about simply selling software and discussing costs. Instead, we emphasized the broader benefits and alignment with government priorities.
Jacobsen: Michael, thank you for your time today.
Dagenais: Thank you, Scott. I appreciate it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/24
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is mandated for protecting and conserving our natural heritage, predicting weather and environmental conditions, preventing and managing pollution, promoting clean growth and a sustainable environment for present and future generations. The ECCC Meteorology Awards Program aims to address Canada’s need for skilled meteorologists by funding students pursuing atmospheric science degrees. The program, totaling $648,000 over five years, provides $5,000–$10,000 scholarships to students at six universities offering required coursework. Administered by Scholarship Partners Canada, the selection process prioritizes equity-deserving groups. Recipients gain eligibility for ECCC’s Meteorologist Occupational Training Program, a rigorous two-year program preparing them for operational forecasting. As Canada’s largest meteorologist employer, ECCC ensures workforce sustainability to enhance weather forecasting, climate resilience, and public safety. The initiative strengthens scientific recruitment, diversity, and meteorological expertise for Canada’s future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does the Environment and Climate Change Canada Meteorology Awards Program address the need for skilled meteorologists in Canada?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) meteorologists are highly trained individuals who have completed post-secondary educations in atmospheric science programs, in addition to our in-house training program for new employees. To be eligible for entry into our training program for new meteorologists, candidates must first meet our essential education requirements. These requirements include the completion of a university science degree or certificate program with specialization in atmospheric science/meteorology, as well as specific courses in topics like math/physics, synoptic meteorology, dynamic meteorology, and thermodynamic meteorology. These requirements, in addition to the training provide via our in-house professional development program, allow ECCC to certify our meteorologists according to international training standards set out by the World Meteorological Organization.
Atmospheric science programs in Canadian universities are typically small, with few graduates each year. Students entering university and choosing their program of study may not have had much exposure to atmospheric science, and may not consider it as an option due to lack of awareness. The ECCC Meteorology Awards aim to raise awareness of the field among students in undergraduate science programs at universities offering atmospheric science programs that meet ECCC’s hiring requirements for meteorologists.
Jacobsen: What are the eligibility criteria?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: There are three categories of eligibility:
- Students enrolling into a meteorology certificate or diploma program (typically 30 credits). These students will have already completed a Bachelor of Science with foundational courses in math and physics. The certificate/diploma programs in Canada that offer ECCC’s course requirements are the University of British Columbia (UBC), York University, McGill University, Dalhousie University, and l’Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). These are one-time awards of $10,000.
- Students enrolled in a Bachelor of Science degree program with specialization in atmospheric science. The post-secondary institutions in Canada that offer ECCC’s course requirements are the University of Manitoba, the University of British Columbia, York University, McGill University, and l’Université du Québec à Montréal. These awards are valued at $6,000, and recipients can reapply for an additional year of funding so long as they remain registered in their program.
- Students enrolled in a Bachelor of Science degree program at one of the universities that offer atmospheric science programs that include ECCC’s course requirements. These awards are valued at $5,000, and recipients can reapply for an additional year of funding provided they then register in a program with specialization in atmospheric science.
Jacobsen: Is an investment of $648,000 comparable to similar scholarship programs?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: The funding for the ECCC Meteorology Awards is spread out over 5 years, with the aim of funding approximately 80 individual scholarships over the life of the program. In comparison to other scholarship programs such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Undergraduate programs the annual amounts (5K to 10K) are consistent with other similar awards. For example, ECCC also offers an Atmospheric and Meteorological graduate supplement to recipients of a Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS) or an NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship – Doctoral which is $5K.
Jacobsen: How does this fit into the strategy of the Environment and Climate Change Canada?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: As a science-based department, it is important that ECCC attract, recruit, and retain atmospheric science and meteorologists for today and the future. The department is committed to building a diverse and inclusive workforce, which is a departmental priority.
Jacobsen: How will this enhance the meteorological workforce and the capabilities in weather forecasting and combatting climate change?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: ECCC is the largest employer of meteorologists in Canada, with over 500 meteorologists employed across the country serving in roles such as operations, service delivery, and research and development. Regular intake of new meteorologists is critical to maintaining a high level of service to the public and stakeholders. Outside of ECCC, meteorologists are also employed in many sectors, such as with provincial forest fire agencies, the energy sector in solar and wind, and media.
Jacobsen: What is the selection process for the scholarship recipients, particularly candidates from Equity Deserving Groups?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: Scholarship Partners Canada, part of Universities Canada, is administering the program. Universities Canada possesses 60 years of experience in managing large-scale, complex, multi-year, multi-country, international scholarship programs, and currently administers over 140 scholarship programs, awarding more than $24+ million for students to attend universities, colleges, CEGEPs, and trade schools. As experts in the field of scholarship delivery, they are creating a fair and transparent selection process which promotes the lowering of barriers to the study of atmospheric science. A selection committee of Canadian university and college representatives will be convened and managed by Scholarships Partners Canada. ECCC has no influence on the decision. Applications will be assessed on academic performance; volunteer/community involvement and/or extra-curricular activities; essay; and content and relevance of applicant’s reference letters. Preference is accorded to students who identify as part of one or more of the following Equity Deserving Groups:
- Indigenous persons
- Members of visible minority groups and other equity deserving groups
- Persons with disabilities
- Women
Jacobsen: Why were Dalhousie University, Université du Québec à Montréal, McGill University, York University, University of Manitoba, and University of British Columbia chosen as eligible institutions?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: These 6 post-secondary institutions are the only institutions in Canada that offer all the essential courses that meet the education requirements for meteorologists employed by the Government of Canada. These include courses in synoptic meteorology, dynamic meteorology, and thermodynamic meteorology. These requirements, in addition to the completion of ECCC’s Meteorologist Occupational Training Program, allow ECCC to certify its meteorologists according to international training standards set out by the World Meteorological Organization.
Jacobsen: Scholarship recipients are eligible to apply for the Meteorology Training Program upon graduation. What is in this training and preparation for students’ future operational roles in weather forecasting?
Environment and Climate Change Canada: University programs specializing in atmospheric science allow students to gain foundational knowledge in the theories and principles of meteorology. Students graduating from these programs do not possess sufficient operational knowledge or practice to meet ECCC’s standards to fully function as Operational Meteorologists right away. ECCC’s Meteorologist Occupational Training Program (MOTP) is designed to build on that foundation towards developing the skills needed to apply the theoretical knowledge into the production of operational forecast products and routines. Meteorologist Interns are usually hired at the entry level and immediately commence a classroom-based training course of approximately 6-7 months in duration. This classroom course takes an applied approach to the theory learned in university, where interns develop forecasting skills in a simulated operational environment. Following successful completion of the formal course, the intern will begin a period of double-banking in one of ECCC’s operational prediction centres, where they are directly supervised by a more senior meteorologist. During this phase of the training, the intern gradually works towards completing their full operational duties under general guidance and minimal supervision. After a minimum of 2 months, the intern is promoted to the Developmental Meteorologist level, which lasts a minimum of 18 months. Developmental Meteorologists will increasingly assume the duties of an operational office through a full 4 seasons to ensure exposure to a reasonable mix of forecasting situations in the Canadian climate. If they meet the standards within the allowed timeframe, they graduate from the MOTP, receive ECCC certification, and are promoted to the working level of an Operational Meteorologist.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/24
Cristian Rodriguez is the Vice President of Safety, Sustainability, and People at Wajax, based in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. With over a decade of senior leadership experience, he brings expertise in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) matters, focusing on fostering workplace safety, promoting sustainability, and supporting community well-being. Previously, Cristian held key roles at SNC-Lavalin, including Director of Global Health and Safety, where he drove innovative solutions for health and environmental challenges. Passionate about creating psychologically safer workplaces, Cristian champions sustainability initiatives and inspires positive change across industries. Connect with him to explore impactful ESG strategies. Rodriguez emphasizes the pivotal role of safety in manufacturing planning at Wajax, highlighting its contribution to operational success through enhanced employee well-being, retention, and productivity. Innovative strategies, such as tailored safety training and wellness programs, integrate safety into daily operations. Rodriguez underscores that prioritizing safety boosts productivity, meets industry standards, and fosters trust. With advancements in AI, Wajax leverages technology to predict hazards and optimize workflows. Reflecting on lessons from past experiences, Wajax has adopted a proactive safety approach. Achieving industry benchmarks, like a TRIF below 1.00, and earning certifications further solidify Wajax’s leadership in safety excellence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does prioritizing safety in manufacturing planning contribute to long-term operational success?
Cristian Rodriguez: Prioritizing safety is integral to everything we do at Wajax. Our people are our greatest asset, and by safeguarding their mental and physical health, we enhance job satisfaction and retention, which directly contributes to our long-term operational success. Putting safety first helps to boost productivity, reduce downtime, and lower costs.
Jacobsen: What innovative strategies has Wajax implemented to ensure workforce safety?
Rodriguez: Wajax has implemented several strategies to ensure workforce safety, including safety orientation training tailored to employees’ roles, situational awareness training, and safety leadership training for managers and supervisors. Beyond physical safety, we’ve implemented mental health initiatives and wellness programs to promote overall well-being, reflecting our integrated approach to workforce safety.
Jacobsen: Is it possible to improve safety while maintaining productivity?
Rodriguez: Absolutely. By integrating safety protocols into daily operations, Wajax has reduced injuries while improving overall efficiency. Each day at Wajax begins with a pre-shift safety meeting to discuss the jobs that will be performed that day and the associated hazards. This ensures that everyone is focused on what needs to be done, and more importantly, that it’s done safely. When safety is prioritized, productivity naturally follows.
Jacobsen: How does safety-focused planning help manufacturing companies meet industry standards?
Rodriguez: Safety-focused planning helps companies like Wajax meet and exceed industry standards by continuously improving. We are never completely satisfied and are always looking for ways to improve our overall safety performance. This enhances our reputation as a leader in the industry when it comes to health and safety.
Jacobsen: How does embedding safety into manufacturing protocols foster trust in business?
Rodriguez: At Wajax, we don’t just talk about safety—we live it every day. It is embedded in everything we do; it’s who we are. When our people and customers see that their safety comes first, it helps to foster trust and loyalty in Wajax as an organization.
Jacobsen: What is the importance of a commitment to safety principles and protocols for reputation and relationships with stakeholders?
Rodriguez: It’s very important. Safety must be demonstrated each day. People need to see it and feel it. Our dedication to safety and well-being is crucial for maintaining a positive reputation and building strong relationships with our stakeholders. It shows what our values are and that we truly are a company that puts people first.
Jacobsen: How will the integration of advanced technologies in manufacturing continue in an AI era?
Rodriguez: We are very excited about the possibilities that AI brings. AI-powered tools can be useful in helping to identify potential hazards and predict safety issues before they occur. They can help to optimize workflows, leading to a safer and more efficient work environment. At Wajax, we are focused on leveraging technology to improve safety and operational efficiency.
Jacobsen: What lessons has Wajax learned from past experiences shaping current approaches to safety in manufacturing?
Rodriguez: Wajax has learned several valuable lessons from past experiences, such as the importance of continuous improvement, the need for comprehensive training programs, and the benefits of leveraging technologies. In the past, our focus was more reactive when it came to safety. Now, we have adjusted our mindset to a more proactive approach. For example, when an incident occurs, rather than looking at compatibility, we focus on what we can do to improve, what lessons we can learn, and what type of controls can be put into place to better protect the health and safety of our teammates.
Jacobsen: What are the safety initiatives set as a benchmark for the industry in 2025?
Rodriguez: Every year we raise the bar a little higher as we keep looking to improve our safety performance. We have set several safety initiatives as benchmarks for the industry, including achieving a Total Recordable Injury Frequency (TRIF) of less than 1.00 and continuously improving safety training programs. We recently achieved Platinum Level Certification for both Mental Health at Work and Healthy Workplace, which is something we are very proud of.
Jacobsen: With prominent coverage of Wajax in BNN Bloomberg and Chief Executive, how has visibility helped amplify the importance of safety in the manufacturing sector?
Rodriguez: The prominent coverage of Wajax has helped to raise awareness about the importance of safety and well-being in our industry, not just for Wajax but for all our peer organizations. Safety cannot exist in isolation; it needs to be incorporated into everything that a company does. Our increased visibility has positioned us as a leader in the industry when it comes to promoting a strong safety culture, focusing not only on physical but also mental health and wellness programs.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Cristian.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/23
Dr. Paa-Kwesi Heto is a distinguished political economist and development expert affiliated with the University of California, Irvine (UCI). He serves as a Policy Analyst for the TIME Project at UCI, contributing to research and policy development in education and international relations. Dr. Heto has also been recognized with several awards, including the 2021 Joseph L. White Award and the 2020 Etel Solingen Outstanding Paper in International Relations Award. His scholarly work includes contributions to the book “Geopolitics, Supply Chains, and International Relations in East Asia,” where he authored a chapter on global supply chains and great power competition in Africa.
Heto, interviewed by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, shared his experience with the Tobis Fellowship, which he discovered during his PhD at UCI. He valued its mentorship, focus space, and collaborative environment, which inspired him to join. The fellowship, established by Jerome and Hazel Tobis, integrated ethics with personal growth. Heto admired the ethical framework and Kristen Monroe’s leadership, highlighting her supportive, nonjudgmental approach. The fellowship allowed him to explore research without tenure pressures and revise his work for broader audiences. Heto encouraged others to seek postdoc opportunities, emphasizing curiosity, collaboration, and genuine interest in learning and improvement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with a fellow alumnus, Dr. Paa-Kwesi Heto. How did you first learn about the Tobis Fellowship? I’ve had a long history with them and gained significant value through mentorship and having a dedicated space to focus. I tend to be all over the place, but this fellowship provided a good corrective for me. It offered a space to center my efforts. How did you discover it, and what did it offer you broadly?
Dr. Paa-Kwesi Heto: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Tobi’s Fellowship and various other topics. I pursued my PhD at UCI, and during my first year, I connected with someone on campus who was remarkable. I wanted to learn from her and understand her work. I recall the Tobis Fellows coming to campus for a retreat during that first year. They had an amazing time, and I thought, “Wow, this is great.”
I loved having a year to work on my project in collaboration with others. The opportunity to collaborate with others and receive feedback inspired me to become part of the Tobis Fellowship.
Jacobsen: A significant aspect of the fellowship, as I understand from what Jerome and Hazel Tobis established, was its aim to create an academic pursuit focused on ethics while integrating it with personal integrity, moral character, and practical application.
What did you admire about the ethical and moral focus and framework during your time there?
Heto: I would approach this from three perspectives: first, what Tobis stood for; second, what Kristen Monroe, the director who helped create this program, represents; and third, the unique space that was unintentionally created.
Regarding what Tobis stood for, I agree with your point about practical action aimed at advancing knowledge in ethics and supporting researchers whose spirit of inquiry led to actionable practices. Considering how this inquiry translated into our way of life and character formation was important. Although my topics were not directly focused on ethics, the fellowship compelled me to reflect on the ethical implications of my work and how I embodied those ethics in my research.
The second dimension pertains to Kristen Monroe herself. Kristen is extraordinary and known for her unwavering drive to create space, mentor others, and offer support. She provided a nonjudgmental space, which was essential for the Tobis Fellowship. Her approach was: “I’m going to create the space for you to do your best work. If you need me, I’ll be there to support you.”
Sometimes, I would approach her to bounce ideas off her and talk. We end up, sometimes, talking about a whole range of issues that she has deep knowledge about, especially in terms of moral courage and all the various life experiences she has documented over the years. That creates a nurturing space, allowing people like me to venture into my work without feeling judged or dreading it.
The last part for me was engaging in topics of interest without worrying about the job market, tenure clock, or the opinion of others.
Jacobsen: You sound like someone who just came out of a doctoral program!
Heto: Yes, right. That’s true. I came out of a doctoral program with all the trauma that goes with that. So, having that freedom to explore and letting your inquiring spirit guide you is liberating. When writing a dissertation, you have to be worried about what your committee wants and what is advantageous for the job market. However, revising that work for a broader audience requires more breathing room. That’s what the Tobis Fellowship provided.
The fellowship provided a financial cushion, allowing me to focus on my work without worrying about finding extra gigs to make ends meet. I could concentrate on perfecting my work how I wanted, different from what my committee expected.
Jacobsen: What message would you give to people interested in opportunities like this—to get involved, reach out, and refine their applications for review?
Heto: This advice extends beyond the Tobis Fellowship to postdoc programs and similar fellowship opportunities. Many of us leave school hoping to land a tenure-track position immediately. If that’s you, great—congratulations! However, it’s also important to take the time to continue working on your research, driven by curiosity and collaboration. If you’re applying to fellowships, approach it with a keen interest in learning, improving, and doing your best work. I appreciate this opportunity.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/22
Health Canada is responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health. It ensures that high-quality health services are accessible, and works to reduce health risks. The Public Health Agency of Canada is part of the federal health portfolio. Our activities focus on protecting against threats to public health, preventing and reducing diseases and injury, and promoting health, well-being and equity. The Canadian government is investing $78.7 million to expand laboratory and regulatory capabilities as part of Canada’s Border Plan to combat synthetic drugs. This funding will establish the Canadian Drug Analysis Centre (CDAC) for specialized forensic analysis and launch the Precursor Chemical Risk Management Unit (PCRMU) to monitor emerging drug threats. Proposed amendments to the Precursor Control Regulations include mandatory suspicious transaction reporting and increased oversight of precursor chemicals. The initiative aims to enhance law enforcement intelligence, improve precursor tracking, and address the overdose crisis by strengthening public health, surveillance, and enforcement measures at Canada’s borders and within communities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How will the investment of $78.7 million expand laboratory and regulatory capabilities?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: Health Canada plays a critical role in supporting Canadian law and border enforcement in their activities to counter the global synthetic drug threat.
The $78.7 million announced as part of Canada’s Border Plan will help law and border enforcement better detect and address fentanyl and its precursors by:
- Creating the Canadian Drug Analysis Centre (CDAC), which will complement existing laboratory capacity by allowing for more specialized analysis of synthetic drug samples. The analysis will look at markers to help determine how and where these substances were manufactured.
- Launching a new Precursor Chemical Risk Management Unit to increase oversight of precursor chemicals and to monitor emerging illegal drug trends.
Jacobsen: What amendments are proposed for the Precursor Control Regulations (PCR) and Schedule IX of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)? How does the consultation fit into Canada’s plan to combat illegal synthetics?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: The proposed amendments would:
-Make suspicious transaction reporting to Health Canada mandatory for licensed and registered companies.
-Require licensed and registered companies to conduct additional criminal record and background checks on key personnel.
-Impose condition-of-sale restrictions for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, limiting sales to pharmacies only.
-Expand registration requirement on the importation of component parts of designated devices like pill presses and encapsulators.
-Introduce regulatory flexibilities to enable Health Canada to respond more quickly to public health or safety risks.
Health Canada will use the comments received to inform the development of the proposed regulatory amendments.
Jacobsen: How will Health Canada enhance monitoring and surveillance of precursor chemicals?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: The Precursor Chemical Risk Management Unit (PCRMU) will enhance Health Canada’s surveillance activities for timely identification of emerging substances of concern via wastewater analysis. Wastewater analysis involves testing samples collected from untreated wastewater (sewage) to screen for the presence of drugs and drug metabolites, such as fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and their precursor chemicals.
Jacobsen: How will the Precursor Chemical Risk Management Unit work?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: The PCRMU will provide better insight into precursor chemicals, distribution channels and enhance monitoring and surveillance to enable timely law enforcement action. Specifically, the PCRMU would provide:
- Greater oversight of precursor chemicals and identification of risks in existing distribution channels.
- More timely and agile response to potential threats of new and emerging precursor chemicals.
- Enhanced ability to identify substances of concern through new monitoring and surveillance capacity (e.g., wastewater); and
- Enhanced data and intelligence sharing capabilities between federal partners, as well as with US and international partners, to inform scheduling and strengthen controls.
Jacobsen: How will the creation of the Canadian Drug Profiling Centre strengthen forensic analysis?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: The new Canadian Drug Analysis Centre (CDAC) will operate through Health Canada’s Drug Analysis Service (DAS) laboratories. The new Canadian Drug Analysis Centre (CDAC) will allow for more specialized analysis of synthetic drug samples. The analysis will look at markers to help determine how and where these substances were manufactured. The analysis of these very low-level impurities and other components specific to the chemical manufacturing process will help to identify trends and patterns to inform on the origin, distribution, and manufacture patterns of the drugs. Profiling analyses will also involve purity determination of all active drugs and cutting agents to better understand how distributors and drug dealers are changing or modifying the drugs. This can help law enforcement and public health partners to more strategically target actions to address the synthetic drug threat.
Jacobsen: Why is mandating licensed and registered companies to report suspicious transactions to Health Canada important?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: Currently, companies are required to keep records of suspicious transactions, but reporting to Health Canada is voluntary. This is a gap that has been identified through Health Canada’s discussions with law enforcement in helping detect the diversion of a precursor to an illicit market or use.
Jacobsen: What are the public health and safety concerns motivating the government’s initiatives here?
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: The overdose crisis is one of the most serious public health crises our country has ever faced. It is driven by an illegal toxic drug supply.
To address this crisis, we need a comprehensive and collaborative approach. All orders of government and communities need to work together on solutions, from prevention and harm reduction, to treatment, recovery, and enforcement.
As part of Canada’s Border Plan, the Government of Canada is taking concrete action to keep communities safe on both sides of the border. This includes investing $1.3 billion to make out border stronger, with more personnel, advanced AI technology, new drones and helicopters, and stronger coordination between partners. The regulatory amendments are just one piece of the plan.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/22
Jennifer Cooper is a Communications Advisor in Media Relations for Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, based in Ottawa, Ontario. With over three years of public service experience and a background in commercial insurance, she specializes in policy development, qualitative and quantitative research, and strategic communications. A graduate of Carleton University with a B.A. Honours in History, she has intermediate French proficiency (BBB) and a strong multidisciplinary skill set. Jennifer’s diverse experience includes teamwork, multi-factor analysis, and leadership, rooted in her upbringing as an Air Force brat and her involvement in sports like rowing and rugby. Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families,addresses the over-representation of Indigenous children in child and family services. Enacted on June 21, 2019, and effective January 1, 2020, the Act empowers Indigenous communities to develop and govern their child and family services, affirming self-government rights. It sets principles of cultural continuity, equality, and child welfare. Coordination agreements establish roles between Indigenous, federal, and provincial bodies. With $851 million allocated for implementation and 13 Indigenous laws enacted, the Act promotes cultural preservation and reconciliation through strengthened Indigenous-Crown relationships and self-determined services.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What past practices in child and family services for Indigenous children and youth prompted Bill C-92?
Jennifer Cooper: Previously known as Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (the Act), was created in response to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders, Elders, parents, grandparents, children, and community members who called on the government to reduce the number of Indigenous children in care. The Act aims to address the critical issue of over-representation of Indigenous children in the child and family services system. Canada recognizes that Indigenous communities are best positioned to identify and implement solutions for their own communities, where in the past, they were bound by systems that were not generally reflective of their cultures and identities.
Jacobsen: When did Bill C-92 (An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families) come into effect?
Cooper: The Act became law on June 21, 2019, and came into effect as of January 1, 2020 – 5 years ago. Celebrating Five Years of Indigenous-led Child and Family Services Law
Jacobsen: What national principles set out Bill C-92?
Cooper: The Act sets national principles, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality to help guide the delivery of child and family services, to keep families together and to reduce the number of Indigenous children in care.
Jacobsen: How did the Supreme Court of Canada rule on Bill C-92?
Cooper: The continued implementation of the Act remains a government priority reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada’s opinion, delivered on February 9, 2024, that the Act, in its entirety, is constitutionally valid.
Jacobsen: How do coordination agreements integrate with Bill C-92?
Cooper: A coordination agreement articulates the roles and responsibilities between Indigenous governing bodies, Canada and provinces or territories in the implementation of the Indigenous governing body’s exercise of jurisdiction in relation to child and family services.
By entering into tripartite coordination agreements and associated fiscal arrangements, Canada works with Indigenous governing bodies, as well as provinces and territories to ensure that Indigenous peoples, groups, and communities can establish their own laws, service models, supports, and programs that best meet the needs of their children, youth, and families.
We have signed 10 coordination agreements and 1 bilateral agreement with Indigenous governing bodies, including the first Inuit agreement. We are currently in discussion with a number of communities and provincial governments to implement additional agreements.
Jacobsen: How has the federal government supported Indigenous groups in capacity-building funding with C-92?
Cooper: As of January 2025, $851 million has been allocated to support the implementation of Indigenous child and family services laws and service models.
In addition, $251 million in capacity-building funding has been provided to more than 244 Indigenous governing bodies.
Jacobsen: What are the benefits in allowance of Indigenous groups to design child and family services programs?
Cooper: For generations, government policies devastated communities by separating children from their families, culture, and language. The Act provides a broad framework for Indigenous groups, communities and peoples to create and self-govern their child and family services. Through the Act, Indigenous laws can potentially gain the force of federal law and prevail over conflicting federal, provincial and territorial laws. In this way, the Act is a major step toward the continued affirmation of the Indigenous right to self-government in relation to child and family services in Canada.
As of January 1, 2025, 13 Indigenous Child and Family Services laws have come into force throughout the country. The Act advances the well-being of Indigenous children, youth and families by preserving and promoting connections to family, culture and community.
Jacobsen: How does C-92 reflect the government’s commitments to reconciliation and Indigenous-Crown relationships?
Cooper: Canada believes the Act to be an important step in the process of reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Indigenous-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. This is a critical step on our path towards reconciliation, and a future where kids can grow up surrounded by love, language and culture.
Please see below, the news releases from the most recent coordination agreements:
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jennifer.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/21 (Unpublished)
Dr. C. Nicole Mason, a feminist policy analyst and CEO of Future Forward Women, which is a bold new initiative to build women’s power and influence in the U.S. They unite and support catalytic leaders, organizations, and changemakers committed to propelling lasting change in the lives of women, girls, and families. She discusses gender equity, reproductive rights, and social policies. She emphasizes the setbacks in feminist policymaking, including the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the lack of paid leave, and rising gender-based violence. Mason critiques social media’s role in spreading misinformation and calls for media literacy to counter false narratives. She highlights disparities in women’s rights across U.S. states, naming Alabama and Mississippi as the worst. She advocates for proactive policies and stresses the need for offensive strategies to protect and expand women’s rights.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Dr. C. Nicole Mason today. She is a feminist, policy analyst, author, and advocate for gender and racial equity. She is the president and CEO of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and previously served as the executive director of the Center for Research and Policy in the Public Interest. Her work focuses on the intersection of race, class, and gender in public policy.
She coined the term “she-cession” to describe the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on women. She graduated from Howard University and the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the author of Born Bright: A Young Girl’s Journey from Nothing to Something in America and has been recognized as one of Fortune’s World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.
How did you become involved in gender equality advocacy, particularly with an inspiration and focus on feminist policy analysis?
Dr. C. Nicole Mason: How did I first become interested? While I was a student at Howard University, I took my first political science class. In that class, I started to learn about social inequality. Before then, I had no language for many of the things I had witnessed growing up in and around Los Angeles, California. A single mother raised me, and everything clicked.
During the summer break before junior year, like many students during school breaks, I was searching for something to fill my time off. On a whim, I signed up for a training program for a shelter for battered women. That training and volunteer experience changed my entire life. Again, I gained more language, not only for social inequality but also for the specific challenges women face.
When I returned to Howard University the following year, I founded the first feminist organization on campus: the Women’s Action Coalition. From that moment, I felt fortunate to have found my calling early on.
I knew that I wanted to figure out how to pursue this path—whether through feminist organizing or advocating for women’s issues. I didn’t know what my career would look like, but I knew this was what I wanted to do.
Jacobsen: What were the most pressing areas of concern in feminist policymaking and currently, particularly in light of the recent administration transition in the United States? How does this shift impact those with a feminist perspective?
Mason: Over the last ten to fifteen years, the women’s movement and the issues we tend to frame as “women’s issues “have faced many setbacks. We haven’t had many significant wins.
Many of our last major victories include the Violence Against Women Act, which was first passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized multiple times, and Title IX, which protects against sex-based discrimination in education. However, when we consider major policy achievements that have fundamentally changed the landscape for women in the U.S., there haven’t been many recent ones.
Instead, most of our victories have been incremental, and in some cases, we have even regressed—we have lost ground. The rollback of Roe v. Wade in 2022 significantly impacted reproductive rights, and we are seeing increasing challenges to gender equity policies at the state and federal levels. The lack of paid family leave, wage disparities, and barriers to affordable childcare continue to affect women, especially women of colour, disproportionately.
Moving forward, feminist policy advocates are focused on rebuilding protections for reproductive rights, securing paid leave policies, and addressing systemic gender inequities in the workplace and healthcare.
So, when we think about the fall of Roe v. Wade, we recognize that we have lost certain rights and protections. Some policies we had hoped for during the Biden administration’s first term—particularly in the early years—did not materialize. We had anticipated significant victories in childcare, care infrastructure, and the Build Back Better Act, but those did not come to fruition. This has been a moment of reckoning for those who work in this field, prompting us to reflect on what is possible, why we have not secured the major victories we had hoped for over the past decades, and what might explain these significant losses.
One issue I keep returning to in trying to understand why we have not progressed as much as we would have liked—particularly in recent years—is that women do not have enough power and influence to drive the policies needed to make meaningful change. That, in my view, is the fundamental barrier preventing us from achieving the goals we claim to strive for.
Jacobsen: What about policy measures aimed at combating gender-based violence, both in public and private spheres?
Mason: Gender-based violence is a significant issue, and it is personally important to me. I began my feminist organizing work in the gender-based violence space. The Violence Against Women Act was a major achievement, though not without complexities. Over the years, it has directed substantial support to both grassroots and national organizations committed to ending gender-based violence.
However, under the current administration, some of the gains we have made since the passage of VAWA could be reversed. Critical funding and support for these organizations may dry up or be eliminated, which would have real and serious consequences for women and families, leaving them more vulnerable.
Another critical aspect of gender-based violence is the way it is perceived in society. A recent global study on gender-based violence revealed mixed results. Many people do not see it as a serious issue, with some believing that women or victims exaggerate their claims. Alarmingly, in some instances, respondents even expressed the view that perpetrators had the right to commit acts of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence.
Thus, we are not only facing tangible threats to organizations and their continued ability to provide services but also broader cultural norms that either condone violence, romanticize it, or exhibit ambivalence toward it. As someone engaged in this work, I see the fight against gender-based violence as multifaceted. It involves shifting cultural attitudes and framing the conversation in ways that resonate with both men and women, lawmakers and legislators. At the same time, we must defend and expand the essential services that are already in place.
Jacobsen: What role does social media play in amplifying false narratives about gender-based violence? We have the statistics. We understand the policies that, while they may not eliminate gender-based violence, can significantly reduce it and move us closer to an ideal outcome. However, social media is the largest gossip network ever created, spreading false narratives that obstruct meaningful policy change.
Misinformation and disinformation on social media distort public perception of gender-based violence, undermining the legitimacy of experiences and discouraging policy initiatives that could address the issue. False claims and rhetoric reinforce harmful norms, making it even more difficult to implement solutions. In this way, social media plays a direct role in hindering progress, preventing necessary reforms, and sustaining a culture that tolerates gender-based violence.
Mason: I want to complicate the discussion around social media. For better or worse, when I first started doing this work, there was no social media. You got your information and facts through reputable, reliable news sources that adhered to ethical reporting standards. That is no longer the case.
Social media can be used for good. It can be a tool for raising awareness about important issues, sharing facts and personal stories, and making women—such as those involved in the Me Too movement—feel less alone. It can create a powerful echo and amplify an issue. All of that is beneficial.
However, social media can also be harmful, particularly in how misinformation and disinformation spread rapidly—whether about an issue or a person. This is especially concerning when it affects young people, from teenagers like my daughter to celebrities. Misinformation can shape a narrative, discredit a survivor’s story, and diminish the credibility of someone who has experienced violence.
We saw this play out on a celebrity level with Megan Thee Stallion when she was shot in the foot by Tory Lanez. The amount of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the incident not only skewed public perception but also took a severe mental, physical, and emotional toll on her. And that’s a celebrity—someone with significant resources and insulation. Now, imagine what that means for an everyday woman who is threatened, stalked, or harassed online through misinformation, disinformation, and digital violence.
Gender-based violence on social media is a major concern. However, for younger women, social media has also become their primary source of information. Until recently, I did not take that seriously enough. As an activist, organizer, and researcher, I now realize that if young people get their information primarily from social media, we must ensure they have media literacy skills to differentiate between good and bad information. We also need to provide accurate information that resonates with them.
The traditional fact sheet approach does not work anymore. Instead, we must rethink how we present important issues—condense them into digestible, engaging formats, such as 30-second to two-minute videos or messages. I do not think we have gotten that right yet.
Jacobsen: Public figures like Megan Thee Stallion and others have some protection. However, the consequences can be far worse for most people who are not famous or wealthy, like the rest of us. They may not experience the same amplified attacks, but what protections exist for them when they do? When it comes to everyday people, what policies effectively address online harassment? And beyond policy, how can we shift cultural norms to reduce emotional violence online before it escalates into physical violence?
Mason: That is exactly my point about Megan Thee Stallion and other celebrities, such as Amber Heard. These individuals, while subject to intense scrutiny and harassment, have layers of protection and resources that ordinary women do not. Women often do not have access to legal teams, public relations firms, or other forms of support when they face online harassment, stalking, or digital violence.
When discussing what should be done, the first thing that raises concern is the legal framework. Some laws are improving. In California and a few other states, there are laws addressing issues like revenge porn—the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit materials. Perpetrators can now face legal penalties, including jail time. However, overall, our laws have not yet caught up with the pace of technological advancements.
We need stronger legal protections to address online harassment, misinformation campaigns, and digital violence. At the same time, we must also engage in cultural shifts—educating people about digital ethics, strengthening media literacy, and fostering an environment where online spaces are not used as platforms for abuse. The issue will persist until policy and cultural change align, disproportionately harming those lacking the resources to fight back.
A woman can be harassed, threatened, or even physically harmed as a result of online violence. However, there are few laws and protections in place because of the significant lag between what is happening on social media and the legal safeguards that women—or people in general—believe they have or should have.
People often hide behind the First Amendment, citing freedom of speech as a defence for harmful behaviour. As a result, we are in a precarious situation because there are not enough legal protections. Even when we consider the Violence Against Women Act, its provisions on stalking exist—but do they truly address how violence against women is carried out on social media today? No, they do not. We have a great deal of work ahead of us.
Am I confident that this administration—or even in the next four, five, or ten years—will see proactive, offensive legislation addressing these issues? No, I am not. Social media companies like X, Facebook, Instagram (all owned by two major corporations), and TikTok have no real incentive to enact protections. We have already seen them roll back existing protections, and Facebook has even started allowing misinformation to spread unchecked.
This is not just about Russian bots. It is misinformation across the board—about individuals, about gender-based violence, about laws and protections. These issues can be misrepresented or outright fabricated, with little accountability.
In terms of what we might be able to do, I believe there is an opportunity to start thinking about new technologies and their intersection with gender-based violence. We need to articulate what digital violence looks like today and what effective protections might entail for victims. It is time to develop strategies, solutions, and legal protections that reflect the modern reality of online violence.
Jacobsen: Here’s a perennial issue in the United States. I have colleagues worldwide who cannot access the same basicresources we often take for granted—whether in African countries, Latin America, or elsewhere. When USAID funding was being pulled back or cut, many of them expressed concern. While some of those decisions were politically motivated and administration-driven, that is true for most government agencies.
These cuts devastated them because they directly impacted social and healthcare programs that provided essential humanitarian aid. I am now seeing the same pattern unfold domestically within the United States—where vulnerable communities are losing access to critical social and healthcare services.
I’m speaking as a foreigner—a Canadian. So, when I look at international commentary, I see the same pattern happening domestically in the United States—not just with the rollback of Roe v. Wade but also with restrictions on maternal healthcare access, abortion, reproductive rights, and so on.
What do you think of the current policy? Looking ahead through the rest of the 2020s, what policies might serve as a bulwark against the ongoing repeals and restrictions? What is always astonishing is that women’s bodies and their choices for the future continue to be politicized.
Mason: This feels like a full-frontal assault. What is happening in the United States has a global ripple effect. We see that with USAID. It is all deeply connected.
And yes, this is a full-frontal assault—on the safety, dignity, viability, and well-being of women, people, and families, both in the United States and around the world.
What concerns me most is that we do not have a robust response that matches the magnitude of these attacks. That terrifies me, to be completely honest. Even at the policy level, we lack an offensive strategy to combat the rollbacks that have happened—and will continue to happen.
Right now, the fight is about holding the line and trying to preserve what we have, which, to be frank, is not enough. The United States enjoys a level of relative privilege compared to many other countries, and I do not want to overlook that. However, I have conducted the analysis. I can say with certainty that for some women in certain states, their conditions—though relatively different—are on par with those in other parts of the world.
Women in these states are facing severe poverty, poor maternal health outcomes, and high rates of violence. Some women in the U.S. are flourishing, but it feels like they live in two different Americas for many others.
My concern is that we do not have a policy response that matches the scale of what is happening—or what is yet to come.
I do not know when you plan to publish this. Still, in just the first few weeks of this administration, we have already seen significant developments that will directly impact women and families.
For example, I would estimate that at least 30%, possibly even 50%, of the federal government workforce consists of women and people of colour. The attacks on the federal workforce are not typically framed as feminist or gender issues, but they should be—because women make up a significant portion of that workforce.
Yet, this administration has not fully addressed these issues meaningfully. They have made threats and vague statements about what they plan to do regarding women’s and gender issues. We have already seen direct attacks on gender identity and the rights of trans people.
These are real, tangible concerns. And unless we shift from a defensive to an offensive strategy, we risk losing even more ground.
They have not yet focused on women in the way we know is coming. That moment is inevitable, and we are not prepared for it. The situation is already horrific, but we have not seen a sharp turn in their strategy.
Currently, they are prioritizing other objectives—reducing the federal workforce, erasing people from data records, and pursuing other concerning policies. That, in itself, is alarming.
But if I were to emphasize anything, it would be the need to connect the dots—understanding what resistance looks like in other countries, how different populations have resisted regimes like this, and what strategies might be possible here. We need to start thinking about offensive and power-building strategies because we do not have one right now.
Jacobsen: I recently spoke with South Korean feminists and women’s rights activists. They are facing similar challenges. Their current leader, President Yoon Suk Yeol, came into power on a strong anti-feminist platform. One of his key promises was dismantling their equivalent of a government agency for women and families, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF). While his administration failed to abolish the ministry, it weakened its influence, leaving the ministerial position vacant for nearly a year.
Other alarming trends are emerging there as well. Deepfake pornography is a growing concern, disproportionately targeting young women and girls. The South Korean government has increased penalties for producing, distributing, or possessing such content, with potential prison sentences of up to three years. However, digital sex crimes remain a majorissue, and feminist groups continue to advocate for stronger enforcement and support for victims.
At the same time, the 4B Movement, a feminist movement that rejects marriage, dating, sex, and childbirth as a protest against misogyny, has gained traction. Some women outside South Korea, including the United States, have supported its principles, especially in response to global rollbacks on women’s rights.
In December 2024, President Yoon attempted to declare martial law, citing national security concerns. This move was immediately resisted, including mass protests and political opposition. The National Assembly responded by impeaching him on December 14, 2024, with 204 out of 300 lawmakers voting in favour. Following his impeachment, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo assumed the role of acting president, and the Constitutional Court is expected to rule on the impeachment by March 2025.
These developments show that resistance to repressive policies exists within South Korea. However, many of the arguments made by anti-feminist groups there mirror those in the U.S., especially their focus on declining birth rates. These issues are often framed as broad demographic concerns without considering the underlying social and economic factors influencing women’s choices.
People make choices based on their lived realities. Instead of engaging in abstract discussions about birth rates, policymakers should examine why individuals make these choices and implement policies addressing their concerns.
If there is any hope to be found, many countries are facing similar struggles, though the specifics vary. However, we also see legal challenges emerging against unjust systems. Are any particular U.S. states that stand out to you as holdouts for women’s rights? In The Handmaid’s Tale, New York was portrayed as a holdout in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian future—do you see similar dynamics today?
Mason: I recently completed a 50-state analysis on where women have the most power and influence. New York is one of those states. In my analysis, I examined 12 indicators and eight policies. There are several states where, at this moment, I am fortunate to be living. On the other hand, there are states where women are struggling—where they have little power and influence and where they are doing poorly across all social and well-being indicators.
What strikes me is that it often comes down to a state border. You cross one border, and you have rights. You cross another, and your rights are significantly diminished, and your likelihood of doing well declines.
What do you make of that? What do you make of living in a country where everyone should have the same rights, access to opportunity, and equal protections, yet the reality is so uneven? There are “holdout” states; we know which ones they are. I feel fortunate to live in one of the states where women have more protections. But my biggest concern is for the women who do not.
Some people might say, “Well, move to New York.” But it is not that simple.
Jacobsen: Many women cannot afford to move, even if they want to.
Mason: That is what keeps me up at night.
Jacobsen: According to your 50-state analysis, which state is the worst?
Mason: Alabama. And number two is Mississippi.
Jacobsen: No surprises there.
Mason: No, not at all.
Jacobsen: I remember Chris Rock’s comment about Mississippi—he joked: M-I-S-S-T-A-K-E. He called it that in his usual succinct way.
Mason: It is outright hostile to women. But the reality is that women are living there under those conditions. This is not about my coastal elitism, as some people like to claim. When I shared these findings with a friend, she said, “Oh, that’s just your coastal elitism—you people on the coasts always think that way.”
But I told her, “No, this is based on facts. This is not a narrative I am imposing on Mississippi and Alabama. These are real conditions that women are living under.”
So, yes, while there are states where I am relieved to live, my primary concern remains for women who do not have the option of living in those states. The question is: “What should we be doing to support them? How do we ensure they, too, have their full bundle of rights?”
Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a good afternoon.
Mason: You too. Hopefully—I need that.
Jacobsen: Thanks.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/21
Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based human rights and national security attorney specializing in international law, media strategy, and information warfare. She is the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, providing insights on global affairs and advocating for human rights. Her expertise spans the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Tsukerman emphasizes humour’s power to expose absurdities and the role of critical education in countering disinformation. They analyze the influence of media, algorithms, and foreign actors in amplifying hate. Addressing challenges like organized boycotts, hacking campaigns, and financial targeting, they highlight the manipulation of narratives for political or economic motives. The conversation explores systemic antisemitism in countries like Russia, China, and Iran, contrasting legal frameworks and societal impacts across regions. They stress fostering critical thinking and transparency to combat prejudice effectively.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We will discuss another important subject: antisemitism. It’s a critical topic. What do you think the role of humour is in combating antisemitism? Take, for instance, the works of Mel Brooks, Seinfeld, Larry David, and others.
Irina Tsukerman: Humour can respond to authoritarianism, conspiracy theories, and illogical or distorted beliefs. Arguing with someone deeply entrenched in such a mindset often doesn’t work; it can reinforce their position. Humour, however, can pause the conversation, ridicule the absurdity of the belief, and point out how nonsensical it is.
Not every type of humour works for everyone, of course. Sometimes, humour resonates more with outside observers than with the bigot in question. Those who harbour hateful beliefs often have a narrow sense of humour that only reinforces their worldview. Yet humour can still highlight the ridiculousness of a viewpoint, effectively saying, “This doesn’t make sense. Look at how absurd it is.” There are two key dimensions to understanding antisemitism: legal and human rights-based.
Jacobsen: On one hand, there are forms of antisemitism that are more social and don’t necessarily fall under criminal law. On the other hand, some actions cross the line into criminality, such as hate speech or spreading historical falsehoods like Holocaust denial.
In North America, these dividing lines differ. Canada has stricter hate speech laws than the United States, but it also seems to have fewer overt, conspiratorial antisemites. While free speech protections are broader in the U.S., they often allow harmful rhetoric to flourish unchecked.
Tsukerman: The obsession with conspiracy theories is a relatively recent phenomenon in its modern form, largely fueled by social media. Historically, antisemitism in the U.S. has waxed and waned. For example, it was particularly widespread in the 1920s, during a period of rising nativism and xenophobia. However, it declined in the mid-to-late 20th century as multiculturalism gained traction. Antisemitism didn’t disappear — it remained present in pockets — but it became less socially acceptable.
In earlier periods, antisemitism often existed in ignorance or isolation. For instance, stereotypes or baseless beliefs about Jews were prevalent in some areas. However, public figures with large platforms rarely spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. One reason for this was the lack of social media and algorithmic amplification.
Culturally, the mid-20th century emphasized shared national values and multicultural curiosity, discouraging divisive identity politics. However, as identity politics became more prevalent in recent decades, expressions of antisemitism also resurfaced in some spaces. A decline in education about history and critical thinking contributed to this resurgence, as fewer people understood the roots of antisemitism or its devastating consequences.
Jacobsen: How has social media impacted this trend?
Tsukerman: Social media has also played a significant role. Algorithmic amplification often promotes extreme views, and foreign actors or organized groups have used these platforms to spread disinformation. Celebrities who repeat conspiratorial rhetoric add fuel to the fire. Unfortunately, many people place undue trust in celebrity opinions, allowing harmful ideas to spread more widely.
However, the influence of major media outlets and prominent commentators is more concerning than isolated celebrities. When trusted media personalities repeat antisemitic tropes, it legitimizes these ideas and creates a dangerous ripple effect. People are more likely to believe narratives from figures they respect. Once those figures embrace extreme or harmful views, their followers also adopt those views. This escalation can have dire consequences for public discourse and social cohesion.
Jacobsen: What do you find are the common conspiracy theories? And does this come up in your legal work or geopolitical analysis? For instance, does it become so problematic that it infiltrates mainstream geopolitical discourse?
Tsukerman: Some old conspiracy theories have faded, such as the notion that Jews and Freemasons are trying to take over the world. That used to be prevalent but has largely disappeared from U.S. discourse. You might still find it in parts of the Middle East or Europe, but in the U.S., it’s not as common. Most people here don’t know Freemasonry and the movement has become far less prominent. Its visibility has significantly diminished.
That said, religious antisemitism hasn’t entirely disappeared. It still exists in various forms across certain religious organizations, whether churches, mosques, or even in ostensibly secular institutions. In secular spaces, antisemitism often takes on a more cultural or ideological bent, but it remains entrenched in peculiar ways. For example, there’s the old trope of “Jews killed Jesus” or some Islamist rhetoric, which tends to amplify hostility.
These ideas have become more pervasive with the rise of internet platforms and mass gatherings, as they provide new avenues for amplification. Whether shared in person, in social settings, or online, the issue isn’t just about free speech — it’s about how that speech is promoted and by whom.
Governments often exacerbate the problem when they try to micromanage or accommodate every perspective. Instead of defining or regulating religions themselves, they should focus on measurable factors: the violence, the results, and the ideologies fueling harmful behaviour. Separating religion from ideology and examining the real-world impacts would be more effective.
For instance, governments can look at objective factors like who funds certain institutions, who participates in them, and their levels of education. Where were these individuals educated? Where does their funding come from? What translations of texts are being used? Governments can address these tangible areas without overstepping their bounds or trying to regulate religion itself.
Society is better equipped to self-regulate than government officials regarding the broader societal discourse. However, social media companies and media institutions play a critical role. If hosting objectionable rhetoric becomes a reputational or financial risk, it’s less likely to be tolerated. Conversely, it becomes more widely accepted when platforms and institutions find they can profit from such rhetoric.
The media’s role is pivotal. By giving platforms to objectionable figures, they inadvertently normalize harmful ideas. The way these platforms amplify rhetoric has changed drastically, and with it, so has the societal impact of conspiracy theories and antisemitism.
If you want to have a real debate between people, that’s fine. This is when better arguments can emerge, and people can see for themselves what works and what doesn’t. But conspiracy theorists, for obvious reasons, are not good debaters. Suppose you keep giving bigots soapboxes to rant, spread nonsense, manipulate people, and exploit social crises. In that case, that won’t end well.
We saw this during COVID-19, when many conspiracy theories became more prominent during a time of social and economic crisis. These crises often serve as breeding grounds for bigoted language.
When there’s a political or social crisis elsewhere, like a war in Gaza, people often import the discourse to the U.S. For example, it’s perfectly acceptable to say, “The Israeli government is taking steps I don’t agree with.” Criticism of any government or institution is valid.
However, it crosses into bigotry when people say, “All Israelis want to kill Palestinians.” That’s an assumption about an entire people, and it’s dangerous. Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric fuels the undercurrents of prejudice and is sometimes amplified by the media.
Some provocateurs deliberately stoke these tensions because outrage, polarization, and echo chambers sell. We see this phenomenon beyond antisemitism as well. Social media companies encourage polarization because it drives engagement and increases viewership. Conspiracy theories, bigotry, and outrage are particularly effective because they provide simple explanations for complex problems, scapegoats to blame and appeal to the worst aspects of human nature.
Jacobsen: So, many actors deliberately amplify this rhetoric for profit or political motives?
Tsukerman: Yes. Some actors are motivated by money, while others — often foreign state actors — deliberately foment social polarization in the U.S. Countries like Russia, China, and Iran are known to exploit social divisions through propaganda and disinformation campaigns.
Jacobsen: Do these countries face similar issues within their borders? Are they also grappling with internal dissent or unrest?
Tsukerman: To an extent, yes. Russia, for example, has a history of internal issues related to antisemitism. The worst period was during the peak of the Soviet Union when there were official state policies of discrimination, including quotas against Jews.
In contemporary Russia, antisemitism is less overt but still present. Media often portrays Jews using stereotypical tropes, and state officials occasionally make antisemitic remarks. For instance, they’ve made comments equating Jews with particular policies or questioning Jewish identities about figures like Zelensky or Israel.
China and Iran also have internal challenges, though the dynamics differ. While these countries project strength outward, there’s often a significant gap between public perception and the realities on the ground. In many cases, dissent is quietly suppressed, creating a facade of stability.
So that’s also antisemitic. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Jews within these countries are being targeted for violent acts. Still, when a country deliberately cultivates neo-Nazis within its borders and abroad while making official antisemitic statements, it sets a dangerous precedent. When TV and other media propagate subconscious messaging — implying, for example, that villains in the financial sector or other areas are Jewish — it’s bound to have a long-term impact. Sooner or later, this leads to increased social antisemitism and demands for antisemitic policies from the government.
In China, for instance, the Jewish community is practically nonexistent. However, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has embedded antisemitism into its media, education system, and even social apps. This creates a uniquely Chinese variant of antisemitism, particularly among active party members. Historically, antisemitism wasn’t a focus in China because their issues were primarily internal, dealing with various nationalities within the country. But now, the CPC is deliberately cultivating antisemitism, even though it doesn’t reflect the country’s history or reality.
In Iran, antisemitism is starkly evident. There have been executions of Jews solely for being Jewish. While the Jewish community is allowed to practice its religious rituals, there is an underlying fear. If they stray from the party line, they risk being accused of treason. Discriminatory practices are widespread.
For example, there was a recent incident where a young Jewish man killed a Muslim who attacked him during a fight. The Jewish man’s family offered “blood money” as compensation, but the Muslim family refused. Consequently, the Jewish man was executed. Normally, in self-defence cases, people are not executed for such actions, but in this instance, bigotry plays a role. The government could have intervened, declared a resolution, or sought reconciliation, but instead, they allowed the execution to proceed. This is a clear example of antisemitic policies translating into individual injustices and shaping public attitudes.
Jacobsen: How do these state-level policies and attitudes in countries like Russia, China, and Iran compare to the dynamics in the United States or Canada? The situation is distinct but still concerning in the United States. Analysis shows that the primary domestic terrorism threat now comes from white nationalist or Christian white nationalist groups. These groups often perpetuate nationalist, ethnic rhetoric, and antisemitic talking points. They amplify propaganda and conspiracy theories, which we’ve already discussed.
When these attitudes are perpetuated internally within a country or amplified by foreign state actors — like Russia, China, and Iran — they can lead to organized hate movements. These movements often result in real-world harm to individuals who are Jewish or perceived to be Jewish.
Tsukerman: The biggest challenge isn’t necessarily any single antisemitic group. The real danger lies in the “horseshoe theory” of politics. This occurs when radicals from different parts of the political spectrum — far-right extremists, radical leftists, Islamists, and fringe groups — join forces. By aligning, they amplify each other’s influence and create a false perception of unity.
These groups have limited audiences individually, even at the height of their influence. But when they join forces, they lend each other credibility and reach. This allows their antisemitic rhetoric to spread far more effectively than if they operated in isolation. The convergence of such ideologies can result in significant harm, both in terms of physical violence and broader societal divisions. It starts with normalizing and mainstreaming hate.
Jacobsen: They become unified by hate. But beyond that, they are also unified by more effective political messaging and organization — something they would typically lack on their own.
When these groups come together, they break down political and ideological barriers. Party lines no longer constrain them, and their messaging becomes mainstream. They reach individuals who would otherwise never engage with them or their rhetoric. This process corrupts everything around them as they dismantle the ideological boundaries that normally keep them isolated.
To counter this, several steps are necessary. First, we must examine and stop any foreign funding supporting these movements. Second, we need effective counter-information warfare initiatives involving the public and private sectors. There are very few such efforts at the moment, and those that do exist are in their infancy. They cannot counter highly organized and well-funded movements.
Public education and critical thinking skills are also essential. People must be equipped to identify bad arguments, distinguish between fact and opinion, and recognize bigotry versus rational analysis. Unfortunately, these skills are currently at an all-time low, leaving people vulnerable to disinformation and manipulation. Many don’t even realize they are acting with bias or that their statements are socially unacceptable or rooted in harmful generalizations.
For instance, I’ve had people ask me, “What do Jews think about this or that?” My response is, “Which Jews are you referring to?” Like any other group, Jewish communities are diverse and hold various opinions. You can track voting patterns or trends based on historical reasons, but you cannot say everyone votes or thinks the same way about every issue. That’s not true.
Jacobsen: One obvious red flag to watch for is when someone starts a statement with “the,” as in “The Muslims,” “The Jews,” “The Christians,” or “The atheists.” These groups are incredibly diverse internally, with differing social, community, and political dynamics. Making blanket statements about them is not only ridiculous but also biased. People often don’t recognize that they’re stereotyping because they view their question or statement as perfectly normal or rooted in common political discourse.
Do you find that state or non-state actors are more effective in combating antisemitic narratives?
Tsukerman: Governments are not generally particularly efficient at most things, and countering disinformation is certainly not one of their strengths. However, there are exceptions. Some European countries have implemented successful initiatives. Finland, for example, has a robust program for combating disinformation. Sweden also has relatively effective state and private efforts.
In the U.S., the situation is far less developed. Any official state efforts to counter disinformation are rudimentary or have been dismantled entirely. Despite its limitations and criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum, the Global Engagement Center was one of the few agencies attempting to address information operations and engage with the outside world. However, it has since been defunded, leaving a significant gap in the fight against disinformation.
A coordinated effort is needed to address these challenges, but the U.S. currently lags behind in this critical area.
During the Cold War, information bureaus were tasked with countering propaganda, at least internationally, if not domestically. They were far more effective at that time. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, those efforts were dismantled. So, on a government level, such initiatives are nonexistent now.
The government has attempted public-private partnerships with social media companies. Still, those efforts have been extremely controversial due to constitutional concerns about government interference in private speech. What about private efforts? Have social media companies been effective?
Social media companies have attempted self-regulation, but the results have been mixed. Often, their frameworks backfire because they’re either implemented poorly or provoke dissatisfaction from all sides. In some cases, their efforts have actually exacerbated the problem.
Jacobsen: You mentioned “deliberate boosting” of antisemitic and hateful accounts. What do you mean by that?
Tsukerman: Let me give you an example. There’s a figure named Jackson Hinkel. He’s a troll who promotes propaganda for Russia, Hamas, and other groups. Two years ago, he had only about 1,000 followers — a relatively obscure social media personality with no significant accomplishments or media presence.
Today, he’s verified on social media, has an American flag next to his name, and has over 2.8 million followers. This is someone who went from complete obscurity to a massive following, not because of genuine merit or noteworthy achievements, but because he aligned himself with Russian and Hamas propaganda networks.
Hinkle has a checkered past, moving from one radical activity to another before finding his niche amplifying antisemitic and extremist rhetoric. He’s now heavily promoted, even receiving significant exposure in a major New York Times profile. This raises questions about how such obscure figures gain sudden prominence.
Jacobsen: What’s behind this “boosting”?
Tsukerman: It’s often driven by entities seeking to promote “alternative perspectives.” This gives these individuals an aura of legitimacy, even martyrdom, feeding into conspiracy theories that they were previously suppressed or silenced. People like Hinkle have no substantial qualifications or meaningful contributions to public discourse. Yet, they gain wide exposure by being amplified — both by Moscow-aligned networks and social media algorithms .
This creates a dangerous feedback loop. Antisemites flock to figures like Hinkle, while others, who may not be inherently antisemitic but are ignorant or easily manipulated, start finding his content compelling. They begin questioning what they perceive as “state narratives,” which is precisely the intended effect of these propagandists.
Tucker Carlson is a good example of someone who doesn’t need boosting because he already has a massive platform and significant influence in certain circles. However, when someone like Carlson uses that platform irresponsibly , introducing or normalizing extreme ideas into mainstream discourse , it legitimizes those narratives.
Jacobsen: What did you make of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin?
Tsukerman: That interview was an unsettling example of how influential figures can serve as conduits for authoritarian propaganda. Carlson gave Putin a platform to spread narratives that appeal to the West’s fringe elements, further polarizing and undermining democratic discourse. It’s a stark reminder of how media responsibility matters, especially when dealing with figures like Putin, who are adept at weaponizing information for strategic gains.
Local regimes, such as the Ba’athist regimes in Syria and Iraq or Nasser’s government in Egypt, followed these narratives for political purposes. Once those ideologies became entrenched in the popular mindset, they became almost indistinguishable from the broader culture. It’s been decades, and there have only been brief, inconsistent attempts at reform, often disrupted by internal political squabbles.
Jacobsen: What would it take to undo this deeply rooted antisemitism?
Tsukerman: Undoing this would require a serious, long-term, and consistent effort. Some countries have attempted to revise their textbooks to remove antisemitic conspiracy theories, but the state media remains a bigger challenge. Many officials who benefit from these narratives are deeply entrenched in their positions. Reforming this system is difficult when governments juggle security issues, economic crises, and other pressing concerns.
For deprogramming to be successful, it would need to be supported by major powers like the U.S. and the European Union. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a consistent commitment to such a project from any U.S. president in the last 20 years. Some administration members made brief reform efforts during Trump’s first term. Still, these were insufficient and often countered by conflicting initiatives from the same administration.
Jacobsen: Regarding the Soviet influence you mentioned earlier, some texts — such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Besides The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we have Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Henry Ford’s The International Jew, and The Talmud Unmasked by Justinas Pranaitis, though I must admit that one is less familiar to me. There’s also the broader range of Holocaust denial literature, exemplified by figures like David Irving.
This “rich and unillustrious” history of antisemitic works continues to shape hate movements. Even though these texts have been debunked extensively, they persist. The failure to eradicate them raises questions about the nature of this style of hatred and its resistance to rational analysis, evidentiary discourse, and debunking efforts.
Why do these ideas resurface, even after being thoroughly discredited? It’s like a game of whack-a-mole. You can debunk these ideas repeatedly, but they’ll keep popping up.
Tsukerman: You can’t fully convince 100% of people all the time. Still, you can build a societal baseline of rational thinking that minimizes their impact.
Think of it like a vaccination. Not everyone will benefit from a vaccine — some might be medically unable to take it, and others might refuse it. However, society becomes better protected overall when most of the population is inoculated against a particular strain or illness. Similarly, we need to “vaccinate” society against the appeal of antisemitic ideas through education and critical thinking.
Jacobsen: How would such an educational “inoculation” work?
Tsukerman: It starts by building a foundation of critical thinking and deep historical understanding from a young age. Students must learn to grapple with complex narratives rather than absorb oversimplified propaganda. Doing so makes them more likely to question ideas, engage with diverse perspectives, and resist emotional manipulation and simplistic explanations.
This “base” of education must also be reinforced over time — much like booster shots in medicine. Critical thinking and historical study shouldn’t stop in childhood; they must be part of lifelong learning. Regular exposure to thoughtful discourse and factual information can counter the emotional appeal of propaganda and inoculate society against hate.
Jacobsen: Besides inoculating the population with basic critical thinking training and developing an anti-conspiratorial mindset, how do you boost public awareness? For example, periodic exercises or updates about new developments in information warfare. How can people be taught to recognize when they’re being taken for a ride, much like scams targeting vulnerable populations, such as senior citizens?
Tsukerman: That’s a great analogy. Scams show how easily people can fall for false narratives without realizing their origins. Many believe they understand what they’re hearing or reading but often don’t grasp the manipulation behind it.
The best thing governments, companies, and institutions can do is to be transparent and truthful. Admit mistakes, remain flexible, and be receptive to citizens’ concerns. Trust is easier to build when experts are humble, clear in their communications, and open about the evolving nature of their knowledge. Experts should emphasize that science and understanding are not static but continually advancing. Humility — admitting what you don’t know and acknowledging mistakes — goes a long way in cultivating trust and societal buy-in.
Conspiracy theories thrive in environments where the social contract feels broken. When people feel betrayed by their government, authorities, doctors, or the media, bad actors exploit these vulnerabilities. They offer narratives that align with existing feelings of resentment or doubt, preying on cognitive biases. People gravitate toward ideas that validate their emotional and intellectual frameworks rather than challenge those ideas skeptically.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Jackson Hinkel earlier as an example of a promoted individual. At another level, there are individuals and organizations whose antisemitism doesn’t depend on being boosted — they’re entrenched in conspiratorial thinking, bad logic, and pseudo-evidence. From your analysis, which personalities or organizations would you say exemplify the most virulent or entrenched forms of antisemitism?
Tsukerman: That’s a good question. There are certainly personalities and organizations that have professionalized their hatred, so to speak. One example is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR markets itself as the leading civil rights organization for Muslim Americans. However, its actual membership is relatively small, and it has actively suppressed efforts by other organizations attempting to serve similar roles.
CAIR has faced accusations of receiving funding from foreign entities linked to extremist ideologies. These financial ties often align with fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, which many Muslim Americans do not support. Despite these internal and external issues, CAIR has managed to create an image of legitimacy by building a network of associations, sister organizations, and affiliated groups. This makes it appear influential and representative of the broader Muslim community.
The problem is that there is no monolithic “Muslim community.” Muslims are incredibly diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, and religious practices. Many feel unrepresented by CAIR but believe they have no alternative because of its prominence.
I can give you a clear example. I attended a conference. At this conference, a CAIR representative participated in discussions about religious inclusion and human rights. They portrayed themselves as the sole voice for Muslim Americans, leveraging their established reputation to dominate the narrative. However, some attendees, including Muslim participants, quietly expressed their discomfort with CAIR’s approach, feeling it did not reflect their views or experiences.
This situation highlights the broader issue: organizations like CAIR use their networks and media presence to amplify their influence, even when they don’t represent most of the communities they claim to speak for. It’s a calculated strategy that capitalizes on the lack of alternative voices while presenting a unified but misleading front.
Jacobsen: I really enjoy talking to experts and being educated by them. As I often tell them, I can’t replace their expertise as a freelance journalist simply surveying the landscape. That’s the whole point of conversations, book projects, etc.
Sometimes, I’ll go to a pub or nightclub and end up in interesting discussions. For example, I once went to a Latin nightclub, and a Saudi guy was there. We hit it off, had a couple of drinks together, and got into a conversation.
He started talking about the LA fires, which had just begun. He insinuated that the fires were caused by divine intervention—he nudged his head upwards, implying they were started by God Almighty as a punishment.
Here’s this Saudi, liquor-drinking Muslim in Vancouver, at a Latin nightclub with his brother, drinking heavily and yet holding this mindset of divine retribution against, I don’t know, Hollywood or something.
Compare that to someone like Imam Soharwardy, a Canadian Sufi Muslim. He’s a gentle person who founded the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and led a 6,500-kilometer walk against violence to promote peace and nonviolence within his community. These two individuals represent vastly different expressions of Islam.
One is a Pakistani Sufi Muslim who doesn’t drink, as far as I know and leads a life of activism and peacebuilding. The other is a Saudi Muslim who goes out drinking with his brother and, instead of expressing sympathy for people affected by the fires in LA, immediately frames the disaster as divine punishment then has sympathy mixed into it.
Tsukerman: Right, and that speaks to the diversity within Muslim communities. To the extent that someone operates within a religious framework, they might view events as having divine significance. But even if an event is seen as divinely inspired, the human mandate — across all major religious texts — is to help those in need, not to stand by or wait for people to suffer.
I don’t know of any divine text that calls for passivity in the face of a natural disaster. The human response should always be to assist others, regardless of theological interpretations.
Jacobsen: Regarding organizations, you mentioned earlier that CAIR was linked to controversies.
Tsukerman: CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials. They were accused of illicitly sponsoring commerce through various networks. Although they were never prosecuted, a file sitting with the Department of Justice could be reopened at any time.
One of CAIR’s co-founders, Nihad Awad, made headlines recently by praising the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel. This prompted the Biden administration to remove CAIR from its antisemitism task force.
Frankly, I don’t understand why CAIR was ever part of an antisemitism task force in the first place. They might have expertise in Muslim issues, but they’re certainly not experts on antisemitism or anything related to Jewish communities. That’s not their field.
Jacobsen: It does tie into your earlier point about governments often being ineffective
Tsukerman: This is another example of why governments aren’t always the most efficient or logical actors in addressing these issues. CAIR’s inclusion in an antisemitism task force raises questions about the decision-making process and the criteria for selecting participants. It reflects broader inefficiencies and missteps that are too common in government initiatives.
So, the issue is that they’ve monopolized the space. They’ve threatened other organizations and used cartel-like, monopolistic methods to ensure no competition emerges. This leaves communities, such as new immigrants from Bangladesh who don’t know anyone, with little choice but to turn to these organizations for help.
These groups create an illusion of legitimacy, but it’s more akin to a mafia structure — creating a racket, controlling a community, and claiming they are the only ones capable of defending it.
That’s precisely the problem. Their methods aren’t legitimate; they’re criminal and monopolistic in nature. You see this pattern with many similar organizations. They are highly organized, structured, and connected to international networks. They understand local societies well enough to establish effective networks of associates and supporters. However, their influence often extends into spreading conspiracy theories, which is not what they claim to be doing.
Their stated mission might be legal defence or assistance to communities, but their agenda often involves social subversion. They misuse funding for propaganda and accusations rather than genuinely helping those in need. That’s just one example.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on how other nations, like Russia, have used similar tactics?
Tsukerman: Russia has created parallel structures — essentially shell organizations or fronts — in various contexts. They target diverse audiences in different ways. For example:
- They appeal to old Russian diasporas with nostalgic messaging.
- They fund neo-Nazi groups to destabilize societies.
- They support radical leftist groups, pushing extremist ideologies.
All of these efforts inevitably lead to antisemitism in some form. These organized campaigns are deliberate, sophisticated, and global.
We’ve also seen targeted efforts against specific industries and sectors, particularly influential figures with large platforms. Former athletes, comedians, or podcast hosts — people with big audiences but limited expertise on complex topics — are prime targets. Their followers aren’t expecting nuanced discussions on the history of antisemitism.
Instead, these influencers either platform individuals with antisemitic leanings without challenging them or amplify contrarian viewpoints that seem appealing for the sake of being “anti-establishment.” Contrarianism, for its own sake, can become a gateway for normalizing antisemitic ideas.
Jacobsen: That’s a concerning trend. Moving on, you mentioned human rights violations earlier. How should antisemitism be investigated as violating international human rights under frameworks like UN principles or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)?
Tsukerman: That’s an excellent question. Historically, the international community has been reluctant to treat antisemitic incidents as human rights violations. They’ve often been framed as issues of hate speech, bigotry, or intellectual discourse but not as violations of fundamental human rights.
Under existing frameworks, antisemitism should be considered a human rights issue. Suppose a state or actor deliberately targets an entire community based on ideological hatred. In that case, that constitutes a violation of their human rights.
For example, hate crimes motivated by antisemitism often involve deliberate campaigns against a group, including incitement to violence, atrocities, or even genocide. This falls squarely under international human rights principles. Such acts can and should be treated as violations of the UDHR, particularly when they escalate to incitement or organized efforts to harm or ostracize an entire community.
Jacobsen: So, in essence, antisemitism can amount to more than just hate speech — it can escalate into incitement toward genocide or mass violence?
Tsukerman: When antisemitism involves systemic, deliberate campaigns — especially state-sponsored ones — it goes beyond mere bigotry or speech issues. It becomes an international human rights issue that demands accountability under frameworks like the UDHR or international law.
The problem with the international community is that it’s only as good as its members. Let’s face it — when you have a large international organization, it becomes harder to enforce basic standards of lawfulness, democratic norms, and the rule of law.
We’re seeing a lot of corruption at the UN. Lobbies sometimes sway smaller or developing countries into voting for hateful or illogical resolutions. There’s also significant dissent and disagreement over basic definitions. How do we address that?
It starts with something small: defining the terms. For instance, what is antisemitism? You’ll never get anywhere without an agreed-upon, clear definition — especially in large forums with diverse members. Agreeing on what exactly you’re fighting is the first step.
Once you’ve done that, the next challenge is ensuring that member states are incentivized to adhere to the framework. Without accountability or enforcement mechanisms, all you’re left with are empty words.
Jacobsen: Within such frameworks, do you see risks in how certain historical atrocities are used for comparison? For example, attempts to compare the Holocaust with other atrocities can lead to conflation, diminishing the significance of both.
Tsukerman: That’s a great point. Comparing the Holocaust — a targeted, systematic campaign of genocide against millions of Jewish people — with other atrocities is often inappropriate and problematic. While it’s possible to make comparisons as an intellectual exercise, doing so in public discourse can diminish not only the Jewish suffering but also the suffering of other groups involved in those comparisons.
Jacobsen: Can you provide examples of such inappropriate comparisons?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. Two recent examples come to mind, and while controversial, they’re worth discussing.
First, there’s been a trend to bring up the Holocaust too easily in discourse, reducing its significance. For example, it’s often invoked to make ugly or hyperbolic comparisons, which can diminish the unique horror of that crime and devalue discussions of other genocides, such as those in Rwanda or Darfur.
Second, a more specific example involves Queen Camilla in the UK. At a Holocaust memorial service, she mentioned antisemitism and Islamophobia in the same sentence. This was highly inappropriate and in poor taste — not because Islamophobia isn’t an issue worth addressing, but because it has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
The Nazis collaborated with Islamist extremist groups during World War II, aiming to eliminate Jews, so bringing up Islamophobia in this context not only risks conflating unrelated issues but also opens the door to historical controversies that are irrelevant to the Holocaust itself. It was an unnecessary inclusion that detracted from the focus of the event.
Jacobsen: What do you think motivates these kinds of comparisons?
Tsukerman: Often, they stem from either a lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt to subvert the narrative. In some cases, they’re meant to devalue the Holocaust as a singular atrocity, portraying it as just one of many and erasing its specific significance. At times, this reflects antisemitic motivations — seeking to minimize Jewish suffering or deny the uniqueness of their persecution.
When these comparisons are made inappropriately, they shift the discourse away from meaningful discussions of historical atrocities and their lessons. Instead, they risk trivializing both the Holocaust and the other tragedies they’re compared to.
Armenian lobbies in the U.S. are quite distinct from the Pashinyan government in Armenia. These groups represent local Armenian-American communities in the U.S. for over a century. They’re not new migrants, and many of them didn’t even come directly from Armenia — they’re from other parts of the world but happen to be Armenian.
These lobbies often attempt to draw comparisons between the Holocaust and the events of 1915, the Armenian genocide. While historical tragedies deserve acknowledgment and remembrance, how these lobbies sometimes frame their arguments is problematic. They have, at times, employed antisemitic rhetoric when others don’t align with their political strategies or narratives.
There have also been controversies surrounding some of these lobbies, including allegations of embezzlement of humanitarian funds meant for Armenia. Some of these groups have been linked to organized crime or Russian-backed efforts, which complicates their activities further. Despite these issues, they have become highly influential in American politics.
Jacobsen: How does this tie into Holocaust comparisons specifically?
Tsukerman: The Armenian lobbies often use the Holocaust as a rhetorical tool to draw attention to their cause. This co-opting of Holocaust history for a different political agenda is deeply problematic. It’s not just offensive — it’s historically damaging.
It undermines the unique significance of both historical events, distorting the understanding of history and failing to treat each atrocity in its own right. Moreover, there is often a deliberate intent to appropriate the Holocaust’s cultural and historical weight to gain attention for their political aims.
Jacobsen: Shifting gears, what are your thoughts on the economic and cybersecurity implications of antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories?
Tsukerman: Unfortunately, antisemitism sells. Popular media personalities like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t normalize obscure conspiracy theories and extremist arguments if they weren’t profitable. Without money or an audience for these ideas, they wouldn’t pursue them.
Someone is paying for it, and someone benefits from pushing these narratives. In many cases, the funding likely comes from state actors, though not always. But make no mistake — if there weren’t a financial incentive, much of this antisemitic rhetoric wouldn’t persist. Books and other materials wouldn’t sell if there weren’t demand for them.
Jacobsen: So, how do we address the economic aspect of antisemitism?
Tsukerman: It’s a matter of understanding demand and supply dynamics. The demand side is critical. If people stop consuming this content, the supply will diminish naturally. Trying to shut down supply without addressing demand often backfires.
Look at the Soviet Union as an example. Anything taboo or forbidden became more desirable, fueling curiosity and conspiracies about why it was banned in the first place. By reducing demand — through education, awareness, and counter-narratives — you can reduce the market for these ideas.
Another key aspect is cutting off foreign funding for these narratives. Many people don’t realize that external actors push some of this rhetoric maliciously and don’t have the public’s best interests at heart. Identifying and exposing these foreign influences is crucial to curbing the spread of antisemitism and conspiracy theories.
Jacobsen: That’s the economic argument. What about cybersecurity? How do we see antisemitic narratives being boosted in cyberspace?
Tsukerman: Boosting happens in cyberspace, and it’s not just by Elon Musk or Russian trolls — it involves state actors from various countries. Qatar, for instance, plays a significant role. They use Western influencers and cybersecurity experts to craft complex narratives that ultimately boost antisemitic sentiments.
The most sophisticated tactic involves selecting “good Jews” — often hardcore anti-Zionist or self-hating types — and propping them up to justify antisemitism. The narrative becomes, “We’re not antisemitic; we’re just against Israel or religious extremism. Look at these Jewish people who agree with us!”
This is one of the worst forms of antisemitism, and it has historical parallels. Throughout history, so-called “court Jews”in monarchies were often employed to suppress their communities in exchange for favour from governments. What we’re seeing now is the same idea, where antisemites deploy individuals with internalized self-hatred to legitimize their rhetoric.
Jacobsen: You mentioned bots earlier. How do they factor into this?
Tsukerman: Bots are heavily involved in amplifying these ridiculous arguments. They’ve become more sophisticated over time. It’s not just Russia with its troll farms anymore — it’s a variety of countries investing in AI technologies.
Interestingly, some of these efforts are based in Europe. European groups, leveraging advanced AI, are running these campaigns. Because they’re European-based, they attract less scrutiny and are harder to trace. These campaigns are more complex and insidious.
Jacobsen: What about targeted campaigns to boycott anything Jewish — whether explicitly antisemitic or framed as part of a hypothetical noble cause?
Tsukerman: If people choose not to buy a product for personal reasons, that’s their prerogative. The problem arises when organized campaigns attempt to create economic pressure on institutions, including government entities, to engage in illegal discrimination against citizens or allied states.
These campaigns often invoke the apartheid South Africa comparison, but it’s an entirely inappropriate analogy. Apartheid South Africa was a unique phenomenon where a minority population oppressed a majority through explicit, codified policies.
Israel doesn’t fit that framework. It’s a country with Arab Muslim parties in the government. Yes, there are issues of discrimination that need addressing, and some politicians have said deplorable things. Policies can be criticized, and governments can always improve, but to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa is historically and factually inaccurate.
Jacobsen: So these campaigns distort definitions to justify hate campaigns?
Tsukerman: The goal is to weaponize flawed definitions to legitimize hate campaigns and push for illegal discrimination. State and non-state foreign actors often fund these organized movements. They’re not grassroots efforts but deliberate, well-funded initiatives to spread hate under the guise of legitimate political discourse.
The good news is that 27 U.S. states have enacted laws opposing these discriminatory movements. A federal framework has also been pushed, though it hasn’t materialized yet.
Jacobsen: What’s the next step?
Tsukerman: The next step is to unravel the funding sources behind these campaigns, expose the foreign actors involved, and ensure legal frameworks are in place to protect against discrimination. Public education on why these narratives are flawed is also critical. Without understanding the tactics and motivations behind these movements, it’s easy for people to fall prey to their rhetoric.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss the characterizations and slurs used in antisemitic rhetoric. Beyond the overtly hateful terms, you have the less obvious ones — ”globalists” or “international banksters,” for example. Then there’s the idea of a hypothetical Zionist or dual control of the world. The notion that 0.2% of the global population somehow pulls the levers on everything, or separation in ‘Good Jews’ and ‘Bad Jews.’ What’s your take on this kind of narrative?
Tsukerman: Yes, I know exactly what you’re referring to. I always joke, “Where are my bags of gold in this conspiracy? How did I get left out?” By the way, if these supposed conspirators are so effective, why are things going so badly? The logic doesn’t hold up.
Jacobsen: What about antisemitic hacking campaigns? Are these targeting Jewish institutions or individuals?
Tsukerman: There have been hacking campaigns targeting Jewish organizations and institutions. However, we need to unpack this topic fully when we have more time.
Jacobsen: One angle I’ve found interesting is individuals who grew up surrounded by antisemitism or even converted to antisemitic ideologies in adulthood but later deconverted and became outspoken critics. These individuals, having lived it, know the language and the mindset. Do you see this group as effective in combating antisemitism?
Tsukerman: In theory, it sounds promising. You’re referring to people akin to ex-communists who became liberal critics of oppressive systems or former Maoists who switched ideological sides. But there are significant caveats.
First, many of these individuals lack a classical liberal mindset or a genuine, deeply rooted repulsion to oppressive systems. Some of them move from one extreme to another. After leaving antisemitic ideologies, they may embrace another form of extremism rather than adopting a truly balanced perspective.
Second, not everyone claiming to have “converted” away from antisemitism is genuine. Some are opportunists seeking attention. Others infiltrate Jewish communities under pretenses, gathering information to pass back to their original networks or governments.
Jacobsen: That’s concerning. Are there other limitations with this group?
Tsukerman: Yes. Many of these so-called converts are ineffective because they primarily preach to the converted — they appeal only to Jewish or Christian audiences already sympathetic to their message. Rarely do they engage with their communities or challenge antisemitic mindsets in their native languages or cultural contexts.
The critical question is: What value are they providing? Often, they reiterate what the audience already knows. “X, Y, Z regime is antisemitic and needs to go.” Great — we’re aware of that. What’s missing is actionable insight: how to effectively combat that regime or convince others in their communities to stop listening to propaganda.
Jacobsen: In most cases, they’re not developing strategies to challenge antisemitism in their home contexts.
Tsukerman: In my experience, very few of these individuals have been truly valuable in this regard. Worse, some sponsored by organizations do more harm than good. In some cases, they deliberately infiltrate Jewish communities, pretending to be allies while gathering intelligence to pass on to their original networks or governments.
We need to be cautious when evaluating the authenticity and effectiveness of these individuals. While few may provide genuine insight and support, many do not challenge their communities or provide strategies for meaningful change.
Jacobsen: Something I’m not too familiar with are antisemitic hacking campaigns. I assume these are black hat hackers, not white hat hackers, meaning they aim to cause harm rather than help. What do these campaigns look like?
Tsukerman: Yes, exactly. These are black hat hackers with malicious intent. There have been extensive campaigns, particularly involving Iranian, Russian, and Chinese hackers targeting Israel’s institutions. Interestingly, there have been counter-responses from Indian hackers who’ve hacked back at some of these groups.
Jacobsen: Leave it to the Indian hackers, they’re great.
Tsukerman: You have Russians, Chinese, and Iranians on one side and Indians countering them.
Jacobsen: Then, Nigerians enter the mix, trying to scam you as the “son of a prince, and a banker.” What about the U.S.? Do you see much hacking activity targeting Jewish organizations or activists?
Tsukerman: In the U.S., you hear less about outright hacking aimed at Jewish organizations compared to what’s happening globally. However, there have been incidents targeting Jewish institutions, Jewish activists, and pro-Israel advocates.
One particularly insidious tactic, especially prominent with Qatari actors, involves preemptive hacking. This means identifying activists or critics before they reach their peak influence, gathering compromising or embarrassing information about them, and then leaking it later when they’ve gained prominence. It’s preemptive talent spotting, and I’ve seen it in action.
Jacobsen: Is this widely known?
Tsukerman: Not really. It’s so targeted and specific that it often flies under the radar. The more well-known incidents tend to be simpler, like defacing websites with hateful messages. But these more sophisticated, intelligence-level patterns of hacking — particularly aimed at Jewish or pro-Israel individuals and organizations — aren’t getting the attention they deserve.
Jacobsen: What needs to be done to address this?
Tsukerman: We need data. First, detailed data must be collected to understand the scale and patterns of these attacks. From that data, we can build a framework to analyze the tactics used. Once we have actionable insights, or “NSATs” (next steps and tactics), we can effectively develop strategies to counter these attacks—whether through governmental action, NGO work, or individual advocacy.
Jacobsen: Beyond hacking, how do you see financial targeting of Jewish organizations? How do you differentiate between those targeted for political reasons — such as criticism of Israel — and those targeted explicitly for being Jewish?
Tsukerman: At this point, it’s often a distinction without a difference. Suppose someone is attacking all of Israel, not just specific government policies. In that case, they’re effectively targeting Jews and anyone associated with the state. Israel is recognized as a Jewish state, so such attacks disproportionately impact Jewish individuals and organizations.
Criticism of specific policies or leaders, like Netanyahu, is, of course, legitimate. But the real question is: What about the rest of Israel? Are these critics okay with Israel and its people’s existence? In my experience, I’ve yet to see an organization exclusively dedicated to criticizing specific Israeli political decisions without also smearing the broader society.
Jacobsen: So, in theory, such a distinction could exist, but it’s rare in practice? It’s one of those academic exercises — nice in theory but almost nonexistent in reality.
Tsukerman: Most organized criticism ends up targeting Israel as a whole, which inevitably crosses into antisemitism.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss international conspiracies involving Freemasonry, banks, and various institutions — specifically, the conflation of these ideas with antisemitic narratives. While media portrayals often perpetuate the same old tropes, I’m curious about the weaponization of financial stereotypes. These conspiracies often center around the idea of “global financial control” and are weaponized to harm Jewish individuals and communities. They’re pervasive and can target anyone, from wealthy public figures like Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld to regular Jewish families — whether they’re Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or otherwise.
Tsukerman: One of the clearest examples of this was the case of Ilan Halimi in France. He was a 23-year-old Jewish man, a cell phone salesman, abducted and tortured by a violent gang called the “Gang of Barbarians.”
The gang specifically targeted him because they believed he was wealthy, purely because he was Jewish. They demanded a ransom of €450,000, more than most people earn in a lifetime. In the end, they killed him.
Jacobsen: That’s horrifying.
Tsukerman: It is, and it’s a stark example of antisemitism in its purest and most brutal form. This was not someone wealthy or prominent. He was just a regular person. Even the gang admitted they believed all Jews were wealthy, and that motivated the crime. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Interior Minister at the time, acknowledged this explicitly.
Jacobsen: It’s striking that they even called themselves the “Gang of Barbarians.”
Tsukerman: Yes, you can’t make this up. They openly identified as villains, which is rare, but at least they were honest about their motivations. It’s a tragic case that illustrates how pervasive and dangerous these stereotypes can be.
Jacobsen: Beyond this case, how do these stereotypes manifest in other parts of the world?
Tsukerman: You see variations of this narrative in the Middle East and many developing countries. In some places, people don’t even know what being Jewish means, yet they parrot stereotypes like “Jews are rich” or “Jews control everything.” These ideas have become so entrenched that they’re often accepted without question, even in regions with no significant Jewish population.
There’s also magical thinking at play. People fail to connect the dots between the cultural emphasis on education and hard work in many Jewish communities and the resulting financial success for some individuals. Instead, they attribute success to conspiracies or luck, ignoring the historical context of discrimination and the resilience it necessitated.
At the same time, not every Jewish person is wealthy or successful. There’s a broad spectrum, just like in any other community. But these stereotypes persist because they’re easy, reductive explanations for complex realities.
It oversimplifies and dehumanizes. When people fail to recognize the diversity within Jewish communities and the effort behind individual achievements, they perpetuate harmful myths that fuel prejudice and, in extreme cases, violence.
Many people gravitate toward professions that provide financial stability and allow them to take care of their families.
Jacobsen: Are there any major topics we missed? We’ve covered radicalization, extremism, geopolitics, propaganda, state and non-state actors, Israel, disinformation campaigns, human rights violations, antisemitism, protections, cybersecurity, economics, boycotts, hacking, financial targeting, and destabilization. Did we miss anything?
Tsukerman: We’ve covered a lot.
Jacobsen: Earlier, we touched on the AfD and the far right in Britain, but they don’t have much of a chance under Trump.
Tsukerman: One additional point I wanted to mention is that a recent trend is seeing individuals who aren’t genuinely pro-Jewish or pro-Israel use fake appeals to advance their own agendas.
For example, Viktor Orbán in Hungary invited Netanyahu for a visit and boasted about how safe Hungary allegedly is for its Jewish community compared to other European countries. However, Orbán is deeply invested in Iran, does business with China, and sides with Russia. He also has no issue with the horrific crimes occurring in Ukraine. How can someone like that possibly be pro-Jewish?
I’m deeply skeptical of Orbán’s intentions. It looks like pure opportunism — a scheme to attract Jews to Hungary because many are politically influential in the U.S., and he likely sees them as useful for building political connections. It’s political cynicism at its finest.
Jacobsen: This ties into the broader category of “useful idiots.” Cynical actors like Orbán play both sides, creating the illusion of being allies while serving their interests.
Everyone seems to have this archetype of a Bond villain in mind. It reminds me of a German comedian’s joke on Conan O’Brien’s show. Conan asked if it bothered him–the interviewee–that Germans in American media are often portrayed as villains. The comedian immediately replied, “No.”
He said, “Have you Wiki’d Germany history before?” It was quick and to the point. That’s sharp humour — concise and accurate.
Jacobsen: We could dig into these tropes more. One area I’d like to explore in the future is how people who hold antisemitic beliefs define “Jewish.” What’s their conception of a Jewish person? That’s a fascinating and broad topic. It warrants its discussion.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much. It was great to connect with you.
Tsukerman: Excellent. Thank you so much for your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/20
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo discussed trends in charitable giving and community engagement in the U.S., emphasizing the $499 billion donated by Americans in 2023 despite a 2.1% decline from 2022. They highlighted how people increasingly contribute time and expertise, particularly in trades like construction and landscaping. Cities like Virginia Beach excel in volunteering due to safety and low poverty rates, while San Francisco leads in caring for the vulnerable, supported by strong policies. Challenges in low-income, high-crime cities like Memphis and Baton Rouge were noted. The conversation also explored foster care reforms, “Built for Zero” homelessness efforts, and weighted metrics in city rankings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Americans donate a significant amount of money. In 2023, they donated $499 billion, according to data from Giving USA. How does that compare to other countries? This is an important opening question, though we may not have sufficient comparative data readily available. Still, $499 billion is a substantial figure.
However, when adjusting for inflation, this amount represents a slight decrease from 2022. Studies like these aim to broaden the definition of “caring” beyond monetary contributions. How has this trend of declining donations evolved in recent years? From what I can observe, there has been a steady decline post-COVID. A fair starting point for comparison would be from 2020 to the present.
Chip Lupo: The purpose of this study is to emphasize that caring involves more than just donating money. There are many other impactful ways to show compassion—often summarized as “time, talent, and treasure.” Volunteering time and sharing expertise are critical components of this broader definition. While the decline in donations is notable, Americans remain a compassionate people overall.
For example, there was a 2.1% decline in charitable giving from 2022 to 2023. Are people compensating for this gap by contributing more time rather than money? Yes, they are. Volunteering hours have increased, along with the sharing of professional expertise. For instance, individuals skilled in contracting, home building, landscaping, or other trades can donate their time and skills to help those less fortunate. This kind of contribution holds significant value.
Jacobsen: Lastly, why are Virginia Beach, Scottsdale, and Boston considered among the most caring cities? What specific factors make them stand out?
Lupo: Now, Virginia Beach—it’s largely because, well, they’re number one in the nation for volunteering hours. They also have a high share of residents who go out and fundraise or sell items to raise money for charity. It’s also a relatively safe area, and that’s a huge factor when it comes to volunteering.
People are not likely to go out and do fundraising or charity events in areas where there’s a high risk of crime. Virginia Beach has the second-lowest violent crime rate and the eighth-lowest property crime rate in the country. That shows people are looking out for each other, which indicates that they care about their neighbors. There’s also a low overall poverty rate and an extremely low child poverty rate.
Jacobsen: And what about cities like San Francisco? Why are they number one for caring for the vulnerable?
Lupo: Let’s pull that up here. San Francisco ranks 27th overall, but when it comes to caring for the vulnerable, they perform very well. That category encompasses a number of smaller metrics. Adoption rates are quite high in San Francisco, and they also have strong animal protection laws and a relatively low uninsured rate.
San Francisco also stands out with a high number of rehabilitation centers, which is key. They have a high share of sheltered homeless people and a notable number of pet shelters and rescue services per capita. Additionally, there’s strong availability of paid family leave.
Jacobsen: So, in the case of San Francisco, a lot of this seems policy-driven?
Lupo: Exactly. If local authorities make strong commitments toward volunteering and caring policies, residents are more likely to follow suit. And then you’ve got cities like Memphis, Tennessee; Baton Rouge; and Birmingham, which are at the very bottom of the list.
Jacobsen: What’s happening there?
Lupo: Yes, those cities are at the very bottom of the 100 ranked cities. They tend to rank low across multiple areas. For instance, they have very high crime rates, both violent and property-related, which discourages volunteering and community involvement.
Let me check here… Yes, they also score poorly in caring for vulnerable populations. So, these cities face significant challenges when it comes to creating an environment conducive to community support and charitable activity.
The highest ranking among those cities is Baton Rouge, which sits at 50th in “caring for the workforce.” However, all of them—New Orleans, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and Birmingham—have very high crime rates, high poverty rates, and significant child poverty. There’s also a noticeable lack of commitment from local officials toward encouraging volunteering.
As we mentioned earlier, in high-crime areas, people are often more reluctant to go out and engage with their community. Instead, they stay indoors to avoid putting themselves at risk of becoming crime victims.
And they’re all located in the Deep South—low-income regions with persistent socioeconomic challenges.
Jacobsen: Can we correlate the wealth of an area with the level of caring or volunteering that happens there?
Lupo: Yes, that’s a huge factor. The bottom four cities—New Orleans, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and Birmingham—are all in low-income states, particularly Louisiana and Tennessee. These areas struggle with economic hardship, which naturally affects charitable engagement.
Right above them is Detroit, Michigan, another area marked by high crime and low income. In contrast, the cities we mentioned earlier—Virginia Beach, Scottsdale, and Boston—tend to be safer and wealthier.
In places like Boston, for example, there’s a higher education level. With prestigious colleges and universities in the area, there’s a direct correlation between higher education and community engagement. However, Boston does face challenges with its high cost of living, which offsets some of its strengths. As we discussed earlier with inflation, when the cost of living rises, people often donate less money.
Still, people in Boston tend to engage with and look out for their community. So, yes, there’s a strong correlation between the income levels of an area and how compassionate or caring its residents can afford to be.
Jacobsen When these cities are economically poor, do religious organizations or nonprofits pick up more of the slack?
Lupo: I think so. In the Deep South, where religion remains an integral part of the community, you’ll find faith-based organizations playing a significant role. They, along with other nonprofits, often “pick up the slack” when it comes to providing care and compassion.
Jacobsen: Are there limitations to what nonprofits, charities, and religious organizations can provide compared to government programs, and vice versa?
Lupo: Not necessarily. There’s the general principle of separation of church and state, but nonprofits—including faith-based ones—still have to comply with federal tax laws and regulations. At the local level, though, there’s often collaboration rather than conflict.
If local officials are supportive and encouraging, then you see a better partnership between religious organizations and nonreligious nonprofits. Together, they can address community needs more effectively.
Jacobsen: Foster care has replaced orphanages. Why did that happen? And is this trend good or bad?
Lupo: That’s a complex issue. The shift away from orphanages toward foster care came largely from growing concerns about the institutionalization of children. Orphanages were often seen as impersonal and ill-equipped to provide the emotional and developmental support children need. Foster care, on the other hand, places children in family-like environments where they receive more individualized care.
However, foster care isn’t without its challenges. It often depends on the availability and quality of foster families, and there’s significant variability in outcomes for children. While the trend is generally seen as positive, ongoing improvements are needed to ensure foster care systems provide consistent, high-quality support for vulnerable children.
I think it’s a good thing because foster care allows for more individualized attention. You can address cases on a case-by-case basis as opposed to applying a generalized approach. What’s the word I’m looking for here? It’s more… focused. Yes, it’s more one-to-one, and I think it’s easier to regulate and monitor situations when you’re addressing each case individually rather than managing a large pool.
Jacobsen: And when you were gathering this data, how big was the sample size?
Lupo: Let’s check the methodology here. For two things: the data was either based on metrics available at the state level, or in other cases, we used the square root of the population to calculate the sample size. That approach helps avoid overcompensating for minor differences.
Now, one thing we need to keep in mind, Scott, is that when determining the sample, we only considered the city proper. For example, in the case of San Francisco, the data only reflects San Francisco city itself, not the outlying areas like Palo Alto or Marin County. So the sample size was strictly based on the city’s population.
Jacobsen: And for the rankings—caring for the community, caring for the vulnerable, caring for the workforce—are these metrics weighted equally?
Lupo: No, they’re weighted differently. Yes, certain factors carry more weight. For example, violent crime rates were given a quadruple weight, property crime rates a triple weight, and alcohol-impaired driving fatalities were given half weight. So the weights varied—some were full weight, while others were double, triple, or quadruple, depending on significance.
Jacobsen: What factor did you find to be the most significant in changing a city’s ranking for caring?
Lupo: Some of the biggest drops were seen in the caring for the workforce rank. That’s largely economy-driven. When unemployment rates are high, people are out of work, and combined with inflation, there’s a lower likelihood of people donating money or volunteering time.
Now, you could look at this from another perspective: people who are unemployed might have more time to volunteer. So it’s a bit of a double-edged sword, as we’ve discussed before. Caring isn’t limited to income; individuals can still donate their time and skills to help their community, even when they’re out of work.
Jacobsen: Do you use Google search rankings by state or city as a metric as well?
Lupo: By the city. That’s a great question because Virginia Beach performed very well in this category. When you look at Google search interest for terms like “volunteer,” “nonprofit organizations,” “charitable organizations,” and “charitable donations,” people in Virginia Beach search for these terms more frequently than residents of other cities.
For example, Virginia Beach had the highest search interest, while Scottsdale ranked seventh. That indicates people in those cities are actively looking for ways to help others.
Jacobsen: That’s fascinating. One last question: what are Built for Zero communities in the U.S., and how are they defined?
Lupo: The term “Built for Zero” refers to a national change effort aimed at ending chronic homelessness, particularly for veterans. It used to be known simply as “Zero.” Built for Zero works with a core group of committed communities to develop data on homelessness, optimize local housing resources, and track progress against monthly goals.
The initiative focuses on creating systemic change to ensure communities can achieve and sustain functional zero for veteran and chronic homelessness.
Jacobsen: Chip, as always, thank you very much for your time.
Lupo: Anytime, Scott.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/20
Piyush Puri is a Founding Partner at Mercurius Media Capital (MMC) and a key member of its Executive Leadership and Investment Committee. MMC collaborates with U.S. media companies to accelerate startup growth through the innovative use of media capital. Additionally, Piyush serves as the Executive Vice President of BCCL Worldwide Inc. (BWI), the strategic investment arm of The Times Group, India’s largest multimedia conglomerate. He highlights the thriving American gig economy, driven by flexible work demands, digital platforms, and pandemic-induced remote work trends. Piyush explains how Airtasker, a platform leveraging a media-for-equity model—trading equity for advertising with partners—has achieved expansion in the competitive U.S. market without significant upfront marketing costs. MMC invested $6 million in Airtasker, recognizing its successful track record in Australia and alignment with growing on-demand consumer needs. MMC’s extensive media partnerships, including Sinclair, Televisa, and Willow, provide startups with broad market reach and credibility, rapidly driving job creation and marketplace growth. This approach draws inspiration from established models like the Times Group’s Brand Capital, delivering a scalable and cost-effective strategy for entering new markets.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with the obvious points or macroeconomic factors of the gig economy. Why is the American gig economy becoming so large and going to continue to grow significantly in the 2020s?
The gig economy in America is exploding, and it’s easy to see why. People want flexibility—especially the younger generation. A rigid 9-to-5 doesn’t fit the lifestyle many are after anymore. With apps and platforms making it super simple to find work or hire someone, gig jobs are now more accessible than ever.
The pandemic was a game-changer, too. Remote work became the norm, and suddenly, even high-skilled roles—like consulting and tech projects—started leaning into the gig model. On top of that, with living costs rising, side hustles have become essential for a lot of people.
For businesses, gig workers are a win. They help keep costs down and allow companies to scale up or down as needed. Consumers are also loving the convenience—whether it’s same-day delivery or hiring someone to assemble furniture.
Investors clearly see the potential. Platforms like Airtasker and Uber are getting plenty of funding, ensuring the gig economy keeps evolving. The way things are going, this isn’t just a passing trend. It’s reshaping work entirely, giving people more choice and businesses more agility in an ever-changing world.
Jacobsen: What is the media-for-equity model for Airtasker’s expansion in the gig economy of the United States?
The media-for-equity model is a strategic approach that Airtasker is using to expand its presence in the U.S. gig economy. In this model, Airtasker offers equity in its business to media companies in exchange for advertising and marketing services. This enables the company to secure significant media exposure without requiring upfront cash investments for large-scale campaigns.
This approach is particularly valuable in a competitive market like the U.S., where established players such as TaskRabbit and Thumbtack already have strong footholds. The media exposure helps Airtasker quickly build brand awareness and establish credibility, which is essential for attracting both users and gig workers. Partnerships with reputable media outlets also lend trust to the brand, an important factor when entering new markets.
The model is also capital-efficient. By conserving cash that would otherwise be spent on marketing, Airtasker can allocate its financial resources to other priorities, such as enhancing its platform or scaling operations. Moreover, the media campaigns can be tailored to specific regional audiences within the U.S., ensuring Airtasker resonates with diverse consumer bases.
Overall, the media-for-equity model provides a practical way for Airtasker to accelerate its growth while balancing costs and maximizing market impact.
Jacobsen: What factors made Airtasker Limited attractive to Mercurius Media Capital to invest $6 million in it?
Airtasker Limited secured a $6 million investment from Mercurius Media Capital due to its strong position in the rapidly growing gig economy and its proven success in Australia. The company’s scalable platform connects task posters with skilled workers, creating a self-reinforcing network effect that strengthens user retention and engagement. This demonstrated Airtasker’s ability to build a thriving marketplace with clear growth potential.
Airtasker’s innovative media-for-equity strategy for its U.S. expansion further enhanced its appeal. By exchanging equity for media exposure, the company efficiently built brand awareness while conserving capital for scaling operations. This approach aligned well with MMC’s focus on media-driven growth strategies. Additionally, Airtasker’s alignment with consumer trends, such as the increasing demand for convenience and on-demand services, positioned the platform to thrive in a competitive market.
With a strong leadership team, a proven track record of execution, and a clear strategy for international expansion, Airtasker presented a compelling opportunity for MMC to back a high-growth, consumer-focused business poised to scale effectively in the U.S. gig economy.
Jacobsen: Can you share any success stories or case studies from MMC’s previous investments that demonstrate the effectiveness of the media capital model?
As a relatively new fund established just a year ago, Mercurius Media Capital has made five strategic investments this year. While it’s too early to share case studies specific to MMC, the media capital model we employ has been tried and tested over two decades through the Times Group’s Brand Capital model, where it has consistently driven impactful results.
Take Airtasker, for instance. The company is a prime example of how the media-for-equity approach can propel growth. Airtasker leveraged the model to become successful in Australia, using targeted media campaigns to build significant brand awareness and establish itself as a leader in the gig economy. This success allowed the company to raise over $50 million to fuel its expansion into Europe and the U.S.
At MMC, we are building on this proven legacy, working closely with startups to deploy the media capital model as a cornerstone of their growth strategy. While our current campaigns are in their early stages, we are confident in the potential for similar success stories, backed by the same fundamentals that have driven results in the past.
Jacobsen: How do more extensive networks through MMC help startups scale up in terms of market reach and brand building?
Mercurius Media Capital’s extensive networks, including partnerships with Sinclair, Televisa, and Willow, are crucial in helping startups scale their market reach and build impactful brands. These partnerships provide startups with access to premium advertising channels across TV, digital platforms, and social media. This level of exposure enables startups to launch campaigns that reach wide audiences without high upfront costs, establishing a strong brand presence quickly and efficiently.
Startups often lack the expertise or resources to execute large-scale marketing efforts. MMC bridges this gap by leveraging its network of marketing professionals and advisors, along with the media assets of partners like Sinclair, Televisa, and Willow, to design targeted, data-driven campaigns. These campaigns resonate with specific customer demographics, ensuring startups connect with the right audiences. This strategic approach maximizes returns on marketing efforts while driving customer acquisition at scale.
Additionally, MMC’s partnerships lend credibility to startups, making them more appealing to customers and potential collaborators. For companies entering international markets, MMC’s global networks – bolstered by partners like Televisa for Latin America and Sinclair for the U.S. – act as a launchpad for recognition and market penetration. This combination of visibility, trust, and strategic guidance empowers startups to scale rapidly and sustainably.
Jacobsen: How does Airtasker plan to leverage MMC’s $50 million in media capital to create new job opportunities?
Airtasker plans to utilize Mercurius Media Capital’s $6 million investment to significantly expand its presence in the U.S. market. By leveraging MMC’s extensive media partnerships with Sinclair, Televisa, and Willow, Airtasker aims to launch wide-reaching advertising campaigns across television, digital, and social media channels. These campaigns will increase awareness of Airtasker’s marketplace, attracting both customers seeking services and skilled workers looking for flexible employment opportunities.
Through customized media campaigns, Airtasker intends to tap into diverse regional markets across the U.S., connecting local communities with on-demand work opportunities. As the platform grows, the increased visibility will encourage more people to join as Taskers, expanding the types of services offered. This will not only provide individuals with supplemental income but also create full-time opportunities for those seeking greater flexibility in their work lives.
Additionally, Airtasker’s focus on hyper-localized advertising will help identify and address unique needs in various communities, ensuring a steady flow of jobs tailored to local demands. By driving both consumer demand and worker engagement, Airtasker’s partnership with MMC is positioned to play a transformative role in job creation within the evolving gig economy.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Piyush.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/19
The National Flag of Canada Day celebrates Canada’s evolving identity by emphasizing unity, heritage, and national pride. Traditions like flag-raising and singing “O Canada” merge with modern celebrations, including a giant flag skated down the Rideau Canal by young athletes alongside Olympians. These young skaters symbolize Canada’s future, carrying the flag with pride. Joan O’Malley, who sewed the first prototype, was honored, connecting past and present. The event highlights Canada’s cultural diversity and collective values, with athletes reinforcing national pride. Canadian Heritage underscores the flag’s role in linking generations and reflecting democracy, inclusion, and justice.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does National Flag of Canada Day celebrate Canada’s evolving national identity?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: For 60 years, the National Flag of Canada has represented values Canadians hold dear, such as democracy, inclusion, and justice for all. These fundamental principles, deeply rooted in Canadian culture, shape who we are and how we live together.
Jacobsen: How does the event integrate traditions and contemporary celebrations?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: The event integrated traditions such as a raising of the flag while “O Canada” was sung with the contemporary celebrations of having the event on the iconic Rideau Canal Skateway and having a giant flag skated down the canal by young skaters from local sports clubs along with Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes.
Jacobsen: What symbolic meaning is behind the young skaters forming a flag on the Rideau Canal Skateway?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: The young skaters represent the future of Canada, and they carried the National Flag of Canada on the canal as they skated with Olympic and Paralympic athletes to show their pride for their country and their respect for the flag, carrying those notions with them as they moved forward.
Jacobsen: How will the Honourable Mona Fortier reinforce the government’s commitment to national heritage?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: The Minister of Canadian Heritage is the Honourable Pascale St-Onge. We invite you to contact the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage for this question. The Minister’s Press Secretary is Charles Thibault-Béland and can be reached at charles.thibault-beland@pch.gc.ca.
Jacobsen: How are the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes emphasizing unity and national pride?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: Athletes wear the Canadian maple leaf with pride during the Olympic and Paralympic games, representing Canada in world-class events. The games unite Canadians as viewers cheer on their athletes, and their country, emphasizing unity and national pride.
Jacobsen: What is the significance of involving the seamstress of the original flag in connecting the past to the present?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: Joan O’Malley, the seamstress for the first prototype of the National Flag of Canada, connects the past to the present. She was recognized at the ceremony for having a personal and historical link to the National Flag of Canada.
Jacobsen: How does Canadian Heritage intend to use this event to engage the diverse facets of Canadian identity?
Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: The flag is a symbol of unity for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and represents our collective culture and identity, our rich heritage, and the promising future we’re building together. With its bold red and white colours and striking maple leaf, the flag embodies Canada’s national identity, history, and values. It links Canadians across generations and backgrounds.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/19
Anton Zelinskyi is a legal reform advocate in Ukraine, affiliated with DEJURE and serving as a member of the Public Integrity Council. His work focuses on judicial transparency, integrity, and combating corruption, employing tools like the Bangalore Principles and detailed case analyses. He advocates aligning Ukraine’s legal standards with European Union norms amid war and systemic challenges. Zelinskyi’s efforts reflect a commitment to fostering accountability and trust in Ukraine’s judiciary, inspiring progress despite significant obstacles. Zelinskyi emphasized the PIC’s role in evaluating judges’ integrity through detailed analyses and standards like the Bangalore Principles. There is an employment of tools including detailed analyses of judges’ dossiers and public coverage of judicial reform hurdles as points of progress. The High Council of Justice is not a real obstacle in judicial reform. For now, the primary issue lies with the old judicial elites that have not been cleansed from the Supreme Court. He highlighted Ukraine’s rise in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, contrasting it with Russia’s declining rank due to systemic corruption. Despite these hurdles, Zelinskyi is optimistic, driven by citizens’ commitment to transparency, reform, and alignment with European Union standards.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So here we are today with Anton Zelinskyi. He’s affiliated with DEJURE, a legal and judicial reform-focused organization. Anton also serves as a member of the Public Integrity Council. This council plays a role in evaluating the integrity of judges as part of judicial reform and oversight efforts. These individual roles within larger organizations deal with integrity, transparency, and related issues. This is more of an ethics and accountability-focused interview. So, first and foremost, how extensive is the work of the Public Integrity Council?
Anton Zelinskyi: I was an analyst for the first and second compositions of the Public Integrity Council, and I have dealt with much analysis of judges, their dossiers, and so on. I have a good idea of what this work would entail, but there were many challenges in doing our work because we raised the quality bar. We make our decisions with detailed analysis. We check all the declarations, all the facts from the judges, their careers, and so forth. Sometimes, our decisions are 20 or 30 pages long and detailing the judge’s entire life in terms of integrity..
That’s why it’s considerable work. But on the other hand, we have some issues with the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) because they were reluctant to provide us full access to the information. They asked us to go to their building to take photos from their computers to obtain this information, to take photos of massive paper parts of dossiers, and so on. It took much time, and in the end, the pace of our work was slow. So we checked 250 judges within a year [about 1500 are waiting for the assessment].
The work is challenging, but this year’s number of analyzed judges was not very large.
Jacobsen: Regarding integrity vis-à-vis judges, how are we defining this in legal and ethical terms?
Zelinskyi: We follow the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and international standards.
As a PIC, we have our own criteria from 2018. It’s a comprehensive set of criteria for deciding whether a judge poses integrity. In November 2023, we also agreed with the HQCJ on 18 core indicators of judge integrity and how we use them. PIC criteria are broader than we agreed with the HQCJ. We reference both in our decisions. And, about a month ago, the High Council of Justice (HCJ) also developed its unified criteria. According to the law, we need to use them, as a unified approach for the HCJ, HQCJ and the Public Integrity Council (PIC) in some way. Still, we just started this process, and you can find one or two decisions that also mention these unified criteria. [Basically, we cite all three documents, but they differ in scope: the PIC’s criteria cover a broader range of ethical violations, while the HCJ’s are, let’s say, more conservative.]
Additionally, there is also a Judicial Ethics Code in Ukraine. We don’t pay much attention to it because it was conveniently written by judges for themselves. They often cite it, as its wording makes it difficult to hold them accountable for anything.
Jacobsen: Now, these are one set of rules or principles convenient for judges, written by judges. It sounds like a bank robber is writing the rules about criminal jurisdiction regarding robbing banks or lawyers writing laws about how lawyers could be prosecuted. Yes, there’s a conflict of interest there. How do you circumnavigate a too convenient principle for those to whom the ethics are applied?
Zelinskyi: The fact you mentioned, is a broader problem. We have big troubles also in the Bar, not only in judiciary.. So, in the old days, during Yanukovych’s time, the bar and judiciary self-governing organization, were made to pursue the only goal to cover up or rescue corrupt judges or attoreney, something like that. So, if we have questions for a judge regarding the integrity, they always say it’s in line with to our code of behaviour and ethics; we didn’t make anything that is prohibited.
Jacobsen: What have you seen in your work as the most substantial change or reform to accountability, transparency, and codes of ethics for judges?
Zelinskyi: We changed a lot. A taxi driver asked me one time what has changed in judiciary for these years. So regular people don’t see any changes, but I see many of them. The reform has started in 2016, and we are cleansing the judiciary step by step. Over the last year, almost all judges who were corrupt, dishonest, and so on—representatives of the corrupt, old judicial elites—were recommended for dismissal by the HQCJ [and some of them have been already dismissed by High Council of Justice (HCJ)]. I see our work important as the Public Integrity Council has produced some results. We see that HQCJ agree with us in many cases. They pay attention to our conclusions, and there is public attention to it. That’s why they’re a bit afraid to do something shady. The statistics say that only about 45% of our conclusions were supported by the HQCJ [, but it’s a huge difference, as 5 years ago it was something like 4%].
But at the core, so called Maidan judges, [who persecuted protestants during the Revolution of Dignity] or other famous, notorious ones has been dismissed, HQCJ agreed with our conclusions on them, and it’s a good sign that this body, HQCJ, is working in the right direction. So, our work makes a difference.
For me personally, as advocacy manager of the DEJURE Foundation, struggle against the detrimental decision made by the Supreme Court in the summer 2024 was very important. The Supreme Court decided that 180 judges with low integrity don’t need to go through the whole process of qualification assessment.
There were some legal explanations for their decision. Still, they made a U-turn from all their decisions during these eight years. They said there is some legal ground that these judges should be appointed to the positions without having joint interviews with PIC and HQCJ members. Since then, we have done much work. We published many different articles. I attended many YouTube channels and generated much interest in the mass media.
Ultimately, HQCJ started this process to continue interviewing these judges; some of these low-integrity judges have already been dismissed. So it’s an important development that happened last year. I’m sorry for the long answers. The questions are difficult to answer.
Jacobsen: People who haven’t been in Ukraine don’t understand the context of constant curfews, air raid alarms in the middle of the night every night, sometimes running around the clock, especially in the last 12 months as far as I was last there. The frequency of strikes is much higher regardless of the city. And so you’ll have to take into context here: when you are trying to make legal, judicial, and other reforms, you’re doing them amid daily terror, with the public bombing civilian targets where no observable military targets are around. So it’s a very different context than if you’re in a country that wants to transition and make some reforms systemically throughout its judicial system in a more relaxed context. It is much different. So, to convey to people the difficulties of doing this, there is a modest chance of death every day, as well as for those who work with you or even the judges themselves. There’s this constant pattering of alarms on your phone, alarms in the apps you can download that tell you where various missiles and UAVs are coming from, or the air raid alarms you might hear in the distance.
Zelinskyi: Yes. It was strange for me before the full-scale war, like how people live in Israel. It’s constant bombing and so on. These shellingss were nightmares, and it was, of course, frightening for me. I can speak for myself, but it’s common for people to be frightened in 2022 [when full-scale war started] . But now it’s three years of war, and we have become accustomed to it. It’s an environment that you cannot change. And if we see, for example, in our Telegram channels, if I see something dangerous like drones attack alert, I don’t care about it. We don’t care about Shaheds, but if it’s missiles or ballistic rockets or something like that, of course we go to the shelters. But I don’t see it as a big problem in our work
But overall, it’s common stuff for Ukraine; understandably, people are accustomed to it. It’s something that is almost okay now. So, we don’t pay much attention. It’s dangerous. It’s frightening, but the brain works this way, and people become accustomed to anything, even bad things.
Jacobsen: For most people, once they are there, it takes about two weeks, and then you don’t care. The alarm alerts you get on your phone become like annoying texts.
Zelinskyi: It depends. There are stronger people, but there are people with anxiety and so on, and this doesn’t work for them. It cannot be changed if they’re anxious, but with time, some can. They were frightened two or three years ago, and they are frightened now. So it’s an individual thing, but I described how it changed over the years for myself.
Jacobsen: What part of judicial reform is the most critical that has not been done so far? What are the barriers to it?
Zelinskyi: It’s a good question because it has a straightforward answer. It’s the Supreme Court. We had the Supreme Court of Ukraine in 2016, Ukraine’s most powerful judicial body. We could argue that the Constitutional Court is part of the system. Still, we could only pay attention to the general jurisdictions without this special constitutional stuff. It would be the Supreme Court. What was done in 2016 is not a reform, basically only the name was changed.
So they deleted “Ukraine,” in the name and it became the “new” Supreme Court. The process of judicial selection was compromised. We have a good idea that there was some sharing of the answers to the practical tasks, testing, and so on, and all the corrupted judges were successful during this selection. To give you an idea, we had four high specialized courts, and all heads of these courts became heads of these parts of the new Supreme Court. So, the officials, the leadership of the old Supreme Court moved to the new one— it stayed the same.
It was a good idea to start with the most influential court because all other courts are obliged to be in line with the decisions of the Supreme Court. There was a fault in the beginning and all the other changes—the good selection for the High Anti-corruption Court, okaish, selection for the HQCJ and HCJ, all other reforms now depend on the decisions of the Supreme Court. There are many bad decisions of this court—I could talk a lot about them—but the most famous was this one in the summer. It was even mentioned in Ukraine 2024 Report by EU Commission
So, nowadays, we must make a second attempt to reform this court. We have some tools. The HQCJ, for example, has the right to check judges’ declarations of integrity. Part of this declaration is when the judges state that their property is from declared income, so they have enough money to buy it legally, and so on.
However, most of their property comes from other sources, not official salaries. You may remember, in 2023, there was a case when the Head of the Supreme Court, Kniaziev, was caught with a $2,700,000 bribe. As we know from the prosecutor’s speeches, he asked during the call to prepare 13 black packages with money—$50,000 to $150,000 each for other judges. And we know for sure that some of these judges received them During a search, the NABU and prosecutors went to their apartments.
They checked all their belongings and found money connected to the case because the investigators knew the serial numbers of the banknotes [these banknotes were marked by investigators previously]. But in the end, these judges said, “Oh, I borrowed this money from my chief” and that’s it. So, no one was caught except Kniazev… but we clearly understand that in this case, there were at least 13 judges involved.
So it’s one of the examples. There are others, but it’s the most significant or famous one.
Jacobsen: Then, a lot of human rights abuse arguments that are made about Ukraine and Russia during this war have to be taken into account in terms of balancing scales. The international community condemned the aggression of the Russian Federation on February 24, 2022, with General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1, basically condemning the aggression, calling for the withdrawal of all troops and the return of all annexed land.
Ignoring abstentions, the international community voted 141 in favour of condemning that resolution, so accepting it, and only five against it, one of which was North Korea. So, you have a scale there of 141 to 5. It’s similar to this and many other war contexts when trying to implement judicial reforms during a war. If you were to make a comparative case, you look at the development since 2016. That was the earliest date referenced in this interview so far.
Suppose you take that date and look at the reforms in Ukraine, from the Supreme Court down to judicial reform and ethics. How does that compare or contrast with the Russian efforts to combat corruption in the Russian Federation? As far as I know, there are respected indices or indexes of corruption within a country. I haven’t looked at or done a detailed analysis of them. I should continue this work. Regardless, each country may have a legal or judicial subsection of the index score. How does the effort to combat corruption in the Russian Federation under the Kremlin, particularly President Vladimir Putin, compare to President Zelensky and Ukraine?
Zelinskyi: We cannot verify any figures from Russia about its budget and so on because it’s an authoritarian country. Russia presents numbers about its population, financial system, and so on as it wants. Putin decides what numbers should be published, and they do it. All other organizations cannot check whether it’s true or not.
If we talk about Ukraine, there have been many steps toward battling corruption. We see a lot of scandals in Ukraine connected with corruption, and we often perceive this as a bad sign—”Ukraine is so corrupt; it’s so bad; it cannot be changed.” Many efforts have been made, and people say, “Nothing changes.” But from my perspective, it’s a good sign that we have these scandals. It means that our anti-corruption bodies are working fine. They are finding these violations. They identify corrupt judges and start trials. So it’s a good sign. It’s a sign of battling corruption.
I didn’t answer how important it is to make judicial reform during the war. It’s not just taxi drivers who ask me about it; it’s also soldiers. They return on leave from the front line for a week or two. They all ask about how we deal with corruption, what changes have been made, whether bad judges have been dismissed, what’s happening with government reforms, etc. It’s the very stuff they are fighting for.
They believe in a bright future for Ukraine in the European Union—one where this country protects human rights, has a prosperous economy, and so on. They are ready to put their lives on the line to give this opportunity to others who are not on the front line, to people like me who work in Kyiv. They believe we can change something, which greatly motivates me. I know I’m not very good at fighting on the front line, but I’m good at fighting corrupt judges, government corruption, courts, etc.
I do my part, and seeing the results is satisfying. My previous job was in an IT company, where I was an in-house lawyer. I had a good salary, little work, and a happy life with sports activities —until this new work ruined that comfort.
That previous job sounds wonderful. What more do you want? But I didn’t feel I was doing something meaningful for this country. After about a year at this new job, I realized it is very important for Ukraine.
Maybe it’s not so obvious to Europeans or representatives of the United States and Canada. But we see reforms from our positions. It’s closer to us, and we see the little results day by day. Of course, it’s not perfect, but the progress is visible.
The judicial reform is halfway done or something like that. Of course, we don’t see much initiative from our government. We could see a bit of effort from Zelensky as a president. However, all the real reforms are pushed from outside by obligations to Ukraine from the European Union or the United States in exchange for financial support. This is how it works.
When our government hears, “Oh, please do this reform, and we will give you $1,000,000,000,” they do it.
Jacobsen: It’s also part of human nature. The human species had existed for around a quarter of a million years when we speciated from some prior ancestor. So, human nature does not change over a month, a year, or even a thousand years. The point of judicial reform and law generally is to identify individuals breaking norms and laws as much as possible. When those cases come up, as you noted, it shows that the system is working. It doesn’t mean you’ve reformed the system completely or, more importantly, human nature. That’s the key point.
Zelinskyi: There is a Ukrainian saying that 10% of people will never take a bribe, no matter what. Another 10% will take a bribe at every possible opportunity, and the remaining 80% will decide based on their environment. Is it good or not for them to take a bribe? So, we are creating an environment where it is clear that taking a bribe will lead you to jail.
You agree that corruption exists in Canada and the United States. Maybe it’s not on the same scale. Still, it’s naive to think corruption is only in Ukraine or that corruption in the United States is eradicated.
Jacobsen: The character and degree are the two main factors. By character, I mean the overall landscape of corruption—the considered types and contexts. In some theocratic societies, for instance, blasphemy is considered a crime. In other contexts, it’s considered an imaginary crime.
In another context, people might say, “Well, I don’t care if you think it’s imaginary. I believe in that God, and you’ve offended him. Therefore, you have to abide by that belief.”
Zelinskyi: Can you elaborate more on the concept of an “imaginary crime”? What does it mean?
Jacobsen: By “imaginary crime,” for instance, let’s say you are an ex-Muslim. You do not believe in Allah. You do not believe in God. You do not follow the precepts of Islam, like the Five Pillars. You don’t believe in the Quran or Muhammad as a prophet. You don’t believe he flew to heaven on a winged horse. You don’t believe in paying zakat, etc.
So, you don’t believe you can offend something you think doesn’t exist? The idea of blasphemy is to offend a religious entity. More accurately, it means you’ve offended someone’s religious feelings. Because you can’t offend a religious belief itself—it’s an abstraction. When people say “you’ve offended religious feelings,” they are talking about offending a person. That’s more accurate.
But these are religious laws, and religious laws are based on a belief in a god or gods. Suppose you reject a belief in a god. In that case, you also reject the premise for believing that offending God constitutes a crime. In some countries, however, religious laws, like blasphemy laws, are imposed on non-religious people. These laws are extended to cover so-called “cyber blasphemy” or blasphemy in general, leading to jail sentences.
A famous example is Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian atheist. He was jailed for about half of a decade over a one-sentence Facebook post that mocked Muhammad. The case demonstrates how these laws are weaponized, even in modern contexts, to suppress dissent or non-religious beliefs.
He was the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria. So, that’s one particular case that comes to mind. But there are many cases like that. There are countries—maybe 10 or so—where, if you are an atheist, the punishment is death simply for believing that or for having a lack of belief.
Yes, that’s what I mean by “imaginary.” From the point of view of someone who doesn’t believe, these are imaginary crimes. But they don’t have the privilege to impose oppressive laws. It’s the religious communities within theocracies that impose their legal identity on the non-religious.
There are different contexts for this. There are different types and degrees of corruption, and corruption exists everywhere. Liberals have their style, and conservatives have their style. Religious and non-religious people have their styles. It depends. Autocracies and democracies both struggle with corruption, especially during wartime.
Zelinskyi: Yes, everywhere. To provide some context, in Ukraine, I wanted to explain why I asked about “imaginary crimes.” For Ukraine, it’s a distant problem. We have legislation that I wouldn’t describe as soft. Still, it’s very difficult to sentence someone, even in obvious cases where a judge is caught with money or there’s video evidence. They can hire a lot of advocates, and so on and prolong the case hearings for years.
That’s why I’ve heard, even from some Canadians or Americans, that Ukraine is a place where they can come to have fun, drink alcohol, and so on. They know there’s no strict punishment for that kind of thing. As for the situations you mentioned about imaginary crimes like blasphemy, nobody really cares about that here. Ukrainians don’t take it seriously. We’re cheerful people.
Jacobsen: You even have underground hookah bars.
Zelinskyi: Do you like hookahs?
Jacobsen: I tried them a couple of times when I was there. The whole point wasn’t to report on the war but to get a sense of the culture. I tried to participate in daily life—got a Vodafone number, used WhatsApp and Telegram, and learned two or three words that could get me through most interactions. They’d say something at the grocery store or Vodafone place, and I’d tap my card. Then, they’d smile and say, “Oh, such a polite boy,” and off I’d go.
Zelinskyi: Ukrainians are friendly, and if you learn a few words in Ukrainian, they’ll be happy to help.
Jacobsen: You occasionally run into a babushka who tells you her life story as an orphan. The air raid alarms are going off, you hear an explosion three kilometres away, and she’s committed to telling her story until she’s finished.
Zelinskyi: Did she described her life to you in Ukrainian without a translator?
Jacobsen: I used Google Translate to try to understand, but her whole thing was, “This is Putin’s era. It’s just like the old days. Nothing changes with those people. That’s how they are.” It’s very Eastern European. It’s fatalistic.
North Americans, particularly Americans, have that sort of arrogant, “can-do” attitude—if there’s a problem, we can solve it, and we need to resolve it. The reality lies somewhere in between. Many problems are probably intractable. Still, while they may not seem solvable, many things have solutions if you’re willing to invest the time.
It’s interesting to see how these cultural differences play out. You get a sense that people are working with what they have. That’s it. Go to a small Canadian town, then to a small Ukrainian town. What’s the difference? Not much. They all have someone they hate, and they all have their gripes about the government or their local issues.
And yes, they all have their struggles. Since Ukraine is such an older country than Canada, you go to different places, and you can tell. Some people live in an early 20th-century context—like the 1910s or 1920s. You’ll see a farmer with big, arthritic hands, wearing worn-out clothes, whipping cattle with a stick to get them across the road.
You’re driving in your car because you got lost and are trying to navigate through checkpoints in Sumy. Then suddenly, you get to Poltava, a semi-modern city relative to Canada. It’s a completely different context. Most people in Canada, especially Vancouver or Toronto, haven’t been out of the city.
Many people in Vancouver, Toronto, or other big cities have probably spent 95% of their lives in the city and its outskirts. That’s most of what they know. You get that same sense driving around Ukraine.
Es, the same thing. Ukraine is such a big country, especially in Europe. Travelling from London to Paris is a significant trip for a British person. For me, travelling from the suburbs to downtown Vancouver by train and bus takes three and a half hours. It’s exhausting.
Zelinskyi: Canada is 9 million square kilometres—15 times larger than Ukraine. Ukraine’s reasons for limited travel are different. Of course, it’s obvious why people haven’t travelled much since 2022. However, before 2017, we didn’t have visa-free European access.
You had to pay for visas and submit many documents, and there was no guarantee you’d get approved. For people from villages, it wasn’t even a consideration. They didn’t have money. Salaries in Ukraine are small—many earn only a few hundred dollars per month. For example, my parents are teachers. They’ve worked in schools for the last 30 years. My father earns about $600 monthly, and my mother earns around $450.
Jacobsen: Is that paid every two weeks?
Zelinskyi: They get paid every two weeks, but my father’s and mother’s monthly salaries are $600 and $450, respectively.
It’s enough for them because they live in a small town. They have their own house, and they don’t spend much. So they buy some food, household items, and so on. It’s okay for them, but it’s not enough to make a trip to Europe when you need to pay €30 for a meal. For them, that’s not acceptable.
Most people in Kyiv, though, have salaries of $1,000 to $1,500. They have more opportunities, and life in Ukraine is cheap. That’s why $1,500 is a good salary for us. With that, we can buy almost anything except for cars or buildings because they are expensive. Cars aren’t produced in Ukraine, so their prices are determined by automakers, and the same is true for property, like apartments.
I hope that explains things, and I’m sorry for the long answer. The issue with Russia is different. Over 90% of the Russian population has never been outside Russia—except maybe to Belarus or a vacation in Egypt. They think they are prosperous, that everyone lives like that, and they don’t see any issues with Putin.
They don’t make the straightforward connection: Russia sells a lot of oil, gas, and other resources—so why are we living in such poverty? They don’t think about it. They assume everyone lives like they do. That’s one of the reasons they believe in Putin and support him—because of extensive propaganda. They believe what they see on TV every evening.
I don’t know if it’s historical or cultural. Still, even when my grandpa was in Russia, he said Russians drank vodka a lot—it’s a lifestyle. I’m not talking about Moscow or big cities, of course. But in rural Russia, it’s common to come home from work at a plant or factory, drink vodka, and watch television. If you watch television for years and are exposed to only one perspective, you start to believe it.
Do you have any other questions for me, or is that it?
Jacobsen: I have a question regarding corruption—Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index—if we check Ukraine, its rank is 104. It has gone up by 36 ranks. That’s 104 out of 180 countries. This is data up to 2023.
Of 180 countries, Ukraine was ranked 103, and it’s now gone up 30+ ranks. With further efforts, Ukraine will likely move into double-digit rankings, so it’s not as bad as before. In contrast, Russia is ranked 141 and has dropped from 2022 to 2023. It’s been on a downward slide since 2020. That’s the general condition.
Regarding the United States and Canada—certainly. The United States is ranked 24th, but it may be worse with 2025 approaching and many disgruntled people. Canada is ranked 12th and has been reasonably stable.
The country that ranked number one in 2023 was Denmark. Denmark is the least corrupt society on a relative metric. But on an absolute metric, in terms of the Corruption Perception Index, Denmark ranks 90 out of 100. Few countries get an “A,” and probably no country qualifies as an “A+.”
They’re looking at social justice, economic justice, human rights, peace, and security. So, Denmark is number one, followed by Canada, the United States, Ukraine, and Russia.
Ukraine is moving up, Russia is moving down, and Canada and the United States appear to have stabilized somewhat over the last few years.
Zelinskyi: Corruption in Russia is like oil in a car engine—almost everything is done with bribes. In some cases, they tried to fight corruption, but in the end, everyone was too frightened to do anything without bribes. In some regions, their economy completely stopped because their way of doing business or running the state economy depended on corruption.
Only if the leadership changes their economy could shift away from this corruption dependence. Right now, corruption might be helping them to function.
Jacobsen: As for the most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International, the most corrupt countries are Somalia, Syria, South Sudan, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea, Nicaragua, Haiti, Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan, Libya, Tajikistan, Sudan, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Comoros, Chad, Burundi, Afghanistan, Eritrea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Cambodia, Iraq, and Honduras, and so on. Thank you so much for your time.
Zelinskyi: Thanks.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/19 (Unpublished)
Joshua Karunakaran serves as the Manager of Public Relations and Communications at the British Columbia Association of Clinical Counsellors (BCACC). In this role, he oversees the organization’s public relations strategies and communications efforts. The GST exemption for Registered Clinical Counsellors (RCCs) in British Columbia ensures that 5.7 million British Columbians have more affordable access to mental health services. Previously, RCCs had to prove “equivalent qualifications” in a regulated province, which was an impractical process. The BC Association of Clinical Counsellors (BCACC) collaborated with a regulatory college to confirm substantial equivalency, securing a blanket GST exemption from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on December 20, 2024. This exemption will save $22.5 million annually and enhance employer-sponsored benefits, expanding mental health coverage for British Columbians. BCACC CEO Michael Radano and policymakers welcomed the decision.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the main takeaway from the exemption from charging GST?
Joshua Karunakaran: The biggest takeaway is that 5.7 million British Columbians now have easier access to quality mental health services through reduced costs. It also puts BC’s mental health practitioners on par with those in regulated provinces of QC, ON, PEI, NS, and NB.
Jacobsen: How many Registered Clinical Counsellors (RCCs) in BC will be affected by the GST exemption?
Karunakaran: Approximately 8,000+ Registered Clinical Counsellors in BC.
Jacobsen: Why was the first GST/HST exemption ruling problematic?
Karunakaran: On July 15, 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency stated that certain psychotherapists and counselling therapists are no longer required to collect the goods and services tax (GST) or the harmonized sales tax (HST) on their services. CRA stated that psychotherapists and counselling therapists need not charge GST/HST if they “operate in a province with no regulatory body but have the equivalent qualifications required to meet the licensing requirements in a regulated province and practice psychotherapy/counselling therapy”.
To prove that their “equivalent qualifications” meet CRA’s requirements, each psychotherapist in BC would have to get a regulatory college in a regulated province to review both their qualifications and practice. Reviewing the credentials of 8,000 Registered Clinical Counsellors (RCCs), each requiring 1-2 weeks of work is a near impossible task which would take 20+ years to accomplish.
Jacobsen: How did the BC Association of Clinical Counsellors (BCACC) resolve the equivalency?
Karunakaran: The BCACC worked diligently and collaboratively with a regulatory college in a regulated province to author a formal letter requesting to evaluate the requirements of becoming an RCC with those of a practitioner in a regulated province. After a detailed analysis of BCACC’s registration requirements, the college confirmed that for the purposes of GST/HST exemption, the qualifications of RCCs are “substantially equivalent” to those registered with the college.
The BCACC then sent this letter to the CRA seeking a blanket GST/HST exemption for all RCCs, an exemption that the CRA confirmed on Dec 20, 2024.
Jacobsen: How did the CRA confirm the GST/HST exemption in BC?
Karunakaran: The CRA communicated this through a formal letter to the BCACC, addressed to our CEO, Michael Radano.
Jacobsen: Are there other provinces that had the same exemptions already?
Karunakaran: Yes. Provinces of QC, ON, PEI, NS, and NB are regulated provinces and therefore GST-exempt.
Jacobsen: How will this exemption improve access to mental health services?
Karunakaran: According to the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), by age 40, 50% of the population will have experienced a mental illness, and 1 in 5 experience mental health problems annually. The incidence of mental health issues has also been rising, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic.
If we extrapolate that 1 in 5 British Columbians experience a form of mental distress requiring psychotherapeutic services in a given year, we estimate that approximately 1.25 million British Columbians may seek psychotherapy or clinical counselling annually.
BCACC’s Registered Clinical Counsellors (RCCs) comprise 90% of psychotherapists and clinical counsellors practicing in British Columbia. Currently, our membership has over 8,000 members practicing across BC.
Each year, our Find a Counsellor tool averages approximately 125,000 visits from individuals seeking counselling services. If a British Columbian sees a counsellor twice a month at an average rate of $150 per session, the total cost of counselling services amounts to approximately $450,000,000 annually. Eliminating GST from these services results in about $22.5 million in savings for British Columbians. This estimate only accounts for private practice sessions and does not include individuals accessing counselling through social programs or health authorities. If we were able to account for all psychotherapy services provided, the total savings could be close to $45 million per year.
Another crucial implication is that many British Columbians can only access a limited number of counselling sessions through their extended health plans due to monetary caps. RCCs often charge significantly less than other mental health providers. With their services now exempt from GST, employers adding RCCs to their benefits plans can extend mental health coverage, ensuring that employees have access to more sessions while maximizing the value of their plans. The same holds true for publicly funded programs and other mental health service providers working in agencies and health authorities across BC.
Jacobsen: What have the BCACC CEO and other executives said about the GST exemption decision?
Karunakaran: “The BCACC welcomes the CRA’s decision to remove GST on psychotherapy services. This ruling ensures that every British Columbian has the same level of access to mental health services as those in regulated provinces. We look forward to working collaboratively with the CRA to ensure a smooth transition. The association is currently working to distill the information to its members through regular communiques so that they, in turn, can communicate this positive development to their clients” – BCACC CEO, Michael Radano
“Great news that Registered Clinical Counsellors in BC no longer have to charge GST on psychotherapy. Thanks to my colleague
@LMathys for championing this issue. This change will help make services more affordable for people needing support”
Gord Johns, MP – NDP, Courtenay-Alberni
Jacobsen: Josh, thank you very much.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/19 (Unpublished)
Randall Dottin, Chair of the Filmmaking Department at the New York Film Academy, discusses the evolving landscape of storytelling in film and gaming. He emphasizes the impact of the gaming industry, the importance of sound design, and AI’s role in filmmaking. He highlights the need for aspiring creators to master storytelling, develop collaboration skills, and embrace new technologies. Dottin stresses the significance of mentorship, encouraging students to believe in themselves and build strong industry relationships. He reinforces that storytelling remains constant despite shifting audience expectations and industry trends. The conversation ends with an appreciation for his insights.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Randall Dottin. He is an award-winning filmmaker and educator, currently serving as the Chair of the Filmmaking Department at the New York Film Academy in New York City. He holds a BA from Dartmouth College and an MFA from Columbia University’s Graduate Film Division. His thesis film, A-Alike, won a gold medal at the 2004 Student Academy Awards. He has directed projects such as Fevah and the documentary series The House I Never Knew, which was supported by the Sundance Institute. He has also mentored aspiring filmmakers and his students have achieved success in film and television across the United States and internationally.
Thank you for joining me today—I appreciate it. Now, my first question: How does the revenue disparity between the gaming industry and the box office reflect changing audience consumption habits? For context, the gaming industry generates approximately $400 to $500 billion annually, while the global box office brings in around $25 to $30 billion. How does the revenue disparity between the gaming industry and the box office reflect changing audience consumption habits?
Randall Dottin: Yes, first, people have always been—and always will be—wired for storytelling. The gaming industry has caught up by creating incredibly immersive experiences for those who choose to game. It offers an experience similar to being immersed in cinema. However, gaming provides even more interactivity because players make decisions in real-time. People want the experience of being inside a story while having control over it.
That’s why the gaming industry has become increasingly popular, attracting more participants. Additionally, we have to consider the impact of the pandemic. Many people were stuck inside, looking for ways to engage with stories and entertainment.
And, of course, the streaming boom has affected watching and seeing films in theatres. At the height of the pandemic, there were over 500 shows worldwide airing at any given time. Several factors have contributed to this disparity. However, people worldwide still love to sit back in a movie theatre and experience a story with great characters, a meaningful message, and surprises.
Even though storytelling is universal, it speaks to each person differently. Despite the disparity, the future may shift—one year, gaming might be more dominant, and another year, movies may regain their edge. Regardless, people love immersive story experiences. More choice is good because it inspires and motivates those who create, produce, and distribute movies to craft even better experiences for audiences.
So that’s what I would say. As a filmmaker, I’m not afraid of it—I welcome it because it’s all about storytelling.
Jacobsen: Different industries have different types and degrees of penetrance for newcomers and aspiring creators. What are your recommendations for breaking into each industry?
Dottin: The bottom line is that you have to understand storytelling. You should know how it works. I often tell my students that if they know how to write a story, how to determine whether a story works or doesn’t, and how to provide constructive feedback on a story that hasn’t yet reached its potential, then they will always be able to find work in the industry. That has been my experience, and I’ve also seen it hold true for others.
Know storytelling inside and out. Understand how audiences respond. Get a strong grasp on how you can affect viewers by using characters to create emotion. If you’re a gamer, immerse yourself in various games—study the great ones, analyze how they function, and understand how they were created. Learning how games are structured is important, whether video games or board games. Knowing the mechanics of gaming, in addition to the storytelling aspect, is crucial.
For filmmakers, just like gamers, it’s essential to understand the history of your medium. You need to watch a ton of movies and understand how they work, how they draw audiences in, how they convey their themes, and how to create compelling characters with contradictions that make them more dynamic. If you master these skills—whether you’re in gaming or filmmaking—you will be able to break into the industry.
Jacobsen: Everyone experiences imposter syndrome at some point. Newcomers, in particular, probably feel it more than most. What are some perceived barriers to entry that people in these industries tend to exaggerate in their minds?
Dottin: Yes, there’s always the barrier in the story we tell ourselves—the thoughts that say, “I’m not smart enough,” “I don’t have enough money,” or “I don’t have enough time.” One thing I always tell filmmakers, based on my own experience, is that there’s never enough money and never enough time. Whether you’re a filmmaker making a movie on your phone or Steven Spielberg, there’s never enough money or time.
Spielberg made Lincoln on a budget of $50 million. For Spielberg, that’s low. Meanwhile, Marvel movies today average around $200 million per film. When Spielberg was making Lincoln, he purposely set limitations for himself. He knew that, in terms of box office potential, there was a certain range the film could achieve. If it outperformed expectations and became a blockbuster, great—but he wanted to ensure that he was making a movie sizable enough to tell the story he wanted while remaining fiscally responsible. So, again, there’s never enough money, never enough time.
Another barrier we create is comparison. In this era of social media, people often compare themselves to others who are much further along in their journey. That’s not healthy. Everyone has their own experience as they make films and build their craft. You must focus on becoming a better version of yourself daily—that’s what truly matters. Some people convince themselves that they’re not ready and need a specific time or type of preparation before moving forward.
And look, preparation is important. The more you prepare and consistently put in the work, the more your competence will grow. That’s how you get ready to face the challenges ahead. In boxing, the hardest lesson is the punch you don’t see coming. You’ll take that punch—I’m saying you’ll fail at some point. But after that failure, after making a film or doing an exercise that doesn’t work, you have to get back up and keep going.
That’s the nature of filmmaking. One of my favourite professors in film school used to say that everyone has about 50 to 100 bad films in them. To become a good filmmaker, you must get those bad films out of your system. Suppose you commit to putting in the time and practicing with discipline. In that case, you will emerge on the other side with a mastery that allows you to express yourself fully. That’s how you make the movie of your dreams—because that great film is already inside you, along with those 50 to 100 bad ones. So, keep going. That great movie is coming. But you have to give yourself time, patience, and grace.
Jacobsen: I’m reminded of the unexpected hits—like that Richard Pryor joke about his time with Muhammad Ali, where all you see is the punch coming back. So that’s phenomenal. For those in film, watching a movie is different now than it was 30 years ago. Watching a film in a theatre today isn’t the same experience—it’s changed with IMAX, 3D, and other options. Similarly, video games have evolved into immersive environments with new technological advancements. What skills would you recommend people develop that were not necessary before but could now be valuable in adapting to current and future technologies in gaming and film?
Dottin: Yes, if you’re a storyteller or a gamer, you’re also a magician. Magicians, when they practice their craft, are always surprising their audience. They lead you toward an ending or punchline you don’t see coming. They make you look left when the trick that will blow your mind comes from the right.
For that reason, both filmmakers and video game designers should study magic. Magic is not traditionally taught in film schools, but every magic trick is a story. Every trick has a beginning, middle, and end. Every trick leads you in one direction before surprising you, leaving you wondering how it happened.
One of the things that made Orson Welles one of the greatest filmmakers of all time was that he was a magician. If you watch the first 10 minutes of F for Fake, you’ll see how magic and film combine to create an incredible experience. That kind of storytelling approach is invaluable for both filmmakers and game designers.
Understanding sound is also crucial. Sound design is one of the most underappreciated yet powerful tools in storytelling. Traditionally, film schools haven’t placed much emphasis on sound, but that’s starting to change. Schools like the New York Film Academy now offer more sound design courses. For a long time, film schools primarily focused on developing writers, directors, producers, and cinematographers, but sound is just as critical.
When Ben Burtt, who won Oscars for his sound design work on Star Wars, started, he essentially created the role of “sound designer” as we know it today. His work helped define Star Wars and shaped how audiences experienced the film. George Lucas has said that making a movie is 60 to 70 percent sound. More than ever, filmmakers must understand how sound enhances storytelling—it helps create the film’s reality and unique cinematic language.
The same applies to gaming, especially with the rise of virtual reality. In VR gaming, sound plays an enormous role in storytelling. Like in film, sound design helps create immersive experiences, adds emotional depth, and guides the player’s perception of the game world. It’s another way to introduce the unexpected—the magic.
So, I would tell both filmmakers and game designers to focus on studying magic and sound design. These two skills weren’t emphasized as much 20, 30, or 50 years ago. Still, they are becoming increasingly essential in today’s industry.
Jacobsen: What about the use of AI in virtual production? How do you see the development of those skills or the role of working with AI algorithms to enhance the talent and creativity already present?
Dottin: Yes, AI can be incredibly helpful, especially when shooting on a volume stage—the kind used for many scenes in The Mandalorian. If you’ve seen The Batman, the scenes set inside the building where the Bat-Signal is located—those with the sunset behind them or the Gotham skyline in the background—were all shot on a volume stage.
It’s an efficient tool for filmmakers because it removes many constraints of shooting on location. You don’t have to worry about daylight conditions or capturing scenes at specific times to get the right look. Volume stages are great, though they can be somewhat restrictive regarding the variety of shots you can achieve. Still, they help filmmakers work more efficiently.
I see AI as a tool. Many people view AI as something negative, even a threat, at least at this point. But AI is just another tool—Spellcheck is AI. Grammarly is AI. Some people use AI to brainstorm, generate different ways to explain ideas or assist with writing. I don’t use AI when writing fiction because I prefer to rely on my imagination. But if someone feels they need AI for that, I say go for it.
AI-generated images can also be useful, especially at the beginning of the previsualization (previs) process. However, as you go deeper into concept art and design, bringing in a human artist is important. An artist can provide nuance, depth, and complexity—things AI can’t quite deliver at this stage.
So, in my opinion, AI is a great tool. As long as it is used responsibly, it can be beneficial—whether in gaming, filmmaking, or other creative fields.
Jacobsen: As a mentor and educator, how have your mentorship and teaching styles evolved from the education you received back in the day?
Dottin: It hasn’t changed much. That’s a good question. The core of it remains the same. What I mean by that is that the principles of storytelling have been around for thousands of years. Those core principles are constant. How I teach directing or screenwriting—its foundation—has not changed. Every story is still about someone who desperately wants something but struggles to get it. The question remains: How do we create a story that evokes emotion?
How do we create characters that generate empathy and move an audience? How do we craft a story with a strong theme that resonates with viewers? These fundamental aspects of storytelling haven’t changed.
What has changed, however, is the audience. Today’s audiences are smarter and more media-savvy. They have less patience for stories that don’t work. They crave narratives that surprise them and evoke emotions they didn’t expect.
Teaching filmmaking is about creating experiences for audiences who already know the clichés, tropes, and the hero’s journey. Because audiences are familiar with these storytelling paradigms, students must also understand them. Whether we realize it or not, we are all wired for a story—we inherently recognize when something works and doesn’t.
Suppose we train ourselves in storytelling and its various paradigms and understand the processes and tools that help shape a compelling narrative. In that case, we can create stories that truly resonate with audiences. That’s what I emphasize in my teaching. I ensure that my students grasp these tropes, paradigms, and techniques to craft stories that engage rather than turn off a discerning audience.
Mentorship, for me, has also remained largely the same. Students don’t necessarily care about how much you know—they care about how much you care. That’s the bottom line. People want to feel you genuinely care about their progress, education, and growth. I believe that relationships come before tasks.
Building strong relationships allows you to collaborate effectively and produce great work—great films and stories. I always tell my students that 95% of my jobs in this industry, including my teaching position at the New York Film Academy, have come from my classmates. Almost every job I’ve had came through those connections.
So when I mentor students, I teach them about craft, but I also stress the human element. Being a great collaborator is just as important as mastering the technical side. That means giving insightful feedback on someone else’s script. That means showing up for a classmate’s shoot and working just as hard as a grip, a gaffer, or a camera assistant as you would if you were the director.
There’s an old saying that you get out of an education what you put into it. I believe that’s true, but I also believe that your peers—your cohort—will get what you put in from it. That sense of shared effort is just as important, if not more.
Mentorship is about instilling a strong belief in students—that they can do it. If they truly believe they can, then they can accomplish anything. At the same time, I stress the importance of collaboration because filmmaking is incredibly difficult to do alone.
Jacobsen: Randall, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Dottin: No, thank you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/18
Mathew Giagnorio is an Italian-Canadian podcaster, writer, and researcher based in Niagara, Ontario. With an academic background in philosophy and classics, he is passionate about fostering intellectual debate and evidence-based discussions. He is the founder of Modes of Inquiry, a podcast and A Further Inquiry, an online magazine and podcast that explore diverse perspectives, freedom of expression, and contemporary issues. Deeply influenced by his Italian heritage and family traditions, Giagnorio blends cultural pride with a commitment to liberal values. Inspired by his late mother’s encouragement to “never stop,” he channels his curiosity and resilience into creating meaningful content that connects audiences across Canada and beyond. Giagnorio reflects on the Italian community’s pride in traditions and its integration into Canadian culture. Giagnorio recounts his challenging early life in Niagara, where a childhood accident caused a brain injury and severe epilepsy, derailing his prodigious talents. Facing relentless bullying and educational struggles, he harnessed adversity to develop resilience and academic excellence. Embracing his Italian heritage, particularly his Pugliese roots, he cherished family traditions while adapting to modern life. Inspired by his great-grandfather’s critical spirit and philosophical heroes like Spinoza, he transformed pain into purpose. Giagnorio founded Modes of Inquiry and A Further Inquiry to champion free expression and evidence-based debate, celebrating learning, diversity, and the relentless pursuit of truth with steadfast resolve.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was your early life like in Niagara?
Mathew Giagnorio: Well, that’s a good question, Scott. My early life in Niagara took a drastic turn at a young age. At five and a half years old, I slipped and fell on a wet surface at a restaurant with no sign indicating that the floor had been recently cleaned. There was no warning to watch out for the wet floor.
From that moment on, at five and a half years old, I had an acquired brain injury, which drastically changed my life. Before the injury, I was considered a child prodigy. I attended early childhood education programs, started speaking at a younger age than most peers, and was exceptionally inquisitive. However, after the injury, I began experiencing grand mal seizures, petit mal seizures, and other types of epileptic episodes. Most people with epilepsy have one type of seizure, but I endured the full spectrum.
This continued for nine and a half to ten years of my life, during which I also faced intense bullying throughout elementary school. I was an easy target—just a kid having seizures. My peers did not care; they only saw someone acting strangely. The bullying was relentless and made my primary school years extremely difficult. It was never a good experience.
Fortunately, I had a strong support system within my family. I never lost sight of who I was. I loved learning, but I hated the school environment. It always felt like I was stepping into a fire to retrieve something valuable. Despite the challenges, I worked on myself from a young age—figuring out what I wanted to do, what I wanted to read, what I wanted to focus on, and even how I wanted to present myself.
As a ’90s kid, most people around me were interested in style, hair, and clothing, but I had my unique approach. I sought ways to stand out and best represent myself and my ideas. I developed a deep fondness for menswear—not just as a personal interest but also as a form of armour in the world. The way I dressed became a reflection of my identity and a means of self-expression.
On a side note, I have been happily seizure-free and free from epileptic episodes since before I turned 14, for which I am incredibly grateful. Those years were a nightmare, but I do not look back wishing it had never happened. In many ways, the experience shaped me. It forced me to value the learning process because I had to relearn everything—how to read, write, and even write in cursive.
To illustrate the profound impact of my injury, consider something as simple as taste and memory. Most people take for granted that they know what they like and dislike. I, on the other hand, lost those reference points. I did not even recognize my food preferences. For example, as a child, I loved pineapple—almost to an obsessive degree. Then, after the injury, I found myself mouthing the word “pineapple” without understanding what it was or why I had once liked it.
Do I even recognize this? I didn’t even know what it was referring to. So, it was a horrible time. Amid the sadness and contemplation, my refuge became learning. My refuge became understanding.
But then, obviously, there is a limitation to learning, data, and information.
So, I ended up working on myself in such a way that I matured at a young age. I had to grow up quickly. I found myself always gravitating toward timeless and traditional things in their worth or value. But always, and still to this day, I have maintained an open mind. I have wanted to be someone who is never limited in their perspective or friendships and does not lead with a closed mentality.
Even when I went into high school, my life after that point was different. I was the guy everybody wanted to know. I started working out when I was 12 or 13, lifting weights and playing soccer. That became an outlet for me, a way to boost my morale and find another hobby. Because, let’s be honest—it was frustrating. There was much anger and much energy, all stemming from being bullied.
And no matter how much you stand up for yourself when you have two, three, or four people against one, you are going to take a beating. You are not going to win every fight. My mentality was that I did not want to go down that route perpetually. I did not want to be the guy who was always fighting back. I wanted to stand up for myself and push myself forward—to build character, integrity, and perseverance.
Those are valuable skills, no matter who you are, where you are in the world, and what you are going through—externally or internally.
I made a conscious choice: I would not let all this negative energy, frustration, or sadness consume my thoughts and dictate my days. Instead, I would allow myself to focus diligently on things that propel me forward, both educationally and personally.
That brings me to where I am today. When I look back at everything, I do not take any of it for granted. Every opportunity that I create, every person I am lucky to call a friend or colleague, humbles me.
I am more humbled by everything that has happened than by having a mindset of, Oh, of course, this is happening for me. Look at everything I have done to achieve it.
I could say that, but I still find myself saying, Wow. I remain humbled because I know what could have been had I not pushed myself. No matter what someone is going through, they can have a good network of friends and family around them. Still, if they do not have the will to push themselves forward, if they do not have the will to create who they are, then they will remain stagnant.
Everyone wants to discover who they are, but that is a lost cause. You have to create the person you want to be. And that comes from every situation you are involved in, every context you experience, and every obstacle you face.
Instead of simply overcoming obstacles, I am a big proponent of pushing through them—using those obstacles to my advantage.
Whatever might seem like a hiccup, a handicap, or a limitation in a particular time and place could be an advantage, depending on how you perceive it.
Even to this day, I still have some lingering issues from my head injury. But thankfully, it is nowhere near as bad as it once was.
But it is head to hand.
When it comes to writing—anyone who knows me well knows I am a walking conundrum. The most arduous things are often the things I love the most. Getting my thoughts from my head to my hand in writing is a challenge. And, to make it even harder, I most often write in cursive.
I had to relearn how to do that. It isn’t easy, but I have learned to love it. I have a vast collection of fountain pens, so I can enjoy the process and make sure I am always practicing. Although it is easier to express myself through speaking, even typing can sometimes be difficult. But I never allowed these obstacles to become real limitations.
I pushed through them, worked through them, and found ways to adapt. If there was a hiccup—if something was not my strength—then I asked myself, “What is my strength?” My answer was my oral abilities, my ability to express myself through speech, and my ability to take complex ideas, explain them to others, and also explain them to myself before articulating them clearly.
At the time, even doctors—renowned not only in Ontario or Canada but across North America—told my family that they should, quote, think of Matthew as a child who is dead. This is a new person.
According to them, there was no hope for me. If I was lucky, I might finish elementary school. But beyond that? High school was out of reach. College or university? It was not even a possibility. It was not in the deck of cards.
And yet, I proved them all wrong.
I graduated high school—not just barely, but successfully in every way: socially, academically, and personally. With a high GPA, I went on to university. I pursued my passion in the humanities, classics, and philosophy—something unheard of, given what had been predicted for me.
But then again, I never allowed other people’s labels or narratives to limit me. I wanted to be expansive.
I wanted to try.
I wanted to see it.
As with everything in life—yes, it may sound cliché—but you do not know what is possible until you try. I approached everything with the mindset that I could do it to the best of my abilities. I refused to half-ass anything. To this day, I still want to throw myself into things to see what I am capable of.
Jacobsen: Were there any particularly Italian family tales of travelling to Canada and becoming multigenerational Canadian families?
Giagnorio: Well, that is interesting.
Like many Italian-Canadian families, we have a lot of stories. I am a fourth-generation Italian—well, at this point, I suppose you could call me Canadian-Italian.
We had interesting stories about family members who came over and the odd jobs they did to get by. Every family has those tales—about somehow acquiring property, building homesteads, and establishing traditions.
The family gatherings were big—really big—and they always came with elaborate stories. We grew up hearing about these moments that connected us to our family, our traditions, and, in many ways, our cultural rituals.
I was fortunate enough to know my great-grandparents. At the same time, they were still alive, and we shared traditions passed down for generations. These were small, meaningful cultural rituals—little moments where they would say, You are now a part of this. We are now doing this together.
You are not just observing it and coming along—we are a family. We are doing these things together now. It was always done in a way where you were not only enjoying the traditions at the moment but also learning them so you could carry them forward. You were experiencing, observing, and preserving them for the future.
There were some interesting stories.
My family comes from Puglia, in La Provincia di Foggia, in southern Italy. In contrast, most Italian families in Niagara come from Calabria, so that was an interesting distinction in itself. Our regional language is different from the Calabrese dialect and certainly vastly different from standard Italian. It has a significant Greek influence, as well as Spanish influences. That always fascinated me—where we came from and the stories that came with it.
Even our last name captivated me from the time I was maybe 12 or 13 and certainly from 13 or 14 onwards. I became deeply interested in the meaning behind our surname after hearing stories from my great-grandfather. It comes from the Roman god Janus, and our family name is an Italianization of Janus and its meaning.
We still have family in Italy, and even a street named after us in our hometown. Our name is rare—it is not Rossior Esposito or one of the more common Italian surnames. It is exclusive to that one area in Puglia, and I took great pride in that, particularly in a regional sense.
I often say that I am four generations removed from Italy. While I may not have fully understood what it meant to be Italian broadly, I knew what it meant to be Pugliese. I took great pride in that regional identity. In Italy, they have a strong sense of campanilismo—a pride in one’s region or town—and I felt that deeply.
There is a language connection, a cultural connection, and a connection through food, drink, and the little ways we do things differently. That was always important to me.
My appreciation and excitement grew when I spoke with my Italian friends and realized that many of them were generically proud to be Italian but often did not even know the village or city their family came from. Many did not speak Italian at all. That made me even prouder that my family had preserved our heritage.
My great-grandparents upheld the language and the traditions. Their children did not speak much of it because they wanted them to assimilate and speak English, but I was incredibly eager to learn. Every Sunday, we would go to my great-grandparents’ house. After dinner, we would drink coffee, play scopa, and talk.
I had the unique opportunity to learn Neapolitan from my great-grandmother—whose family was from Salerno—and Barese, the regional language of Puglia, from my great-grandfather, who had learned it from his father. The fact that my family stood out even within the Italian community in Niagara always made me proud. We were different. We were not just part of the general Italian diaspora—we had something unique to preserve and pass down. That always intrigued me.
I took—and still take—great pride in that. I am proud to be Pugliese. I am proud of our region’s history. Understanding where I came from helps me understand where I am going.
When I look at my family’s journey—where my ancestors came from, often from poverty—I see resilience. If you go back far enough, the entire south of Italy was under a feudal system. To know that my family, after traversing the world, has made a good life for itself means something profound.
To me, that proves that no matter the obstacles, no matter where your starting point is, you can achieve anything—if you put in the effort and cultivate the mindset that says:
“Yes. I can.”
Jacobsen: How do you feel that your time here has impacted your identity while living in Niagara? You have touched on this indirectly.
Giagnorio: That is a good question.
I have thought more about this recently, especially in conversations with friends who do not live in Niagara or are not originally from here. People take unique traits and commonplace customs for granted while living in Niagara—especially in Niagara Falls.
For example, the number of coffee drinkers in Niagara Falls outranks the national average. That is a tall order, but it is an interesting cultural detail.
Growing up here influenced me in many ways, particularly in my desire to understand local history, the history of Italians in Canada, and their contributions. I remember feeling slightly frustrated at times when people would say something well-meaning but overly simplified, such as:
“If you have Italian blood, you must keep up the culture.”
It is not an obligation to preserve the culture exactly as it was, but rather to understand it. The real responsibility is to understand Italian-Canadian culture because it is distinct.
This perspective shaped how I perceive complexity, evolution, and the distinction between culture and heritage. Heritage is not static—it is the adaptation and modernization of culture over time.
I became fully aware of the balance between embracing progress while still valuing traditions and rituals. Being open to the new does not mean wholly rejecting the old. It is possible to integrate traditions meaningfully—where they may not be exactly as they were, but they still exist in a form that allows them to be preserved.
This reminds me of a famous quote from the Sicilian novel The Leopard (Il Gattopardo). The quote says:
“If we want everything to stay the same, everything must change.”
I am very fond of that line. It resonated with me deeply, not just in theory but also in practice.
If we want things to survive, we must adapt to the world as it is now.
A perfect example of this adaptation—one that seems universal among Italian Canadians—is how wine is diluted. In Italy, wine was traditionally mixed with water for children, and even during the Renaissance, it was considered safer for pregnant women due to its antibacterial properties. But Italian Canadians did something different.
Instead of diluting wine with water, as in the Old Country, they mixed it with Canada Dry ginger ale. I have always been fascinated by this. It is a small but telling example of how traditions evolve in new environments. There are so many facets of this that I find interesting.
For me, learning the Italian language, wanting to speak it fluently, and understanding the journeys that Italian-Canadians took became a way of wanting to understand Italian culture broadly, my regional culture specifically, and Italian-Canadian culture.
This included learning about both the joys and sorrows—the beauty, the festivals, the happiness, but also the struggles, such as the internment of Italian-Canadians during World War II.
I wanted to understand not just the story of my own family but the experiences of Italian Canadians on a broader scale. This was a deeper, more profound way to understand what it means to be both Canadian and Italian.
This holds true for anyone whose family has immigrated from another country. If you have been in Canada for multiple generations, it is important to understand what that means—what your family has gone through and what your people have endured.
This awareness has shaped me. I never feel far removed from my heritage. I want to understand it so I can appreciate the efforts, struggles, and contributions that came before me.
I also want to ensure that I never dismiss something simply because it is deemed “old-fashioned.” As I mentioned before, I believe that tradition and modernity can be merged.
That realization had a significant impact on me. It reinforced that life is not about unquestioningly embracing the new but about allowing the new to emerge while integrating the traditions of a people or culture.
This perspective also shaped my understanding of history. It made me want to explore history in a way that emphasizes continuities and connections, which are extremely important to me.
A lot of that comes from my background. To me, nothing is that far removed from something else. History is not a linear progression—it is more like a spiderweb of interconnecting points and departures.
This had a huge effect on how I view history, how I approach learning, and how I think about the past, present, and future.
Even my last name has had a significant philosophical impact on me.
Janus—the Roman god my surname derives from—is the god of January, the god of new beginnings, portals, and doorways. It is a dual-headed deity, symbolizing a balance between times. The younger, clean-shaven face looks toward the future, while the older, bearded face looks toward the past.
This is a constant reminder that I must live in the present moment. This is what is happening in the world. This present moment—this is reality. But I do not negate the future, and I do not dismiss the past.
Jacobsen: Have intellectual strands of Canadian and Italian niche culture influenced your views on freedom of expression?
Giagnorio: That is an interesting question. To some degree, Italian culture has not influenced me in that way. Still, my own family certainly has—especially my great-grandfather.
He only had a Grade 6 education, yet he was exceptionally insightful. He was largely self-taught—an overhead welder by trade—but I would put his intellectual aptitude up against anyone. He was a brilliant speaker, full of insight, and always asked thought-provoking questions.
One thing that always stood out to me was that, despite being born in 1920, he did not fully embrace Catholicism. That was profound to me.
Looking back years later, I realized just how unusual that was. He was critical and outspoken. I remember him telling me stories about how his friends in the community would mock him or dismiss his views—Oh, Joe…—and laugh it off. But he was serious.
He openly criticized the wealth of the Church, questioning why they wanted money from him when he was a working-class man—often struggling, at times below middle-class. He had no problem respecting tradition but believed it should be open to criticism. He did not see religion as something untouchable or beyond question.
That was fascinating, especially considering the period he grew up in when absolute acceptance, obligation, and devotion were the norm. For him, though, it was different.
He went to Church, but mainly for his wife. His criticism was not dismissive—it was thoughtful and academic. I say that as a compliment because he loved learning.
Despite only having a Grade 6 education, he spoke multiple languages and had a sharp intellectual curiosity. He constantly asked, Why? Why shouldn’t we question this? Why shouldn’t we criticize this? Who says we can’t?
In many ways, my great-grandfather was my first introduction to critical inquiry and free speech, as well as to Stoicism.
He was stoic—not in suppressing emotions, but in self-discipline, resilience, and wisdom. He knew how to feel, how to express emotion, how to love and be affectionate, but also when to be stern and assertive when necessary.
He was a full, well-rounded human being—a man who balanced strength and sensitivity, intellect and practicality. This had a deep impact on me in my early years, shaping my own understanding of what it means to be a well-rounded person in the world.
Jacobsen: Who are your intellectual heroes?
Giagnorio: Spinoza is one of my intellectual heroes. I am very fond of Spinoza. Christopher Hitchens is another. Yasmine Mohammed is an intellectual hero of mine. Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well.
Jacobsen: So, what led you to expand this pride and curiosity into the audiovisual realm for Modes of Inquiry and A Further Inquiry?
Giagnorio: Interesting. The basis for creating Modes of Inquiry came just after the pandemic. It was a difficult time for me—my mom passed away during the pandemic. She was everything to me.
I started Modes of Inquiry after several months of research and preparation. I wanted to figure out how to launch it and create it properly. A friend of mine, who has a background in radio work and DJing, encouraged me to try it. He said, “Just do it.” And I thought, “Why not? Let’s try it out.”
I started reaching out to people I knew. My academic background is in philosophy and classics; I love research—that’s my forte. I enjoy data and evidence-based work. I could divert the sadness and energy from those long, aimless walks and channel it into something positive. That positivity became Modes of Inquiry.
At the time, I referred to this as “junk energy,” like Christopher Hitchens described burning the candle at both ends. But I turned that “junk energy” into something meaningful. The joy and overwhelming response I received from this effort were exponential. It allowed me to connect with more people, expand my contacts, and gain recognition for my work in ways I hadn’t experienced outside of my academic or social circles. It continues to pay off.
Eventually, I thought, “I love writing—I’ve been published in places in the UK and Canada—why not try something on my own?” This idea connected to something my mom once told me. Before she went on a respirator, near the end of her life, she said, “Matthew, never stop. The world needs you, even if it doesn’t deserve you. Don’t stop.”
That has been my driving force—my fortitude. It’s pushed me to succeed for myself, discover my limits, create, and find joy in what I can do. I haven’t found my limits yet, and even when something doesn’t work out, I don’t see it as failure—I see it as learning how to reconfigure things.
This drive led me to launch AFI (The Further Inquiry). Initially, it was a solo project, but I decided to expand it into a magazine. I wanted to collaborate with people I knew, so I recruited Khadija Khan from the UK as the Editor of Politics and Culture.
And that brings us to the present.
Jacobsen: Some values there are freedom of expression and diversity of viewpoints. How does this approach allow for broad leverage regarding whom you can funnel into or recruit for publishing opinion pieces and news articles, or being guests on A Further Inquiry?
Giagnorio: That’s a good question. I enjoy fostering debate. I’d rather raise a pen and an argument than raise a fist. That’s a necessity we’ve lost.
I want to feature people who can present information and data and make a strong case—not just a series of opinions but well-supported, evidence-based arguments. It’s about showcasing what’s happening on the ground, whether it’s events in the UK, Canada, the US, or, more broadly, the Middle East.
At the same time, I avoid inviting fanatics. Fanaticism should not be conflated with heterodoxy or freedom of speech. If anything, freedom of speech allows fanatics to expose themselves for who they are, so you shouldn’t associate with them. This approach has enabled readers to explore their thoughts in ways they might not have been encouraged.
Jacobsen: How do you see these as cleansing agents—this combination of freedom of expression tied to liberalism and heterodoxy, positioned against extremism? While some might avoid certain conversations, you dive in at a fulcrum point to say, “Look at this and look at this,” providing not necessarily a balanced view but an evidence-based perspective.
Giagnorio: Well put—yes, it will be evidence-based. It has to be evidence-based. That doesn’t mean it will always be in the middle ground, but it will land where the truth lies.
As one of the mottos of Further Inquiry says, truth has no home. I’m reminded of what Oscar Wilde said to his son: the old Oxford model emphasized playing gracefully with ideas, which is a key feature here.
When you’re led by freedom of expression, guided by a liberal framework, and rooted in data, it becomes easier to discern truth from nonsense. This allows people to encounter ideas they might otherwise ignore, even if those presenting them don’t necessarily like each other.
It’s about exposing ideas to audiences who might not be aware of them, providing context, origins, and the controversies surrounding those ideas. This, in turn, fosters better ideation and the formulation of positive, well-grounded concepts.
When it comes to freedom of expression, I think we often forget it’s not just about my right to speak—it’s also about my right to listen and, indeed, my right to read.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Giagnorio: Love is the only subject. Allow truth, love, and understanding to be guides in your life.
Jacobsen: Mathew, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Giagnorio: Absolutely. It’s been a pleasure.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/17
Omima Jabal, a Sudanese humanitarian, volunteer in the Emergency Response Room (ERR), a grassroots initiative providing critical aid during the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Initially focused on disaster relief, ERR expanded its work in response to the war, providing food distribution, medical aid, and civilian protection while maintaining neutrality. Jabal explains that USAID funding cuts have severely impacted local civil society organizations, forcing projects to freeze and depriving communities of essential food, medical care, and protection. This shortage intensifies resource scarcity, conflict, and human rights abuses. Despite challenges, grassroots and women-led groups continue coordinating aid and advocating for flexible international funding. Jabal calls for urgent policy changes to ensure humanitarian assistance reaches vulnerable Sudanese communities and supports local initiatives amid instability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Trump administration came into power following the U.S. election. One of its early policy changes was cutting funding to USAID. What impact has this had on the Sudanese people?
Omima Jabal: The effects have been significant and widespread, causing considerable harm. The decision has particularly impacted Sudanese civil society organizations (CSOs), many of which have relocated to neighboring countries. These organizations relied heavily on USAID funding.
As soon as the funding cuts were implemented, most CSOs froze their projects, halting ongoing initiatives. These projects had two key aspects: one focused on direct collaboration with grassroots groups, including the ERR and other community-led initiatives.
With USAID funding frozen, all projects dependent on this financial support came to a standstill. People on the ground are now deeply concerned about the resulting shortages, limiting access to essential daily needs.
Another significant impact is on individuals employed by Sudanese national organizations. Many of these employees are the primary providers for their families, whether in Sudan or abroad. Without funding, they can no longer support themselves, let alone their dependents.
Overall, this decision has significantly reduced Sudan’s already limited humanitarian aid. Previously, Sudan had been promised additional funding from USAID and other sources. However, with these cuts, those commitments have been withdrawn.
Given the rapidly deteriorating situation, this lack of funding places people at severe risk, affecting their ability to meet basic needs such as food, shelter, and medical care.
This is a major concern. As Sudanese people and as CSOs, we urge the U.S. government to reconsider this decision, as it has affected the lives of millions. This funding is critical for humanitarian efforts.
Jacobsen: How does the reduction in USAID funding contribute to an increase in human rights abuses for the Sudanese people?
Jabal: It ultimately comes down to funding. As mentioned, many Sudanese civil society organizations (CSOs) and grassroots groups depend on USAID funding. Cutting this funding creates a financial shortfall.
A lack of funds means a lack of resources, leading to multiple crises. The scarcity of resources can cause conflicts among people struggling to survive with few available resources.
Sudan is already facing a severe resource shortage. Without external support, competition over these scarce resources can escalate into violence.
Additionally, when essential aid—such as food and medical assistance—is cut off, it directly impacts people’s survival, leading to widespread human rights violations. The fundamental rights of the Sudanese people to receive humanitarian aid and support are being severely undermined by these funding cuts.
Jacobsen: What specific human rights standards should be in place to protect humanitarian workers and volunteers operating in active conflict zones?
Jabal: This is a difficult question we’ve been asked many times. There is no single way to guarantee the protection of aid workers on the ground, but some measures can be taken.
First, the international community must officially recognize these individuals as humanitarian workers, even if they are not affiliated with a registered organization.
Second, it is crucial to ensure that funding channels remain open and uninterrupted. This would allow aid workers to continue delivering assistance at different levels despite their challenges. However, there is no universal solution if we talk about concrete procedures to protect aid workers.
It ties back to the broader issue of protection, which I have discussed previously. If aid workers face immediate danger, they need to be relocated—either within Sudan or outside the country—depending on their willingness and the level of safety available to them.
Jacobsen: When gathering data in grassroots initiatives, what are the challenges regarding transparency, accountability, and data security? Given the context, these systems are not necessarily operating in secure conditions.
Jabal: Yes. That is one of the key challenges—ensuring information availability while maintaining security.
Volunteers working on the ground face significant risks, including threats of kidnapping. Women, in particular, are at heightened risk of sexual violence.
Another major issue is data availability. The necessary information exists, but due to the lack of internet access and limited resources, much remains inaccessible or is only available in physical form—written on paper rather than stored digitally.
Even when data is collected, accessibility is limited, and only a small fraction of the information reaches those who need it. Additionally, being an aid worker in Sudan is inherently dangerous. The risks of collecting and handling data make this work even more challenging.
Jacobsen: What about support from the Sudanese diaspora outside of Sudan, whether financial or through expertise? How do you build networks with those individuals?
Jabal: The Sudanese diaspora plays a crucial role in this crisis. At the beginning of the war, there was no support from international organizations or external funding—everything depended on the Sudanese diaspora, which became the primary channel for funding.
Even now, after USAID funds have been frozen, the Sudanese diaspora continues to work collectively to support people on the ground financially.
There is no single mechanism for managing Sudanese diaspora engagement. It largely depends on geographical areas. Diaspora groups are often organized based on location, forming networks within neighbourhoods or communities. This structure varies from one grassroots group to another. Their contributions are primarily personal donations, which grassroots groups manage directly.
Another major contribution from the diaspora is advocacy. They actively campaign for Sudanese communities, raising awareness and influencing international discussions. Overall, the Sudanese diaspora is a fundamental pillar in localizing aid and ensuring that support reaches those who need it. As Sudanese, we are working hard to strengthen these efforts and tailor aid distribution to the needs of local communities.
Jacobsen: Destruction is an obvious tragedy. However, the silver lining is the potential for reconstruction—an opportunity to build within a rights-based framework for civil society while ensuring sustainable and inclusive development.
What opportunities do you see despite the tragedy? Because in my interactions with you, you seem optimistic and solutions-oriented.
Jabal: Regarding this, grassroots groups today represent the future of Sudan. The high level of youth engagement in these groups and initiatives creates real hope for the development of Sudanese civil society. We have internal challenges within civil society, but grassroots organizations actively work to overcome these obstacles.
In some ways, they have already fostered an environment in which Sudanese national organizations and grassroots groups—whether ERRs, community initiatives, or other networks—are beginning to coordinate more effectively.
This coordination mechanism is key. The opportunity is to develop a structured and collaborative approach between Sudanese civil society and the international community. This will allow aid, solutions, and funding to be tailored to the real needs of the Sudanese people, with their input at different levels and across various regions.
Another major opportunity is using this coordination to strengthen the capacities and skills of grassroots groups. We are also preparing them for Sudan’s future by supporting them in implementing locally driven solutions.
Jacobsen: Given their unique vulnerabilities in these contexts, how should support for women and children and their rights be addressed?
Jabal: Protecting women and children is essential. The Emergency Response Room (ERR) has taken several steps to address these issues.
While we recognize the need to promote women’s rights, most grassroots groups are led by women and manage their needs in a highly organized and sophisticated way.
Women’s offices, women-led initiatives, and groups operate across different parts of Sudan. These groups focus on meeting the needs of women and children, particularly during the crisis. They do not just work for women; they also provide essential services for children, including psychosocial support and early healthcare systems.
They are also developing their skills and advocating for more gender-sensitive aid policies across various sectors.
Most grassroots groups consist of women who have been actively contributing since day one of the war. It is truly remarkable to see what women can accomplish. In general aid efforts, such as community kitchens, women are key contributors—they prepare meals, distribute food, and ensure people are fed.
In the healthcare sector, many women and girls serve as nurses and doctors, providing critical medical assistance across different areas and conditions. We also have designated safe spaces, Women’s and Girls’ Safe Spaces and Child-Friendly Spaces, which provide crucial protection and support.
The most important thing is to ensure that aid is gender-sensitive. This has been an ongoing discussion among various grassroots groups, but women have proven their capability time and time again. Many projects are now directly addressing the needs of women and children.
Women’s groups within grassroots movements will be essential in shaping Sudan’s future. Their contributions will influence the localization of aid, broader community development, and post-war recovery efforts.
Jacobsen: Returning to the earlier point about USAID funding being cut—what changes in international funding policies are necessary for community-based humanitarian responses to be more robust and effective, particularly in safeguarding the human rights of the Sudanese people?
Jabal: According to the Sudanese context, specific policies need urgent change, and we have been discussing them for a long time. This is critical.
One key issue is the flexibility of funding. The international community needs to reassess its approach to Sudan because its context is highly complex and varies significantly by region. For example, the situation in Darfur is not the same as in Khartoum, Kassala in the east, or the southern parts of Sudan.
Applying a rigid funding structure with predetermined criteria or fixed funding channels creates problems. More flexibility in how funds are allocated is needed. Another issue is the policies governing who is eligible to receive funding. As I mentioned, national organizations do not cover all of Sudan.
Certain areas are supported only by grassroots initiatives, community groups, or local organizations. Funding policies must recognize and accommodate these realities. Additionally, the definition of accountability needs to be reconsidered. Grassroots groups are accountable to their communities. Still, their accountability mechanisms do not always align with the international community’s.
This does not mean they lack accountability—it means the international community must adapt its expectations to suit the local structures better. Another necessary change is the creation of alternative funding mechanisms. Funding should not be limited to a single channel; multiple funding streams should exist. This would allow for greater adaptability and effectiveness in distributing aid.
By diversifying funding channels, international bodies can better assess the impact and efficiency of aid distribution. The international community currently engages in discussions primarily with government bodies and ministries.
However, in Sudan, control is divided between the SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) and the RSF (Rapid Support Forces). Since SAF represents the government, international aid allocation discussions often exclude areas not under SAF control.
This means that some regions are left out entirely, and the only viable way to deliver aid in those areas is through grassroots initiatives that operate independently of government control.
Recognizing and supporting these local initiatives would improve aid distribution and effectively reach vulnerable populations. Another crucial factor is coordination among international organizations.
Although aid efforts are organized into clusters, these do not always function effectively. Each crisis requires tailored coordination strategies.
Instead of relying solely on standard cluster mechanisms, international organizations must work together dynamically, reassessing their approach for each crisis to ensure proper coordination of funds and resources.
So, in summary, the key changes needed are:
- Greater flexibility in funding allocation,
- Expanding eligibility criteria to include grassroots groups,
- Aligning accountability measures with local structures,
- Establishing alternative funding mechanisms,
- Recognizing the importance of grassroots initiatives in conflict zones and
- Improving coordination among international aid organizations.
Jacobsen: Large clusters of international organizations operate in crisis zones. These organizations can be massive and well-funded, but their size sometimes makes them inefficient for rapid response.
They tend to be comprehensive and bold in their approaches, but are there any initiatives focusing on smaller, more agile groups—such as small cohorts of organizations working together instead of large networks? Would such a model be more responsive to the localized needs of the Sudanese people who are most affected?
Jabal: That’s right. Some smaller mechanisms do exist.
For example, UNICEF has worked in Sudan since the crisis began, focusing on aid, education, and substitution programs.
The World Food Programme (WFP) is also active. However, as I mentioned, one of the biggest challenges is that these large international organizations do not cover all parts of Sudan or engage the community at planning levels.
For instance, in the beginning, UNICEF operated only in the government-controlled zones controlled by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Other areas were inaccessible, and UNICEF had no mechanism to work with them.
Later, UNICEF began collaborating with grassroots groups, which was an effective approach. Working through national organizations alongside grassroots groups demonstrated real impact. However, UNICEF has not yet engaged directly with grassroots groups to develop a tailored intervention strategy using smaller, more localized clusters.
The same is true for WFP. Due to the mandates and policies they follow, they face similar limitations. I previously emphasized that international organizations must improve coordination mechanisms within crisis zones.
They must become more creative and adaptive to the changing realities of Sudan, working in ways that respond flexibly to different regional needs.
Jacobsen: On a personal note, for those who want to know more about you as an individual—where do you find your strength? You are working under extreme circumstances. Some may find comfort in data and analysis; human rights discussions can be theoretical.
Jabal: Where do I find my strength? Strength comes from understanding the situation and its complexities, even within a single area. The situation in Sudan is not uniform—within one state, you will find vastly different conditions.
For example, we have worked in states where control is divided between two conflicting parties—some areas are controlled by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), while others are under the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
One key strength of grassroots groups is their accessibility. They have access to areas that even the government or international organizations cannot reach. Another source of strength is their deep understanding of the local context.
We understand why certain interventions fail, and others succeed and how to adapt to each situation. This knowledge is invaluable.
Community accountability is another strength. Grassroots organizations are directly accountable to their communities, which builds trust. This level of accountability is not easily achieved, but it is crucial.
Lastly, grassroots groups have a strong reputation among the people they serve. This trust and credibility within their communities make their work more effective. So, yes, these are some key strengths that sustain us.
One of the major challenges we face is the spread of hate speech. The war on the ground is one thing, but the war on social media is another serious issue. Platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp are being used to spread misinformation and incite violence.
There have been cases where people were killed because of a video circulating online. This is a serious concern. One of our worries is the role of Meta, the company that owns Facebook and WhatsApp.
They have a fact-checking program, but it has many complications. One challenge is language. Hate speech often spreads in Sudanese Arabic dialects or specific tribal and regional languages, which are not always recognized by fact-checkers.
Another issue is transparency—we do not know how many fact-checkers Meta employs to monitor Sudan-related content or how effectively they prevent the spread of harmful speech. A recent U.S. government decision to halt Meta’s fact-checking policies has made things even more difficult.
This has further reduced the ability to control the spread of misinformation and hate speech. The international community has not taken significant action on this issue. No concrete steps have been taken to address the harmful content spreading on social media, and this remains a serious and growing problem we face daily. I want to highlight that as one of the key challenges we are dealing with.
Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate your time again.
Jabal: Thank you so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome.
Jabal: It was nice talking to you. Have a good day.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/17
Gord McKenna is the Chair of Landform Design Institute. He is a geotechnical engineer and geologist with 32 years of experience in mine operations and consulting for oil sands, coal, and metal mines. Gord founded McKenna Geotechnical Inc in 2017 to bring his landform design experience to a broader audience and provide independent geotechnical advice to geotechnical review boards, panels, and First Nations. Gord and his team have designed 20 reclaimed watersheds that cover 40 square kilometres and incorporate 30 wetlands and 90 kilometres of streams. He has been a lead contributor to several manuals on landform design, mine reclamation, and tailings, and co-authored 100 papers and book chapters. He has a bachelor’s degree in geological engineering from the University of British Columbia and a PhD in geotechnical engineering from the University of Alberta. Gord is also an adjunct professor at the U of A. McKenna discusses the challenges and advancements in mine reclamation. He emphasizes “mining with the land in mind,” stressing the importance of early planning to minimize environmental impact and ensure sustainable restoration. The institute’s Design Basis Memorandum (DBM) sets clear goals for land reclamation, aiming for global adoption by 2030. Collaboration with Indigenous communities and regulators is pivotal, although complex promises and unrealistic expectations often hinder progress. McKenna highlights successes in fostering long-term community relationships and adapting reclamation practices to evolving needs, advocating for accountability, adaptability, and realistic, science-based reclamation goals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Gord McKenna. We will discuss the Landform Design Institute, its work, and some recent developments focusing on mining. To begin with some context, why did you become interested and involved in mining in the first place? Mining is not typically the first career option that comes to mind for most people.
Dr. Gord McKenna: Right. In high school in Calgary during the 1980s, I developed an interest in engineering and initially thought I might pursue a career as a mechanical engineer—it was a typical teenage aspiration. I ended up attending the University of British Columbia (UBC). During my second year, I took a geology course that captivated my interest. Introductory geology courses are often called “Earth, Wind, and Fire” to draw students into geotechnical engineering or geology fields.
I ultimately decided to pursue geological engineering, which qualified me as a professional engineer and geologist. By 1987, however, the economy was struggling, and only three out of 24 students in my graduating class secured jobs. I received an offer from Syncrude Canada in Fort McMurray at their oil sands mine. I accepted it, and that first job set the trajectory for my career, as it does for many recent graduates.
Jacobsen: Now, moving on to today’s discussion: the new guidance document released by the Landform Design Institute, where you serve as chair. What is its primary purpose?
McKenna: Its primary purpose is to help miners, their consultants, regulators, and local communities—particularly Indigenous communities—work together to establish what mine reclamation will look like formally. This involves defining the appearance and functionality of the mine site after mining activities are complete. In some cases, the site transitions into a brownfield, but most projects I work on aim to restore sites into wildlife habitats.
The guidance document focuses on teaching stakeholders how to create a clear, shared vision. This includes general goals for the landscape, specific objectives, and detailed design criteria. By doing so, everyone involved can work toward the same long-term outcome, even if it is decades away.
Jacobsen: I attended a mining conference a few years ago, and I recall discussing a hiatus in mining activities, particularly in gold and other minerals and metals, followed by an anticipated boom. Is the current emphasis on mine reclamation tied to this economic resurgence?
McKenna: Not necessarily. Mine reclamation emerged as a new concept in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Planning for mine closures, including detailed reclamation and socioeconomic impact considerations, gained prominence in the 1990s. Today, nearly all mines have closure and reclamation plans. While these plans are often conceptual, they represent an agreement between the local community, regulators, and mining companies.
Reclamation efforts remain steady regardless of economic cycles, progressing as mining operations advance. Once specific areas of a mine are no longer in use, they are reclaimed progressively, ensuring a constant focus on environmental and social responsibilities.
And then, by the time mines reach closure, most have reclaimed about 20% to 25% of the area, and then they focus on reclaiming the rest. However, this is often done without a solid vision or clear objectives. As a result, even though much of the reclamation is technically well-executed, it is frequently not accepted by the local community or the regulator. This gap—between what the mine promises and what it delivers—is why we formed the Landform Design Institute and released the guide for creating a Design Basis Memorandum.
Jacobsen: What are the advisements for Indigenous communities regarding mine reclamation and collaboration?
McKenna: That’s the most interesting and challenging part. I’ve worked on it for most of my career without significant personal progress. The institute is working on a book compiling 50 case histories highlighting collaborations between Indigenous peoples, other local communities, mining companies, and regulators. These histories showcase joint efforts to create a shared vision, establish goals, and set clear objectives.
The state of practice today requires consultation with Indigenous communities, but it is often not very robust. There’s limited understanding of what could or should be accomplished and who gets to make those decisions. Engineers, including myself, are professionally obliged to meet the state of practice, but we should strive to push it toward the state of the art.
Rather than telling people how to collaborate, the institute focuses on documenting and sharing case histories—successes and failures—to help others learn and improve. By describing effective approaches and providing tools, we aim to arm practitioners with the resources they need to foster better collaboration.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting point. How do things go wrong based on case histories, and how do things go right?
McKenna: Good question. Where things go wrong, I think—and I’ve seen this in my practice—is when mining companies have a separate division or department dedicated to government and Indigenous communications. These divisions generate much communication, which the companies are proud of. Still, this information is filtered down to reclamation specialists, designers, and operations teams.
In many cases, we are not allowed to talk directly to local community members, possibly out of concern that we might overcommit or due to time constraints. As a result, we often work based on assumptions about what the community might want rather than engaging in true collaboration. This approach is more consultative than collaborative, staying at a surface level.
For example, many of us assume that planting native vegetation and creating habitats for wildlife will be sufficient. However, in one recent case, we worked on a manual for designing pit lakes—mined-out pits that are sometimes backfilled with water to create lakes for fish or other uses. Without proper collaboration, we risk missing key insights or needs expressed by the local communities. Addressing these gaps is a critical focus of our work.
The first question from the First Nation we talked to was, “When can we drink the water?” We had always been so careful to say that we were not promising drinking water quality standards, only that we would meet aquatic guidelines—but not drinking water quality. And they reasonably responded, “Well, how can we use the land if we’re unable to drink the water?”
A couple of weeks ago, at a conference in Edmonton, there was a discussion about the Athabasca River in northern Canada. Someone commented, “When we’re on the river with our boats, we have to bring more water than gasoline.” They followed up with, “Gord, when will we be able to drink the water?” I had to admit, “I don’t know. It could be 100 years.” They asked, “Is that reasonable?”
This was a question or discussion we should have had 20 years ago. That’s an example of everyone trying their best but still falling short.
In a more positive sense, there are recent examples—some of which we hope to include in our book—of reclaimed lands being actively and collaboratively developed. These are areas where mine rock, also known as waste rock or tailings, is placed to form hills, often called landforms. Tailings are the ground-up rock remaining after the ore is mined out.
On these reclaimed lands, we’ve seen examples of quarterly visits with elders and youth from local communities alongside technical and operations teams. These visits foster long-term relationships, often lasting five to ten years. The goal is to gain real, actionable feedback, such as:
- What would be good for this land?
- What kind of vegetation should we plant?
- Where should creeks that need rebuilding be located?
- Can we add rock piles for rodents?
- Where can we create wetlands?
These projects are not without challenges or constraints but benefit greatly from community input. What’s crucial is that everyone involved can see progress in these areas within months or years. This allows the community to walk the land and assess whether the reclamation efforts meet their needs.
We are gathering examples of such successes from our practices, conversations at conferences, and discussions with First Nations peoples. The goal is to distill these experiences into actionable insights—just a few pages—so others can replicate the best practices.
These are long answers to short questions.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Gord.
McKenna: I hope this aligns with the tone and depth we’re looking for.
Jacobsen: This is good. What about disseminating the updated principles in the document for developing a Design Basis Memorandum (DBM) for landform design and integrating those principles into routine practice in the mining industry? This doesn’t happen overnight. Is it possible to target, or is it more realistic to aim for 2030 or 2040? How long does it take for an industry to shift toward implementing such practices comprehensively?
McKenna: When we started the institute in 2019, we set ourselves a mission—to make landform design a routine activity in mining around the world by 2030. So we’re about halfway through that timeline. We’re working to accomplish this mission in a few different ways.
One approach is to produce guidance documents. This DBM document is our second major publication on how to carry out landform design. The process is structured yet flexible—everyone will implement it differently—but the goal is to establish clear expectations, goals, and objectives. We also outline the steps to design, build, monitor, and maintain reclaimed landscapes to achieve those goals.
Over the past decade, we’ve delivered 50 courses, typically for groups of 10 to 40 participants. Recently, we launched an online DBM course to expand our reach globally. We’ve also lectured to thousands of undergraduate students in Western Canada and at conferences worldwide. Through these efforts, we’re disseminating knowledge and offering the “landform design way.” We’re sharing what has worked for us and lessons learned from what hasn’t and providing ongoing support to the global community.
Another key initiative involves documenting case histories. We’re working on a case history book focused on collaborations with First Nations, which we plan to publish in a few years. These examples help illustrate successful practices and provide a practical foundation for others to build upon.
One of the institute’s directors, June, remarked that getting the mining industry to adopt the DBM approach globally would mark a significant success in our mission. The DBM is already widely used in fields like construction and engineering—for buildings, shopping centers, and even camera systems. It’s a concise document, usually 10 to 40 pages, outlining what will be achieved, how it will be built, and its purpose. Although it has been sporadically used in mine reclamation since the 1980s, we aim to make it a standard practice.
While pursuing my PhD at the University of Alberta in the 1990s, Professor Nordy Morgenstern suggested I focus on landform design. I surveyed 77 mines worldwide—now up to 120—and asked them: “What are you promising, and what are you delivering? What is the gap between the two?” Our work with the DBM aims to fill that gap by clearly defining what’s being promised and creating a contract-like framework rather than relying on aspirational goals.
For example, some people envision retiring and building a cabin on reclaimed land, but they’re often dissatisfied with what they receive because it doesn’t match their expectations. Addressing these discrepancies is central to our efforts.
Jacobsen: You mentioned the principles of landform design. How have those evolved?
McKenna: When we founded the institute, we established 12 principles of landform design. These principles have been slightly refined over the years as we’ve gained more experience and feedback. They form the foundation of our work and guide the development of tools like the DBM and other educational resources.
We recently put out a nice calendar featuring the 12 design principles, which we’re trying to get delivered despite the Canada Post strike. We’re just waiting to get the last copies out. These 12 principles are straightforward guidelines for landform design. We thought, “If we can get everyone following these principles, that would be a meaningful success—a different way of measuring success in our mission.”
The principles include ideas like “mining with the land in mind,” tracking every drop of water in the landscape and working collaboratively to build with First Nations rather than building for First Nations. This represents a fourth approach we’re hopeful about. While 2030 might be a stretch target for making landform design a routine activity globally, I believe we’ll come close. I’m optimistic, and we’re excited about the DBM’s release.
Initially, we considered charging for the DBM. Still, after much internal debate, we decided to make it freely available to the world. We aim to support its adoption and encourage as many people as possible to use it.
Jacobsen: Who do you find the hardest to align with the guidance’s aims: Mining companies, regulators, or communities of various backgrounds?
McKenna: That’s a great question and something we need to continue working on. From the perspective of local communities, the landform design approach feels natural and obvious to them. At the mines, the technocrats—the biologists, geologists, engineers, and planners—often adopt our methods. Senior management is generally supportive as well.
However, middle management, which is the people making day-to-day decisions and controlling budgets, is often reticent. This hesitancy typically stems from a fear of spending tens, hundreds, or even billions of dollars on mine reclamation without clear acceptance criteria. They worry about completing the work but fail to meet the regulators’ requirements and never get liability released for the site.
The statistics show that fewer than 1% of mines worldwide receive regulatory sign-off for proper reclamation. Getting regulatory approval and having their bond money returned is the number one goal for many mining companies, but it almost never happens. This lack of clarity and certainty holds back middle management, who fear investing heavily in reclamation efforts that might not achieve the desired outcomes.
Rather than criticizing mine management, we’re trying a different approach. One of our projects involves documenting case histories of mines that have successfully fostered a reclamation culture. We interview managers and general managers to understand how they’ve supported this work, convinced shareholders of the value of investing in reclamation now rather than later, and achieved meaningful results.
By sharing these success stories, we hope to inspire others and provide concrete examples of how middle management can actively support mine reclamation. At the same time, some great examples are not as common as we’d like them to be. That’s the culture shift we’re aiming to foster.
Regulators are in an interesting position, and we’re trying to figure out how to support them in this process better. Typically, they have guidelines and procedures they are proud of and work hard to enforce in regulating mines and mine reclamation. However, despite their efforts, the system often falls short because regulators are unwilling or unable to sign off on good reclamation. There are always lingering concerns about residual risks, and they are hesitant to take on liability on behalf of the Crown, the state, or the federal government.
We recently had a case where one of our directors worked with a First Nation, a mine, and the regulator to develop a Design Basis Memorandum using our newly published document. The regulators expressed concerns about participating, saying, “If we agree to something that isn’t explicitly in the regulations or that conflicts with regulations or policies, where does that leave us? How can we properly regulate this?”
The institute needs to improve its outreach to regulators and explore how we can better support them. But there’s also a broader issue: the entire approach to mine reclamation needs to shift toward being a joint activity where risks are shared, promises are realistic, and commitments are delivered promptly. Some regulations and promises from the past are impractical from a geological or ecological perspective. Renegotiating these commitments will be challenging, particularly for regulators.
Jacobsen: What about situations where people make simply unrealistic requests due to regulatory constraints or the evidence base? As someone who isn’t a politician, you can’t promise the world to everyone—you need to be realistic. What kinds of land or mine reclamation proposals are often unrealistic, and which ones are more achievable?
McKenna: That’s a great question. As part of my PhD work, I visited 77 mines worldwide and collected about 200 promises made for reclaimed land. Many of these promises were entirely reasonable. For example, commitments to slope the land, apply a soil cover, and ensure the soil supports vegetation for farming or wildlife habitat are achievable. My boss often reminded me, “All we can do is shape the land, put some soil down, and plant starter vegetation.” Typically, this involves seeding or planting 2 to 10 species to get the process going. From there, Mother Nature takes over, and the ecosystem evolves.
However, I also encountered high-risk promises that were far less realistic. For instance, relying on complex numerical models to predict ideal in-pit lake chemistry, with assurances that the water would meet all environmental standards, is risky. Complex environmental models are inherently uncertain, and making bold promises based on them can lead to disappointment or failure.
The key is to set realistic, science-based targets that everyone agrees upon and to ensure those targets are within the realm of what can be delivered. It’s better to underpromise and overdeliver than to set expectations that cannot be met.
There are entire books about whether we should model certain complex environmental behaviours. Promising outcomes based on technologies we haven’t yet developed ma, making high-risk commitments, or going against natural processes is problematic. For instance, we sometimes promise there will be no erosion. Yet, as geologists, we know that all landforms—natural and artificial, including mining ones—will erode over time.
Similarly, we’ve promised in the past that reclaimed land would be “better than it was before.” This was particularly common in the oil sands for years, whether explicitly stated or implied. But First Nations communities in Northern Alberta have called us out on this. In the 1980s, regulations required replacing swampy lowlands with commercial forest uplands. This was seen as progress at the time. However, the First Nations, who value the swampy areas for moose hunting and other cultural activities, told us, “You’re going to make it better than the Creator made it? I’m interested to see how that works out.”
When we teach, we emphasize that we must be cautious with our promises as professionals. If we make commitments that can’t be met, are we liable? Could someone go to jail? These promises are rarely written in stark terms, like “make it better than before.” Instead, they’re often framed more subtly, such as ensuring productivity for farmland or forestry that is “at least as good as it was before” or guaranteeing the same number of moose or cow-calf pairs on the landscape. Other promises include water quality, which meets all objectives without requiring active water treatment.
The DBM document encourages making realistic and achievable promises—within human lifetimes and using technology available today. However, relying solely on current technology can stifle research and development (R&D), a downside we still need to navigate. If mines are required to follow rigid approaches, they may stop investing in R&D for better methods. I’ve seen this happen in several jurisdictions.
Committing to clear visions and goals for the reclaimed landscape while recognizing that these commitments function like contracts but must also evolve over time is crucial. Mine reclamation, especially at large mines, typically takes 10 to 100 years. It’s a long-term process that requires flexibility, adaptation, and accountability.
Decisions made 50 years ago—regarding land uses, technologies, and state-of-the-art practices—aren’t the same as those we’d make today, and today’s decisions won’t necessarily align with what people want 50 years from now. That’s why we must treat these plans as living documents, adapting them collaboratively over time while earning and maintaining trust.
At the same time, if a reclaimed area meets the goals agreed upon at the time of its planning, we shouldn’t make significant changes, like cutting down trees or reshaping the land, after all the work has been completed. As the saying goes, “a card laid is a card played.” However, if there are issues—like fish dying or pollutants being released—then, of course, changes must be made.
If the reclamation aligns with the DBM and achieves the agreed-upon objectives, we should all accept it as sufficient. Otherwise, miners may resist progressive reclamation and instead wait until the last possible moment, reclaiming everything only after mining operations cease.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Gord, for the opportunity and for sharing your time today. I appreciate your insights on mining, a field in which I have limited experience but am looking forward to covering more extensively in the future.
McKenna: You’re welcome. The main message to take away is “mining with the land in mind.” Reclamation decisions can’t all be deferred until after a mine closes because 90% of the outcomes will already have been determined by choices such as which valleys were filled, where creeks were moved, and other actions taken during operations.
The key is thoughtful design from the early stages, ensuring mining is conducted with the end in mind. Even in cases where we’re brought into existing operations, decisions made now can yield substantial savings, reduce risks, and foster greater community buy-in as the process unfolds. That’s the message we’re pushing: mining with the land in mind.
Jacobsen: Thanks again, Gord. Take care.
McKenna: Bye 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/16 (Unpublished)
Jodi Lai is an award-winning automotive journalist, Editor-in-Chief at AutoTrader.ca, and a recognized expert in the automotive industry. With over 15 years of experience, she is passionate about making car knowledge accessible and fostering inclusivity in the automotive world. Jodi has a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism from Ryerson University. She has earned accolades, such as the 2022 AJAC Journalist of the Year. She is a jury member for the prestigious North American Car/Truck/Utility Vehicle of the Year awards and hosts a bi-weekly podcast. Known for her engaging on-camera presence, Jodi advocates for unbiased, consumer-focused automotive advice. Lai highlighted that over 20 automotive journalists assess cars based on 12 factors including value, innovation, and reliability and more. Notable winners include the Honda Civic (Best Overall Car), Kia EV9 (Best Overall SUV), and Ford Maverick Hybrid (Best Overall Truck). Lai emphasized the growing importance of EVs and evolving award categories to reflect industry trends. The awards aim to simplify car shopping by providing unbiased expert recommendations, ensuring Canadians can confidently select vehicles that meet their needs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Jodi Lai to discuss the AutoTrader Awards 2025. AutoTrader is Canada’s largest online automotive marketplace, and the AutoTrader Awards evaluate the top vehicles in 28 categories. That’s quite a large endeavour. Do you utilize algorithms to analyze such a wide range of categories?
Jodi Lai: We approach it by involving a group of over 20 automotive journalists who vote on the awards. It’s a very democratic process. We ask them to select their top picks in 28 different categories. When asking for their votes, I emphasize that they must consider 12 factors including value, innovation, engineering, and user-friendliness.
We analyze various factors to determine what makes a good car and, more importantly, what differentiates a good car from an award-winning car. These factors are weighted differently depending on the category. For example, we wouldn’t penalize a sports car for being fuel-inefficient because fuel economy is not its primary purpose.
We evaluate vehicles based on how well they fulfill their intended role. We’re looking for vehicles that not only meet but exceed expectations, raising the benchmark for their segment or even the automotive industry as a whole. Ultimately, we aim to identify overall excellence.
We conduct these awards because many people find new car shopping overwhelming due to the sheer number of options available. The awards are designed to help them either kickstart their research or simplify their decision-making process by providing expert recommendations. All of the winners represent vehicles that our experts would confidently recommend to their own family and friends.
Jacobsen: The evaluated factors include value, practicality, performance, safety, and innovation. Why do the experts prioritize these specific factors?
Lai: We assess vehicles based on how Canadian shoppers prioritize their purchases. These factors were identified through our research. They reflect the key considerations that Canadian drivers focus on, forming the basis of our scoring when determining the best vehicles.
Jacobsen: When did the current format of the AutoTrader Awards begin?
Lai: I joined AutoTrader in 2019, which is when the awards, as we know them now, were introduced. Before that, the awards followed a different format with a less comprehensive methodology. The current process makes the awards more relevant to a wider audience and significantly more thorough. Additionally, the evaluation process is now more rigorous and mathematically sound than the previous system.
Jacobsen: The Honda Civic was awarded Best Overall Car. What made it stand out?
Lai: The Honda Civic stood out because it excels in numerous key factors, including practicality, reliability, value, and innovation. It’s a vehicle that not only meets but surpasses the expectations of its segment. It’s a great all-rounder, offering a combination of engineering excellence, user-friendliness, and superior performance, which made it the standout choice for Best Overall Car.
The Best Overall Car is a category that essentially combines all of the other car categories, including sedans, and similar vehicles. The Honda Civic received the most votes from our jury.
They appreciate the Honda Civic because it is practical and user-friendly. It is also built locally, which is significant for people who want to support local manufacturing.
We recommend it easily because it has built a rock-solid reputation for reliability while also offering driver enjoyment and performance. Additionally, it comes in a variety of body styles and powertrains, such as performance or hybrid models.
There’s a Honda Civic for everyone. We often refer to it as “Canada’s car” because it is one of the most popular cars in the country, and it’s also built here, which is a great bonus.
Jacobsen: And the Best Overall SUV winner was the Kia EV9. As you can tell by how I pronounced that, I don’t drive much.
Lai: That’s OK. The Kia EV9 is an interesting winner because it is the first EV to win the Best Overall SUV category. In this category, all vehicles are eligible regardless of their powertrain.
It’s particularly impressive that the EV9 won in its first year of availability. This demonstrates that it’s not only impressive as an EV but also as an SUV in general. Even if you’re not specifically looking for an EV, we’re confident that the EV9 would meet the needs of many Canadians. That’s a big win for Kia and very impressive.
Jacobsen: The Best Overall Truck was the Ford Maverick Hybrid. I’ve worked on construction sites and horse farms, and trucks are popular in those settings. What makes the Ford Maverick Hybrid stand out as the best overall?
Lai: The Ford Maverick, including the hybrid model, was voted Best Overall Truck. Interestingly, while the F-150 is Canada’s most popular truck, our experts selected the Maverick because they felt it was better suited for more people.
Full-size trucks have become so large and expensive that they’re out of reach for many Canadians. The Maverick offers a more affordable, compact, and fuel-efficient option while still meeting most truck users’ needs.
This year, the Maverick Hybrid with all-wheel drive, which was previously unavailable, is available. All-wheel drive is important for Canadian drivers due to our four distinct seasons.
The Maverick is also a very clever truck with many innovative features. It’s built to work and is extremely user-friendly. It was the right truck because most people don’t need a full-size truck.
Jacobsen: And Canada’s most trusted car brand—you mentioned local manufacturing being a factor in some of the voting by the 20 experts and journalists. Toyota was recognized based on a third-party consumer survey. How did you conduct or commission the third-party consumer survey?
Lai: We used Ipsos Reid, which you might have heard of. They’re the third-party organization we rely on. We do this to remain as neutral and objective as possible.
We survey Canadians daily and ask them which car brands they trust the most. Toyota has won three years in a row, and we’ve only conducted this research for three years. That’s the only category in which our experts do not vote.
It’s significant because it reflects how regular Canadians feel about trustworthiness. Toyota has been manufacturing many of its vehicles in Canada for over 60 years, so it has had decades to earn Canadians’ trust and respect.
Toyota also has a stellar reputation for making reliable and robust cars. Canadians have come to trust them deeply over the years, so this is a meaningful win for them.
Jacobsen: The other categories include sedans, SUVs, performance cars, and hybrids. We’ll cover those shortly. Are any of these categories newer in terms of the awarding process?
Lai: Yes. When the AutoTrader Awards first started, when I joined in 2019, we grouped all green vehicles under one category called Best Green Vehicle.
However, as the years went on, the number of green vehicle options grew significantly, and our research showed that people shopping for EVs weren’t as interested in hybrids and vice versa. So, we divided the categories.
We no longer have a single Best Green Vehicle category. We’ve separated it into Best Hybrid, Best Plug-In Hybrid, Best Mainstream EV, and Best Luxury EV, the newest categories.
We also added Best Vehicle for Adventure a couple of years ago. This was another result of our research, which revealed that many people don’t know the specific type of car they want—they just know what they want to do with it.
That category became particularly relevant during peak COVID when Canadians started spending more time outdoors than ever. Sales of off-road-focused SUVs surged, so we introduced that category to serve our users better.
Jacobsen: Why is the Toyota Camry considered the Best Family Sedan?
Lai: First of all, a few family sedans are left. Many sedans have been discontinued because Canadian consumers generally prefer SUVs. But the Camry stood out to our jury because it’s brand new for 2025.
The Camry impressed our jury. Not only did Toyota revamp the entire look, making it very stylish, but it is now available only as a hybrid, which was bold. Sedans are already a niche market, so making it hybrid-only was smart. This allowed Toyota to integrate all-wheel drive without sacrificing fuel economy.
This hybrid system made great sense for Canadian drivers, especially with tighter budgets and increased focus on fuel efficiency. Our experts were very impressed with the complete package the Camry offers. It’s user-friendly, has a solid reputation for reliability, and provides great value. It was an easy choice for our experts.
Jacobsen: The Subaru Crosstrek was named Best Subcompact SUV.
Lai: Yes, the Subaru Crosstrek is a standout option in that segment because it’s larger than most competitors. Our experts loved its practicality, which sets it apart from other vehicles in the same class.
It’s also the only subcompact SUV that comes standard with all-wheel drive. In other vehicles within this segment, all-wheel drive is an optional feature that costs extra. The Crosstrek offers affordability and remains one of Canada’s most cost-effective ways to get all-wheel drive.
Additionally, it’s very family-friendly, practical, and easy to use. Some of our experts bought Crosstreks themselves, which is the best endorsement it could receive.
Jacobsen: The Porsche 911 won Best Premium Performance. Why?
Lai: Yes, and funnily enough, this is the first time the Porsche 911 has won the award for Best Performance Vehicle. It was an obvious choice for many of our experts because the 911 embodies sports car excellence like no other vehicle.
While other sports cars may be more powerful or visually striking, none are as iconic as the 911. It sets the global standard for sports car excellence, and our experts have consistently recognized that.
Of course, it may be out of reach for many Canadians, so we also have a mainstream performance category to cater to those who want a sporty, fun vehicle at a more accessible price point.
Jacobsen: The Toyota Prius won Best Hybrid. Can you elaborate, especially considering your earlier points about separating hybrid and electric categories?
Lai: The Toyota Prius has always been a strong performer, but with its recent overhaul, it’s better than ever. It’s no longer just a highly efficient and reliable car—it’s also stylish and enjoyable to drive.
Historically, the Prius had a reputation for being a “nerdy” and somewhat dorky vehicle. That’s no longer the case. The latest Prius looks great, is packed with advanced technology, and still maintains the reliability and fuel efficiency it’s famous for.
The updated model also offers all-wheel drive, which is a fantastic feature for Canadian drivers. This recent redesign elevated the Prius to a new level, making it the best hybrid on the market. It checks all the boxes without compromising anything, which we look for in a winner. It’s a fantastic choice for many Canadian drivers.
Jacobsen: Based on your knowledge of online sales trends, what do you see as a potential future category for awards next year or in some future year?
Lai: Electrification will become increasingly important as we move forward. We may need to divide the green categories even further. Over time, all categories could transition to being EV-focused.
The Canadian government aims for all passenger cars sold to be electrified by 2035, whether plug-in hybrids or fully electric vehicles. That’s an ambitious goal, and I doubt it will be achieved. However, if it does, we’d have to completely rethink how we structure the awards.
For instance, we might see categories like EV performance cars or EVs optimized for efficiency. New green or EV-focused categories will become more relevant as EVs become more mainstream.
Jacobsen: Who organizes and presents the awards each year?
Lai: That would be me! It’s one of the most important projects I have worked on all year. The whole reason I do my job is to provide Canadians with unbiased, expert car advice.
The awards represent the ultimate expression of that goal. They reflect the collective input of all our experts, who collaborate to determine the best cars across various segments.
Many people find car shopping incredibly confusing, and we hope the awards help them kickstart their research or give them reassurance that the car they’ve chosen is a great one.
Jacobsen: Well, Jodi, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate an inside look at the best cars in each category for the year.
Lai: Thank you, Scott. If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out.
Jacobsen: Excellent. I appreciate it. It was nice to meet you.
Lai: Thank you so much, Scott. Have a good one.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/16
Kenny Kelley, CEO of Silent Beacon, is a former stuntman turned entrepreneur passionate about saving lives. His journey from high-risk Hollywood to founding the world’s only Bluetooth panic button that directly calls 911 showcases his dedication to innovation, safety, and empowering individuals in emergencies. Kelley designed Silent Beacon to protect high-risk situations, benefiting industries such as healthcare, education, and social services. The device boasts real-time GPS tracking, two-way communication, and a patented beacon-to-beacon alert system. After refining the initial version based on user feedback, Silent Beacon 2.0 offers extended battery life and enhanced mobility. Kelley emphasizes the importance of innovation, addressing challenges like irrelevant reviews, and adapting to evolving legislation on workplace safety.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Silent Beacon is a revolutionary emergency alert system featuring the only Bluetooth panic button that can directly call 911. It was founded by Kenny Kelley, our guest today, a former stuntman. The device offers life-saving solutions for high-risk situations.
Its features include real-time GPS tracking, silent alerts, and workplace notifications. These features enhance the safety of healthcare workers, individuals in danger, and first responders. It represents a new approach to personal and workplace safety. Were specific policies or mandates implemented in various workplaces that made this seem the right time to launch the product?
Kenny Kelley: We shifted our model from consumer-focused to business-focused for the 2.0 version, the new product that has been released. Yes, laws, such as Alyssa’s Law, require certain states to have panic buttons for teachers. For example, Texas and Florida have implemented this, along with seven other states. Legislation is also in progress in about 13 additional states, and this number keeps growing.
Additionally, there are laws targeting other industries, such as hospitality. For instance, Washington State has legislation requiring protections for retail employees. More legislation is being passed regarding panic buttons because of the growing emphasis on safety and the need for companies to ensure their employees can access help as quickly as possible in emergencies.
Jacobsen: How does Silent Beacon differentiate itself from other emergency systems?
Kelley: First and foremost, our product directly calls 911. Most of our competitors route users through a call center, which can be useful for some applications. However, most people prefer to speak directly to 911 in an emergency rather than through an intermediary. Additionally, our device offers two-way communication.
You can speak directly into it without waiting for 911 to receive a signal. It also alerts multiple entities and individuals simultaneously. For example, in a workplace environment, it could notify other people in the building, such as managers, owners, or even remote workers. It casts a wide net, alerting various stakeholders—other employees, 911, or security teams. This is a significant improvement over systems that send a single direct signal to a call center.
Moreover, we hold a patent for our beacon-to-beacon alert feature. This allows one Beacon to activate other beacons within the same emergency group. If someone in your group is in trouble, their Beacon triggers alerts on others. This enables you to access a phone or computer to identify who is in trouble and understand the situation’s specifics.
This information could influence your actions, such as deciding not to go to a specific office or location based on the alert. This level of connectivity and situational awareness sets us apart.
Jacobsen: What industries or demographics have found Silent Beacon most useful?
Kelley: Currently, 81% of our business is in healthcare. This is largely because nearly half of home healthcare nurses have been assaulted in the past two years, which is shocking, right? A recent poll showed that five or six out of ten nurses expressed no longer wanting to be in this profession due to the risks they face. Going into communities or interacting with people experiencing life-altering situations can be incredibly challenging.
For instance, there was a nurse who was tragically killed in Connecticut while visiting someone’s home. Because of incidents like this, many companies in Connecticut use our product. Many companies must send workers into environments where they may not feel safe. Still, by law, they must, as everyone in the United States has the right to healthcare.
Living situations may not be ideal in these cases, and navigating them can be difficult. Having a product like ours helps address these challenges. Social services is another significant area for us because those workers often deal with individuals who may have mental health issues.
Whole cities also use our product to ensure that their workers remain safe, frequently out in the community rather than in buildings. Education is another major vertical for us. So, healthcare, social services, municipal workers, and education are the four main sectors that benefit from our product.
Jacobsen: What types of attacks are these healthcare workers facing in their homes? What is the range of severity? What is the threshold? How common are murders?
Kelley: I cannot say how common murders are specifically in this context. However, I do know that in the United States, a murder occurs roughly every 32 minutes according to FBI.gov.. Nurses face danger every day, and the numbers are alarming: 81.6% of nurses report workplace violence annually, according to National Nurses United. This landscape is changing drastically due to COVID.
COVID has increased the need for healthcare workers to go into communities. At the same time, hospitals and rehab centers are focused on getting patients discharged and home. The overwhelming number of patients means there are not enough nurses or employees to manage the demand within hospitals.
As a result, home healthcare has become a critical area, and unfortunately, its associated risks are increasing. While this number grows, studies typically take two years to produce comprehensive results. Since COVID was only a few years ago, the latest post-COVID statistics may not be available.
Jacobsen: With the growing legislation around workplace safety, how does Silent Beacon cater to panic button mandates? We touched on this a little earlier.
Kelley: One of the great things about Silent Beacon is that it directly calls emergency services, whereas other systems often rely on intermediaries. It’s also a mobile solution. It piggybacks off your smartphone, connecting via Wi-Fi or cellular service. This makes it effective in mobile situations where legislation requires the device to be carried on your person.
Many older panic button systems are fixed, such as placed under a desk or at specific locations within a building. This solution allows for complete flexibility and mobility, which aligns with legislative requirements.
Jacobsen: What features can users expect from Silent Beacon for improved personal and workplace safety? Looking to the future, what can people anticipate?
Kelley: We aim to continue innovating by incorporating a mesh network within buildings and structures, expanding the distance users can be from Wi-Fi or cellular-connected devices. Innovation is key to our growth.
Since we piggyback off Android and iPhone, which collectively spend $60 billion annually on R&D, it would not make sense for us to create a standalone cellular device. It would quickly become outdated, and we could not keep up with their advancements.
Therefore, staying compatible with iPhone and Android is critical to our future success.
Jacobsen: What were some of the bigger challenges in developing the product?
Kelley:
Our 1.0 version was focused entirely on consumers. I was inspired to create it after experiencing a bad motorcycle accident. I thought, “I have all this technology in my pocket, but I cannot do anything with it.”
I was stuck on the side of the road with damaged gloves and could not access my phone. I wished for something to notify people, “Here is where I am—send help.” That was the initial idea.
However, the feedback for version 1.0 highlighted several issues. Complaints like “this doesn’t work” or “the battery doesn’t last long enough” helped shape 2.0. The most critical customer feedback guided our improvements.
For instance, people were dissatisfied with the seven-day battery life, so we increased it to 42 days. They found the speaker volume too low, so we enhanced the shell enclosure to amplify the sound. Concerns about range and other limitations were also addressed.
We also wanted to provide flexibility. For example, the device now fits a universal wristband, accommodating any 18mm pin. Customers can buy bands from Amazon or use ones they already own, giving them freedom instead of forcing them to purchase accessories exclusively from us.
These improvements were all driven by feedback, ensuring that 2.0 addressed the most common frustrations with our original product.
Jacobsen: What has been irrelevant feedback? Everyone always references five-star, three-star, and one-star reviews. Sometimes, five-star reviews are irrelevant, with comments like “good,” and one-star reviews can occasionally turn into long-winded rants where it’s clear the reviewer has not even used the product.
Kelley: Yes, that’s a great question. The FTC recently introduced new guidelines addressing fake reviews and testimonials. Companies can no longer buy social media influence or solicit reviews without the reviewer having genuinely used the product. Reviewers cannot be given anything as a reward for their review. Our lawyers spent a week reviewing these new regulations.
So, how do we deal with irrelevant reviews? Unfortunately, you cannot remove them. Platforms like Apple, Android, and Amazon do not allow reviews to be deleted. For example, we often get comments like, “I ordered five for my business, and they didn’t work.” However, the business versions of our products must be purchased directly from us. Buying consumer versions from Amazon and expecting them to work with our business solution is a misunderstanding.
In those cases, we try to reach out and explain that it may have been a user error, but we apologize anyway. It’s especially difficult with consumers because they may not fully understand the product or the process. Businesses, on the other hand, tend to grasp the system better and provide constructive feedback.
With individual consumers, I call them the “onesie-twosies,” it’s harder to manage. I understand their frustration because I’ve been someone who cannot figure something out and writes a poor review out of frustration. However, it is challenging to address these issues.
While reviews can vary, we take all feedback seriously and use it to drive meaningful improvements.
Jacobsen: The product itself is straightforward. What’s the rarest or most unusual context in which someone has used it?
Kelly: Great question! One of the craziest situations involved a little girl in her treehouse. She repeatedly hit the panic button for an entire hour.
We saw a constant alert coming from one location and thought it might be a major incident. When we investigated, she said, “I’m in the treehouse. I’m in the treehouse. I’m in the treehouse.” She kept sending the same message repeatedly, about a hundred times.
Jacobsen: So, that was the craziest use case?
Kelly: Yes, definitely!
Jacobsen: That’s all the questions I have. Kenny, thank you for your time today and for creating this device.
Kelly: Thank you! Have a great weekend.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15 (Unpublished)
Eddie Thomas, a researcher specializing in Sudan and South Sudan, discusses the transition from subsistence farming to market economies, the impact of conflict, and healthcare inequalities. He examines how wars have disrupted traditional kinship networks, pushing people into market dependency. South Sudan’s caloric intake has dropped, leading to malnutrition. Sudan’s healthcare disparities stem from colonial-era spatial inequalities and privatization. Border conflicts like Kafia-Kingi influence economic dynamics, and kinship networks are under pressure. Thomas advocates for universal healthcare and decommodification as solutions to economic instability and conflict. He acknowledges Sudanese revolutionaries striving for systemic change.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Eddie Thomas. He is a researcher specializing in Sudan and South Sudan. He has previously been affiliated with the Rift Valley Institute and XCEPT. Currently, he works with the ATAR Network. He has two decades of experience as a teacher, human rights worker, and researcher. He examines border conflicts, healthcare inequalities, and economic transformation. He has authored South Sudan: A Slow Liberation and reports such as Moving Towards Markets and The Future of Sudan’s Shattered Health System. His research, previously supported by the XCEPT program and the Rift Valley Institute, explored the consequences of market dependence, conflict-driven social shifts, and healthcare privatization in Sudan’s shifting and evolving political landscape.
Thank you for joining me today. My first question is: How has the transition from subsistence farming to market dependence in South Sudan affected local economies and social structures?
Eddie Thomas: Subsistence is a term many people still use to describe agriculture in South Sudan. It is a peculiar term that arose during the Enlightenment and was the opposite of a new concept: improved agriculture, capitalist agriculture, agriculture for profit and high yield. Subsistence was used to describe forms of agriculture that were not oriented toward maximizing yield but rather toward managing consumption.
The subsistence systems in South Sudan were long-lived. They have only started to decline over the past 20 or 30 years. Even now, they are not defunct but are deteriorating. Before this shift, people primarily produced food for consumption or exchange within their social networks. They organized production around social relationships rather than markets.
This meant that people did not necessarily seek to maximize surplus or yield but considered other factors now recognized as equally important—such as sustainability, climate and ecological adaptation, and flavour and nutrition. These factors influenced agricultural production decisions.
However, South Sudan has experienced near-continuous conflict since the 19th century, particularly during the Turco-Egyptian rule and later under British colonial administration. It has had only brief periods of peace. War is a significant reorganizer of society and production. It is also an effective means of instilling a profit motive in people, as it introduces intense coercion to reshape society.
That is what happened in South Sudan. Wars gradually detached people from the land where they produced food, grew grain, kept livestock, or fished in rivers. These conflicts transformed them into something different. Initially, they might have become enslaved persons or military recruits—who were not much different from enslaved persons—or what are now referred to as displaced people, those forced off their land and compelled to live in unsuitable and uncomfortable conditions.
And all of these factors limited the ability of kinship networks and other social structures to survive and organize production. At the same time, people’s ability to manage their production was being undermined.
Other factors were coming into play. New groups of people were not interested in market commodities a hundred years ago. People didn’t seek to save money to buy available goods. Basic commodities such as soap or fishhooks were available but not central to people’s lives. However, the allure of commodities has grown significantly. Now, people desire handbags, stylish shoes, fashionable clothing, and smartphones.
People are increasingly drawn into market economies and commodities while facing new threats to their ability to remain on the land. Climate change has severely affected South Sudan, which is ecologically sensitive. The levels of flooding along major rivers and waterways are alarming. Some individuals are forced to reconsider their home locations due to the risk of flooding. Others must reconsider their livelihoods, as they can no longer sustain farming or herding. As a result, many are switching to fishing as a means of survival, adapting to the climate-induced displacement they are experiencing.
What has happened is that an older system—one not designed for maximizing profit or yield but rather focused on maintaining social and kinship networks—has been disrupted. This traditional system provided multiple layers of meaning to life through production. Work was once deeply tied to one’s sense of family, home, and even cultural traditions, such as the songs people sang while working.
I’m not trying to sentimentalize the past or suggest it was the only way of life. There were negative aspects to the “good old days.” However, the kinship-based and socially networked production systems helped hold society together. Today, many pressures on South Sudanese people are forcing them apart, breaking down social cohesion, and pushing them into fragmented, often antagonistic, enclaves.
One of the things I examined was how conflict is as much tied to these ongoing agrarian changes as it is to ethnicity or other cultural explanations sometimes given for violence. The countryside is undergoing a massive transformation, and this upheaval has become entangled with the conflict, potentially fueling its continuation.
Let me explain why. The first scientific nutrition studies in South Sudan were conducted in the 1950s by Gertrude Culwick, an English researcher employed by the colonial government. She conducted multiple studies in different parts of Sudan. Her work in the floodplains—vast, flat, muddy lands on the east and west of the Jebel, where the White Nile flows through South Sudan on its way north—revealed interesting findings. She found that people consumed between 2,000 and 3,500 calories per day, a substantial intake. However, the measures she used then differed from the ones we use today.
Because today, caloric intake would be averaged out, considering age differences and other factors. Gertrude Culwick may have used specific measurement criteria. However, adults in her studies still consumed a substantial amount of food.
Some studies suggest that people in South Sudan consume an average of 1,500 to 1,800 calories per day in the 21st century. This marks a dramatic reduction in caloric intake over the past 60 to 70 years. One key aspect of this transition is that it is a hungry transition. It may eventually lead to obesity, as market-based food systems have in many other countries, but at present, it is leading to undernourishment and malnutrition.
There is no direct link between marketization and better food systems. On the contrary, marketization—alongside war, displacement, and other disruptions—is not resulting in better nutrition. Instead, it is driving an increased demand for cash. In the past, many South Sudanese lived with minimal reliance on money, and it wasn’t easy during the colonial period to get people to work for wages because they simply did not need cash. Additionally, they did not wear clothes with pockets, making it impractical to carry money.
The colonial administration introduced money taxes to compel people to work for wages. As a result, people would perform a few days of labour annually to pay their taxes. Over time, market dependence increased, and people needed money not just for taxes but also for new necessities such as modern education and healthcare, both of which required cash. Additionally, they began to need money for food as they transitioned from solely producing food to selling portions and later repurchasing food from merchants once their stocks ran low. Essentially, their food supplies were becoming commodities.
I found an interesting trend in household surveys—though they are infrequent in South Sudan and must be interpreted cautiously. Surveys conducted during the peace years from 2006 to 2013 suggested that while many areas shifted toward market-based economies, many people reported that they had not used cash in the past seven days. This indicates a growing reliance on cash without consistent access to it.
In the areas where hunger was most prevalent, people needed money to buy food but often did not have it. These were the same areas where militia groups were gaining strength, and young men increasingly turned to alternative forms of work that provided access to cash or coercive means of obtaining resources they could no longer produce themselves. The militia system played a crucial role in dismantling traditional production methods and was instrumental in sustaining this economic transition. As workers defected from productive labour to military employment, money circulated more through soldiers than through conventional economic activity.
As hunger intensified, the need for money grew, pushing people into new methods of obtaining it, including selling labour and sending their sons to fight. This transformation perpetuated economic instability and reinforced the cycle of displacement and market dependence.
People also invested heavily in educating their children because they believed education was essential for navigating the emerging economy. Even families with very little money would sell their labour to afford school fees, hoping that education, even in under-resourced schools, could provide their children with a better future.
South Sudan’s progression toward a market economy is an important study area because it sheds light on how the rural crisis underpins many ongoing challenges. This rural crisis is sometimes misrepresented as a conflict between antagonistic ethnic groups, as that provides a simplistic explanation. However, the reality is more complex. The government, unable to adequately serve its people, often exacerbates divisions by taking resources away in a discriminatory manner rather than providing for its citizens. This creates friction among communities and pushes individuals into armed groups.
Focusing less on the military and more on the agricultural sector would help me better understand South Sudan’s challenges.
Jacobsen: What are the key drivers behind Sudan’s healthcare inequalities? Are these comparable to those of other countries, or are their causes and characteristics unique?
Thomas: Sudan’s inequalities are well known and have multiple dimensions. One of the most significant factors is spatial inequality. Some regions benefit from Sudan’s merchant and trade systems, where the wealthier populations reside and have access to services. Then, some regions generate wealth for these merchant systems—through agriculture, gold mining, oil extraction, and food production—yet remain significantly disadvantaged.
Most of this wealth-generating activity occurs far from the centers of trade. Historically, Sudan’s economic hub has been around Khartoum. At the same time, peripheral areas have suffered from lower life expectancy, higher child mortality rates, and other indicators of material disadvantage. These disparities were entrenched during the 19th century due to colonial aggression and the arbitrary drawing of colonial borders, which heavily favoured the central regions.
The healthcare system that emerged under these conditions had serious shortcomings. There was a strong bias toward providing better healthcare in wealthier regions, with greater access to medical personnel and facilities. In contrast, poorer regions suffered from stark disparities in mortality rates, particularly infant and child mortality.
Furthermore, Sudan’s healthcare system has historically been skewed towards curative rather than preventative care. Those living in the capital could access expensive medical procedures. At the same time, those in remote areas often lacked access to vaccines or basic preventative medicine. This structural imbalance has persisted, reinforcing the country’s deep-seated healthcare access and outcomes inequalities.
After the end of the colonial period, there was a global movement toward primary healthcare, aiming to expand medical services to poor and marginalized communities. The goal was to provide the best possible healthcare for all, leading to the development of some health facilities in underserved peripheral regions. There was also an effort to improve healthcare access for economically disadvantaged populations. Sudan had significant social inequalities, with rich and poor people living side by side in cities. This movement gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s.
However, by the 1980s, a global financial crisis caused a significant shift in the financial landscape. One of the outcomes was a severe debt crisis across Africa. Many governments have been encouraged to take out loans to build productive infrastructure and social welfare services, including healthcare. Right-wing economic policies advocating for privatization gained prominence when the debt crisis struck. These policies argued that people should not expect free healthcare, leading to declining public health services.
During this period, Sudan initially experienced some growth in healthcare access, and free services were available in many places. When I first visited Sudan, one could walk into a healthcare facility and receive basic treatment, such as a bandage, without charge. However, this changed drastically in the 1990s when a new military government took over. Adopting hyper-privatization and austerity measures, they systematically cut back public health services.
A weak, developing healthcare system came under immense strain. Additionally, the government initiated conflicts in many regions where they imposed austerity, as such policies often required coercion and repression. This further eroded the health system. By the early 21st century, Sudan’s healthcare had become highly privatized and heavily concentrated in Khartoum, which retained the majority of medical personnel.
Most Sudanese doctors sought better opportunities abroad, particularly in Saudi Arabia or the UK. Those who remained in Sudan preferred working in private hospitals in major cities, where they could earn a livable wage, rather than in underfunded public hospitals in rural areas, where salaries ranged between $50 and $200 per month—insufficient for someone who had endured the rigorous training required for a medical career.
As a result, Sudan developed a highly centralized healthcare system focused on Khartoum, making access to medical services in other regions extremely difficult. When Khartoum fell in April 2023, this unequal system was effectively decapitated. Most specialist hospitals, clustered around the presidential palace where intense fighting occurred, were forced to shut down, leaving only a few operational facilities.
Healthcare provision then shifted into two main spheres. On one hand, private actors relocated their services outside of Khartoum. On the other hand, grassroots emergency response groups emerged during the 2018–2019 revolution and stepped in to provide urgent medical care. These mutual aid organizations had pioneered self-help models, running emergency rooms nationwide. However, they were ill-equipped to handle the massive healthcare crisis. Their resources were scarce, medical buildings were destroyed, and doctors were arrested and tortured.
Despite their efforts, these groups faced overwhelming challenges and became key targets of government repression during this turbulent period.
Jacobsen: How have cross-border conflicts and territorial disputes, such as the Kafia-Kingi enclave, shaped some of the political-economic dynamics of the region?
Thomas: I worked on Kafia-Kingi a few years ago but am unaware of recent developments except through friends and other contacts. However, Sudan and South Sudan have a relatively unique set of border conflicts because they are both recent and unresolved. Border disputes exist across Africa—there is a contested triangle on the Egypt-Sudan border and another between South Sudan and Kenya, where different interpretations exist regarding ownership.
Often, the more powerful state maintains control over disputed enclaves. This has been the case along much of the Sudan-South Sudan border, where Sudan, with its larger population, military, and financial resources, has retained its presence in key border areas.
Not all border disputes are resolved through war. Most are long-term disputes that gradually get negotiated. Sudan has maintained control over Kafia-Kingi, a mineral-rich enclave South of Darfur, which, by legal standards, should have been ceded to South Sudan in 2011. The rules established that areas administered by southern provinces in 1936 would remain part of South Sudan. However, Kafia-Kingi was the largest land area transferred from South Sudanese to North Sudanese provincial administration, an early post-independence decision.
There were several reasons for this transfer. Kafia-Kingi was sparsely populated, making it a difficult area to govern. Additionally, its mineral wealth made it highly valuable, prompting authorities in Khartoum to exercise greater control over the region.
When South Sudan gained independence, border enclaves became one of the many unresolved issues negotiators had to address. Other complex matters included national debt allocation, ownership of embassies such as the one in Nairobi, and South Sudanese citizens’ status in Sudan. These were sensitive topics requiring significant compromise.
As a result, negotiations on border enclaves were indefinitely postponed, and it is likely to take a long time before any resolution is reached.
Kafia-Kingi is particularly significant because it borders the Central African Republic and Chad. Despite being a remote and sparsely populated area, it has become a hotbed of activity due to arms trafficking, gold smuggling, and the presence of various outlaw groups.
It is now a highly contested zone, as one of the major gold mines fueling the war in Sudan is located within the enclave. The ongoing conflict between the Rapid Support Forces, the military, and their respective allies is partly driven by control over these gold resources.
Unfortunately, this beautiful and remote forested region has been brutally drawn into the turmoil of modern geopolitics, with its resources becoming central to an increasingly violent conflict.
Jacobsen: What are the major challenges foreign-funded healthcare initiatives face in Sudan? Supply chains, delivery, application, things of this nature.
Thomas: Foreign funding does not constitute a significant portion of Sudan’s healthcare economy. The most recent national health accounts, published about six years ago, estimated that foreign funding accounted for approximately 5% of the country’s total healthcare costs. Much of this funding came from global philanthro-capitalist organizations, such as the Gates Foundation and Gavi, which focused on vertical programs.
Vertical programs allocate funds for specific interventions—such as vaccines or malaria nets—rather than supporting comprehensive healthcare systems. While these programs can lead to progress on urgent public health challenges, they are limited in scope. Effective healthcare requires addressing multiple needs simultaneously, and vertical programs do not always integrate well with broader health initiatives. For example, malaria nets alone are insufficient in communities facing malnutrition, infectious diseases, and epidemic outbreaks.
Most foreign-funded healthcare in Sudan was channelled through the Ministry of Health, which managed the distribution of funds and resources. However, with the government’s collapse, these funds’ status remains uncertain. Efforts have been made to transition toward UN funding mechanisms. However, coordination with the Ministry of Health is still necessary at some level, as it maintains connections across the country.
The volume of foreign aid has likely contracted, given the logistical challenges of transferring funds, purchasing medical supplies, and distributing goods within Sudan. Though I do not have precise figures, I suspect foreign funding has not increased. An increasingly significant element of foreign-funded healthcare is diaspora remittances, which support emergency rooms providing critical care across Sudan.
Jacobsen: What about kinship networks in Sudan and South Sudan’s economies? Are these scaled in a way that helps at least some of the population and mitigates healthcare gaps?
Thomas: Kinship networks exist everywhere, don’t they? Powerful figures like Mr. Trump have kinship networks even in the United States. They are an integral part of social organization.
Economic and social life was historically structured around kinship-based production systems in many places. However, not all social orders were strictly kinship-based. Production was sometimes organized around alternative social networks, such as age groups. These networks were not necessarily based on family ties but on individuals coming of age together in a specific place—a pattern seen in many societies worldwide.
You see these types of networks everywhere—think of school reunions. People still attend them as useful networking events. For example, Harvard alums often connect with fellow graduates to secure job opportunities.
These networks have always existed, but previously, labour was not mobilized through markets. Instead, it was organized through reciprocal obligations that weren’t formally tracked or bartered. Let’s say, Scott, that you invite me for dinner tomorrow, then again the following week, and a couple of weeks later, a third time. I wouldn’t write you a check saying I owe you a dinner, but after the third invitation, I would likely feel an implicit obligation to return the favour. You, too, might expect that I reciprocate in some way.
That is a better way of understanding how these economies function than the concept of barter, which is largely an invention of right-wing economists who misunderstand social reciprocity. If you’ve invited me multiple times, I should contribute something. If you are significantly wealthier than me, I may not invite you back to my home out of embarrassment. Still, I will find another way to reciprocate—perhaps by helping you in some other manner.
These networks, however, are under immense pressure as people increasingly need money. Many are forced to relocate, live in refugee camps, or seek safety in displacement camps. In such environments, individuals must sell their labour and endure harsh conditions. The freedom to choose is greatly diminished, and they must adhere to external demands rather than act according to their social obligations.
Jacobsen: To move into a more constructive discussion, what policy recommendations could mitigate economic commodification and conflict in Sudan’s healthcare system or South Sudan?
Thomas: If you want a policy recommendation, why not aim for a global free healthcare system modelled after Canada or Cuba? If discussing real solutions, why not advocate for a universal healthcare system?
People are under tremendous pressure to access healthcare and education, enduring significant hardships to obtain these basic needs. Nearly everyone would prefer free healthcare and education. Suppose wealthy countries do not want people migrating across their borders. Why not invest in comprehensive social services in their home countries? By fully decommodifying healthcare and education, you incentivize people to remain in their communities rather than seek opportunities elsewhere.
That is a genuine policy recommendation. There are other policy approaches, but I often see them as non-solutions. For example, some propose micro-enterprise programs to empower women—yet these initiatives often result in marginal economic gains, with individuals earning just a few dollars a month. These approaches fail to address the root causes of economic disparity and healthcare inequity.
Those are the policy prescriptions of the aid industry, but they have been tried before.
Jacobsen: Do you have any comments on Omer Al-Bashir’s impact on healthcare access or medical services, particularly in rural areas?
Thomas: He was an arch-neoliberal, managing healthcare in rural areas accordingly.
Jacobsen: Who do you think is leading, organizationally or individually, a positive collective movement toward a better future for Sudan? Who is working towards reducing human rights abuses, improving healthcare, and ensuring people’s needs are met?
Thomas: Sudan has undergone a revolution. Brilliant revolutionaries have eloquently articulated Sudan’s crisis and proposed practical solutions. They have devised models of decommodified healthcare in a highly commodified healthcare environment. These individuals and movements are leading the way, and people should pay attention to what they have to say.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Eddie, I have no more questions. Thank you very much for your time today. It was nice to meet you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15 (Unpublished)
Operation Come Home (OCH) supports at-risk youth aged 16–25 through harm reduction, counselling, and overdose prevention. Executive Director John Heckbert highlights the role of peer staff in mentoring participants, managing caseloads, and leading workshops on substance use awareness. OCH ensures youth leaving hospitals or treatment centers receive continued support by partnering with sector organizations. A daily drop-in program provides resources and referrals for those struggling with addiction or mental health. By focusing on youth, OCH prevents exposure to adult homelessness and related dangers like drug trafficking and violence, helping them secure housing, employment, education, and family reunification.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the role of individuals with lived experience in leading the Operation Come Home project?
John Heckbert: There are four peer staff in the project, who are supporting our program participants with counselling and assistance to help them achieve their goals in reducing and then ending their substance use. Our peers will provide ongoing, consistent support to participants with significant substance use challenges. They will each manage their own caseload of 20 clients and provide daily crisis assistance and support to others in our programs. They will also lead workshops and sessions that provide information to youth that inform them of the dangers of substance use, and provide instruction in overdose prevention.
Jacobsen: How will Operation Come Home connect youth leaving hospitals or treatment centers with continued support?
Heckbert: To ensure clients leaving treatment centers are provided with ongoing, continued support, we have reached out to partners in our sector to generate referrals to our program. Our goal is to ensure that all youth exiting treatment programs in Ottawa are aware of our services and able to access support through our counsellors. To achieve this, we have prepared information that hospital staff and those in treatment centers can share with clients. Wherever possible our team will meet these participants at our center or in community settings to bring them into our program.
Jacobsen: How are harm reduction, overdose prevention, counselling, and mental health services, integrated to support at-risk youth here?
Heckbert: Our team holds a daily drop-in program that is open 7 days per week, in which youth receive harm reduction resources, information about overdose prevention, and introductions to staff members and are encouraged to join programs that improve their well-being. The drop-in is advertised throughout our city at other community agencies, homeless shelters, and with community postering. Youth who come to OCH and indicate concerns about their substance use or mental healthy are encouraged to join our programs that provide support. In many cases, youth pursuing other priorities within our organization, such as finding new housing, obtaining employment, or completing high school, will be introduced to counsellors who can provide targeted help with substance use or mental health counselling.
Jacobsen: Why does OCH focus on ages 16–25?
Heckbert: Operation Come Home’s core mandate is to help at-risk youth aged 16-25. In some programs, such as our employment or education work, we help youth up to age 29. We help youth achieve permanent improvements in their well-being, and achieve their goals with reuniting with family, improving their mental health, ending substance use, obtaining housing, finding employment, or completing school. Having these programs for youth is essential, as we are reducing our youth’s exposure to the adult homelessness system and adult harm reduction services. This in turn reduces the risks youth face from drug dealers, human traffickers, violence, and other harms.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, John.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15
Genevieve Decarie a Conseillère en communication for UQAT. The Pimiskâw Scholarship competition at UQAT supports Indigenous students by recognizing academic excellence, perseverance, and community involvement, while reducing financial barriers to higher education. The program was co-created with Indigenous students, UQAT’s First Peoples Service, Mamawi Mikimodan, and FUQAT, ensuring it aligns with Indigenous realities and values. The name “Pimiskâw,” symbolizing paddling a canoe, reflects perseverance and support during academic challenges. Nearly $75,000 in scholarships are available for 2025, with applications open from January 6–26. Organizations can contribute by donating through FUQAT. The initiative promotes access to education, retention, and the inclusion of Indigenous culture in academia, reflecting UQAT’s commitment to First Peoples.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does the Pimiskâw Scholarship competition support Indigenous students at UQAT?
Genevieve Decarie: This program will support several university career pathways and recognize the excellence, perseverance and commitment of Indigenous students. While helping to reduce social inequalities and promoting access to higher education, these scholarships are also intended to attract more Indigenous people to post-secondary studies, and more specifically to UQAT.
- Excellence scholarships: aim to recognize the academic performance of students (in addition to results, various criteria will be considered such as attendance, progress, etc.).
- Perseverance scholarships: Recognize the tenacity of students who have an atypical or challenging background, and who demonstrate determination by succeeding in their studies.
- Involvement scholarships: aim to recognize students’ involvement in the university and/or community environment (Note: paid work and involvement in the workplace will not be considered)
Jacobsen: How does the collaboration between FUQAT, UQAT’s First Peoples Service, Mamawi Mikimodan, and Indigenous students influence the Pimiskâw Scholarship program?
Decarie: The competition is the result of a close collaboration between the Fondation de l’UQAT (FUQAT), UQAT’s First Peoples Service (FPS), the Mamawi Mikimodan service and members of the Indigenous student community. This co-creation process has made it possible to design a program that responds to the realities of Indigenous students.
For example, we consulted the members of the Indigenous student community and collaborated with them to develop a promising program that is adapted to their context, to better understand their needs and also to find a representative name for the competition, which would also highlight Indigenous language and culture. Through this initiative, we want to support them better and recognize the richness of their culture and their contribution to our university and our society.
Jacobsen: How does the Pimiskâw Scholarship initiative reflect UQAT’s commitment to First Peoples?
Decarie: The Pimiskâw Scholarship competition is yet another example of the long-standing collaboration between UQAT and Indigenous people over the past several years, but also based on UQAT’s principle of territorial recognition.This is a concrete demonstration of the University’s commitment to valuing the knowledge, culture and resilience of First Peoples by implementing means to promote and encourage access to studies and academic perseverance.
Jacobsen: What cultural symbolism is represented by the name “Pimiskâw”?
Decarie: The name Pimiskâw was chosen following a consultation with UQAT’s Indigenous students. It was proposed by Jérémie Brazeau, a member of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabe community and a student in the Bachelor of Teaching English as a Second Language program, at the Mont-Laurier Centre. The word refers to the action of paddling a canoe. “Being a canoeist, I associate my return to school with a trip down a river. Sometimes we run into rapids, but our canoe and our efforts will get us to where we want to go. I associate this financial aid with the canoe that helps us throughout our school career”, explains Mr. Brazeau. Pimiskâw symbolizes the support and perseverance needed to overcome the challenges of academic life.
Jacobsen: What is the total amount of scholarships available?
Decarie: This year, nearly $75,000 in scholarships are available
Jacobsen: How can organisations contribute to supporting the Pimiskâw Scholarship program?
Decarie: The Pimiskâw program exists because of generous donors who offer various scholarships to recognize excellence, perseverance and commitment. Any organization wishing to support this program and offer scholarships to Indigenous students is invited to contact the Fondation de l’UQAT, who manages the program. In the near future, we’d like to develop new scholarships to attract Indigenous students to programs where they are less represented. For example, in engineering, digital creation and psychoeducation.
INFO: fondation@uqat.ca
Jacobsen: What is the timeline for Indigenous students to apply to the scholarships?
Decarie: Indigenous students will be invited to submit their applications from January 6 to 26, 2025. The scholarships will be awarded in part at the Vallée-de-l’Or Scholarships Gala on April 2nd at the First Peoples Pavilion on the Val-d’Or campus, or according to the recipients’ home campus. Many Indigenous students are distance learners, some in their own communities. The Foundation will find an appropriate way to give them their bursary.
Jacobsen: How does the Pimiskâw Scholarship initiative aim increase access to post-secondary education?
Decarie: This program will support several university career pathways by reducing financial stress, enabling a better balance between family, work and study-related obligations, valuing post-secondary studies and encouraging student retention, etc.
By reducing social inequalities and promoting access to higher education, these scholarships are also intended to attract more Indigenous people to post-secondary studies, and more specifically to UQAT.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14
Dr. Chinmay Jani is a clinical fellow in hematology and oncology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. With a strong medical background, he has published extensively on topics like lung cancer trends, COVID-19, and precision medicine. His work emphasizes global risk factors, such as tobacco, air pollution, and asbestos, impacting cancer mortality. Dr. Jani has completed his medical school at Gujarat University, ranking among the top in his medical school class, and completed his Internal Medicine residency and chief residency at Mount Auburn Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Fluent in multiple languages, he is an active member of global medical societies and a proponent of tailored public health policies and precision oncology. Jani discussed research on lung cancer mortality trends, focusing on tobacco, air pollution, and asbestos as key risk factors. Tobacco-related lung cancer deaths have declined globally but remain significant, with gender disparities evident. Air pollution, particularly PM2.5, has become a growing concern, showing increased mortality rates in countries like China. In contrast, household air pollution has decreased due to cleaner energy initiatives. Asbestos exposure continues to impact lung cancer rates, especially in the U.S., where mortality rates are double the global average. Dr. Jani emphasized the importance of targeted policies, public awareness, and precision medicine in addressing these challenges. For more information, see here.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Dr. Chinmay Jani, a clinical fellow in hematology and oncology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System. First question: What were the primary objectives of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center on lung and related cancer trends study?
Dr. Chinmay Jani: The primary objective of our study was to investigate risk factor-associated mortality trends for lung cancer. We focused on three main risk factors: tobacco, air pollution, and asbestos. We also stratified air pollution into household air pollution and PM2.5, fine particulate matter pollution. We analyzed how these trends have evolved over the past two or three decades in the ten most populous countries in the world.
Jacobsen: Why work on the ten most populous countries?
Jani: That’s a great question. We have a robust global oncology department here at the University of Miami, led by Dr. Gilberto Lopes, also the senior author of this paper. He directs the department and guided us in conducting a global analysis of lung cancer mortality trends.
There are various ways to approach this type of research. Still, we selected the ten most populous countries because they account for a significant proportion of the global population. These countries also represent diverse geopolitical, economic, and environmental factors. For example, they include developed nations like the United States, developing countries like India and Pakistan, and regions like Nigeria in Africa. This selection provides a comprehensive perspective on how these countries, which substantially influence global economics, policies, and climate, manage lung cancer risk factors and mortality trends.
Jacobsen: How have tobacco-related lung cancer mortality rates evolved globally?
Jani: Overall, lung cancer mortality rates have been decreasing globally. 1990 the global mortality rate was approximately 27.3 deaths per 100,000 population. By 2019, this figure had declined to 25.2 per 100,000 population. However, I want to clarify that our study focused specifically on lung cancer mortality rates, not incidence rates.
Gender-based trends reveal an interesting disparity. Among males, mortality rates have significantly decreased, dropping from approximately 45 to 37 deaths per 100,000 population—a substantial reduction. Conversely, standardized mortality rates among females have increased, rising from 13 to 15 deaths per 100,000 population. While female mortality rates remain less than half of male rates, the upward trend among females contrasts sharply with the steady decline observed in males.
For the tobacco-related findings, I want to highlight that, proportionally, tobacco has had a significant impact on lung cancer mortality. Our study included trachea, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer mortality. Still, for simplicity, we often refer to these as lung cancers in this study.
In the 1990s, tobacco accounted for approximately 72% of lung cancer mortality globally, which means nearly three-fourths of the cases were attributed to it. By 2019, this figure decreased to 66%, which is still two-thirds. Over the past three decades, significant strides have been made in tobacco control policies. For example, we see fewer tobacco advertisements, smoking bans in public places in many countries, and health organizations refusing sponsorship from tobacco companies.
Despite these efforts, the reduction from 72% to 66% shows slow progress. This indicates the need for continued and intensified efforts to address this modifiable risk factor. Reducing tobacco use could lead to a substantial decrease in lung cancer mortality.
When we look at gender-specific trends, for males, the proportion of tobacco-related lung cancer mortality decreased from 81% to 77%, which is still above three-fourths. For females, it decreased from 49% to 44%, meaning almost half of the lung cancer mortality in females is still linked to tobacco. If we can further reduce tobacco use, we could significantly lower lung cancer mortality worldwide.
We also want to highlight that tobacco consumption habits are different in different parts of the world. For example, in Indian sub-continent countries, tobacco is usually consumed along with betel nut, which can have its own side effects and increase cancer risk.
Jacobsen: What role does asbestos exposure play in TBL cancer deaths? How do the U.S. mortality rates compare to global averages despite the ban on asbestos?
Jani: Our study yielded some very interesting findings on asbestos. Initially, we focused on tobacco and air pollution as key risk factors for lung cancer mortality. Later, we delved deeper into asbestos-related mortality, particularly after presenting our preliminary findings at the April AACR (American Association for Cancer Research) conference. Around the same time, a new law was enacted in the U.S. banning asbestos, which prompted us to analyze this data further.
To our surprise, lung cancer mortality attributed to asbestos in the U.S. is double the global average. For example, asbestos-related lung cancer mortality in U.S. males is approximately 11.9 per 100,000 population. In contrast, the global average is only 5.1 per 100,000.
Globally, some countries, such as India, China, Indonesia, and Pakistan, are seeing an increase in asbestos-related mortality. While the U.S. has seen significant reductions in asbestos exposure and related mortality rates due to stricter regulations, the current rate remains much higher than the global average, which is concerning. These findings underscore the need for continued vigilance and global efforts to eliminate asbestos use and exposure.
The numbers I’ve mentioned are specific to males, as they tend to have higher exposure to asbestos due to occupational risks. This disparity highlights the need for targeted policies to address these risk factors more effectively.
Jacobsen: So, male patterns are distinct.
Jani: There could be multiple reasons why this is happening. While our study did not establish causality, reviewing the literature and past studies provides some insights into the trends. The cumulative effect of asbestos exposure on health is far greater than initially expected.
Even though significant bans have been implemented, and asbestos has not been widely used for a long time, numerous earlier policies have been limiting its use. However, the cumulative exposure over decades has left a lasting impact. It is important to note that asbestos-related cancers often have a latency period of five to ten years or even longer before they manifest. Once lung cancer develops, the progression to mortality can also take years. This extended timeline means that the cumulative effects of past asbestos exposure are still evident today.
Jacobsen: How does the integration of molecular insights and precision medicine address lung cancer risk factors?
Jani: Another factor to consider is that although asbestos is no longer widespread, significant amounts remain in the environment. It is in older infrastructure, including houses, pipes, and other materials. These residual sources continue to contribute to lung cancer mortality, even though direct usage has declined.
Jacobsen: It’s an ambient leftover from prior infrastructure projects.
Jani: Exactly. That’s a very accurate way to describe it.
Jacobsen: What are the key findings regarding the impact of air pollution, particularly PM 2.5, on global TBL cancer mortality?
Jani: We divided the data on air pollution into two parts. The first was ambient air pollution, particularly PM2.5, which refers to fine particulate matter pollution that is inhaled and contributes to lung cancer. The second was household air pollution caused by the use of solid fuels.
A positive finding from our study is that lung cancer mortality caused by household air pollution has significantly decreased across all countries and for both males and females. This trend is encouraging, especially in developing countries where solid fuels are traditionally used extensively. This reduction reflects the success of improved household fuel policies and cleaner energy initiatives.
However, the situation is quite different regarding ambient PM2.5 pollution. Globally, the impact of ambient air pollution has increased. The highest increase has been observed in China, where lung cancer mortality due to ambient particulate matter has risen dramatically. For instance, the rate of males has increased from 5.4 to 13.6 per 100,000 population—an almost 2.5-fold rise. For females, the rate has increased from 1.69 to 5 per 100,000 population, nearly tripling as well.
The data also shows a 25% increase in global lung cancer mortality attributable to ambient air pollution, making it the second-largest modifiable risk factor for lung cancer after tobacco. These findings indicate a pressing need for policies addressing ambient particulate matter. While significant efforts have been made to reduce tobacco-related lung cancer mortality, air pollution now demands similar attention.
We must focus on understanding the molecular mechanisms by which air pollution contributes to lung cancer and work on preventive measures to curtail its impact. By addressing this modifiable risk factor, we can significantly reduce global lung cancer mortality.
Jacobsen: How does the integration of molecular insights and precision medicine address lung cancer risk factors?
Jani: As we deepen our understanding of lung cancer, it has become clear that not all lung cancers behave the same way. Historically, the primary classification was between non-small cell lung cancer, such as adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. With advancements, particularly the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors, we’ve learned that while some patients respond exceptionally well to these treatments, others do not.
This has prompted numerous studies to investigate the reasons for these differences. We have evidence that patients with certain targetable mutations respond differently to specific treatments. For instance, around seven or eight years ago, the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines primarily recommended chemotherapy for stage four lung cancer, with immune checkpoint inhibitors just starting to emerge and only a few targeted therapies available.
Today, the landscape has changed dramatically. We now have treatments targeting mutations such as EGFR, ALK, ROS1, HER2, etc. This evolution highlights that while all these cases are classified as lung cancer, they behave differently and require different treatments.
This study could contribute to understanding how different risk factors, like tobacco or air pollution, might influence specific molecular alterations in lung cancer. Future research could explore whether these risk factors affect molecular changes differently and how this knowledge could guide precision medicine or precision oncology, tailoring treatments to individual patients based on their risk factors and molecular profiles. For instance, studying the impact of air pollution on molecular changes in lung cancer could open up new avenues for targeted therapies.
Jacobsen: What gaps exist in current lung cancer screening guidelines?
Jani: That’s an excellent question and an ongoing discussion and research area. The current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, which are widely used in the U.S. and referenced in other countries, focus primarily on smoking as the main risk factor for lung cancer screening. For a patient to qualify for screening and receive insurance reimbursement, they must have at least a 20-pack-year smoking history or have quit smoking within the past 15 years.
In our study, we found that 66% of lung cancer deaths were associated with smoking. However, this leaves 34% of cases unexplained by smoking history. Among females, more than 50% of lung cancer deaths occur in patients without tobacco as a risk factor. These individuals are not currently included in screening programs based on existing guidelines. Similarly, other risk factors, such as asbestos exposure or air pollution, are not yet incorporated into screening criteria or insurance reimbursement policies.
We need more research to refine risk factor models for lung cancer screening to address these gaps. Expanding screening guidelines to include additional risk factors and increasing the uptake of lung cancer screening would help diagnose cases earlier and improve outcomes.
Jacobsen: What policy measures and public awareness strategies are suggested by the researchers to address the increasing cancer risks?
Jani: Policy measures and public awareness strategies are essential to address cancer risks.
- Tobacco Control Policies: While progress has been made, stronger global efforts are needed to reduce tobacco use further. Policies should focus on stricter advertising bans, increased taxation, and broader implementation of smoke-free public spaces.
- Air Pollution Regulations: Air pollution is becoming the second-largest modifiable risk factor for lung cancer. Governments must enforce stricter regulations on industrial emissions, promote cleaner energy sources, and improve public transportation to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
- Asbestos Ban and Cleanup: Although asbestos use is banned in many countries, legacy asbestos remains in older buildings and infrastructure. Efforts can be made for large-scale cleanup projects and raise awareness about the risks of asbestos exposure.
- Expanding Screening Guidelines: Screening criteria must include non-smoking-related risk factors like air pollution and asbestos. Policymakers should allocate resources to refine screening models and ensure insurance coverage for these expanded criteria.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Education campaigns should inform the public about smoking, air pollution, and asbestos exposure risks. Outreach efforts should focus on high-risk populations, particularly in developing countries, where awareness may be lower.
- Research Funding: Increased funding for research on lung cancer risk factors, molecular mechanisms, and precision medicine is critical. This will allow researchers to understand better how environmental and genetic factors interact and develop more effective treatments.
- Global Collaboration: Cancer prevention strategies require international collaboration to share data, best practices, and resources. Addressing air pollution and tobacco use requires coordinated efforts across borders.
By implementing these measures and raising awareness, we can significantly reduce lung cancer risks and improve outcomes globally.
As I mentioned, the main policies that should be implemented include strengthening tobacco-related regulations and developing more targeted policies addressing air pollution and asbestos exposure. Understanding the associations between air pollution and lung cancer, particularly in developing countries like India and China, will enable policymakers to devise more effective strategies.
One simple example is related to burning waste in India. Over the past decade, the government of India has made tremendous efforts to increase awareness about the dangers of burning solid waste. While the use of solid fuels for cooking in households has significantly decreased, the practice of burning waste persists in certain areas. Although the government provides resources and alternatives, public awareness is still lacking.
Now that we have more evidence showing that these risk factors—like smoking, which causes not only lung cancer but also many other cancers—are detrimental, public awareness campaigns are crucial. If people become more informed, they are more likely to accept and comply with these policies. Creating awareness is, in my opinion, the priority. Once awareness is established, policies can be tailored to meet each country’s needs.
Jacobsen: Dr. Jani, thank you very much for your time today. I truly appreciate it.
Jani: Thank you very much.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/13
Dr. Coral Hoh is a clinical linguist and co-founder of Dysolve. This AI-driven platform supports students with learning disabilities, particularly dyslexia. Through innovative, game-based assessments and personalized educational plans, Dysolve has helped hundreds of students achieve grade-level reading within 1–2 years at a fraction of the cost of traditional special education programs. Dr. Hoh combines linguistics, cognitive science, and AI expertise to advance accessible, effective learning solutions while addressing ethical and privacy considerations in education technology. Hoh shared insights on their AI tool, designed to address learning disabilities like dyslexia by correcting language processing deficits. Unlike traditional methods that compensate for dyslexia, Dysolve aims to resolve it by achieving 90–100% student efficiency. Dr. Hoh emphasized the emotional and mental health benefits for children who overcome these challenges, noting significant transformations in behaviour and academic performance. With a focus on privacy and custom-built AI, Dysolve’s approach highlights collaboration across linguistics, mathematics, and software engineering to address this issue holistically. Dr. Hoh announced their goal of ending dyslexia entirely.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Dr. Coral Hoh, a clinical linguist and co-founder of Dysolve. Dysolve is an AI tool designed to assist teachers in personalizing educational experiences for students with learning disabilities. The assessment focuses directly on the students. You’ve helped students achieve grade-level reading, even those with dyslexia. How does this improve cost efficiency compared to various special education programs at the state level? And, personally, how did you become interested in linguistics, education, and related fields?
Dr. Coral Hoh: How did I end up in linguistics? I come from a place where people are multilingual. Language is something we grew up with—I’m from Malaysia. When I went to college, I joined a program in linguistics, though it wasn’t explicitly called that. It was called English, but it was linguistics all the way through. Early on, I realized this was what I loved because it’s like being a forensic expert. You can’t see the brain directly, but by examining obvious clues—what a person says, how they respond, what’s missing, or what’s incorrect—you can infer what’s happening inside.
I began developing this method during my bachelor’s program. I continued refining it when I entered a Ph.D. program in linguistics at the University of Delaware. By then, cognitive science and AI were gaining popularity. Even back then, we were already discussing neural networks. After earning my Ph.D., I moved to upstate New York and began working with local communities. I discovered that many families were struggling with language learning problems.
I love working with children, but it became an emotional journey as I realized how big of a crisis this was for many families. Disabilities like dyslexia are common, and they can tear families apart. I ended up working with single mothers frequently, which is especially challenging for young moms when boys grow quickly. For example, a 10-year-old boy, based on research, can experience a growth spurt that leaves him taller than his mother within a year. At that point, it becomes difficult for a mother to command authority when she has to look up to her son.
This made me see the seriousness of the issue. When I delved into the research on dyslexia, I found it vague and inconsistent—it wasn’t operationalized in a way that could provide clear, measurable solutions. Even today, the definition of dyslexia lacks concrete clarity. I realized that even if I could help one or ten individuals, millions were affected. The only scalable solution was AI.
That’s why we built this AI program—to evaluate and determine the severity of language processing problems, which is what dyslexia is at its core. People use the term “dyslexia,” but at a fundamental level, we need to focus on the language processes in the brain.
When you do that, you can measure it for each person. Then, you set about correcting. That’s what Dysolve AI, the system we built, does. So it’s a combination of different fields working together.
And if you talk about my background, I had a foundation in linguistics, but it wasn’t enough because I didn’t do clinical linguistics or learn about the brain. Then, there’s the challenge of translating a linguistic model into something that can be coded. So, you have to delve into mathematical modelling as well. Fortunately, I spent most of my career collaborating with mathematicians and software engineers.
Jacobsen: So, how you were able to manage the translation?
Hoh: Yes. Outside of what we do, people often talk about AI requiring domain experts from various fields to solve problems. Then, you also need translators to bridge those fields. In our case, I handled that translation myself. I designed the system and am also the architect of the program.
Jacobsen: I see. You’ve provided your background and explained your reasons for getting into this work. You’ve also highlighted the humane aspect of addressing difficult social contexts, particularly for families and single mothers. What about defining dyslexia in concrete terms, as you mentioned earlier? The idea is to parse dyslexia into its relevant empirical parts, then code that into Dysolve’s architecture and use it to help individuals with this particular issue. How does that work?
Hoh: You summarized it. Discussing dyslexia as a language processing problem is about identifying what isn’t being processed correctly. Dyslexia often involves deficits in phonological processing, which is how we process speech sounds—phonemes, single sounds, groups of sounds, or phonological patterns.
Jacobsen: Is this well-established in the research?
Hoh: Over 40 years of research have shown that phonological processing is a major predictor of dyslexia. People with dyslexia often struggle with processing sounds, but that’s only one component of language. There are also larger units, like words, sentences, and semantics—the meaning of language. Unfortunately, these aspects tend to be ignored because sounds are finite, concrete, and easier to study than language’s more complex and abstract components.
Jacobsen: So, has the research largely focused on the phonological aspect?
Hoh: Exactly. While it’s valuable, it’s not enough. Dyslexia can affect any part of language processing. Addressing just the sound component won’t solve the problem fully.
Jacobsen: Are there case studies of individuals with pervasive dyslexia who face challenges across all factors associated with the condition? Do such individuals take longer to benefit from the program due to the ubiquity of their deficits?
Hoh: Yes, that’s common. Some individuals have pervasive dyslexia where all factors—phonological, semantic, syntactic, and more—are affected. It presents an overwhelming hurdle, and while the program helps, it takes longer for these cases because their deficits are so widespread.
So, especially early on, the students who came to us had severe problems. That’s why their parents were actively looking for a solution. It’s severe enough that they couldn’t just continue with other methods—they had to address this issue. Many of these students had significant language processing issues.
Since we actually count and measure their progress, we aim to get them to 90–100% efficiency. This is measurable because the program is game-based, and we track their performance accurately in each task. We assess accuracy along with the speed of response and delivery, which together define efficiency.
Many of these students started at 20% efficiency—very serious cases. They often had multiple conditions, such as ADHD, autism, and psychological issues, all overlapping. Addressing these challenges takes longer, and typically, if they’re working regularly each week with occasional breaks, it takes about two calendar years. For others, without such severe conditions, it generally takes about one calendar year.
When multiple language functions are affected, dyslexia can overlap with dysgraphia. Dyslexia involves difficulties with reading, while dysgraphia affects writing, particularly sentence composition. Rather than categorizing them strictly as “dyslexia” or “dysgraphia,” we see it as a continuum. That’s why focusing solely on sounds isn’t sufficient—you must also address sentences.
Jacobsen: What about data collection issues? A big cultural topic around AI right now is ethics. I recently spoke with someone working on semantics and AI, and part of the discussion involved how AI relies on large amounts of data—both real and synthetic. For data gathered from children, are there concerns about privacy and security? Or is the data you’re gathering less sensitive and unlikely to be misused?
Hoh: Yes, that always comes up when we mention AI—data privacy and security. The first thing people need to understand is that there are different types of AI. Ours wasn’t built by simply mining everything available. It’s much more selective and custom-built.
We didn’t use generic tools to develop this. The entire system, from top to bottom, was specifically designed for this purpose. Users build their own siloed database, and no one else has access to it. We don’t share data with third parties, so it’s different—the data are not distributed throughout the program system or beyond.
So, it’s different. I don’t particularly like the term “siloed AI” because some people see it as a negative concept. But in this case, it is compartmentalized—it’s not shared with third parties or anyone else.
Jacobsen: That’s a safe and reasonable way to approach it. The future of many technologies involves specific, actionable tasks. What about timelines? You mentioned two years for cases with multiple combined deficits and about one year for less severe cases. Are you seeing improvements from 20% to 90% efficiency as a linear progression, or does it tend to be more of a slow build followed by a hockey stick curve?
Hoh: It’s more of a hockey stick. If you look at the details, the graph fluctuates. When students get close to 90% efficiency in one type of task, Dysolve AI doesn’t stop there. It shifts focus to another area where they still have challenges, which can cause a temporary drop in performance.
Initially, there were ups and downs as the system worked through the various problem areas. This makes sense because the AI is methodically addressing all the deficits. Then, at some point, after the major areas have been resolved, the brain “clicks.”
When that happens, many pathways clear simultaneously. This often results in a sudden transformation that everyone notices—parents, teachers, and even the children themselves. It can happen in as little as a week. A child who was previously moody, resistant to work, or withdrawn becomes optimistic and cheerful and starts volunteering to read. It’s like seeing a completely different person.
Jacobsen: Do children experience improvements in mental health or well-being when they no longer face pervasive academic struggles?
Hoh: Absolutely, and that’s a crucial aspect of this work. It’s one of the reasons we wrote a book called Dyslexia Dissolved. The book is primarily for parents and includes 10 different cases to illustrate the various facets of dyslexia and related struggles.
For example, we talk about a boy who was bullied extensively. He was punched in the stomach at school because other kids realized he couldn’t read. One day, he fought back, but only his reaction was noticed, so he was labelled a bully. Depression is another common issue.
There’s also a case of a girl who was functionally mute. Her challenges weren’t just with reading but also auditory processing—being able to comprehend and organize words into sentences. She became numb, emotionally withdrawn, and stopped interacting with her family. She even refused to hug them and completely isolated herself.
If this had persisted into adulthood, it could have been devastating. Fortunately, we were able to help her. She graduated from college and even became a school leader in high school. That’s the power of addressing these issues holistically—academically, emotionally, and socially.
Even if it takes two years—or in some cases, less than one year—the transformation is remarkable. The whole person changes. Mental health improves, depression lessens, and we’ve even seen children with hypertension suffer from this issue. It’s overwhelming.
People often think of this as just a reading problem. But even when the book is closed, the problem doesn’t go away for them because it’s about language processing. If you consider how much of your waking hours are spent processing language—it’s constant—all the time.
This is a big issue. With about 20% of the population affected, it’s a huge one.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself collaborating with other teams or companies specializing in different areas of learning disabilities?
Hoh: That’s a good question. I see many ed-tech companies, and we’ve had early-stage discussions about potential collaborations. However, most of them focus entirely on education, while we also address the aspect of brain disorders. They typically create programs aimed at compensating for disabilities.
For over 100 years, people have been trying to compensate for dyslexia, this language processing problem. But what we’re doing is correcting it—ending dyslexia. This year, we’re excited to announce that this is the end of dyslexia. People need to use the program.
We’ve documented these cases in our book; those students are fine now. Just last year, a dozen former students came forward and shared that their dyslexia had been resolved. They’ve experienced significant transformations.
Jacobsen: Dr. Hoh, thank you for your time and this insightful discussion. I appreciate the opportunity.
Hoh: My pleasure.
Jacobsen: Nice to meet you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/12 (Unpublished)
Bill Irby is the CEO of AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. (NYSE American: UAVS). Irby discusses AI in military operations, UAV advancements, cybersecurity, and regulatory shifts. He emphasizes human oversight in AI-driven defence systems and anticipates industry consolidation in UAVs. His expertise spans technology leadership, aerospace innovation, and defense market adaptation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Bill Irby, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, who has over 25 years of leadership in uncrewed air and maritime systems, ISR, actuation hardware, and communications. He was Vice President at Northrop Grumman, overseeing defense technology operations. As President of MTI and Steel Partners Holdings, he led industrial, defense, and logistics ventures. Irby chairs AUVSI and served on Ghost Robotics’ advisory board. He led VBAT transition into Shield AI’s and directed L3Harris’ Reconnaissance Mission Systems. Holding a Master’s from Johns Hopkins, he also serves on the boards of Secmation and LaunchPoint Electric Propulsion Solutions, advancing defense and aerospace technologies.
Bill, it’s great to meet you. Thank you for joining us.
Bill Irby: Great to meet you, too.
Jacobsen: Today, I want to discuss your AgEagle role. You joined in February last year, so while it’s not exactly a greenhorn onboarding, it’s still relatively new. Can you give us an overview of your role and work at AgEagle over the past year?
Irby: Certainly. I walked in just as a new strategic plan was finalized in February last year. I entered a room with the Chairman of the Board and four or five other executive leadership team members. I had the opportunity to hear the latest developments in the strategy and contribute to it at some level.
Shortly after that, we got to work. We took a fresh look at AgEagle’s strategy. When the company was founded, its primary focus was agricultural support with UAS. Over time, it expanded into airborne data collection for several commercial customers, and ultimately into Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance for defence applications. The company has done an excellent job growing in those areas.
In recent years, we have recognized the critical need to pivot toward defense, security, and safety markets. There is tremendous demand for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the defence sector and global safety and security applications. We are committed to helping the company grow in those areas.
This growth has taken many forms. We have won new competitive programs overseas, raised new capital, and engaged in strategic initiatives to position the company for success. It has been a dynamic first year, and are still in growth mode, pushing to take AgEagle to the next level.
Jacobsen: How do you see AI-driven decision-making shaping modern military operations?
Irby: I have seen some of this in action, and naturally, the U.S. is at the forefront of this technology. It’s an important discussion. What exactly do we mean by AI?
There’s been much automation in the drone world for quite some time, but there’s a difference between automation and automated decision-making in the platforms you build. AI is a critical technology. With that said, there have to be controls on it. There have to be human-controlled boundaries placed on AI, defining what systems are allowed to do and not do on their own. AI’s control and oversight aspects are important because, in the defense and security world, you’re talking about life and death.
You cannot create fully autonomous machines with full decision-making capabilities in life-and-death circumstances. But I do see AI as a critical enabler. If you look at Israel and the Gaza conflict, a lot of what they were able to do involved uncrewed systems. If you imagine that type of environment being aided by AI, it would be very significant. So, I see AI as an enabling and emerging technology.
Jacobsen: What key innovations is the company developing to enhance UAVs for commercial applications and public safety operations?
Irby: Key items for us include ensuring that we continue to evolve our product line and making aircraft lighter, more durable, and more resilient.
When you look at UAV-related product lines, you will see that we also sell cameras used primarily for agriculture and photogrammetry, as I’ve mentioned. Interestingly, we sell these cameras to our competitors. They are part of a multispectral imaging line that provides full-motion video, full-colour, and day/night capabilities for various applications. Our camera line is branded as MicaSense, and its primary market is agriculture.
We are currently enhancing those cameras to focus on specific color bands within the spectrum for precise analysis that provides tangible benefits. For example, we conduct extensive crop health monitoring, soil and water content assessment, and insect infestation analysis, all supporting successful farming. We also have a new camera under development that will focus on one specific colour band to enable unique assessments for the farming community.
Jacobsen: What about evolving regulations internally in the U.S. and globally? Domestic regulations are easier to apply in practical terms. In contrast, differing frameworks might make international regulations more complex to implement. People can choose to ratify or ignore a particular document. Even those who ratify it may disregard it.
Irby: I will mention three regulatory items that align with your line of questioning.
Internally, a U.S. government regulation was put in place last year prohibiting U.S. government agencies from purchasing any Chinese-made DJI product—specifically, any DJI quadcopter-type drone. There is a critical reason for that. The primary goal of this regulation is to ensure the safety and security of U.S. infrastructure and to prevent the unauthorized transfer of sensitive information outside the U.S..
We fully support this initiative. Additionally, this regulation can benefit American-made products by enhancing competitiveness within the domestic market. So, that’s the first regulatory item.
The second regulatory item involves new legislation currently under development, addressing Chinese-manufactured parts and components purchased by the U.S. government or private industry. A broad-sweeping regulation was introduced as a congressional bill last year. The bill passed in the House and was sent to the Senate. It has completed Senate approval.
This legislation intends to counter heavily subsidized Chinese industries that have unfairly competed in the U.S. market. It ensures that American companies can compete successfully without subsidized foreign competitors. Major concerns surround battery technology and other electronic components. China has historically used these technologies for data extraction from the U.S. We are not allowing that to continue.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the third regulatory item. Over time, I have observed FAA regulations evolve, particularly in relation to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) compliance. EASA is the regulatory counterpart to the FAA in theU.S.. These are the two primary governing bodies overseeing flight and aerospace management in their regions.
The FAA has been developing regulations to ensure that drones can safely operate within U.S. airspace. I have closely followed this regulatory evolution for nearly a decade, particularly through my work with AUVSI. AUVSI has been collaborating with the FAA on behalf of the entire drone industry to advance standardized regulations.
One of the biggest challenges I have seen in this space is that drones were previously regulated region by region, state by state, and even municipality by municipality. That level of fragmentation could lead to chaos in U.S. airspace.
Fortunately, the FAA is moving quickly to implement a unified regulatory framework across all U.S. airspace. This shift will benefit manufacturers, builders, and operators as well as public safety. It is a regulatory evolution gaining momentum and making strong progress.
Jacobsen: What are the most significant advances in AI and predictive analytics in defence?
Irby: The biggest advancement is enabled navigation between systems, particularly in drone swarms. Suppose you think about multiple drones operating together. In that case, they can make coordinated decisions across platforms and fly as a swarm rather than as individual units.
Different systems can operate together, maintaining separation in the airspace while executing a shared mission, even if each platform is tailored for a specific function. These drones can communicate, sense one another, and navigate collectively. As discussed earlier in the interview, they can also make coordinated decisions, but always under human guidance.
To me, this is the most significant development, as it will fundamentally change the way defense operations are conducted.
Jacobsen: What about human-machine teaming, where humans act as the final safeguard to prevent catastrophic events or the taking of human life? How do you ensure seamless integration between drone swarms, individual drones, and human decision-making?
Irby: You have to program rules into the system—rules that must be followed before certain actions are executed. For example, before a weapon is released or any offensive action, including electronic warfare, is initiated, a human must be in the loop to make the final decision.
Machines cannot be allowed to make life-and-death decisions autonomously. However, AI can support the process through automated target queuing. For example, suppose a system processes video data and identifies an object or location of interest. In that case, it can analyze the target, classify it as an area of concern, and send that information to a human operator.
But the final decision must always be made by a human. That is my firm belief, and most reasonable people share that opinion.
Jacobsen: What about cybersecurity and addressing concerns related to adversarial AI and the new dimension of warfare involving cyber threats?
Irby: It’s always a concern; however, we incorporate cyber protections into our systems using state-of-the-art cybersecurity methodologies. This is a critical area, ensuring that our systems cannot be hacked or taken over by a threat.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest logistical and technological hurdles in scaling UAVs for widespread deployment, whether in the defence or commercial sectors?
Irby: The biggest challenge is the number of drone companies that have emerged recently.
UAS systems have proliferated rapidly, with new companies everywhere over the last several years. One phase of industry consolidation began about four years ago. The industry was expanding quickly, but many companies were either acquired or went out of business due to an inability to secure capital for further development.
We’ll see another industry consolidation phase over the next two to three years. There are too many competitors, and the market is not large enough to sustain all of them. As a result, consolidation will happen, which will be the biggest industry shift shortly.
Jacobsen: What about the future of fully autonomous UAVs in frontline military roles? Will that ever become a reality, or is it even plausible?
Irby: Technologically, it is possible. However, I believe we cannot allow fully autonomous UAVs to become a reality in frontline conflicts. We cannot permit machines to make independent decisions that put human lives at risk.
Jacobsen: Are there any other areas we should cover that I haven’t asked about?
Irby: I’d just like to reiterate what a pivotal year it has been for AgEagle. We are committed to enhancing situational awareness by providing customer-centric, advanced robotics solutions and services.Our autonomous drone technologies are high value-add and solve mission-critical problems for our customers. We look forward to our continued growth and supporting the defense industry, and additional government and commercial sectors.
Jacobsen: Bill, thank you for your time and this opportunity. I appreciate it.
Irby: Thanks very much. Appreciate it.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/12
Erika Castellanos is a transgender HIV-positive woman from Belize residing in the Netherlands. A professional social worker, Erika joined GATE in April 2017 as director of programs. In 2022, Erika was appointed Interim Executive Director; in 2023, she became Executive Director of GATE. Castellanos, Executive Director of GATE (Global Action for Trans Equality), shared her journey from grassroots activism in Belize to global advocacy. She highlighted GATE’s success in removing transgender identities from the WHO’s mental health classifications. She emphasized universal challenges like stigma, discrimination, and access to healthcare. Castellanos underscored the importance of building coalitions across diverse movements, focusing on shared goals to foster dignity and equality. She also discussed advancements in HIV treatment, her personal experience living with HIV, and the transformative impact of U=U (undetectable equals untransmittable). Castellanos advocated for a universalist approach to human rights rooted in ethical responsibility.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Erika Castellanos to discuss GATE, its work, and its relevance in contemporary conversations. As the Executive Director, my primary question is: what was the origin of your interest in the work of GATE? How did you work your way up to becoming the Executive Director?
Erika Castellanos: Thank you. I want to start by sharing a little bit about myself. My name is Erika Castellanos, and I am originally from Belize. I currently reside in the Netherlands. I began my activism in the early 1990s during the height of the HIV epidemic in southern Mexico.
When I moved back to Belize, I started a project to bring people together to engage in advocacy and create change. I founded the first network of people living with HIV. A few years later, I began working on issues affecting trans and gender-diverse people in Belize due to the legal challenges and criminalization of our identities.
2017 after moving to the Netherlands, I joined GATE (Global Action for Trans Equality) as the Director of Programs. My work involved overseeing the projects we implemented, particularly strengthening the health programs. I brought my background in health initiatives and advocacy to connect our work to the global level. In 2022, I became the Interim Executive Director, and in 2023, I officially transitioned into Executive Director.
The journey from working at the national, regional, and global levels has been fascinating. It has also helped me understand the diverse needs and perspectives of different groups in various settings. My biggest lesson is never to compare one community’s experiences with another in a different country. The issues faced and how they are experienced are always specific to individuals.
Jacobsen: That’s an important point. How do you approach things from a theme-based perspective? A country’s topical issues are highly individualized due to its unique history, demographics, and legal or policy barriers.
Castellanos: Yes, you’re right. While individual experiences can vary greatly, at the thematic level, we can identify broader trends. We can draw distinctions among regions or groups of countries without overgeneralizing or stereotyping their conditions. However, this is a delicate balance. Even within regions or countries, there are often significant differences. For example, a country with federal states may have legal systems that operate semi-independently, which complicates drawing broad generalizations.
Regarding the issues certain marginalized communities face, some challenges are universal, regardless of the country. These include stigma, discrimination, access to healthcare, and issues related to gender identity, laws, and recognition. There is no country in the world where I can confidently say, “This country has perfected it.”
Jacobsen: Do you find political conservatism, social conservatism, religious conservatism, or gender conservatism to be more significant barriers to fair and equitable treatment of individuals in different countries, whether in Belize or the Netherlands?
Castellanos: It’s a complex issue. Different forms of conservatism—whether political, social, religious, or gender-based—can intersect and create significant barriers. These barriers affect access to healthcare, education, employment, dignity, and housing. The impact of these factors can vary in each country, but they all contribute to broader challenges for marginalized communities.
Jacobsen: All these issues are influenced by the factors you’ve mentioned. In some countries or regions, the scale of these influences differs. Still, they are all important factors that affect access to universal human rights and the level of freedom of movement that individuals can enjoy. How do you build coalitions and networks of allied organizations that, on paper, would not necessarily appear to be allies? In other words, how do you work with organizations that might not seem like natural partners but, with a little finesse on particular topics, can collaborate to advocate for more dignified treatment, lobby politicians, or push for policies and laws that promote greater equality and fairness? It’s a tricky question.
Castellanos: It is a tricky question, and there isn’t one universal rule on approaching it. Often, we become consumed by our differences. We create subgroups based on particular similarities and forget the shared humanity that connects all of us. We need to stop emphasizing our differences and focus on our similarities to build coalitions with groups that are not the usual allies or traditional partners.
For instance, you can bring together movements like the climate justice movement, the children’s rights movement, and the trans rights movement. On the surface, their missions may not align, and their specific language or objectives may not resonate. However, when we take a step back and examine the broader goal, we realize that all these movements are working toward improving the quality of life—whether it’s protecting the environment to ensure a sustainable future, advocating for the rights and well-being of children, or providing gender-affirming care to ensure the dignity and health of trans individuals.
We must build on these shared goals and act on the belief—often said but rarely practiced—that we are stronger together. Working together allows us to amplify our strengths while setting aside differences. Differences should not divide us; they should be celebrated as a testament to the unique qualities each of us brings to the table. In my opinion, the world would be a boring place if we were all the same.
For me, the key is to step back and ask: What is our end goal? What is the outcome we are all striving for? When we recognize that many of us are working toward the same outcome—ensuring people are happy, living good-quality lives, enjoying stable jobs, and raising healthy families—it becomes easier to find ways to collaborate.
Jacobsen: I appreciate that perspective. What would you consider your most successful campaigns and advocacy efforts through GATE? What would you attribute the success of those initiatives to?
Castellanos: One of the most significant achievements through GATE was the revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) by the World Health Organization (WHO), which removed transgender identities from the chapter on mental health disorders. This followed a similar milestone years ago when homosexuality was removed from that chapter.
This was a groundbreaking success because, under WHO guidelines and the ICD-11, trans people are no longer classified as mentally ill. They no longer require a mental illness diagnosis but are instead recognized through the lens of human diversity. This shift was monumental in the history of our activism. It opened doors for individual autonomy and access to essential services. It also facilitated legal recognition, enabling trans individuals to enjoy basic rights, such as attending school, opening bank accounts, obtaining driver’s licenses, and owning homes as equal citizens within their countries.
Those are the kinds of opportunities that are equalized and opened when we remove these pathologizing practices of mental health diagnosis. That success was achieved through years of hard work collaborating with partners, feminist organizations, and leading member states worldwide. It also involved bringing people together to advocate for change. Importantly, we do not always need to be the sole champions for trans people—having other voices join us in championing the way forward is a key element of success.
Jacobsen: You’ve also done significant work around HIV awareness and education. What is the current state of this issue? I am active on the activist side and less likely to be engaged with the research. How is progress on the front of destigmatization, socially and through the mediation of symptomatology for those affected? And what about advancements, perhaps even on the frontier of potential cures?
Castellanos: Science has advanced enormously in recent years. I was diagnosed with HIV in 1995. I come from a time and place where there was little medication, and I attended funerals almost every other day as friends were dying. At that time, there was little to nothing we could do because medication was unavailable. When the first antiretrovirals (ARVs) came through, we celebrated.
Despite the severe side effects of those early medications, they brought hope. Over the years, we have seen incredible advancements. What was referred to as a “cocktail” of numerous tablets has now been reduced to one daily for many people. That is remarkable. Today, we are seeing the development of long-acting treatments, such as injections that can be taken every two months or every six months, as well as medications that might only need to be taken once a week or once a month. These breakthroughs were unimaginable 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
We are on the verge of ending HIV as an epidemic. I am cautious when using the term “ending HIV” and always clarify it as “ending HIV as an epidemic” because that should be our goal. The world, humanity, and the United Nations have set goals to achieve this by 2030. Unfortunately, we are significantly off track, primarily due to inequalities—inequalities in access to newer tools, newer medications, and the systemic inequalities that continue to drive the epidemic.
Despite these challenges, I am confident that as new tools are developed, people living with HIV will live longer and enjoy better quality of life. I remain hopeful for a cure. We have already seen several cases of a cure. Still, these are not yet replicable on a mass scale due to the treatments’ severity. However, just having those cases gives hope to all of us living with HIV.
Another major development that has brought immense hope in recent years is U=U—undetectable equals untransmittable. Scientific evidence has proven that when someone has an undetectable viral load, they do not transmit the virus. This is a huge breakthrough on many levels, including reducing stigma, self-stigma, and fear.
I am married and have two children. My husband is HIV-negative, and we have been together for years. He has remained HIV-negative because I am on treatment and undetectable. I want to see my children grow up, have their children, and see my grandchildren. U=U gives me this hope and peace of mind. I know I can live without the fear of transmitting the virus, which is transformative.
Until recently—and I say this rightly so—when two adults have consensual sex, HIV transmission was often considered the responsibility of both individuals, not just one. Even so, as a person living with HIV, I remember always carrying a small fear in my mind. U=U (undetectable equals untransmittable) has given me peace of mind. The scientific evidence behind it and the fact that the WHO has publicly supported it has changed how we view HIV. It also emphasizes the urgent need to put people on treatment. If we want to end the epidemic, we must ensure treatment is accessible and affordable for everyone—not just for those in wealthy, high-income countries.
Jacobsen: I live in Canada. While Canada doesn’t always get things perfect, it tends to do fairly well on progressive human rights issues. Canada typically avoids extremes, whether falling into obsequiousness on one side or denialism on the other, particularly regarding important identity issues. How do you see human rights as part of a unified vision, not only through GATE but also through your own life? Specifically, how do you approach a universalist perspective on human rights—one rooted in the principle that while we’re happy to see individuals anywhere enjoy their full rights, we also strive for everyone, everywhere, to experience the same?
Castellanos: That’s an excellent question. Many good things are happening in various parts of the world. I would love to see more progressive countries that embrace, respect, and uphold human rights serve as models for others to replicate. One of the big questions I still wrestle with—and for which I don’t yet have a complete answer—is ensuring that marginalized groups are protected. By marginalized groups, I don’t mean just trans people; it could include indigenous communities, people who use drugs, people with low incomes, or others who are vulnerable in different ways.
I see it as an ethical responsibility—when we have privileges that others do not—to bring at least one person along with us, hold their hand, and ensure they can enjoy the same freedoms and rights. Even in countries that are often considered progressive, there are still marginalized groups experiencing significant challenges. For example, there isn’t a single country where I feel women are in the best possible position. Inequalities persist—whether it’s in salaries, opportunities, or representation. In some places, it’s indigenous communities; in others, it’s the LGBTQ+ community.
Living by principles of respect and shared ethical responsibility is essential. Upholding human rights for everyone is a duty we must all share. Despite the challenges, I remain hopeful. The world can be scary at times, but it can also be profoundly inspiring when you hear good news—a policy breakthrough, a government change, or a community shift. These moments give hope to individuals and the rest of the world. We need more examples of good things happening.
Jacobsen: Erika, thank you for the opportunity and your time today.
Castellanos: Thank you as well. Have a great evening.
Jacobsen: You too. Take care.
Castellanos: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/11
Bruce Marchand is the Interim Chair of the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB), leading the organization in advancing sustainability reporting aligned with international standards. Under his guidance, the CSSB launched the first Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDSs), fostering transparency and informed decision-making through high-quality disclosures. Bruce emphasizes aligning global frameworks with Canada’s unique context, ensuring market readiness and public trust. Committed to inclusivity, he supports integrating Indigenous perspectives into sustainability standards. His leadership reflects a dedication to advancing Canada’s sustainability framework, addressing climate-related risks, and enhancing corporate accountability in a rapidly evolving global landscape. The Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) launched the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDSs) to address growing global demands for consistent sustainability reporting and to reduce reporting burdens for organizations. CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 align with international standards from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) while incorporating Canadian-specific modifications, such as transition reliefs. Developed through extensive consultation, these standards prioritize Canadian public interest and Indigenous engagement. Voluntary unless mandated, adoption is driven by regulatory bodies and market forces. Feedback from the Exposure Drafts phase significantly influenced the standards, ensuring global alignment and responsiveness to Canada’s unique needs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What prompted the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) to launch the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDSs)?
Bruce Marchand: The CSSB was established in 2022 as a Canadian response to growing global demand for timely and comparable decision-useful sustainability information from primary users (investors, lenders and creditors).
At the same time, many companies already reporting on sustainability are looking to reduce their reporting burden and are welcoming an international baseline standard that consolidates other frameworks.
This led to the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in 2021 at COP26. In June 2023, the ISSB finalized IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. The CSSB was formed to address those needs by advancing Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards that align with the global baseline standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) – but with modifications needed to serve the Canadian public interest.
The CSSB created and issued CSDS 1 (based on IFRS S1) and CSDS 2 (based on IFRS S2) help ensure that Canadian organizations can meet international expectations while addressing Canadian needs.
Jacobsen: Why weren’t these present earlier?
Marchand: As noted, sustainability reporting has evolved significantly in recent years, driven by growing demands for consistent and comparable sustainability-related information.
The timing reflects the need for alignment with the ISSB’s work and the extensive consultation required to ensure the standards meet Canada’s public interest needs.
The CSSB’s creation in 2022 provided the standard-setting structure in Canada to address these demands in a thoughtful and robust manner.
How do CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 align with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)?
CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 are closely aligned with the ISSB’s global baseline standards, ensuring Canadian organizations benefit from international consistency.
However, the CSSB has introduced targeted modifications – consisting of transition reliefs – to address Canadian public interest considerations, such as the readiness of companies to disclose this information.
Jacobsen: What were the key factors for the development of the Criteria for Modification Framework in Canada?
Marchand: The Criteria for Modification Framework ensures that any deviations from the ISSB’s global baseline standards address Canadian-specific needs while maintaining international comparability and consistency.
It was developed with significant input from diverse parties, reflecting the importance of balancing global alignment with the needs of Canadian interested and affected parties.
Jacobsen: What is the rationale behind the transition relief modifications in the final standards?
Marchand: The transition relief measures introduced are designed to address challenges Canadian organizations preparing this information face, such as capacity and resource constraints, data quality, and the ongoing development of international data methodologies.
For example, additional time is provided for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting and quantitative climate scenario analysis. These measures help ensure preparers have the time to build systems and processes to deliver meaningful disclosures without compromising quality.
Jacobsen: How do the standards address the needs of Indigenous Peoples in Canada?
Marchand: Indigenous feedback was critical to the development of CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 and the Criteria for Modification Framework. The CSSB acknowledges the importance of further engagement and has identified advancing the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples as a key priority in its proposed 2025–2028 Strategic Plan.
This reflects a commitment to meaningful collaboration and the integration of Indigenous perspectives in future work.
Jacobsen: What is the role of regulators and governments in CSDS adoption across Canadian industries?
Marchand: CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 are voluntary unless mandated by regulators or governments.
The CSSB works closely with regulatory bodies, such as the Canadian Securities Administrators and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, to support adoption. Market-driven forces, like investor demands and supply chain requirements, are also expected to drive widespread use of the standards.
Jacobsen: How did the feedback to the CSSB Exposure Drafts phase influence the final standards?
Marchand: Respondents’ feedback significantly shaped the final standards.
For example, feedback on the alignment of sustainability reporting with the timing of financial statement reporting and on Scope 3 GHG emissions led to an extended transition period for each of those areas. Concerns about scenario analysis informed the phased implementation for quantitative requirements. The CSSB’s Bases for Conclusions document outlines how respondents’ input informed specific decisions, ensuring the standards serve Canadian public interest while aligning globally.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Bruce.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/10
Jason Van Hierden is the President of VRCORE Education, which has partnered with the International Space Station National Laboratory (ISSNL) to launch “ISS: Curiosity in Orbit,” a VR program transforming school gymnasiums into immersive space labs. Funded by the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) and debuting in September 2025, the program targets underserved schools in Alberta and Texas. Students explore physics, biology, and chemistry through hands-on experiments, eliminating logistical barriers and fostering STEM learning—Hierden talks about leveraging VR for education. Initially focused on VR arcades, Vcore pivoted to educational VR post-COVID, introducing Magic School Bus-style experiences to schools. These immersive sessions aim to inspire interest in STEM and history, offering collaborative and independent activities. Hierden discussed plans to expand VR content for full-time school labs, address workforce skill gaps, and partner with NASA to explore space logistics and experiments like crystallization and 3D printing in zero gravity. He emphasized the cultural and systemic challenges in education, particularly in the U.S., compared to Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s make sure we have the facts correct. Today, we’re here with Jason Van Hierden, the president of Vcore Education. Vcore Education is focused on transforming classrooms and engaging students, particularly in STEM and other areas. How did you get into VR, and how did you transition into the educational field?
Jason Van Hierden: It all started with virtual reality arcades in 2016 when VR was brand new, and everyone wanted to experience it. A friend of mine thought an arcade would be a great idea. So, we set up one location, which was a massive success—it became incredibly busy. We achieved a full return on investment in just four or five months. After that, we began expanding to additional locations. Eventually, we grew to six locations across Western Canada before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. We didn’t close any stores during COVID-19, but we realized there were flaws in the business model. That’s when we decided to pivot to VR education. Since COVID, we’ve closed four of our six locations, leaving just two. About three years ago, we launched the education initiative. Now, we bring VR headsets into schools and transform their gymnasiums into Magic School Bus-style educational experiences.
These experiences are designed to engage entire classes simultaneously. It’s been a fun and rewarding transition.
Jacobsen: Regarding this Magic School Bus model, are makeshift stations set up in different parts of the gymnasium, or is the process more fluid, with students moving through and completing each segment in sequence?
Hierden: It depends on the teacher’s plans. When the experience begins, all the students are in a general world experience. In this setting, they can interact with both the environment and each other. Then, we move on to what we call activity bubbles. In these, three to five students work together in their gymnasium section, collaborating on activities and manipulating assets. For example, they might be tasked with arranging the planets in the correct order, physically picking them up and placing them.
Another example is creating ecosystems. We could ask students to create a rainforest on one side of a mountain range and a desert on the other. They manipulate weather patterns and other factors to achieve these environments. This kind of activity fosters teamwork and collaboration.
Finally, we have individual stations. Here, each student works independently in their virtual world. They cannot see other students and must independently complete an activity or objective. Meanwhile, the teacher—who is also in VR—monitors and controls the activities for the entire class.
Jacobsen: Bill Nye discussed the concept of the reverse classroom, where students would attend school briefly for an overview and then complete their coursework independently at home, at their own pace. Would this model serve as a middle ground for that?
Hierden: That’s an interesting idea. I’ll have to look up the concept of the reverse classroom—it sounds like a lot of fun!
Jacobsen: My phrasing might be more of a colloquial interpretation.
Hierden: I’m intrigued by the concept. Now, the way that we see it, right now, we’re just a VR field trip. We come into a school and do a 60- to 75-minute experience with students, but that’s only because we don’t have enough content to support a full-time VR lab in schools. We’ve got about five or six hours of content for each grade. For a school to spend $100,000 for six hours of content in a year—that’s too much.
Once we’ve developed four to five hundred hours of high-quality content for each grade, we anticipate schools will start setting up VR labs. This will allow students to learn much more extensively using VR.
Jacobsen: And why focus on STEM? Why should we focus on underserved communities in Alberta and Texas?
Hierden: Fair question. Focusing on underserved communities is largely because many grants are available for that. We can partner with the government to help schools afford this and provide these field trips.
STEM is low-hanging fruit. These are the easiest experiences to develop. From a business perspective, the development cost is lower, and the returns are higher. That said, we want to expand into areas like history. For older grades, we’d love to recreate experiences like storming Normandy Beach.
Imagine students all starting on one side of the gymnasium, storming Normandy Beach together, and then moving through the gymnasium, experiencing the trenches. VR can provide an emotional connection to history, which you just don’t get from watching a YouTube video or reading a book, especially because it’s a shared experience with the entire class.
Jacobsen: There’s also a program involving the ISS. How do you give students a sense of zero gravity—or convey the wonder of being in space—while they’re participating in that experience?
Hierden: In some VR experiences, participants can simulate zero gravity by holding onto the side of the ISS and throwing themselves off, making it feel like the ISS is floating away from them—or vice versa. However, we can’t replicate that because our students need to remain in the same physical location, both in the real world and virtually, at all times.
They can’t move virtually without physically moving, so we don’t focus on simulating zero gravity. Instead, we focus on allowing students to perform experiments similar to what astronauts do on the ISS, but in virtual reality. For example, they can pull cabinets out of the walls and conduct experiments in those cabinets—whether it’s biology, physics, chemistry, or something else. That’s more of our focus than the sensation of zero gravity because it’s simply not feasible in our setup. The students are firmly planted in a gymnasium.
Jacobsen: And there’s a skills gap in the job market between what students learn in high school and what’s required. How does VR address this gap? There is a disconnect between what students choose to learn in universities, what the market needs regarding jobs, and the skills people graduate with. How are you addressing these deficits or, more accurately, this mismatch between worker skills and job market demands?
Hierden: Our relationship with industries like NASA and the ISS is still somewhat distant. For example, NASA is interested in increasing its space-related workforce. At this stage, we’re offering students immersive experiences that, hopefully—and we can’t track this too well yet—will inspire them to pursue space-related careers.
As we continue to build out this platform, we’ll be able to do much more. For example, we’ll analyze how quickly students pick up certain skills and their personalities, proclivities, and interests. We aim to provide personalized career recommendations by the time they finish school. Out of 250 potential jobs, we could identify the top 10 roles that best align with a student’s abilities and interests.
We could even act as a liaison between students who show exceptional aptitude in certain areas and organizations like NASA. We could say, “Hey, NASA, this student is highly skilled. You should consider hiring them for an internship or sponsoring their university degree.” However, our platform needs to grow and mature significantly before we can conduct this kind of student analytics.
Jacobsen: What types of jobs are NASA and other organizations projecting as the most in-demand roles in the late 2020s and early 2030s? What are they most hungry for?
Hierden: The biggest area NASA is focused on is space logistics. This involves figuring out how to transport an object—let’s say, a widget—from a small town in Wisconsin to the International Space Station. Or, looking ahead, how to move that widget into a space manufacturing plant, which NASA plans to have operational in the 2030s and 2040s.
While there’s no shortage of people applying to become astronauts—since it’s such an attractive job—space logistics doesn’t have the same appeal. NASA is asking us to help illustrate what’s involved in this field. For instance, what does it take to move a widget from Earth to space? What factors need to be considered, such as G-forces, packaging, placement in the rocket, delivery methods, and more? These logistics are critical, but they’re not roles many people are currently pursuing.
Jacobsen: Do we know the average number of people served by their local educational system? Those served significantly more than average, and those were underserved. Do we have data on how these groups transition into higher education and STEM fields or choose not to pursue them? Is there a significantly different gap between these categories?
Hierden: The gap isn’t as stark in Canada. However, in the United States, it’s extremely pronounced. Many parents will move to specific school districts to give their children a better chance of getting into certain colleges or universities. For example, in New Jersey, statistics show that over 60% of students graduating from high school don’t possess reading and writing skills at a proper grade-four level. It’s a significant problem.
Jacobsen: Have reading, writing, and arithmetic scores in the United States been declining for a long time?
Hierden: From what I understand, yes. The United States used to rank extraordinarily high in global education rankings, but they’ve slipped significantly. Countries like Singapore and China are now outperforming the U.S., which is somewhat embarrassing for a country with such resources.
Jacobsen: How are Americans addressing this gap?
Hierden: Honestly, from what I see, they’re spending money on it, but it’s not resolving the issue. They’re paying teachers more, building nicer schools, and so on, but the outcomes aren’t improving. It’s more of a cultural issue, though that’s more of a personal perspective than something I’ve deeply researched.
Jacobsen: What kinds of experiments can people conduct on the ISS, curiosity in orbit?
Hierden: These are still under development, so we haven’t finalized what they’ll include. However, one idea involves creating crystallization in space, which differs from how crystals form on Earth. Here on Earth, gravity compresses crystals as they form, which can impact their structure. You can achieve perfect crystal formation in zero gravity because there’s no need to support the structures against gravity.
Another concept explored is space manufacturing, specifically 3D printing organs in zero gravity. Without support, you can 3D print organs like hearts much more efficiently. These organs could then be sent back to Earth for medical use. Within 10 to 15 years, you could receive a 3D-printed heart manufactured in space.
Jacobsen: Any further thoughts based on today’s conversation?
Hierden: Nope.
Jacobsen: OK, this is the part where we part ways now.
Hierden: Awesome. Thanks a ton, Scott.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. Take care.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/09 (Unpublished)
Jesse LeBeau, the Founder of the Attitude Advantage Program, emphasizes that parents must model healthy behavior, as teens absorb actions more than words. TAAP’s 12-week coaching program builds confidence, resilience, and self-esteem, helping teens overcome anxiety and social pressures. One-on-one coaching fosters trust, providing support beyond traditional therapy. TAAP’s 27-week school program engages students through interactive assemblies, teaching essential life skills. LeBeau stresses that failure is vital for growth and urges parents to encourage perseverance. Schools and communities can collaborate with TAAP to support teen mental health.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Half of mental health problems begin at age 14; what are critical steps can parents take to support teens?
Jesse LeBeau: The biggest thing that parents can do is WALK THE WALK. Your kid is a sponge and sees EVERYTHING you are doing, whether you realize it or not. The ‘do as I say, not as I do’ type of parenting is a cop-out for parents and will go in one ear and out the other. If you are yelling at your kid to get off the phone at the dinner table, but you are on your phone, it doesn’t matter what you say. They will think you are a hypocrite and not listen. It all starts with you. In almost all of the families we work with, when we do a deep dive into why a teen is struggling with anxiety, stress, depression, anger management, etc., we can almost always trace it back to a parent who is anxious, stressed, depressed, can’t control their anger, etc. If you are serious about your teen’s mental health, you need a teen cell phone contract; get yours here.
Jacobsen: What is TAAP’s 12-week online teen coaching program?
LeBeau: We help teens build unshakeable confidence and grit/resilience and master their attitude in 90 days. All the research, data, and experts show that if you can improve a teen’s self-esteem and confidence, you can positively impact virtually every aspect of their life…whether it’s anxiety, depression, substance abuse, or more serious issues, the kids who truly believe in and love themselves care less about what their peers think of them, whether it’s in person (or online) and they are drawn to the circle of friends that build them up. They are likelier to be leaders than followers, and this self-belief (and confidence) propels them to success in every area of their lives.
So, after we learned how critical self-esteem is for a teenager’s well-being and development, we put together a program 100% dedicated to helping teens build incredible confidence, and the results have been amazing. We do weekly group calls, personal lessons, tests, indexing, and 1-on-1 coaching, and lean into teens’ strengths instead of focusing on all the things they are unhappy with in their lives like therapy does. The key is making it fun so kids want to show up and get results. It doesn’t matter how much mom or dad wants an outcome for them; they have to want it for themself. The saying goes, ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.’ The kids who get the most out of our program are the ones who feel like they are getting to choose to participate, and they are hungry to improve their lives for the better!
Jacobsen: How does this help with confidence, resilience, and a positive mindset?
LeBeau: If we can help any teen with these three things, we can greatly impact their life. Confidence can’t be given with positive affirmations or compliments. Confidence is earned by achieving things. Small wins add up over time; eventually, a young person has a stack of undeniable proof that they can do difficult things. They have to learn to fail and see that it’s not the end of the world and that they can get through it. Life is all about failing. The most successful people have failed repeatedly, but they keep going and can persevere long after most others have chosen to quit. A parent’s job is to prepare their child for the road ahead, not run ahead of their child on the road, and prepare for the road for their child by clearing out obstacles.
Jacobsen: Why the preference for round-the-clock support rather than intermittent/periodic
LeBeau: Teenagers need mentors who feel comfortable sharing what’s going on with their lives and who aren’t their mom or dad. Even kids with the best relationships with their parents don’t want to share everything with mommy and daddy. It isn’t always because they are trying to hide something bad. Many times, they are such a good kid that they don’t want their parents to worry about them, be stressed, or get involved in a situation they don’t have time for. You’ve probably seen that photo of the iceberg where 90% of it is underwater, and you can’t see it from the surface. That 90% under water is what is happening with most teens, and their parents aren’t aware of what is happening. We build rapport and trust in our program through being open and vulnerable as coaches, and as a result, the kids reach out to us with what’s going on in their lives when it happens in real time. It’s a beautiful thing.
Jacobsen: What are the benefits of one-on-one sessions with a dedicated life coach?
LeBeau: Life coaching for teenagers offers specialized support to help teenagers build essential life skills and personal growth strategies. Coaching sessions often focus on topics such as:
- Self-Confidence and Resilience: Empowering teens to strengthen their self-worth and face personal challenges with courage.
- Goal Setting and Achievement: Teens learn to set realistic goals and use effective strategies.
- Social and Emotional Skills: Whether one-on-one or in a group setting, teen coaching focuses on the interpersonal, social, and emotional skills critical for life long after graduation.
When exploring the idea of coaching versus therapy, it’s important to understand a teen coach’s role in your child’s personal growth. Acting as mentors and allies, the right teen coach is vital to your child’s success inside and outside the coaching program.
The right coach will provide an encouraging, non-judgmental space for your teenager to explore their talents, build resilience, overcome loneliness by working on relationship-building and social skills, and develop the assertive communication skills they need to make it through life.
Teen life coaches are specifically trained to meet teenagers where they are. They get on their level, tell real-life stories they can relate to, and encourage them to overcome hardships without fearing criticism or ridicule. A strong teen life coach will empower your child to take ownership of their own lives and success.
Working with a teen coach is similar to therapy, but the biggest drawback of that approach is that parents don’t get to be a part of the process. It also teaches kids to focus on all the negative things they are unhappy with in their lives, reinforcing a bad habit…ruminating on everything they don’t like repeatedly.
What we do is the total opposite; we TEAM UP with you (the parents) and work together to help them find the thing they are most passionate about and lean into that.
This leads them to build more confidence and focus on where they want to be in life instead of focusing on all the negative things in the past as therapy does.
The other big difference with us is that most kids are a lot less turned off by coaching versus therapy for many reasons. As coaches, we are open and vulnerable with the kids, creating a real relationship with trust and rapport. We expect the kids to be open and honest in return, which they usually are because they feel seen, heard, and genuinely cared about.
For more information on coaching vs. therapy, visit here.
Jacobsen: How does the more extensive 27-week school program on social-emotional learning resonate with students?
LeBeau: The big reason our school curriculum is such a hit is because we make it fun. We have music, intro videos, crowd participation, emotional storytelling, basketball tricks, etc. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression, ‘a spoon full of sugar to make the medicine go down.’ That’s what we do with our kick-off school assemblies. We give kids what they WANT so we can give them what they need. Once they are bought in, we can greatly impact their life.
We do a high-energy assembly at their school in person to get them fired up and emotionally connected to our founder Jesse’s underdog story. He’s given this talk to over a million kids and knows how to connect with them. They identify with going through hard times in their own lives. Once they have an in-person experience with someone famous and interested in them, they are more open to the weekly lessons their teachers walk them through. They are taught timeless life lessons you don’t normally learn in school, which are important for building confidence, grit/resilience, and learning to master their attitude. Everything taught in the TAAP School program is evidence-based and backed up with research and data.
For more on the program, you can check it out here.
Jacobsen: What are some examples of real-life lessons helping teens overcome challenges?
LeBeau: Life is tough. So, toto be prepared for this and succeed in life, kids need to learn to overcome and do toughthings. One of the best things that can happen to your teenager (within reason and if leveraged strategically) is for them to fail. Things like they got rejected when they asked that special someone to the dance, they didn’t make the sports team, they didn’t get the grade they wanted, etc. A smart parent will use these difficult moments to teach a lesson.
Guess what? Things didn’t work out. But it’s not the end of the world. No one died. You can ask someone else to dance. You can practice and try it out again next year. You can ask for a second shot at the test. It sucks seeing your kid struggle, but if you swoop in and rescue them every time a little discomfort happens, you are hurting them more than you are helping them. In general, the big winners in life fail the most; they keep going and see it as the necessary steps to get closer to where they want to go. Celebrate failure and focus on your child’s effort versus the outcome. It will make a big difference in helping your kid stand on their own two feet and thrive no matter what challenges life throws them!
Jacobsen: How can parents, schools, and communities get involved?
LeBeau: The best place for parents to learn more is https://theattitudeadvantage.com/welcome/
We visit schools every month nationwide, and we are on a mission to help teens TEAM UP and find their tribe so they can live healthier and happier lives!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jesse.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/09
Dawn Menning, Nutu App’s Registered Dietitian, talks about Super Bowl Sunday ranks as the second biggest eating day in the U.S. after Thanksgiving. To help consumers enjoy the game while maintaining wellness goals, the Nutu App offers a Nutu Score, guiding users with personalized meal suggestions, portion control, and activity tips—without calorie counting.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How can people have game-day treats without hurting wellness goals?
Dawn Menning:
- Avoid skipping meals earlier in the day to avoid overeating.
- Make a healthy dish you and others can enjoy that fits with your wellness goals.
- Look at all the choices before you eat, that way you can make sure you’re only eating what you truly enjoy.
- Monitor portion sizes to avoid overeating. Before going back for more, check in with yourself to see if you are truly hungry.
- Skip or limit alcohol, choose water or sparkling water instead.
- Go for a walk before or after the game. Engage in your regular physical activity.
Jacobsen: How does Nutu Score work to help users balance food intake and activity?
Menning: By using the food logger ahead of time, you can see how the foods you choose impact your Nutu Score and your health. Once you select an item, you will be provided with a meal modification (if applicable) and a suggestion for physical activity to lower your Nutu Score.
Jacobsen: What are smart snacking tips for traditional Super Bowl foods?
Menning: Try to fill up on vegetables first then look to lean protein options that are baked and not fried. Use a plate rather than just eating randomly as you’re likely to lose track of how much you eat when grazing. Don’t stand by the buffet, you’re more likely to snack mindlessly.
Jacobsen: How does the Nutu App guide users in practicing portion control?
Menning: If you select a food item that doesn’t fit into your healthy eating goals, you’ll be provided with a suggested modification to reduce portion size. The more food you add you’ll see your Nutu Score go up and this is an indicator to limit the portion size or choose a healthier option. To lower your score, physical activity will be needed to balance this.
Jacobsen: Why is hydration important on Super Bowl Sunday?
Menning: Reaching for water first can keep you on track with your eating habits and helps with digestion.
Jacobsen: What are some insights or practical advice for making a balanced Super Bowl menu?
Menning:
- Replace frying with baking or air frying.
- Hummus or guacamole with cut veggies instead of creamy dips.
- Replace sour cream in recipes with plain Greek yogurt.
- Fresh fruit instead of sugary fruit dips.
- Nuts instead of fried chips or snacks.
- Turkey or chicken burgers instead of ground beef.
- Ditch sugary drinks for water or sparkling water.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dawn.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/09
Sacha Roytman, a 38-year-old married father of three, holds a bachelor’s degree in Interactive Communications from the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya and a master’s degree in Political Marketing from the IDC School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy. Over the course of his career as a social entrepreneur, Sacha has dedicated himself to securing and nurturing Jewish life worldwide, collaborating with a wide range of government officials, religious and community leaders, cultural influencers, sports executives, educators, artists, and business figures. Sacha, born, raised, and educated in Belgium, was deeply influenced by his Holocaust survivor grandparents, whose stories of resilience and heroism against all odds deeply inspired him. Sacha also personally experienced antisemitism growing up in Brussels, which shaped his worldview and led him to the realization that the “Never Again” vow requires personal responsibility and active social involvement. Roytman highlights the importance of coalitions to counter interconnected hate ideologies, the role of the U.S. in setting global precedents, and the value of stories of de-radicalization as tools for societal change and combating prejudice.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Sacha Roytman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), based out of Tel Aviv, Israel. With over a decade of global experience, he excels in advocacy, strategic planning, and building international partnerships. He has previously served in other roles as Director of Digital Advocacy for the World Jewish Congress and played a pivotal role in establishing the IDF’s Digital Media Department. Additionally, he co-founded the Israel Wine Collection, which contributes to initiatives promoting Jewish impact and heritage.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement is a global coalition dedicated to eradicating antisemitism by uniting over 700 partner organizations and engaging with over 4 million individuals from diverse backgrounds. It employs three main approaches: advocacy and policy development, educational initiatives, and community engagement. So, regarding the main question about organizational work and your role, what do you see as a central pillar in the themes that continually arise globally around antisemitism, and what is a key way to combat how it manifests?
Sacha Roytman: You ask a very broad question, which I can answer at length, but I would say that we are living in an era when we truly see a conflict of civilizations these days, and Jews are at the front line. Civilizations are more complicated than the classic ones of the Western world, mostly based on the theory of clashing civilizations. We also see a clash of ideologies, a clash of civilizations, and a clash of religions.
Somehow, and historically, it has always been the case that Jews are the first to pay a price. That is the general context. We see that in the Middle East, with Israel being presented as the problem of the entire Middle East by certain people. Then, antisemitism was present in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict and was used to start the conflict. On the one hand, Putin accused Zelensky of being a Nazi, and on the other, everyone is accused—the concept of Nazism plays a big part in accusations in all conflicts. Even a few days ago, the Nazi salute of Elon Musk was presented as a penalty.
This reflects the end of the war against Nazism, antisemitism narratives, and anti-Israel narratives, which are omnipresent. Somehow, it is very easy to use these narratives because Jews are a very tiny nation of 15 million people—0.2% of the world population. Since we are a religion that exists everywhere, in 104 countries, there is always a Jew somewhere doing something that is presented as bad.
This is why we first see this global movement that consistently blames Jews. Historically, we keep our religion; we are among the oldest people in the world with a global presence. We have preserved our identity, heritage, and religion, and today, we have Israel helping us to preserve these things. Jews seem stronger than ever, despite antisemitism and Israel being under attack, because we now have our own country and army.
There are all the reasons right now to attack Jews—not directly, but through Israel. This is the second narrative of anti-Zionism being the new antisemitism. We see it everywhere. It is easier to manipulate anti-Zionism and claim to be against the only Jewish state, but this raises questions about what that opposition truly means.
The third narrative is the convergence of ideologies. From the right wing to radical Islamism to the extreme left, we see everything coming together on common ground when it relates to Jews.
We can see in the demonstrations the same slogans, very similar slogans, between pro-Palestinian radical left groups, radical Islamist groups, and right-wing groups. Though the imagery might differ slightly, they use the same terminology, but the core messaging is the same. We see the swastika being used, both by neo-Nazis and by radical Islamists, as a symbol. The convergence of ideologies is not new—we’ve been aware of it—but since October 7, it has probably become the most significant narrative we’ve seen.
The last part is the fact that the Western world is defending itself, and Israel is a part of this Western world. We see this reflected in the elections in the United States and Europe and in changes in Latin America, such as Argentina. After World War II, a utopian dream of a peaceful world was achieved by creating the United Nations and striving to make all nations equal. While it’s a very noble vision—and one we support—it cannot work when extreme ideologies are embedded in the system.
We are now living in a post-utopian, post-naive period where people are realizing that extreme countries and ideologies—such as those from Russia, Iran, or other Muslim states—make globalization challenging. This is where we see a clash of civilizations, essentially divided into two groups: the Western group and the anti-Western group, which includes Russia, China, Iran, and other major Muslim nations. In the middle, however, we see promising initiatives like the Abraham Accords. These are opportunities created by different administrations, showing that not everything is bleak.
The spread of ideologies is global, and social media makes it very easy for these ideologies to travel. For instance, a conflict originating in Russia can quickly influence other regions, as social media is accessible to everyone. There’s no single starting point anymore. Activism and hate messaging can be placed everywhere, and with the right strategy, anti-Western values, anti-Western messaging, and hatred—whether directed at Jews, America, or Europe—can be easily spread.
Today, we don’t see one central focus point. Nations like Russia, for example, spread hatred against Jews for political purposes. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are antisemitic; rather, they use antisemitism as a means to achieve broader goals, such as destabilizing the Western world. This is often done in partnership with nations like Iran. At the same time, such efforts have seen mixed results, as in the United States, the change in administration there has led to policies that actively defend against hatred and support Western values.
Ideologies infiltrate the Western world on three levels: first, through media and social media; second, through immigration and grassroots-level efforts, building new social structures in various countries and spreading these ideologies; and third, through finance. For instance, large financial investments from Qatar fund universities, companies, and other entities to influence narratives, curriculums, and ideologies. These three factors combined form a powerful mechanism for spreading hatred.
Now, what can counter this? First, the public vote. Public voting is one of the best tools to combat foreign funding and interference in public narratives. We’ve seen examples in the Netherlands, the United States, Germany, Austria, and France, where voters are pushing back against the three major elements I mentioned: immigration, media, and funding. People are expressing a desire to preserve their national identities and heritage.
Second, law enforcement plays a crucial role. Law enforcement needs to detect new ideologies that aim to destabilize societies.
Law enforcement is equipped with the tools to detect both online and offline activity, to be aware of changes in ideologies, and to understand what constitutes modern forms of antisemitism. For example, we try to address this through research and by identifying new forms of antisemitism. A good example is the use of the red triangle in demonstrations. Hamas uses this symbol to target the Israeli army, but when the same red triangle appears in a demonstration in the UK or the United States or is placed on the home of a Jewish person, it becomes a clear signal of targeting. We work to show law enforcement these changes and emphasize the need to protect communities.
Third, we aim to equip local leaders. It is very difficult to create change at the federal government or nationwide strategy level—it takes much time, and we do not have that time. We have found that mayors and municipal leaders are often very eager to make an impact. They want their cities to be free of hate crimes and to protect all citizens. Sometimes, they do not know how to address these issues. If we can educate them about antisemitism, its history, interfaith relations, and related topics, they are often ready to stand up and take action because protecting their citizens is why they were elected.
On the national level, governance often becomes a political game, making it much harder to implement real change quickly. This is why we decided that local government is one of the best venues for us to make a difference.
The second venue for our work involves interfaith cooperation. We collaborate extensively with formal organizations such as the Vatican, the Muslim World League, and other major groups. However, we realized that many of these organizations do not know how to engage with grassroots communities effectively. As a result, we shifted our model to focus on working with interfaith groups at local and regional levels.
You can work with any church, mosque, or group open to collaboration. Sometimes, it is just a matter of reaching out to them. Of course, we are too small to reach everyone, but this is the only way to create meaningful change—by building a shield against hatred through relationships and celebrating each other. For instance, next week, we are hosting an interfaith event at a Muslim center in New York City, where a large Muslim community will learn about the Holocaust. This is where our efforts are focused. While working with large formal organizations globally is almost impossible, local events and celebrations allow us to connect with hundreds of people, and this strategy works very well.
However, the problems grow larger every day. The world is increasingly becoming polarized into a black-and-white mindset, which is not healthy. We see two clear sides forming, and the center—what I would call the moderate or balanced middle—is disappearing. This is evident in elections, where voters increasingly support extreme parties rather than centrist ones. Without a strong center, conversations diminish.
What concerns me most is the idea of a world without dialogue, where there are only two opposing sides unable to listen to each other. Each side may hold some truth and some falsehood, but without cooperation, we cannot fix anything. This worries me. On the other hand, it is crucial to ensure that the choices we make are deliberate and thoughtful.
Your side cannot afford not to fight back. Yes, you need to be able to speak, but when you’re under threat, you cannot just respond nicely. We need to be very strong and have a strong response. We’re excited to see what may happen in the United States with the new administration—not as a political question, but because the previous administration didn’t succeed in certain areas. We hope the new administration will be able to address these gaps, make significant changes, and implement what the prior administration was unable to deploy.
America is very important; the world follows America. When the U.S. determines its policies, it often sets the tone for how the world approaches key issues. We’re already seeing signs of change within just a few days of the new administration, and the types of policies being developed are interesting to analyze and understand about our issues. This is where we are right now.
Jacobsen: Do you find the more toxic elements of antisemitism are emerging more in the online space now or more traditionally in physical spaces? It’s happening on multiple fronts, but in the 2020s, with the rise of social media, is that the area where you’re seeing the biggest uptick?
Roytman: I think it’s becoming harder to separate the online and offline spaces. Let’s leave aside bots and fake accounts and talk about real people. Real people are online because they’re not well-educated offline. This is why I always emphasize education first. The global level of education is declining, particularly among the middle class, lower class, and those unwilling to invest in it. The tragic irony is that education has never been more accessible.
On the one hand, education is available to everyone; on the other hand, fewer people are becoming educated. This creates a dangerous situation where uneducated individuals now have platforms to express themselves. The second part of this problem is that small, marginal groups—who in the past could only speak antisemitic rhetoric in private or small gatherings of 100 or 200 people—are now able to spread their ideology online and reach uneducated individuals. When these two groups meet, they create a fire of hatred.
Online spaces have become breeding grounds for this hatred due to two factors: declining education and platform accessibility. It’s not social media itself that’s the problem, but how it enables the spread of this discourse. The question then arises: What responsibility do platforms bear? This is a complex issue, especially in America, where freedom of speech plays a major role.
What’s critical is being able to define antisemitism. For example, Holocaust denial is a serious issue. Even if you cannot block it outright, you need to define it clearly as antisemitism. Unfortunately, this is a major gap today. The American government has yet to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and internet platforms have not either. It’s not about creating legislation to block everything; it’s about being able to identify and define antisemitic discourse clearly. Once we do that, we can address it on an educational level rather than through punitive measures.
This is what we’re striving for. Yes, the online space is terrible, but it’sthat’s because the offline world isn’t doing well either—it’s not the other way around.
When things grow online as a fire, they eventually move back offline. The cycle perpetuates itself, with online hatred fueling offline behaviour. We’re seeing this now with more people participating in demonstrations. Why? Because they are less educated and have access to marginal ideologies that are becoming more mainstream. In the past, these ideas were confined to private spaces and inaccessible to the average person. Today, anyone can access these ideologies daily, leading to the societal downgrade we’re witnessing.
What’s most frustrating is that we have more access to knowledge than ever in history, yet society is regressing in critical thinking and education. This is what deeply concerns me.
Jacobsen: Access is not necessarily the main condition; it is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Some fringe ideologies you alluded to often involve historical secret organizations or conspiratorial thoughts. As I’ve seen, a recurring theme revolves around banks or similar ideas. When I spoke with Dr. Alon Milwicki of the Southern Poverty Law Center, he noted that conspiracy theories almost always draw back to blaming the Jewish people. That is typically the common thread—they all seem to pull back to that narrative.
So, with these marginal ideologies, which are not necessarily in the mainstream but are given mainstream platforms periodically, how do you see this playing out in daily life for people? For instance, individuals not deeply invested in education might be given equal time online on relevant subjects with educated people on these topics. They then buy into conspiratorial, historical, or contemporary ideas, go home, and continue their regular lives. How do you see this impacting their daily interactions, working relationships, or even their participation in workshops or organizational meetings like the Combat Antisemitism Movement?
Roytman: It impacts everything—their behaviour, antisemitism itself, and the number of hateful acts. These individuals are often educated online, and this influences offline actions. There is a clear relationship. In most of the hate crimes we’ve seen in the past decades, individuals were indoctrinated online. They sought information and education online, making the online world a key part of organized hate crime, hate speech, antisemitism, and anti-Western ideologies. This is no longer up for debate—online platforms are central to this.
What we need is responsible leadership. While I don’t believe we can entirely change the way antisemitism exists—that’s not our role—we can influence how educators address these issues, how law enforcement detects antisemitism, and how they are trained to recognize hate crimes. We can help open the eyes of the media so they report antisemitism more accurately and ensure legislators understand what constitutes an antisemitic crime and what doesn’t. It’s about ensuring that society, as a whole, is aware of the growing dangers of hatred and knows how to address them.
We cannot fight this alone as a community. We are too small, and history has shown us what happens when we try to stand alone. The goal is to educate society about the dangers of rising hatred and empower those who need education to act. Antisemitism will always exist. The goal is not to eradicate it—that’s unrealistic. Instead, it’s about controlling it and ensuring it doesn’t escalate to an uncontrollable level.
There will always be antisemitic groups and messages, just as there will always be people who harbour racist beliefs. We can’t entirely remove these sentiments from the world, but we must control them. Right now, the situation is out of control—there are too many attacks on Jews every day all over the world. This unchecked violence is dangerous. If it continues to grow, it could lead to even greater violence, which society may eventually normalize and accept.
The key to change lies in educated and responsible leadership. When leadership at all levels takes these issues seriously and acts responsibly, we can see meaningful change in our society.
One more comment: It sounds very negative, but we see so many allies in this fight, so many people who want to see a society that respects everyone. They want a world free of hatred. They truly see the Western world under attack, which is how we feel. They genuinely believe that Jews are on the front line right now, and they want to protect the Jewish community because they understand that eradicating antisemitic ideology can lead to eradicating other deep forms of hatred.
Usually, a Nazi is also a racist or Islamophobic. Similarly, an extreme radical Islamist is often anti-women’s rights and anti-LGBT rights. There is a correlation. Just as we see a convergence of antisemitic ideologies, we also see a convergence of these groups of hatred—they are not isolated.
This is an opportunity to create coalitions with other groups who recognize that they are also threatened. Together, we can fight back. There are many opportunities, and we see many great people engaging with us, willing to fight, express their opinions, and reject the status quo as a solution.
Jacobsen: Have you seen any cases of individuals who were strong antisemites but later had a change of conscience? What’s that like when you witness such cases?
Roytman: We’ve encountered many cases of extremism. We’ve worked with former Nazis, neo-Nazis, and even former jihadists who realized that something was not right. We love these stories because they are the stories we need.
If we want to change a generation of white supremacists into being less hateful, they need to see someone who has gone through that transformation. That’s very exciting work—de-radicalization. It’s incredible to see people change their minds, recognize that they were in a place of hatred that perpetuates itself, and move to a place of peace, which also perpetuates itself.
This is a significant thing now, and we’re seeing real differences. It’s exciting for us to see and to work around that.
Jacobsen: Excellent, Sacha, thank you. I appreciate it. I’m glad we were finally able to make this happen.
Roytman: Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Okay, we’ll be in touch.
Roytman: Yes, bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/08
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Valentine’s Day spending reaches $14.2 billion annually, with the average person spending $186 on gifts, jewelry, flowers, and dining. The top cities for Valentine’s Day—San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Denver—rank highly in budget, activities, and gift accessibility, despite some weather concerns. Meanwhile, Detroit, San Bernardino, Hialeah, Baton Rouge, and Toledo rank lowest due to high costs and limited attractions. Budget plays the largest role in rankings, as Valentine’s Day plans are more flexible than weddings. Cities with poor accessibility and affordability struggle, making stay-at-home celebrations a practical choice for many couples.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The report opens with a quote: “Money can’t buy love.” Then it continues: “But it certainly can express it.” Charming. Americans spend approximately $14.2 billion on Valentine’s Day gifts each year, including jewelry, greeting cards, and special items.
The average person spends about $186 on that day. That seems like a lot! So what is the primary driver of this multi-billion-dollar industry—beyond just its intended purpose in American culture?
Chip Lupo: Looking at Valentine’s Day spending, you’ll likely see some parallels to wedding-related rankings—maybe not in the exact rankings, but in some of the underlying financial trends. The biggest drivers are greeting cards, jewelry, and—as we discussed earlier—the markup on flowers, which is significantly higher around Valentine’s Day.
For many florists, this is their most profitable time of year. Their financial success often depends on how well they do on Valentine’s Day.
Of course, there are romantic dinners. Many people choose to go out, and restaurant prices spike.
Another factor is inflation, which directly affects people’s willingness to spend. While $186 may seem a little on the high side for the average person, many still spend a significant amount if they celebrate Valentine’s Day traditionally.
Jacobsen: The top cities for Valentine’s Day—ranked based on budget, activities, gift accessibility, and weather forecast— are:
- San Francisco
- Seattle
- San Diego
- Las Vegas
- Denver
There isn’t a huge difference in scoring between these cities, and it’s not as lopsided as the wedding rankings. But there is a clear pattern in the top five—aside from maybe Las Vegas, which ranks lower in budget friendliness.
In some of these cities, the weather forecast isn’t ideal. However, their rankings in gift accessibility, activities, and overall affordability are so strong that they compensate for any weather-related drawbacks, leading to higher rankings.
Lupo: Right. In the four key dimensions—budget, activities, gift accessibility, and weather forecast—the top two cities rank highly.
As you mentioned, Las Vegas ranks lower in budget-friendliness but compensates in other areas. San Francisco holds the number one spot despite its unpredictable weather. Seattle, as you know, experiences rain approximately every fourth day. Yet, it still ranks high due to its strong performance in the other three categories.
This offset is due to factors like activity options. Similar to weddings, you ideally want to be in an area where everything is accessible.
Key considerations for activities include:
- Diverse restaurants
- Cafés per capita
- Number of attractions
- Nightclub options
- Amusement and entertainment venues
Access to as many of these venues as possible is crucial, especially on Valentine’s Day when demand is high.
Plenty of options prevent disappointment for couples waiting until the last minute. Otherwise, they might find themselves on the outside looking in.
Gift accessibility is another key factor. This includes:
- Jewelry stores
- Florists
- Chocolate shops (a personal favourite of my wife)
- Greeting card stores
- Wellness and spa centers per capita
That last one is interesting. A spa day for your significant other can be a great Valentine’s Day gift. Now, budget is where Las Vegas struggled, ranking 36th out of 100 cities.
Budget factors include:
- Cost of a three-course meal for two
- Average movie ticket price
- Average beverage price
- Beauty salon cost
- Massage cost
- Taxi fare cost
Taxi fares are particularly important if you’re planning a night out.
Jacobsen: That’s at least $100 if you go to and from an event. Sober costs vs. drunk costs—they add up. Some people prefer to stay home.
Lupo: Another factor is the lowest available price for three-star hotel rooms. This becomes even more important if you’re looking to book a suite. And yes—good luck finding an affordable hotel in Las Vegas on Valentine’s Day.
Jacobsen: What else can we ask here? Detroit, San Bernardino, Hialeah, Baton Rouge, and Toledo were the worst-ranked cities—although this ranking was out of 100 rather than 180-. This is almost the reverse of the top five in many ways.
These cities perform significantly worse on key metrics like budget, activities, and gift accessibility. However, they may have middle-to-high rankings when it comes to weather.So, weather alone is not the determining factor for Valentine’s Day.
It comes down to getting the right mix:
- A reasonable budget
- Good activities
- Strong gift accessibility
That’s what I’m seeing here.
Lupo: Yes, and I’m looking at the numbers now. It’s almost a total flip—the bottom five cities are:
- Toledo
- Baton Rouge
- Hialeah
- San Bernardino
- Detroit (which ranks dead last in budget-friendliness)
But take a look at Hialeah, Florida. It has one of the highest costs, yet its weather ranking is great—not surprising since it’s in South Florida. Hialeah is a suburb of Miami.
If you’re living in Hialeah and planning a Valentine’s Day getaway or a romantic weekend, chances are you’re making that 20-minute drive to Miami, where there are far more attractions and things to do.
That’s what hurts a place like Hialeah. The weather is fantastic, but accessibility to activities and affordability is poor. Now, Toledo, Ohio, has the same issue. The budget ranking is terrible, and the weather isn’t great, given that it’s in Northeast Ohio. Budget concerns are dragging down these bottom-ranking cities.
Let’s break it down further—take Detroit, for example.
- 99th in the cost of a three-course meal
- 99th in average movie ticket price
- 99th in average beverage price
- 96th for a three-star hotel room
- 94th for taxi fare costs
Yes, Detroit doesn’t rank above 90 in any major cost category. Now, San Bernardino ranks 80th for the cost of a three-course meal, which makes sense because it’s in Southern California. Hialeah, 97th. That’s not exactly good news for budget-conscious couples.
Suppose you’re planning Valentine’s Day on a budget. In that case, you might be better off taking that money and travelling somewhere more affordable. Or, as we tend to do—stay home. That’s always an option.
Jacobsen: So maybe we’ll fit in one more question before wrapping up—methodology. This ranking is significantly lopsided and more diverse than most others I’ve seen. Instead of just two or three categories, there are four categories.
One category—weather forecast—was weighted 10 points, while the budget was weighted 50 points.
The USD 186 people are spending shows that budget is the most significant factor, but none of the subcategories within the budget are drastically off—everything falls within 5 or 10 points. Why allocate half the total weighting to the budget while the other three categories are split 20, 20, and 10 points?
Lupo: When we talked about wedding expenses, the weighting was different because, with weddings, people expect to pay more. When planning a wedding, you already know you’ll spend significant money.
But with Valentine’s Day, you have more flexibility—you can adjust your plans based on budget. For weddings, you’re essentially “all in” from the start. But depending on cost, you have more room to scale your plans up or down on Valentine’s Day.
That’s why budget carries more weight in this ranking—people are more cost-conscious about Valentine’s Day than weddings. However, categories like activities, gift accessibility, and weather still matter:
- Activities—You want access to restaurants, cafés, and entertainment options.
- Gift stores and florists—Essential for last-minute shopping.
- Weather (10%)—Most people only plan for one day. If it happens to rain or snow, you adjust accordingly.
For example:
- If you’re in Seattle, bring an umbrella.
- If you’re in the Midwest, get your snow tires ready.
- If you’re in South Florida, sunscreen is a must!
Jacobsen: I agree. Let’s wrap it up there and call it a day.
Lupo: Outstanding, man. All right, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much—I appreciate it! I hope you have a great day.
Lupo: You too, Scott. Take care! Talk soon.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/08
Insoo Park founded Ecosense Inc. after losing his best friend, Andrew, to cancer in 2016. This life-changing event inspired him to leave his 17-year semiconductor career to address radon-induced lung cancer risks. Ecosense developed the EcoQube, a highly sensitive, Wi-Fi-enabled radon monitor named one of TIME’s Top 100 Inventions of 2021. The EcoQube provides real-time updates, making radon detection accessible and affordable. Through campaigns and partnerships, Ecosense raises awareness of radon risks and promotes prevention. Validated by leading institutions, Ecosense’s technology ensures accuracy and reliability, empowering homeowners with advanced tools for radon monitoring and timely mitigation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired you to found Ecosense Inc.?
Insoo Park: After a life-changing event, losing my best friend, Andrew, all of a sudden to cancer in 2016, I decided to leave my career in the semiconductor industry where I spent 17 years with three startups to start doing something more meaningful. After two and half years of study about the radon detection market, I decided that a highly sensitive real-time digital radon detector would protect many people from radon-induced lung cancer deaths.
After a life-changing event in 2016—losing my best friend, Andrew, suddenly to cancer—I decided to leave my 17-year career in the semiconductor industry, where I worked with three startups, to pursue something more meaningful. Over the next two and a half years, I immersed myself in studying the radon detection market and discovered a critical need: a highly sensitive, real-time digital radon detector to help prevent radon-induced lung cancer deaths.
Today, my company’s mission is clear: to raise awareness that radon-caused lung cancer is entirely preventable with accurate radon testing (the Ecosense way) and timely mitigation. We aim to empower our customers to build a radon-free lifestyle—easily and without hassle.
Jacobsen: What has been the evolution of technology for detecting radon?
Park: Radon detection technology has evolved from basic methods like charcoal canisters and alpha track detectors to more sophisticated, modern digital solutions. Charcoal canisters, while affordable, provide only a one-time snapshot of radon levels and are affected by factors like humidity. These tests must remain undisturbed during sampling, meaning they don’t reflect the radon levels you encounter daily. By contrast, Digital Continuous radon monitors (CRMs) are the most effective option, offering real-time data and tracking fluctuations in radon levels over time. They seamlessly integrate into everyday life, continuously sampling radon as long as they remain powered. The good news is that while CRMs were once exclusive to radon professionals and prohibitively expensive, they are now widely affordable, offering consumers professional-grade accuracy and convenience. This continuous monitoring provides a detailed understanding of radon exposure, making CRMs an indispensable tool for year-round protection against cancer-causing radon, ensuring accurate detection and effective timely mitigation.
Jacobsen: Why would radon testing be relevant for Canadians, specifically?
Park: Radon is a significant health concern in Canada, and recent changes by Health Canada emphasize the importance of testing:
- Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.
- Canada has the third highest radon exposure in the world.
- Health Canada recently (November 2024, during Radon Action Month) approved consumer-grade electronic radon monitors for long-term testing (minimum 3 months). This makes it easier for homeowners to take action and potentially use the testing results for financial assistance programs.
- Radon levels fluctuate throughout the day and across seasons, influenced by environmental factors like temperature, humidity, and air pressure. Ongoing monitoring is crucial, as a one-time test isn’t enough to capture these variations.
- What do fluctuations in radon levels mean? Radon levels can change due to weather patterns, soil conditions, building ventilation, and even daily activities within the home. Continuous monitoring helps you understand these fluctuations and take appropriate action.
- Testing is the only way to know your radon levels, as it’s a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas undetectable by human senses.
- Canada has relatively long, cold seasons and many mountainous areas, which are often prone to elevated radon levels.
- Testing is crucial because radon is invisible and unpredictable. You can’t see it, smell it, or taste it. These graphs below illustrate how radon levels can vary dramatically between day and night, and even more so between winter and summer. In Canada, with our long cold seasons, this variability is especially important to consider:
Jacobsen: How does Ecosense’s technology differ from traditional radon monitors?
Park: Ecosense’s technology stands out from traditional radon monitors due to its unmatched sensitivity, advanced real-time detection capabilities, and user-friendly features. Unlike traditional detectors that often rely on passive methods or provide delayed results, Ecosense devices use patented sensors with a counting efficiency of 30 counts per hour, far exceeding the industry standard of 2 counts per hour—making them 15 times more sensitive. This exceptional sensitivity ensures faster and more accurate radon readings, allowing users to detect changes in radon levels almost immediately.
In addition, Ecosense devices integrate seamlessly with smartphones, offering convenient access to real-time data, historical trends, and instant alerts. Compact, user-friendly, and professional-grade, Ecosense’s technology redefines radon monitoring by setting a new standard for precision, speed, and reliability in protecting homes and families.
Jacobsen: The EcoQube was named one of the Top 100 Inventions of 2021 by TIME. What is the significant development of technology in it?
Park: The EcoQube radon monitor, named one of TIME’s Top 100 Inventions of 2021, represents a significant technological advancement in radon detection. It is light, compact, and built with professional-grade sensitivity, exceeding industry standards by 15 times. Unlike other consumer-grade radon detectors that provide a 24-hour rolling average, the EcoQube updates every 10 minutes and calculates an hourly rolling average, making it the most reliable option for quickly and accurately responding to fluctuations in radon levels. This frequent updating ensures real-time monitoring and provides a more precise picture of radon trends.
The EcoQube also features Wi-Fi connectivity, enabling users to check radon levels remotely and share data with family members or radon professionals. The EcoQube app further enhances the user experience by visualizing this data in easy-to-understand graphs, making it simple to monitor radon levels over time. With its affordability, accessibility, and ease of use, EcoQube has made radon monitoring not only more accurate but also more accessible to a wide range of consumers.
Jacobsen: What are the health risks associated with radon exposure?
Park: Radon exposure is a serious but often underestimated health risk, as it is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. When inhaled, radon gas decays into radioactive particles that can become trapped in the lungs, where they release radiation that damages lung tissue.
To put this into perspective, exposure to 4 pCi/L (picocuries per liter), the EPA’s action level for radon, is roughly equivalent to the risk of smoking about 8 cigarettes per day. It’s important to note that the risk of radon exposure is cumulative, with long-term exposure increasing the overall risk.
Radon is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, making it nearly impossible to detect without a specialized device. As a result, many people are unaware they may have this “silent killer” in their homes. This lack of awareness is dangerous, as the common misconception that “if you can’t see it, it’s not a danger” often leads to delayed action, leaving many at risk without realizing it.
Jacobsen: How might Wi-Fi-enabled remote access empower homeowners to monitor and address radon levels?
Park: Wi-Fi-enabled remote access to the EcoQube radon monitor empowers homeowners by allowing them to monitor radon levels in real-time from anywhere, using a smartphone. This means they can track fluctuations in radon levels and receive instant alerts when levels exceed safe limits, without having to be physically present in the home. Remote access ensures that homeowners can take proactive steps, such as triggering their ventilation to go on, activating mitigation systems or scheduling professional inspections, without delay. Additionally, the ability to share data with family members or radon professionals makes it easier to collaborate on addressing potential health risks, leading to more informed decisions and timely action. This technology offers peace of mind and allows homeowners to stay on top of radon exposure.
Jacobsen: How does Ecosense work to make advanced radon detection technology accessible and affordable?
Park: Ecosense makes advanced radon detection technology accessible and affordable by combining high-quality sensor with user-friendly design and cost-effective pricing in mind. Unlike traditional radon detectors, which can be large, expensive, and often require professional installation, Ecosense devices are compact, easy to use, and offer Wi-Fi connectivity for remote access and real-time monitoring via smartphone apps.
Ecosense achieves affordability by streamlining its technology solely dedicated to radon gas and focusing on essential features such as 15x greater sensitivity compared to industry standards — while keeping production costs manageable. Ecosense devices have undergone third-party validation, proving that they perform similarly to professional-grade radon equipment typically priced in the tens of thousands of dollars. This validation confirms that Ecosense delivers highly accurate, reliable radon detection on par with expensive professional devices. In doing so, Ecosense brings cutting-edge radon detection to the consumer market in an affordable, practical form ensuring that consumers can effectively monitor and mitigate radon risks without the financial burden of traditional high-cost equipment.
Jacobsen: Radon-induced lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer in non-smokers. How does Ecosense aim to raise awareness?
Park: Ecosense aims to raise awareness about the risks of radon-induced lung cancer through its Radon-Free Campaign, which actively supports lung cancer survivors and advocates by amplifying their voices. As part of this initiative, Ecosense donates radon detectors to individuals and organizations, helping them monitor radon levels in their homes and communities.
The company collaborates with libraries through the Ecosense Library Lending Program to provide free access to radon detection devices and educational resources, empowering more people to take action.
Additionally, Ecosense partners with non-profit organizations focused on lung cancer prevention and awareness, further expanding the reach of their message and encouraging widespread adoption of continuous radon monitoring. Through these efforts, Ecosense is helping to educate and protect communities from the dangers of radon exposure, while giving a platform to those affected by radon-induced lung cancer.
Jacobsen: Ecosense’s products have been validated by the University of Michigan and Kansas State University. How important is this independent validation?
Park: Independent validation is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of radon detectors.
- The University of Michigan and Kansas State University are leading institutions in radon research, and their studies carry significant weight in the field.
- Their studies confirm that Ecosense’s patented technology performs comparably to top-of-the-line, research-grade detectors.
- This gives consumers confidence that Ecosense’s products are accurate and trustworthy.
- It also demonstrates Ecosense’s commitment to quality and transparency.
- In addition to university validation, Ecosense also has a strong track record in third-party studies, such as the recent intercomparison studies conducted by the Canadian National Radon Proficiency Program (C-NRPP) in 2023. You can find the results here and more detailed study results, where all of the Ecosense consumer-grade monitors ranked top performance.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Insoo.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/07 (Unpublished)
Patrick Gruhn, former head of FTX Europe and founder of Perpetuals.com, is a legal and tech expert expanding into faith-based media. He repurchased FTX Europe and later sold it to Backpack Exchange. Gruhn, who also leads a German Catholic TV network, aims to bring fairness to crypto trading. He advocates for regulatory oversight and safer financial products. His latest venture, Perpetuals.com, focuses on self-clearing, regulated perpetual futures. Gruhn emphasizes strategic management across industries, comparing media and crypto operations. Passionate about fair trading and long-term business sustainability, he continues to innovate in finance, technology, and media.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Patrick Gruhn. He is a legal and tech expert, the former head of FTX Europe, and the founder of Perpetuals.com. He co-founded Digital Assets AG (DAAG), which FTX later acquired. Following FTX’s collapse, Gruhn repurchased FTX Europe and sold it to Backpack Exchange.
He now leads a German Catholic TV network expanding beyond crypto, merging technology with faith-based media. His expertise spans digital assets, fintech, and media leadership. Recently featured in Nasdaq, NTV News, and CoinTelegraph, Gruhn remains an influential figure in finance and media. He also made headlines for purchasing a Titanic gold pocket watch for nearly $1,500,000.
What inspired you to buy the Titanic gold watch?
Patrick Gruhn: That was a gift for my wife because it is hard to find something she truly loves. She is not usually a big fan of gifts. For example, we don’t typically exchange Christmas or birthday gifts. Instead, we donate to charitable causes.
However, I wanted to find something truly special as a thank-you to my wife after everything she has been through with me. We left Germany together. We met in Germany and later moved to Switzerland for five years, which was already a challenge.
Culturally, Switzerland is quite different from Germany. At the time, we had little children—one was two and a half years old, and the other was a newborn. Then, we moved to Canada for six months while waiting for our U.S. visa. Finally, we immigrated to the U.S. It was difficult, especially with small children. We now have four children in total.
I wanted to find something meaningful to her, and she has always been fascinated by the Titanic. Additionally, when we became a couple, I was 16 years old. We met in high school in Germany, and around that time, Titanic was released in cinemas. So, the Titanic holds historical significance for her and personal significance for us as a couple.
Even beyond the movie, she is deeply interested in the Titanic’s historical facts. Now, we live in Oregon, where the Astor family, who owned this watch, played a key role in founding Astoria—the oldest town in Oregon, originally known as Fort Astoria.
These connections made the watch incredibly special for us—perhaps not for anyone else, but certainly for us. That was the reasoning behind purchasing it as a gift for my wife.
Jacobsen: What motivated your transition from FTX Europe to running a Catholic TV network in Germany?
Gruhn: I have owned the Catholic TV network since February 2011. It is a nonprofit organization that I acquired in February 2011, and it was struggling at the time.
Interestingly, running a Catholic TV network is similar to managing derivatives and the crypto space.
First, the network broadcasts in multiple countries—Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein—which requires a cross-border broadcasting license.
Second, since it operates subsidiaries in multiple countries as a nonprofit organization, it involves complex international tax regulations and nonprofit tax law.
Finally, from a technical standpoint, modern television broadcasting is entirely digital, much like financial technology.
Gruhn: So, for live broadcasts, for example, you usually have UDP streams or something similar. The point is that it’s similar to high-frequency trading. You have to process data in real time with low latency. So, even from an IT perspective, operating live broadcasts is similar to running matching engines or high-frequency trading market-making algorithms. It has a lot of similarities, including the legal aspects, such as intellectual property rights.
Most crypto assets are considered intellectual property because they are intangible but real. The same applies to movies, background music, and other forms of digital content, where intellectual property is a key factor. In many ways, the structure of managing digital media and crypto trading shares common legal and operational challenges.
I had been helping this TV network for several years before I acquired it in February 2011. At that time, the organization struggled with the complexity of operations, which was overwhelming. I stepped in and cleaned everything up, and now it runs quite successfully.
I have a good team. My employees and co-managing director largely manage day-to-day operations. My role is more on the strategic management side. But, yes, I have owned the network since February 2011 and have been involved with it since February 2006.
I started working with them in February 2006, helping with live streaming and technical solutions. That’s how I got in touch with them. I acquired the network when they faced a financial and operational crisis and needed help.
Jacobsen: How do you see Perpetuals.com shaping the future of digital asset trading?
Gruhn: After the FTX disaster, I realized one major thing was missing. As FTX Europe, we were fortunate to have been largely unaffected by the core issues because we had our own segregated IT infrastructure in Europe. We also had segregated funds, meaning we never transferred customer funds to the U.S. or the Bahamas. However, we did use the Bahamian exchange for trade execution. That’s where the crypto assets were sent, and that’s where the matching happened.
That dependency on the Bahamas exchange ultimately trapped us in the FTX bankruptcy process. That is precisely why we have now built Perpetuals.com as a fully independent exchange.
This time, we have a full exchange license in Europe under the Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) framework. This means we can operate our exchange with self-custody and self-clearing mechanisms. We now have our own clearing house, offering 24/7 clearing without relying on third parties, and we are fully regulated.
Under the MiFID II framework, regulated trading venues in Europe must comply with strict operational and IT requirements. We also undergo detailed IT audits and comply with a new IT regulation in Europe called DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act), which significantly enhances investor protection and security.
After witnessing what happened with FTX, it became clear that regulatory oversight was severely lacking. No one expected such a collapse, but regulators allowed things to spiral out of control. Even today, many crypto exchanges operate their derivatives platforms in Singapore, where there is no meaningful regulatory oversight because crypto derivatives are practically exempt.
Of course, this lack of oversight is appealing from a business perspective—companies save costs on compliance and other regulatory obligations. However, it exposes customers to significant risks. That’s why we built Perpetuals.com differently, ensuring full compliance, transparency, and security under European financial regulations.
But this is what makes it possible. Sometimes, I’m convinced of this, and sometimes I’m not. I’m not always a big fan of regulation—especially as a lawyer and someone working in crypto. Nevertheless, sometimes you need rules to protect people from themselves.
With Sam Bankman-Fried, it was simply too easy for him. If there had been more stringent oversight, a four-eye principle, and the same regulatory checks in exchanges like ours, what happened with FTX would not have been possible so easily. It was made too easy for him.
In Germany, there’s a saying—and I’m sure there’s a similar one in English—if you make things too easy, you essentially create theft. If it’s that easy for someone to commit a crime, then sooner or later, someone will take advantage of it.
We have created a self-settlement, self-trading, and self-clearing exchange for all derivatives, including real perpetual futures and other products. This is what the crypto industry needs if we want to prevent another FTX-like disaster. Suppose we want crypto to become more accessible to traditional investors and everyday people. In that case, we need to eliminate the risk that their exchange might collapse overnight.
Jacobsen: What regulatory measures do you believe are necessary to restore trust in the industry?
Gruhn: The most important thing—and where lawmakers often go wrong—is understanding that we need rules. Still, they must be tailored to crypto’s technological nature.
Historically, most banking laws were created due to fraud or other financial crimes. That means some regulations are necessary. However, many politicians try to apply traditional financial regulations to crypto without considering the technical differences.
If technology can solve a problem that would typically be addressed by governance or regulations, we should use it instead. IT-based solutions are more reliable and efficient.
For example, a smart contract can automate processes that would otherwise require human oversight. Suppose a smart contract can enforce an agreement. In that case, it is better than having an intermediary manually check whether it was executed or using a third party as an escrow service.
We need a regulatory framework that provides basic protections and oversight while allowing technology to replace traditional financial mechanisms where possible.
With Perpetuals.com, our exchange eliminates the need for a clearinghouse. Traditionally, an exchange only facilitates trading in Europe, while a separate clearinghouse handles margin, clearing, and settlement. But with today’s technology, we can combine those functions into one.
We use stablecoins, tokenized instruments, and tokenized stocks, allowing us to handle everything ourselves. We built a private blockchain specifically for this purpose. This blockchain provides the same advantages a clearinghouse typically would—ensuring accurate settlement, tracking ownership at any given time, and eliminating reliance on third-party clearinghouses.
This approach reduces costs and removes risks. A clearinghouse itself can fail, especially in a financial crisis. By integrating these processes directly onto a blockchain, we increase transparency and security, which is critical for the future of digital asset trading.
So that’s what regulations should aim for—identifying where smart technology can be utilized and allowing people to use it.
The biggest issue right now is that regulations often do not allow the full potential of technology. Instead, businesses are forced to create paper-based policies and train employees on procedures that could easily be automated with technology. This inefficiency slows progress and adds unnecessary complexity.
Jacobsen: What do you find more difficult to operate—media or crypto?
Gruhn: Whoa, that’s a difficult one. Both are challenging and fascinating in their own ways.
It’s hard to judge which is more difficult. In crypto, you deal with a high potential for fraud. Every single day, I receive phishing attempts on my crypto wallets. People know my LinkedIn profile, and I constantly get scam attempts, phishing emails, and fraudulent proposals asking me to invest in questionable schemes.
So, in crypto, you encounter bad actors more frequently.
At the same time, working in media is also challenging today because the world has become more complex. The media industry has evolved significantly, and how information is distributed, consumed, and regulated has changed.
I wouldn’t say one is more difficult than the other—both have unique challenges, and you have to navigate them accordingly.
Jacobsen: How has your faith helped you in these leadership roles?
Gruhn: Everyone should have faith because we need something greater than ourselves—beyond our ego.
In my management roles, my faith has helped in many ways. For example, suppose I’m upset or angry about a mistake someone made. In that case, I follow the Christian virtue of patience and reflection. Instead of reacting immediately, I stay quiet for the day. I wait until I attend Mass, reflect on the situation, and only then do I speak with the employee or business partner involved.
That practice of deliberation before reaction has helped me make better decisions in leadership.
Another way faith influences my leadership is through Catholic work ethics. In the Catholic tradition, we are taught to do our work as well as Jesus did when he was on Earth. If he built furniture, he certainly didn’t build a chair that collapsed under pressure. He did everything with excellence.
There’s also an analogy from European cathedrals. Many of these cathedrals have beautiful, intricate artwork placed in locations where no human could ever see it—on the highest towers or deep within the structure. They weren’t built for human admiration but for God.
The idea is that true craftsmanship and dedication go beyond immediate recognition. It teaches us that work should be done for short-term gains and with a long-term vision.
From a leadership and entrepreneurial perspective, this mindset helps build lasting companies. It encourages thinking beyond the present moment and planning for the future, which sustains success over time.
Jacobsen: Is there a similarity between the strategy or operations of a crypto company or website and those of a media company? Or are they completely different?
Gruhn: I don’t know. There are differences in day-to-day operations.
For example, you must manage wallet security and IT infrastructure in crypto. In contrast, in media, you deal with live broadcasts and IT security for streaming. So, the hands-on tasks are different.
However, I’m strategic, and management principles apply across all industries. After I sold my first company, I worked for a few years as an interim manager, overseeing various companies, including some in the electricity sector in Germany.
Through those experiences, I saw that strategic management is a generalized concept that applies across industries, whether it’s crypto, media, or energy.
Strategic management is about understanding the necessary tasks, assembling the right team, and executing a clear vision.
For example, you want a secure wallet system. In that case, you need experts who can tell you what security measures are necessary. If you want redundant live broadcasts from Rome, you need professionals to set up the infrastructure. But beyond the technical details, you must connect these tasks to a broader strategy.
Success in any industry comes down to asking:
- Where do we want to go, and why?
- What is the market opportunity?
- What is missing for our audience or customers?
For our nonprofit TV network, we analyzed what our audience was missing. We saw that people wanted live broadcasts of the Pope and events from Rome, so we set a strategic goal: Provide live broadcasts from Rome.
We needed to build partnerships, negotiate contracts, and set up the necessary technical infrastructure to achieve this. We installed cameras in a church in Rome, and now, we broadcast live from that church once a week.
So, we identified a strategic need and then mapped out the necessary steps to achieve it, from legal agreements to technical execution.
Crypto works the same way.
We looked at the European market and realized something was missing: Perpetual futures. Foreign companies only offered these products illegally, which meant European traders lacked a regulated alternative.
That’s why I co-founded Perpetuals.com with Robin and Naya. Our strategic goal was to create a fully compliant, self-clearing perpetual futures exchange for Europe.
Once we defined that goal, we mapped out the necessary steps—building the technology, obtaining regulatory approvals, and setting up clearing mechanisms.
So, whether it’s a live broadcast from Rome or a regulated futures exchange, the strategic process is the same:
- Identify what is missing.
- Set a clear objective.
- Define the required steps.
- Bring in experts to execute the technical details.
The industry may be different, but the strategic thinking remains the same. So, strategic management is the key. It applies to all industries, whether crypto, media, or finance.
Jacobsen: What’s next for you in the digital finance and media landscape? Are any new ventures on the horizon?
Gruhn: Yes.
We are about to go live with Perpetuals.com. I can’t reveal everything until the official launch, but I can give you a little teaser. We are introducing several new products alongside perpetual futures.
One issue in crypto that most traders don’t realize is the lack of fairness in the market. If you look at a simple question—what would someone have made if they had invested $5,000 in Bitcoin ten years ago?—the answer would be a significant return.
Now, compare that to the reality for most average crypto traders today. If you ask them how much they’ve made from a $5,000 investment, many will say:
- “I lost it.”
- “I lost half of it.”
- “I made $500.”
Why? Because the crypto market is not built for fairness, and part of that comes from the lack of regulation.
Currently, many crypto exchanges engage in front-running and preferential treatment for market makers. Certain insiders gain access to privileged information that would be considered illegal insider trading in a regulated financial market.
That’s what I want to change.
I want to create a fairer trading environment in which retail traders are not systematically disadvantaged. Right now, retail traders compete against high-frequency traders and institutional market makers, who have unfair advantages in terms of execution speed, privileged access, and exclusive insights.
Additionally, we are developing new financial products that are safer for retail traders.
I love perpetual futures—I recently wrote an academic paper about them—but they carry risks, especially for retail users.
So, we are introducing new products that allow traders to speculate on Bitcoin’s price movements with built-in risk protections.
For example, we will offer products with:
- Guaranteed stop-loss mechanisms—no slippage, no unexpected liquidation.
- Protection during extreme market volatility—so traders don’t lose their entire portfolio in a sudden market crash.
If we want crypto to become mainstream, we must ensure it is fair and safe for retail traders.
We have already seen how predatory some financial products can be, especially in Europe with CFDs (Contracts for Difference).
- In Canada, CFDs are regulated but still available.
- In the U.S., CFDs are banned for retail traders.
- In Europe, many CFD providers exploit retail traders, with 80% losing money.
CFD providers often profit directly from client losses, which creates a predatory system. We want to change that.
That’s why, with Perpetuals.com, we are developing new financial products that will make trading safer and more transparent.
Jacobsen: Patrick, thank you very much for your time today. It was nice to meet you.
Gruhn: Thanks for having me.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Bye.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/07
Abigail “Abby” Erikson is a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of experience dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls. A passionate advocate for ending violence against women, Abby brings extensive expertise in sexual and reproductive health, gender equality, and addressing gender-based violence in both development and humanitarian contexts. As UN Women’s lead technical expert on ending violence against women and girls, based in Fiji, she provided strategic policy and programmatic leadership. Prior to this, she held roles at the International Rescue Committee and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In January 2023, Abby assumed the role of Chief of the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women (UN Trust Fund). Under her leadership, the UN Trust Fund continues to empower women’s rights organizations through advocacy, knowledge-sharing platforms like SHINE, and long-term, flexible funding. The conversation explores the global funding gap, the expertise of women’s rights organizations, and emerging challenges such as technology-facilitated violence. Erikson emphasized the UN Trust Fund’s commitment to amplifying local women’s voices and fostering impactful partnerships to address violence against women and girls.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Ms. Abby Erikson, Chief of the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women (UN Trust Fund). We will discuss the UN Trust Fund, including the recent announcement of substantial grants—amounting to $16 million—awarded to 36 women’s rights and civil society organizations for initiatives aiming to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls across 41 countries and territories. How can organizations support the advocacy efforts and initiatives of the UN Trust Fund?
Abby Erikson: First, I would like to provide a brief overview of the UN Trust Fund and its vital work to end violence against women and girls. The UN Trust Fund was established in 1996 as an outcome of the landmark 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, which outlined a comprehensive strategy to achieve gender equality and advance women’s rights. Its creation, through a resolution adopted by Member States at the UN General Assembly, recognized that violence against women and girls is one of the most significant barriers to gender equality and women’s empowerment. Today, the UN Trust Fund is administered by UN Women, the United Nations agency dedicated to promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment.
For nearly three decades, the UN Trust Fund has served as a critical funding mechanism, providing grants to women’s rights and civil society organizations working to prevent and address violence against women and girls. To date, it has supported over 700 organizations across the globe. Most recently, in response to its latest Call for Proposals, which closed in February 2024, the Trust Fund announced nearly $16 million in grants, reaffirming its unwavering commitment to addressing this urgent global challenge.
Regarding the question of how organizations and individuals can support the advocacy and initiatives of the UN Trust Fund, we hope to inspire global recognition of the need to act against violence and to encourage collective engagement in our mission. While more than 95% of the Trust Fund’s resources come from contributions by UN Member States, we also welcome donations from individuals and the private sector. Contributions made through our online donation platformdirectly support grassroots organizations that are leading change in their communities.
Furthermore, the UN Trust Fund collaborates with a diverse range of partners across the UN system, Member States, civil society, and the private sector to amplify shared goals. These goals include advancing gender equality, empowering women, and eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls.
Unfortunately, violence against women and girls remains one of the most pervasive human rights violations globally. It is disheartening to recognize that, nearly 30 years after the Trust Fund’s establishment, the need for its work is as urgent as ever. It remains the only global grant-making mechanism dedicated exclusively to ending all forms of violence against women and girls.
Recent global data reveals that approximately 140 women and girls are killed every day by someone within their own home. To spotlight this alarming reality, the Trust Fund’s 2024 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence campaign focused on raising awareness and mobilizing action to address this crisis.
At the same time, we are confronting a growing number of interconnected crises, including armed conflicts, climate emergencies, and political instability. These challenges have not only exacerbated violence but also contributed to setbacks in advancing women’s rights and broader human rights agendas. Emerging forms of violence, such as technology-facilitated gender-based violence, have added another layer of complexity. This type of violence disproportionately targets women in leadership roles and public life, posing new and evolving threats. While technology and artificial intelligence have enormous potential to create positive change, they have also introduced significant challenges that require urgent attention.
The persistent pushback against women’s rights to live free from violence is deeply concerning. It underscores the critical importance of redoubling our efforts to ensure safe, equal, and peaceful communities—foundations upon which every individual deserves to thrive.
Jacobsen: How did the UN Trust Fund select the 36 women’s rights and civil society organizations when awarding grants during its latest funding cycle?
Abby Erikson: At its core, the UN Trust Fund supports civil society organizations—particularly women-led and women’s rights organizations—to implement multi-year initiatives aimed at addressing violence against women and girls. These initiatives often encompass a range of critical activities, including providing safe houses, social support, healthcare services, and advocating for legal and policy reforms to drive prevention and systemic change.
The UN Trust Fund’s Call for Proposals process is both rigorous and highly competitive, underscoring the immense global demand for resources to tackle violence against women and girls. Since becoming Chief of the UN Trust Fund in 2022, I have witnessed firsthand the scale of this demand. In my first year, we received proposals totaling over $750 million, but we had only $11 million available to disburse. The following year, the funding requests doubled to $1.5 billion, yet we were able to award just $16 million in grants.
To put this in perspective, we receive thousands of applications from organizations in countries eligible for Official Development Assistance (ODA). Unfortunately, the gap between the need and the available resources of the UN Trust Fund remains stark, with fewer than 1% of applicants ultimately receiving grants.
The selection process itself is thorough, impartial, and designed to ensure accountability and fairness. Neither I, as Chief, nor the UN Trust Fund Secretariat is directly involved in choosing grant recipients. Instead, the process is overseen by regional committees composed of UN representatives, civil society members, and other stakeholders. Proposals that successfully pass the initial scoring phases are further evaluated at the regional level, with final selections made by a global committee.
Our selection criteria emphasize initiatives that adopt an intersectional approach. This means prioritizing organizations working with women and girls who experience overlapping forms of discrimination and marginalization, such as those living with disabilities, belonging to minority ethnic or lower-income groups, or facing other systemic barriers. By doing so, we strive to ensure that no one is left behind in our efforts to resource and empower communities.
These priorities reflect the extraordinary potential of women’s rights organizations operating on the front lines. These organizations have deep insights into the specific needs of their communities and are uniquely positioned to drive impactful change. It is inspiring to envision the transformative outcomes we could achieve if we had the resources to fund all these remarkable initiatives. Until then, we must remain focused and strategic, making the most of the limited resources available to us.
Jacobsen: What specific challenges affect women and girls in crisis? The definition of “crisis” differs from country to country.
Abby Erikson: You’re absolutely right about the varied definitions of crisis. While we often think of large-scale crises such as war, conflict, major climate emergencies, natural disasters, or global pandemics, there are also localized or “micro-crises.” These can include issues such as failing health systems or other contained yet deeply significant challenges for the affected populations.
What is clear across all contexts is that crises amplify vulnerabilities, particularly for women and girls. Evidence consistently shows heightened risks of violence against women and girls during wars and conflicts, including conflict-related sexual violence and intimate partner violence.
In these situations, women’s rights organizations and local civil society groups play a critical role. They are often the first responders, adapting rapidly to meet emerging needs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the vital expertise of these organizations became especially evident. They were on the front lines, addressing multiple, compounding crises within their communities, often stepping in to fill gaps left by the international aid system.
We must rely on local women’s rights organizations and civil society groups to effectively support communities and, crucially, adequately resource them.
In many countries where we support civil society organizations, there is an enabling environment, which might include laws and policies that support gender equality, address racial bias, supports women’s groups, and outline responsibilities for tackling these issues across government departments—such as health, education, and women’s ministries—alongside civil society.
However, it is important to note that we operate in a wide range of contexts. Some areas face chronic crises or vulnerabilities, while others have relatively strong enabling environments but continue to grapple with significant challenges. This diversity creates opportunities for hybrid partnerships between governments, the UN, civil society, and other stakeholders, enabling us to collaborate effectively in addressing these issues.
Jacobsen: How does the UN Trust Fund address the funding gap for women’s rights organizations in a challenging global context?
Abby Erikson: Women’s rights organizations play a critical role in addressing violence against women and girls, as well as advancing gender equality and social justice. Yet, these organizations face persistent funding challenges. The UN Trust Fund operates under significant financial constraints, particularly as the demand from women’s rights and civil society organizations far exceeds the resources available.
To address this gap, we focus on maximizing the impact of our funding by prioritizing high-need, high-impact initiatives. In parallel, we work tirelessly to mobilize additional resources from Member States, private sector partners, and individual donors. Advocacy is also a core part of our strategy, as we strive to raise global awareness about the transformative work of women’s rights organizations and the necessity of long-term, flexible funding for their success.
Bridging the funding gap requires collective action. Through partnerships and resource mobilization, we aim to ensure that these organizations can continue their critical work. Every dollar directed toward women’s rights and civil society organizations contributes to building safer and more equitable communities, even in the face of overwhelming global challenges.
It’s important to note that the UN Trust Fund can only fund a small percentage of the demand we receive. However, this funding gap extends far beyond our work—it is a systemic issue across the feminist funding ecosystem, encompassing women’s funds, gender equality, women’s empowerment, and broader social justice initiatives.
To address this, the UN Trust Fund focuses on advocacy and evidence-based approaches. We highlight the critical importance of providing long-term, flexible funding to empower women’s rights organizations to respond effectively to unmet needs. For example, we have extended the duration of our grants from two years to four years. This shift helps grantee partners build stability and strengthen their organizational resilience. By funding initiatives such as strategic planning and resource mobilization strategies, we aim to break the cycle of short-term funding and equip organizations for sustainable impact.
This is a pivotal moment. In 2025, we mark the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, which remains a foundational framework for gender equality and women’s empowerment. It is an urgent time for the global community to come together, leveraging all platforms and advocacy opportunities to spotlight the evidence, best practices, and lessons learned from women’s rights and civil society organizations.
This year, the UN Trust Fund is doing everything possible to amplify the voices of our grantee partners, showcase their evidence-based successes, and advocate for increased funding to meet the scale of today’s challenges. Across sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure, instability, disasters, conflicts, and pandemics have eroded much of the progress achieved in gender equality. We are collectively in a phase of resetting and rebuilding.
As we move forward, this year will be a test of the global community’s ability to unite and act decisively to address these disparities, ensure progress is not reversed, and reaffirm our commitment to leaving no woman or girl behind.
Jacobsen: What can media platforms, influencers, or individuals contribute to amplifying this advocacy and funding opportunity to end violence against women and girls? How does the UN Trust Fund ensure that knowledge is collected from grassroots initiatives to inform global policy and programming?
Abby Erikson: The first and perhaps most crucial step is to follow and support the incredible work of the UN Trust Fund and its grantee partners, who are striving to end violence against women and girls in their countries, regions, and even on a global scale. Educating ourselves and fostering a shared understanding of why these issues persist—and how they can be effectively addressed—is vital. Media platforms and influencers also have a key role to play in spreading positive messages and creating a culture where violence against women and girls is not tolerated.
The UN Trust Fund works closely with its grantee partners to document the challenges they encounter and understand the contexts they operate in. Through this collaboration, we identify and amplify effective strategies, drawing on their practice-based expertise and on-the-ground knowledge. This work has resulted in the co-production of numerous knowledge products with our grantee partners from across the globe.
We also support our grantee partners’ capacity to share their insights with the world. The UN Trust Fund supports their participation in international forums and gatherings. These exchanges are vital for fostering collaboration and disseminating solutions.
The UN Trust Fund also facilitates knowledge exchange among grantee partners through initiatives such as SHINE—an online platform that enables communication in approximately 50 languages. SHINE is a hub for collaboration, allowing grantee partners, practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and experts to share best practices on ending violence against women and girls and collaborate with one another.
As a multilateral fund within the UN system, the UN Trust Fund bridges the gap between Member States, private sector donors, and committed individuals, connecting them with local women’s rights organizations worldwide. This partnership strengthens efforts to end violence against women and girls.
One of our critical roles is mandated reporting through platforms such as the Commission on the Status of Women and the Human Rights Council in New York. These reports highlight the achievements of our grantee partners and showcase how the UN Trust Fund brings together multi-sector partners to prevent and end violence against women and girls. Accompanying these reports, we often organize events and initiatives to ensure that the work of our grantee partners is recognized and shared effectively on a global scale.
Working on issues like intimate partner violence, sexual assault, rape, and other forms of violence is profoundly challenging. Yet, I am continually inspired by the expertise, tenacity, and perseverance of the women, men, girls, and boys who dedicate themselves to improving their families, communities, and societies, creating an environment of equality for all.
I am deeply honored to be in my role, to work alongside my incredible team, and to witness this inspiring work every day. The best investment we can make is in women’s rights organizations. Wherever we direct funding, we know women are on the front lines, making an extraordinary difference.
Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Abby Erikson: Thank you.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/06
Jacinthe Goulet is a Communications Advisor specializing in Media Relations at, and a spokesperson for, Indigenous Services Canada. Based in Revelstoke, British Columbia, she brings over a decade of experience in communications and public affairs. Jacinthe holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Film/Video and Photographic Arts from the University of Ottawa and has completed studies with the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta. She is a certified yoga instructor and an active volunteer, empowering women and youth through initiatives such as Plan Canada’s “Because I am a Girl” campaign and arts education programs. Jacinthe is fluent in French and English. Goulet talked about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s (CHRT) summary ruling regarding Jordan’s Principle, which ensures First Nations children have equal access to public services. Goulet highlighted the government’s judicial review of the CHRT ruling to resolve legal issues and emphasized ongoing consultations via Tribunal-assisted mediation. She outlined steps to improve service delivery, address a growing demand for requests, and collaborate with Indigenous leaders. ISC aims to transition from federal oversight to a community-based model for Jordan’s Principle, with $8.8 billion in funding and potential increases to meet First Nations children’s evolving needs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What specific legal issues prompted the government to file a notice of application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s summary ruling? What is the aim in requesting a pause on review processes?
Jacinthe Goulet: On November 21, 2024, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) issued a summary ruling with reasons to follow related to the non-compliance motion and cross-motion on the implementation of Jordan’s Principle.
We submitted a response to the Tribunal on December 10, 2024. As outlined in our response, we are ready and willing to begin Tribunal-mediated consultations regarding Jordan’s Principle. However, there are important legal issues around some aspects of the summary ruling. In order to make sure these can be properly resolved, on December 20, 2024, we filed a notice of application for judicial review with the Federal Court of the Tribunal’s decision. We have also requested an abeyance, or pause, on the judicial review, while we await the full reasons to come from the Tribunal.
We will continue in our work to implement Jordan’s Principle. Parents, guardians and communities should continue to submit requests to Jordan’s Principle for First Nations children. We will continue this important work so that First Nations children can have equal access to public services they need.
Jacobsen: Jordan’s principle is something to ensure “all First Nations children living in Canada can access the products, services and supports they need, when they need them.” How will Tribunal‑mediated consultations be conducted?
Goulet: Jordan’s Principle is intended to ensure that First Nations children have substantively equal access to government services, taking into account their distinct circumstances, experiences, and needs as First Nations children. In its November 21, 2024, Summary Ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Panel ordered Canada to consult with the other parties on various matters, in the manner of their choice. The parties have consented to consult through Tribunal-assisted mediation.
Tribunal-assisted mediation sessions took place January 9-10, 2025. The Parties are set to have further discussions on January 17, 23 and 24 (additional dates can be scheduled upon agreement by the mediator and the parties. The mediation sessions are led by a Tribunal member who is distinct from the Tribunal members sitting on the Panel that made the Summary Ruling. Mediation is a confidential process in order to allow the parties to speak openly and frankly in an attempt to reach an agreement. Please contact the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for further information on the mediation process.
As stated in the November 21, 2024, Summary Ruling, following consultations, the parties will return to the Panel with consent orders or, if that is not possible, each party will provide their respective views and interim options to be decided on by the Panel.
Jacobsen: How can the federal government address concerns for clearer processes for delivery of essential services to First Nations children?
Goulet: Our top priority and our intention remain the same; making sure First Nations children have equal access to the products, services and supports that they need. Canada is working to ensure Jordan’s Principle meets its objectives.
Due to the significant increase in the numbers of requests, we are reviewing our processes at regional and national levels to be more consistent and clearer on the required documentation and the services First Nations children can access through Jordan’s Principle.
Jordan’s Principle has grown at an extremely fast pace over the last few years. From 2021-2022 there were 614,350 approved requests, compared to over 2.8 million approved requests in 2023-2024, a 360% increase. The CHRT has ruled that Canada needs to co-develop interim criteria and guidelines with the current parties in this process. Canada will work at the pace it sets with the parties.
Indigenous Services Canada is taking immediate steps to address the backlog, including: prioritizing the identification and processing of urgent requests; increasing decision-making capacity to reduce wait-times for requestors; immediate reassignment of existing Jordan’s Principle resources to a surge team to focus on urgent requests; and focusing on service delivery and design to speed up request processing and identify opportunities for more effective and efficient service delivery.
This is a valuable initiative, that provides valuable services to First Nations kids. We must work together to ensure those with urgent needs are getting equal access to the care they need.
Jacobsen: How is Indigenous Services Canada ensuring First Nations parents and guardians know the documentation required to access services under Jordan’s Principle?
Goulet: Information about the process to send a request, including the information or documentation needed, is available under “How to send a request” at https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1568396296543/1582657596387#sec5
The call centre is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, or regional focal points are available to help families start a request through Jordan’s Principle or for more information.
Jacobsen: Does the government project additional funding, beyond the current $8.8 billion, to meet demands for Jordan’s Principle services?
Goulet: The Jordan’s Principle initiative has an annual reference level (or baseline) of $772.8 million per year approved by the Department of Finance until the end of the 2027-28 fiscal year (April 1 to March 31). The baseline level is the amount ISC begins with each fiscal year to cover annual costs of approved requests as well as the operational costs of administering Jordan’s Principle. If necessary, ISC may seek additional in-year funding through the federal budget process or through off-cycle budget requests. Decisions on funding levels are made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and are subject to Parliamentary appropriations.
Jacobsen: What are the positive ways in which the 8.2 million approved products, services, and supports impact First Nations children’s lives?
Goulet: Jordan’s Principle has provided funding for a wide range of health, social and educational products and services that respond to the unique situation and distinct needs of each First Nation child.
Parents, guardians, representatives and/or First Nations communities submit requests that identify type of products, services and supports that are needed on behalf of First Nations children.
In the current fiscal year (April 1, 2024 to November 30, 2024), the top five categories of requests approved by Jordan’s Principle were to support the following:
- Medical Travel (20,128 requests or 23%),
- Economic Supports (19,553 requests or 22%),
- Education (9,144 requests or 10%),
- Travel (7,202 requests or 8%), and
- Mental Wellness (6,255 requests or 7%).
In the current fiscal year (April 1, 2024 to November 30, 2024), the top five categories of requests funded by Jordan’s Principle were to support the following:
- Education ($353.3 million or 27%),
- Mental Wellness ($256.6 million or 20%),
- Social ($256 million or 20%),
- Health Services ($135.5 million or 11%), and
- Economic Supports ($88.3 million or 7%).
Jacobsen: What is the government’s strategy to work with regional and national partners—including Indigenous leaders—for ongoing reforms to be informed by community voices?
Goulet: Jordan’s Principle is meant to fill gaps that First Nations children may experience in government services that are available to all children. Supporting children is the right thing to do and Canada will step in to make sure kids have equal access to the services they need, no matter where they live.
ISC engages in collaborative efforts with hundreds of First Nations communities and organizations, including Indigenous leadership across Canada, to address the specific needs of their First Nations children through group proposals to Jordan’s Principle.
In the case where there are gaps in services or supports, Canada will always step in to support First Nation’s children. However, Jordan’s Principle is supposed to be used when necessary; it shouldn’t negate provincial or territorial responsibility. We must use public dollars in responsible ways.
Our government has stood with First Nations since 2015, announcing $8.8 billion in Jordan’s Principle funding. We will do everything we can to support children, no matter what it takes.
ISC’s long-term vision of Jordan’s Principle is to move from the current request-driven, federal decision-making based approach to a more systematic and holistic, community-based approach to continuity of care for First Nations children, with specific operational parameters and increased First Nations’ self-determination and control. This vision is better aligned with the pathway to self-determination than the current federal model.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jacinthe.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/05
Tzeporah Berman, BA, MES, LLD (honoris causa), is the International Program Director at Stand.earth and Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative. With over thirty years of experience in environmental campaigning and policy, she co-founded ForestEthics and served as Greenpeace International’s Global Climate and Energy Program co-director. Tzeporah has received numerous accolades, including the 2019 Climate Breakthrough Project Award and the 2015 YWCA Women of Distinction Award. Her work has protected over 40 million hectares of old-growth forests and influenced global climate policies. An influential speaker and author, she advocates for a global treaty to phase out fossil fuels and promote equity, justice, and sustainability. Berman outlines the treaty’s goal to globally phase out fossil fuel production by enforcing regulations aligned with Paris Agreement targets. This initiative aims to stabilize energy markets, shift global power dynamics, and achieve sustainable development by reducing emissions and fostering renewable energy investments. Key challenges include resistance from countries profiting from fossil fuels and the necessity for international cooperation. Effective communication strategies have secured broad support, emphasizing equity, justice, and fairness. Additionally, the treaty seeks to transform corporate social responsibility by prioritizing genuine emissions reductions over ineffective offsets, ultimately aiming to change societal norms regarding fossil fuel use.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Tzeporah Berman. She’s the founder and chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty Initiative. She’s based out of Vancouver, British Columbia. First, what are the probable outcomes of the Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty Initiative on global markets and international relations?
Tzeporah Berman: It’s a very big question. If we are successful, the Fossil Fuel Treaty will help design and manage a phase-out of fossil fuel production globally. Right now, it is left up to the marketplace. How much gets produced, when, and by whom?
If the Fossil Fuel Treaty is successful, it will create greater regulations and constraints on production that align with Paris goals, which will affect global energy markets.
Our theory is that we shouldn’t leave the fate of the future to the so-called free market. Climate change is one of the free market’s single greatest failures. We need to regulate production.
If countries agree to do that and cooperate under the treaty, then that will limit supply and impact who’s producing and how much. So, it will have a significant impact on global energy markets. I think it will also change the dynamics in international relations.
Right now, a lot of profits are made through fossil fuel production, and the structure of power dynamics globally is based in large part on colonial systems and who has the money. If we constrain the production of fossil fuels and, therefore, constrain the profits made by the incumbents, then that starts to shift what we value.
It also starts shifting international relations and who’s powerful in significant ways.
Because the production and distribution of fossil fuels underlies our economic and political systems, these aren’t tinkering on the edges about replacing this megawatt with that megawatt. This is about a redistribution of power in every sense of the word.
Jacobsen: What is a managed or responsible decline of fossil fuel production within sustainable development models?
Berman: For 30 years, we have been trying to address climate change by managing demand and managing emissions. That’s what the majority of our climate policy globally at every level of government is about. It’s about how much people get to pollute and how we reduce the demand for fossil fuels.
The result is that while we’ve had some great success implementing demand-side measures in many jurisdictions that are successfully reducing emissions, emissions continue to rise globally.
Right now, the UNEP and Stockholm Environment Institute, in the production gap report, note that we’re on track to produce 110% more fossil fuels than can ever be burned and maintain a stable 1.5 degrees Celsius. That production would be by 2030.
We need to align production with demand destruction and our climate goals because what we build today will be what we use tomorrow. The theory that we could reduce the demand, reduce the cost and price of renewables, and increase the price of carbon to constrain fossil fuel production to manage the decline isn’t working.
It’s not working largely because the markets are distorted by trillions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies each year and because of various decisions made by a very small group of countries, most notably under OPEC.
So, a well planned phase out of fossil fuel production is essential to sustainable development goals because fossil fuel expansion is the greatest threat to meeting all 17 of our sustainable development goals.
So we produced a report on that for Stockholm plus 50 and looked at the research worldwide on every major sustainable development goal, whether you’re looking at gender, poverty, water, health, or many other issues.
Fossil fuel expansion is at the root of the impacts and the threats to meeting those sustainable development goals, leaving climate aside entirely just fossil fuel air pollution alone is the leading cause of premature death worldwide, with over 8 million people dying last year just from air pollution alone the majority of which came from fossil fuels.
If we regulate and start to manage a decline in fossil fuel production, then that will help us meet every other one of our sustainable development goals. And let’s not forget that fossil fuels are also responsible for 86 percent of the carbon trapped in our atmosphere, causing the fires, floods, and extreme weather that result from climate change.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges in the implementation of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty?
Berman: The primary challenge to implementing a fossil fuel treaty at this point is that a small group of countries stand to benefit significantly from the continued expansion of fossil fuel production, and they don’t want to let that go. Of course, not a single country in the world doesn’t recognize that climate change is one of the greatest threats to global and national security and stability. However, every country likes to believe they can be the last barrel sold, and we can still align production with Paris’s goals and ensure a phase-out. The problem is, of course, it’s not at all true when you add that up.
It’s a typical tragedy of the commons problem, and that’s why we need international cooperation and countries to collaborate. We do not expect at this point in the fossil fuel treaty that major producing nations, especially the ones that are planning the greatest expansion such as Canada, the United States, and Australia, these wealthy northern countries are responsible for the majority of fossil fuel expansion that is planned on the planet in the next five years. We do not expect that they or other incumbents such as Saudi Arabia or Russia will join a fossil fuel treaty. That weakens the impact in the short term. However, when we studied six other international treaties, what we found is that many of the most difficult and intransigent issues and treaties were created by a small group of high-ambition countries that started to create rules that have consequences for countries not being in the group.
So, when we consider the fossil fuel treaty, we’re looking at mechanisms and agreements such as market access agreements, trade agreements, tax agreements, and debt relief agreements that would create benefits only for the club of countries negotiating and signing on to the treaty. The treaty has impact. One is that it will start to change the rules of the game of fossil fuel production and expansion.
One of the agreements under the treaty that we’re looking at, for example, is that all countries that have endorsed the treaty commit to purchasing only fossil fuels from other treaty countries in the transition period.
So what that would literally mean is that you’re saying to Colombia, for example, we’ll need to buy some of your oil and gas between now and 2050, but we’re only going to buy from you because you’ve committed to aligning production with Paris goals and helping design a treaty.
That provides more certainty of production and price for both the buyer and the seller. It creates a new OPEC. So, being in the club of countries designing the fossil fuel treaty would have benefits, and there would be negative consequences for countries that aren’t.
But the other big area besides the specific mechanisms is the question of how we shift the social norm about what is acceptable behaviour within foreign policy and what we’ve seen with other major treaties, whether it be the landmine treaty or chemical weapons ban for example or even nuclear non-proliferation with both nuclear treaties is that you had small groups of countries that started to form the rules and support from around the world through campaigns and communications for what they were doing.
The campaigns to end landmines and the nuclear-free cities campaigns in the 70s. This work started to shift what was acceptable, and those treaties created new social norms. So even though, for example, Russia or Saudi Arabia doesn’t join the treaty, they stop stockpiling the weapons because it has become unacceptable in other areas of bilateral or multilateral conversation and within foreign policy to stockpile those weapons.
Today, fossil fuels are our weapons of mass destruction. They are the greatest single cause of death and threat to global security and health. So, we need countries to understand that stockpiling and expanding the production of fossil fuels is simply unacceptable.
This is almost an entire flip in social norms that will have to happen because many of us grew up with a constant drumbeat from the fossil fuel industry and incumbents that expanding fossil fuels was essential to prosperity. We need to flip that social norm, and that’s part of what we’re trying to do with the diplomatic, campaigning, and communications efforts of the fossil fuel treaty.
Jacobsen: How does climate activism compare with historical environmentalism regarding types of strategies?
Berman: That’s an interesting question. The first couple of decades of climate activism didn’t learn from other environmental movements and environmental successes because climate activism was, in part, born out of science and policy logs. It was a movement based on targets, on numbers, on what was going to happen in the future, and the result was that the narrative and conversation were very inaccessible to the majority of people.
They couldn’t see carbon, climate impacts in their daily lives, or a relationship between their lives and these targets that groups were saying were essential for governments to set. So, it was very difficult to build a political movement around emissions targets and benchmarks, which were an invisible threat. When the pipeline and coal plant campaigns started emerging, the campaigns ‘ work became much more tangible and directly reflected the lessons learned from the forest movements in the ’70s through the ’90s.
Place-based organizing with impacted people has multiple sets of tools, including litigation, regulatory focus pro, tests and movement building and has significantly strengthened the climate movement around the world to make it more accessible. Today, the climate movement and certainly the movement for the fossil fuel treaty, which I know closest of all, is more diverse than any other environmental movement in history. We see doctors, faith leaders, scientists, Indigenous people, frontline community leaders, world-leading scientists, mayors, and presidents of nations standing together to call for something and working together to raise awareness because climate change affects every aspect of our lives.
There are many different entry points. Over the past 10 years, the issue has opened up, and people can see the real impacts in their daily lives. The movement has started to focus more on tangible projects and opposition to those projects rather than just emissions and policy targets. We’re starting to see a strong and more diversified movement.
Jacobsen: What are your near-term goals for shaping public discourse and policy?
Berman: The most important goal in shaping the discourse is to shift fossil fuels from being a siloed conversation within technical energy phase-out and maybe decarbonization conversations and elevating the need for a fossil fuel phase-out and the plans for a fossil fuel phase-out to be a part of every conversation that we have because the climate challenge is a direct result of our fossil fuel use and production. It will not be resolved without a fossil fuel phase-out that affects every aspect of our lives.
Unfortunately, we have conversations politically and in popular communications about affordability, health, education, and economic stability. Then we have this smaller conversation about the decarbonization effort, fossil fuels and energy systems or climate change. Still, those issues are directly linked to the climate impacts we see today in the challenge of a fossil fuel phase-out. Yesterday, I went to buy a bottle of olive oil from my favourite Greek store here in Vancouver, and the tin that was $40 last year is $108 this year. The woman at the till said so many olive groves all across Greece and Italy either went up in flames or the trees fell over during the floods, so we don’t have olives. There’s a direct correlation between these different aspects of our daily lives. What’s happening in the climate? The answer comes down to the fossil fuel phase-out.
The most critical thing we can do is have our eyes wide open and have this conversation about managing the decline of our use and production of fossil fuels, which is at the core of all of the other policy and political conversations.
Jacobsen: How effective are the communication strategies employed and used in the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty initiative?
Berman: Our communication strategies have been quite effective. We’ve grown very quickly over the past four years. We started with almost no money and two full-time staff people proposing an entirely new global treaty and a conversation around the world during COVID.
Today, 16 nations are working on a fossil fuel treaty. We have a network of 3,800 organizations in every corner of the globe. The campaign is active in 40 to 50 countries at this point. Hundreds of cities have endorsed through motions.
Three thousand of the world’s leading scientists have now endorsed the concept of the fossil fuel treaty. This month, we passed the threshold of a million individuals who have signed on to the treaty. So, for that growth in the time that we’ve had with the resources that we’ve had, it has to be that our communications are effective.
From the polling, two things are in our favor. One is that although the actual treaty and the issues will be very complicated, we have been able to simplify the choice at hand. While climate change is complicated, it depends on how much we produce and use three products: coal, oil, and gas.
Ultimately, we need to work together to stop producing the bad stuff so we can focus our money and elected officials on fast-tracking the good stuff. It’s quite simple, and it speaks to people’s values. The fossil fuel treaty is about fairness.
It’s about justice and equity in the transition. Our communications also benefit people by being almost like a big reveal. For decades, the fossil fuel industry has made its products invisible in climate policy and negotiations, to the extent that the words “fossil fuels” don’t even exist in the Paris Agreement, nor do the words “oil,” “gas,” and “coal.”
That’s part of the reason we haven’t been able to reach our climate targets successfully. People really wanted an answer to why it’s not working. Well, it’s not working because we’re not even talking about, let alone focusing on, reducing the products that are harming us.
There’s an answer there: a motivation around fairness, a simple choice we’re asking, and a shared global demand. Whether you live in Mozambique, in the rainforest in Ecuador, in the tar sands in Canada or anywhere on the globe, you can ask your elected official to support a fossil fuel treaty. We haven’t had one big global demand that makes us feel greater than the sum of our parts, that makes us feel like we’re not alone at home campaigning or working on climate change, but in fact, we’re part of something much bigger.
We haven’t had that—maybe not since Paris 10 years ago. So, the momentum and the shared global demand—what we’ve seen in our polling and our focus groups—are that people are saying, finally, big, bold demand and ask and vision that is commensurate with the scale of the problem.
People are tired of you telling them that the planet is on fire and that they should wear a sweater or save to buy a Prius. It’s not enough.
Jacobsen: What is the foundational ethic in arguing for a transition from fossil fuels?
Berman: Equity, justice, and fairness. Those ethics are essential to arguing for a fossil fuel treaty. Renewables are now cheaper in every corner of the planet than fossil fuels.
Electrification is faster than the transition to fossil fuels. The pickup of electric cars has been off the charts. One in five cars sold on the planet this year will be electric. We will phase out fossil fuels because it makes sense. It’s cheaper, it’s safer, and it doesn’t kill people. A solar spill is just a sunny day, unlike an oil spill, many of which I’ve lived through.
The question is, how fast will it happen, and how many people will be left behind? How much damage will there be? Those are the core questions today. We are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Every ton of carbon we save from entering the atmosphere, every LNG project or coal plant we save from being built, will save lives. Right now, the most vulnerable people are in countries that haven’t benefited from the fossil fuel era and haven’t created the problem.
If those countries struggling under crushing debt are going to move forward on a fossil fuel phase-out and not end up caught into the fossil fuel system now to feed their debt, which is what we’re seeing. Ecuador is drilling in the heart of the Amazon rainforest to feed its debt. If those countries will move forward and have strong economies that are safe in the future, a fossil fuel treaty or some of the mechanisms we’re discussing under a fossil fuel treaty is absolutely essential.
This question of who gets to produce fossil fuels right now, if it is the dangerous resource that we know that it is, and we can only use limited quantities of it on this planet, who should get to produce and use it is ultimately an equity issue and a fairness issue. Right now, the countries producing the most of it and planning to expand the most of it are the countries that created this problem and are the countries that have very rich economies as a result in part of the fossil fuel era. A fossil fuel treaty ensures equity, fairness, and justice.
Jacobsen: What needs to be done to promote more corporate social responsibility practices?
Berman: This is such a big question, too. I’m going to zero in on one issue. Right now, the majority of the world’s corporations and banks are claiming to have climate plans by buying their way out of the problem through offsets and carbon credits, even though in the last five years, the majority of offsets and carbon credits have been debunked as useless and certainly fraudulent.
The science is very clear. We need absolute emissions reductions and a decline in fossil fuel production, and we need to stop investing in fossil fuels.
Many banks and corporations find that difficult or don’t want to do it because they still stand to make enormous profits off their production or use of fossil fuels. They create corporate social responsibility plans on climate change and sustainability through the idea that they can buy forests and other credits and continue to pollute. Even if it were a system that was working, the time for that is long past.
With a planet on fire, we don’t need one tool in our tool belt now. We need everything we can get. That means we need companies to commit to no new fossil fuel investment and an absolute decline in emissions and production of fossil fuels, along with investing in local community initiatives to protect nature and ensure our greater standing.
They don’t get to choose, and they don’t get to buy one off against the other.
Jacobsen: What needs to be done to promote more corporate social responsibility practices?
Berman: Right now, the majority of the world’s corporations and banks are claiming to have climate plans by buying their way out of the problem through offsets and carbon credits, even though in the last five years, the majority of offsets and carbon credits have been debunked as useless and fraudulent.
The science is very clear: We need an absolute decline in emissions and production of fossil fuels and a stop to investing in them.
Many banks and corporations find that difficult or don’t want to do it because they still stand to make enormous profits from their production, use, or investment in fossil fuels. They create corporate social responsibility plans on climate change and sustainability through the idea that they can buy forests and other credits and continue to pollute. Even if it were a system that was working, the time for that is long past.
We don’t just need one tool in our tool belt right now, with a planet on fire. We need everything we can get. That means we need companies to commit to no new fossil fuel investment and an absolute decline in emissions and production of fossil fuels, along with investing in local community initiatives to protect nature and ensure our greater standing.
They don’t get to choose, and they don’t get to buy one off against the other. I think this modeling system under net zero, which allows them to buy offsets and credits and claim to be sustainable companies or to have good climate change policies, will be seen as one of the greatest scandals and frauds of the 21st century.
Jacobsen: Are there any final points?
Berman: Here are the things that we didn’t get to. One of the things that a fossil fuel treaty will do if we manage the phase out of fossil fuel production is stimulate investments in renewable energy technologies and infrastructure and elevate and support the rising demand for clean energy, which will, in turn, lower costs through innovation and economies of scale. That’s a critical piece regarding global energy markets, which I didn’t get to. The fossil fuel industry, or the fossil fuel era, has been characterized by boom and bust moments.
It is very volatile, and these are volatile products. So, one of the impacts on global energy markets will be to ensure less vulnerability and more stability, which will have reverberations throughout the economy for planning, community stability, and economic stability. I think we have seen a direct correlation between many wars and power held in the hands of a very small number of people and, at times, very destructive and fascist governments. That power, that money, or that war is a direct result of fossil fuels. We will start to see that shift as our fossil fuel dependence decreases. We’ll see enhanced influence for countries that prioritize renewable energy development, which by its very nature has less potential for weaponization and more potential for stability and diversification of power within nation-states and between nation-states.
And then finally, one of the big barriers, because one of your questions was about barriers, and one of the big barriers or problems that we’re seeing arising, which has to be overcome, is the potential for legal disputes over devalued fossil fuel assets. So, the question of stranded assets is huge. And, of course, we’re already seeing governments facing liabilities under investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. We will see a rise in that in the years to come. So, the connection between straight and ISDS agreements and how those issues will be resolved as fossil fuel assets are mothballed are huge questions.
There will be a period of increased market uncertainty, which could deter investments in industries relying on fossil fuels. Then, they may risk the knock-on effects of stranded assets and capital shifts. But in some ways, that’s why it’s so important to have a cooperative timeline agreed to for a managed decline of fossil fuel phase-out so you can plan for those shifts. There is no question that we’ll see greater instability in a fossil fuel phase-out if it isn’t planned and there isn’t as much cooperation between states. Yep. That’s all I had.
Jacobsen: Laura, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Berman: You’re welcome.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/04
The acquisition of 522 University Avenue by UHN is a transformative move to meet Canada’s increasing cancer care demands. This facility will bolster UHN’s innovation in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. It will support growth at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Toronto General Hospital by reallocating teams and launching new programs. Key initiatives include an Early Cancer Detection program, Prostate Cancer Centre, and a centralized Cancer Digital Intelligence team leveraging AI and analytics. The space will expand outpatient capacity by 20%, add inpatient beds, and strengthen collaboration with academic partners, serving as a vital training hub for future experts.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the significance of the acquisition of 522 University Avenue for UHN’s cancer care work?
University Health Network: The acquisition of 522 University Avenue is a pivotal step for UHN in addressing the growing demand for cancer care in Canada. This addition to UHN’s footprint will increase our capacity to drive innovation and research in cancer prevention, early cancer detection, diagnostics and treatment.
Jacobsen: How will the new building support programs at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Toronto General Hospital?
University Health Network: This new space will support the growth of programs at both the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Toronto General Hospital. By strategically relocating specific teams and launching new programs, the facility will help us meet the rising demand for cancer care and enhance our ability to offer cutting-edge treatments for cancer prevention and curability in the decades to come.
Jacobsen: What new services and programs are planned for the facility at 522 University Avenue?
University Health Network: The newly acquired building will house several key programs, which could include enhanced supportive care, an Early Cancer Detection program, a new Prostate Cancer Centre, and a centralized Cancer Digital Intelligence team. These initiatives will leverage advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence to optimize care, ensuring UHN remains at the forefront of cancer treatment and research.
Jacobsen: How will UHN address increasing demand for cancer diagnosis and treatment?
University Health Network: With the new building housing these teams, there will be more space at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to expand cancer care services. This added capacity is expected to increase outpatient volume by 20 percent and provide an additional 10 to 20 inpatient beds. These improvements will help manage the growing number of patients, while ensuring that UHN maintains its commitment to world-class cancer care and treatment.
Jacobsen: Will artificial intelligence and digital analytics play a factor in the cancer care programs?
University Health Network: Artificial intelligence and digital analytics will play a significant role in UHN’s cancer care programs. The building will house a centralized Cancer Digital Intelligence team that will leverage advanced data analytics and AI to optimize care.
Jacobsen: What impact does UHN have on collaboration with partner academic institutions and as a training ground for health care learners?
University Health Network: The acquisition of 522 University Avenue will provide new opportunities for research and education, especially for students at UHN’s Michener Institute. It will help bridge gaps in cancer research and care, while also offering a vital training ground for the next generation of cancer experts.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/03
Dr. Arlan Richardson is a Professor of Geriatric Medicine and the Donald W. Reynolds Endowed Chair of Aging Research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. With over 40 years of experience, he has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and mentored over 50 scientists. His pioneering work includes research on dietary restriction and gene expression, oxidative stress, and rapamycin’s effects on aging. Dr. Richardson has received numerous accolades, including the Nathan Shock Award and the Irving Wright Award of Distinction. His current focus is on oxidative stress, necroptosis, inflammation, and dietary restriction in aging using genetic mouse models. Richardson discussed the evolution of aging research over the past 50 years. Key findings include the benefits of dietary restriction and rapamycin in animal models. However, translating these to humans remains a challenge. Richardson emphasized the importance of addressing aging itself rather than focusing solely on curing individual diseases like cancer or heart disease, as these yield limited lifespan increases. He highlighted the societal challenge of obesity and stressed that combining caloric restriction with exercise could improve healthspan. Moving forward, advancing human trials and reliable anti-aging interventions are essential goals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Arlan G. Richardson, a distinguished American biochemist renowned for his extensive research on aging. He is a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and holds the Donald W. Reynolds Endowed Chair of Aging Research.
Anyway, in your decades of research in the field of aging, what developments have become more factual and moved away from being considered science fiction? Conversely, what areas still appear as intractable as they were when you began your career?
Richardson: That is an excellent question. When I started in the field in the 1970s—over 50 years ago—while I was very excited about studying aging, I seriously doubted whether we would ever discover a way to manipulate the aging process. It didn’t matter whether it was a model; it wasn’t even a human model.
When people ask me when we would find something to slow aging, I would always say, “Probably in 10 years.” Even though I didn’t believe it would happen even within my life time, I figured that in 10 years, nobody would remember what I had said. S
At that time, dietary restriction was the only known way to manipulate lifespan. I conducted many studies on this topic. We believed that if we could understand what dietary restriction was doing, we could target drugs to replicate its effects.
One of our significant findings was that dietary restriction almost reversed many problems associated with aging, such as disrupted biological pathways and the onset of age-related diseases. Dietary restriction delayed these issues. Animals subjected to dietary restriction lived longer and remained biologically younger. However, applying dietary restrictions to humans was a significant challenge because we all know that maintaining a strict diet for more than a year or two is extremely difficult for most people.
About 90% of people fail to sustain weight loss through dieting. I am an example of this myself. Given these limitations, I did not believe that, within my career, we would develop a drug capable of increasing lifespan and slowing aging.
What surprised me was the discovery in 2009 that rapamycin—a drug used in organ transplant rejection and some cancers—was shown to slow down aging in animal models. That was a significant milestone in the field of aging research.
Jacobsen: What areas should people be aware of regarding cautionary notes? Because, as with anything, there can be extraordinary promises that are technically grounded in the laws of physics or biology without necessarily negating their possibility. In finance, banking, or wellness, there’s always the potential for scams, fraud, or extraordinary claims that exceed the evidence.
As an expert, what are the main things people should be wary of—things known to be scams or frauds or that simply do not work?
Richardson: From a scientific standpoint, when discussing the ability of certain manipulations to work—whether in laboratory animals or life in general—the big question is whether these results will translate to humans. This is a significant issue because most of the manipulations that show promise in preventing conditions like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease in animal studies often fail to work in humans.
One consistent problem I see involves claims made about various supplements. These are often marketed as having effects on humans, even though there’s no solid foundation to support these claims, especially in animal studies. That doesn’t mean they won’t work in humans, but if something doesn’t show efficacy in animal studies, the likelihood of it working in humans is significantly reduced. On the other hand, just because a treatment works in animal models doesn’t guarantee it will work in humans. Does that make sense to you?
Jacobsen: Yes, it does. Please continue.
Richardson: Our studies are typically performed under what we call pristine conditions. The animals used are not exposed to infectious diseases or other external factors humans face daily. This raises the question of whether the results from these studies will translate to humans.
The most reliable advice remains the same: eat less and exercise more. This has been known for a long time, and everyone understands it. Yet, people often seek shortcuts—concoctions of drugs or supplements that claim to increase lifespan. If there’s no robust scientific evidence to back these claims—and in most cases, there isn’t—you must approach them cautiously.
Jacobsen: What are some things where experts are still on the fence? For instance, areas with enough evidence to suggest a modest effect but not enough to recommend them as regular practices for everyday life?
Richardson: A variety of laboratories have documented the observation of rapamycin. If you look at animal models, the best intervention is dietary restriction, which I’ve already discussed. The other significant intervention is rapamycin. While rapamycin is not a dietary system, its effects mimic some aspects of dietary restriction.
We know that rapamycin increases lifespan in animal models. However, people often overlook the need for consistent and rigorous scientific replication. Multiple labs have repeated the observation of rapamycin’s effects. The challenge is translating these findings to humans. Rapamycin does have some adverse effects, which has led to a reluctance to conduct large-scale clinical trials in humans.
Another major issue is how to test potential anti-aging compounds in humans. For instance, Neil Barclay at Albert Einstein College of Medicine has been thinking about this challenge and has proposed some ideas. Still, human lifespan studies are impractical due to the extended timeframe required. Instead, we need to identify compounds that do not require lifelong administration but can be introduced later in life to slow aging, prevent diseases, and maintain physiological function.
One area of interest is the development of compounds that can reduce appetite without the negative effects associated with traditional dietary restrictions. These compounds could reduce adiposity and have anti-aging effects. Preliminary animal studies suggest significant potential, but we are just beginning to explore their limits regarding anti-aging effects in humans.
Jacobsen: Who would you consider the leaders in this field?
Richardson: Dr. Steven Barthelon at UAB and Tim Kirkland, previously at the University of Texas and now at Cedars-Sinai. Both have made significant contributions to anti-aging therapies. Another prominent figure is Dr. Sara Espinoza, a leading geriatrician at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.
Jacobsen: On the whole, are supplements effective or ineffective?
Richardson: Based on studies with animal models, most vitamin supplements and related products are ineffective in extending lifespan or improving health outcomes.
Jacobsen: What about treatments that fall in between, such as over-the-counter options or medications typically prescribed for specific conditions? For example, you mentioned something like Ozempic, which has gained popularity. I recall working at a horse farm where some higher-income clients purchased and used it. They reported weight loss and some health improvements. Others have looked into metformin or anti-inflammatory treatments. Are these effective?
Richardson: Medications like Ozempic (semaglutide) and metformin have shown potential in specific contexts. Ozempic, for instance, was originally developed for managing diabetes but has demonstrated benefits for weight loss, which can indirectly improve overall health. Similarly, metformin has been studied for its potential anti-aging effects, but its efficacy is not yet definitive. Both require more robust clinical studies to determine their broader applicability for aging and longevity. Reducing chronic inflammation is another promising avenue, but the science is still evolving.
Metformin, in addition to its effects on diabetes, may also reduce the risk of cancer and other age-related conditions in humans. Interestingly, it did not significantly affect lifespan when studied in mice and rats. On the other hand, interventions like GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as Ozempic, which were originally developed for diabetes and are now used for weight loss, hold potential as anti-aging interventions. This is mainly because their mechanisms of action mimic some effects of caloric restriction.
We know caloric restriction has universal benefits in animal models, including vertebrates, dogs, and non-human primates. It consistently shows positive effects on lifespan. Even in human studies, such as a two-year caloric restriction trial, while lifespan effects weren’t measured, improvements were observed in insulin sensitivity, cardiac health, and other physiological markers.
Jacobsen: This raises questions about the impact of specific choices: whether to take Ozempic or metformin, exercise or not or follow a calorically restricted but nutritious diet. These are not just binary choices but matters of degree. How do increments of caloric restriction—say 10%, 20%, or 50%—impact health and longevity? Additionally, does the effect depend on the nutritional quality of the restricted diet?
Richardson: There’s been some debate, but reducing calories is key, regardless of the specific nutritional components. Exercise also plays a role, but it’s challenging to disentangle its effects from caloric reduction. The best approach is a combination of both.
In animal models, caloric restriction typically involves a 30–40% reduction, which is substantial. Some studies suggest benefits even with a 20% or as little as a 10% reduction. Based on this data, I believe a 15–20% reduction could be effective in humans. However, reductions exceeding 40% could lead to negative side effects.
You also asked about the duration of caloric restriction. In animal studies, many benefits have been observed over their lifespans. However, other studies, including ours, indicate that even applying caloric restriction during certain life stages—early or late—can yield benefits. My recommendation would be to focus on caloric restriction for overweight individuals. A more conservative approach would be appropriate for those at a normal weight.
The broader context is also important. Obesity has become a significant societal issue. Historically, life expectancy has increased dramatically—from around 40 years in the late 1800s to nearly 80 years today. This improvement is due to advancements in healthcare, nutrition, and living conditions. However, the obesity epidemic poses a significant challenge, potentially reversing some of these gains by increasing the prevalence of diseases that compromise health and productivity.
Jacobsen: On a sociological and health note, as well as within media, there are debates about the portrayal of weight and health. Some individuals, including influencers, argue—rightly, in my opinion—that overweight individuals should not be shamed. I completely agree with that.
At the same time, another perspective suggests that we should not encourage unhealthy lifestyles in general culture. I also agree with that. These two views are not necessarily contradictory. However, there are cases where some influencers who are quite overweight have died young, which highlights the importance of not promoting unhealthy habits. So, while individuals should be happy with themselves, we must also be cautious about inadvertently normalizing unhealthy lifestyles. What are your thoughts?
Richardson: I completely understand where you’re coming from. I once weighed 260 pounds, and now I’m around 180. I’ve experienced firsthand the sensitivity surrounding weight issues, but I also understand that being obese is not healthy. Similarly, not exercising is also detrimental, as I’ve often discussed.
Ignoring the fact that obesity poses serious health risks is not the solution. That said, I completely agree that it’s unfair to assume that people who are overweight lack willpower. It’s like telling an alcoholic they need more willpower to stop drinking—it doesn’t work that way.
For example, I’ve taken certain medications that have significantly curbed my appetite. Now, I can sit with my wife, eat a satisfying meal, and stop there. Previously, I would eat multiple helpings, and within hours, I’d be back at the refrigerator.
From a compassionate perspective, we should acknowledge that many people who are overweight don’t want to be. Still, they often face significant biological and psychological barriers. Recognizing and addressing those challenges is key, in my opinion.
Jacobsen: What parts of aging will be the hardest to overcome with science and research? What areas will present the toughest challenges for reaching strong, evidence-based conclusions in the future?
Richardson: The toughest challenge will be determining whether an intervention truly has an anti-aging effect on humans. This is a complex issue, and experts like Dr. Nir Barzilai might offer differing opinions.
One of the most remarkable developments over the past 50 years is discovering multiple ways to slow aging, particularly in animal models like mice. Evolution has demonstrated the ability to manipulate lifespan across different organisms, so extending lifespan is no longer as surprising as we once thought.
The real challenge lies in translating these findings from animal studies to humans. Testing interventions for aging fundamentally differs from testing treatments for diseases like cancer. You can administer a cancer therapy and observe its effects over a few years. With aging, it’s much harder to measure the impact of an intervention in a relatively short timeframe.
Until we solve this problem—finding reliable, evidence-based ways to test anti-aging interventions in humans—the ability to translate findings from mice to humans will remain limited. We need solid evidence that a given intervention can improve healthspan by enhancing function, reducing disease progression, and slowing the effects of aging.
Jacobsen: Is there anything else I haven’t covered that you think we should discuss?
Richardson: One important thing to consider is that most of our current research is focused on curing specific diseases, like cancer or heart disease. This approach—treating one disease at a time—has been incredibly powerful in the past. For example, we’ve seen the success of vaccines in addressing diseases like Ebola.
That said, some people now spread misinformation about vaccines, but that’s another topic entirely. The point is, even if we cured cancer and heart disease today, the increase in life expectancy would only be around 8 to 10 years, according to predictions. However, curing those diseases doesn’t necessarily improve the quality of life in a significant way.
The reason is straightforward: if you don’t die of cancer or heart disease, another disease will eventually emerge, and these later-stage conditions often come with significant costs—both financial and emotional. For example, Alzheimer’s disease is a prime example. It’s extremely expensive to manage and takes a heavy toll on family members who provide care.
If we want to have a real impact on quality of life, we need to focus on slowing the aging process itself. Addressing aging would have a broader and more profound effect on quality of life than curing individual diseases. Animal models treated with caloric restriction show this clearly. Animals at the equivalent of 90 human years that have undergone caloric restriction look and behave much younger than their ad-lib-fed counterparts. Their fur is healthier, they move more, and they exhibit overall better vitality.
From these models, we know that slowing aging benefits health and lifespan. The real question is whether these findings can effectively be translated to humans. That’s where the next big breakthroughs need to happen.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Arlan, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. It’s been a pleasure.
Richardson: Thank you so much. You take care.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo discussed racial progress and integration in the United States. They analyzed disparities between African Americans and whites across 21 indicators, emphasizing employment, wealth, education, and civic engagement. New Mexico, Hawaii, and Arizona excelled in integration. At the same time, Mississippi, Texas, and Wyoming showed progress in specific areas like health, education, and poverty reduction. Employment and wealth were prioritized due to their domino effect on other categories. However, challenges persist in health care, particularly in the Deep South. Lupo highlighted geographic and economic factors influencing disparities, concluding that progress remains uneven across states.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Oh my gosh, once again, we are here with Chip Lupo from WalletHub. How long have you been with WalletHub as an analyst?
Chip Lupo: I’ve been with WalletHub since 2018, primarily as a writer. About a year and a half ago, I transitioned to a writer-analyst role.
Jacobsen: Okay, great. Today, we will discuss racial progress, focusing on the states that have made the most significant strides and those that have lagged. To start with a broad question, how are you quantifying racial progress?
Lupo: That’s a great starting point, Scott. To identify the states that have made the most racial progress, we measure the disparities between African Americans and whites across 21 key indicators of equality in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These indicators span median annual household income, standardized test scores, voter turnout, and homeownership rates.
Jacobsen: I see. Regarding the top three—New Mexico, Hawaii, and Arizona—they’ve achieved the most racial integration. How did they manage that?
Lupo: These states have made notable progress. All three rank highly in employment, wealth, education, and social and civic engagement. This progress is largely due to effective public policies that create more opportunities for minorities in education or business. For instance, Hawaii ranks first in social and civic engagement.
However, there is still room for improvement in health care. In Hawaii and Arizona, there are significant gaps in the quality of hospitals and access to health insurance. On the other hand, New Mexico consistently ranks high across all four dimensions: employment and wealth, education, social and civic engagement, and health care. While Hawaii and Arizona rank well in most areas, healthcare remains a critical area for improvement.
Now, let’s talk about employment and wealth. All three states rank very highly in this area. For instance, New Mexico ranks 6th, Hawaii 2nd, and Arizona 4th. Indicators such as median household income show that racial income gaps are narrowing in these states. Unemployment rates are also levelling off, which is promising for achieving a better balance in employment.
Additionally, homeownership rates are improving, or at least the racial gaps in homeownership are shrinking. Poverty rates are declining, business ownership rates are increasing, and the representation of minorities in executive positions is growing. These advancements can largely be attributed to sound public policy and educational initiatives, which help raise awareness and support efforts to close racial disparities.
Arizona has seen an influx of new residents, which could be contributing to its progress. People moving to Arizona may be coming from states where racial disparities are not improving as much as they would like.
Jacobsen: Despite these positive trends, about 44% of Americans feel somewhat or very pessimistic about racial equality in the United States. This raises an important question: are public perceptions aligned with the data? In other words, even though the public may feel pessimistic, does the data indicate a more optimistic reality?
Jacobsen: It’s somewhere in the middle. And again, by state, you can feel some of this optimism in certain states, while in others, not so much. Let’s take a look at the bottom of the rankings.
Lupo: Sure. At the bottom, the District of Columbia ranks last at 51st. For discussion purposes, we’ll set D.C. aside and focus on the remaining states. Some lowest-ranking states include Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Michigan, Illinois, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.
Geography plays a role here, whether we want to admit it or not because these are upper Midwestern cold-weather states. That geographic trend was particularly noticeable. Additionally, many states in the Deep South are in the bottom half of the rankings, such as Missouri at 32nd, my home state of South Carolina at 34th, Arkansas at 38th, and Louisiana at 40th.
Jacobsen: Do geography and climate influence these rankings significantly?
Lupo: Yes, they do. Geography and climate impact the economy, influencing integration and progress.
Jacobsen: This study separates integration and progress into distinct metrics. Why were those categorized differently?
Lupo: That’s a good question, Scott. Integration refers to the assimilation of races into society, which has been an ongoing process since the 1960s. Racial progress takes a more comprehensive approach by combining various measures to assess how well integration works—or where it’s not working.
Integration metrics look at how well different racial groups blend into society. In contrast, racial progress metrics highlight areas needing improvement and assess overall effectiveness.
Jacobsen: Three states stood out in this study—Texas, Wyoming, and Mississippi. Can you elaborate on their performance in terms of integration and progress?
Lupo: Absolutely. Each state has made specific strides:
- Texas: Significant progress was achieved by closing healthcare gaps between whites and African Americans.
- Wyoming: Reduced the earnings gap, reflecting economic progress.
- Mississippi: Closed the poverty gap by 27 percentage points since 1970.
Jacobsen: How would you characterize their performance in integration and progress overall?
Lupo: One area where all three states rank highly is education. Wyoming is 1st, Texas is 4th, and Mississippi is 7th in education metrics. Key indicators include:
- Public high school dropout rates (the gap is narrowing).
- Standardized test scores.
- Share of adults with at least a high school diploma.
- Share of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree.
All three states are performing well in these areas, which is crucial.
Jacobsen: What about their weakest areas?
Lupo: Mississippi shows a noticeable drop in its social and civic engagement rank, coming in at 25th. Key indicators here include:
- Share of single-parent households.
- Share of the adult population on parole.
- Voter turnout rates (an important area for improvement).
- Share of veterans.
Mississippi’s lower ranking in this category suggests that more work must be done to foster civic participation, particularly to get more people to the polls.
Jacobsen: That’s another interesting one. How did Mississippi do in that category?
Lupo: They did pretty well. Texas, on the other hand, is ranked 16th there. So, Mississippi still has some work to do regarding social and civic engagement, particularly in encouraging minorities to vote. This could be addressed through better campaigning, education, or awareness programs.
Jacobsen: What about the categories being weighted? Employment and wealth dominate, followed by a tie between education, social and civic engagement, and health.
Lupo: That’s correct. Employment and wealth have a full weight of 5.71 points, while education and social and civic engagement are each weighted at 5 points. Health, however, is weighted lower at 2.86 points.
Jacobsen: Why is health weighted less than the other categories?
Lupo: That’s because there are more subcategories within health. For example, there are seven different subcategories in health alone. The emphasis on employment and wealth stems from these gaps being the most discussed and widely recognized.
The theory is that narrowing the income gap creates a domino effect: better income can lead to improved education opportunities, better access to health care, and a higher quality of life. That’s why employment and wealth are given more weight—40 points versus 20 points for the other dimensions. Closing the income gap is foundational for addressing inequalities in other areas.
Jacobsen: Based on this study, how would you assess racial progress and integration in the U.S.?
Lupo: There’s still a long way to go, especially in rural and Deep South states. Key areas needing improvement include the quality of hospitals, health care, and access to affordable insurance.
The data shows narrowing gaps in some areas, but when you look at healthcare rankings, many low-income states in the Deep South rank poorly. This confirms that healthcare remains a critical area for improvement.
Jacobsen: We’ve covered the categories, rankings, weightings, and broader trends. Is there anything else to add?
Lupo: No, I think that’s everything. We’re starting to streamline these discussions, which is great.
Jacobsen: All right. Thank you very much for your time today. I’ll get started on this.
Lupo: Thanks, Scott. Anytime.
Jacobsen: You too.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo discusses WalletHub’s 2025 study on the best and worst U.S. cities for an active lifestyle. Top cities like Honolulu, New York, and San Francisco excel in recreational facilities, while North Las Vegas ranks lowest. Factors include access to amenities, affordability, air quality, urban planning, and Google fitness search trends. Cities like Garland and Anaheim highlight suburban challenges, with residents often seeking activities in larger cities. Lupo emphasizes urban areas’ dominance in promoting active lifestyles due to better infrastructure. The study’s weighting of metrics like basketball courts and playgrounds reflects their popularity and impact on physical activity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here again with Chip Lupo to discuss WalletHub’s study titled “Best and Worst Cities for an Active Lifestyle in 2025.” This study identifies U.S. cities where Americans have the best opportunities to maintain an active lifestyle this year. According to the study, the top cities for an active lifestyle are Honolulu, Hawaii; New York, New York; and San Francisco, California. The lowest-ranked cities are North Las Vegas, Nevada; Irving, Texas; and Fort Wayne, Indiana. Before delving into specifics, what factors contribute to these cities ranking at the top or bottom in promoting an active lifestyle? What stood out about the top three cities? This evaluation focuses solely on the city proper, excluding surrounding metropolitan areas. As we continue, this distinction will become clearer.
Chip Lupo: Interestingly, all of the top ten cities, from Honolulu in first place to Cincinnati in tenth, ranked highly in WalletHub’s “sports and outdoors” category. This category includes metrics such as the number of basketball hoops, soccer fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, public golf courses, and ice-skating rinks per capita. Being densely populated, these cities meet the demand for such facilities. While some cities had lower rankings in the “budget and participation” category, they still performed well overall. For instance, San Diego, ranked eighth overall, was 31st in the budget and participation dimension, considering factors like average monthly fitness club fees, cost of sports apparel, average bowling costs, number of sporting goods stores per capita, and the percentage of physically inactive adults.
Jacobsen: Regarding the lower-ranked cities, it’s notable that Las Vegas is ranked fourth overall, yet its neighbouring suburb, North Las Vegas, is at the bottom, ranked 100th. What could explain this disparity?
Lupo: This disparity may be because residents of North Las Vegas seeking recreational activities prefer to travel to Las Vegas rather than utilize facilities in their suburbs. This highlights the differences in resources and opportunities between a major city like Las Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Jacobsen: The study encompasses various factors, including the availability of sporting goods stores, public golf courses, fitness trainers, aerobics instructors, and playgrounds, which cater to different age demographics. Playgrounds, for example, are primarily for children. Does this study consider the entire lifespan of physical activity when evaluating cities?
Lupo: The study takes a comprehensive approach covering all age groups. It evaluates amenities like playgrounds and soccer fields that benefit youth and adults. While there are specific metrics for inactive adults, the study includes all demographics.
Jacobsen: Do different age groups require varying levels of physical activity? Is this a factor to consider when interpreting the results?
Lupo: Yes, different age groups have varying physical activity needs, and the study’s comprehensive approach accounts for these differences, providing a holistic view of how cities support active lifestyles across all demographics.
Jacobsen: The frequency of their provisions, like playgrounds versus golf courses, would also differ. Could it be a one-to-one mapping? Let’s start with the top five cities. In a place like Honolulu, primarily a resort area, there might not be as much emphasis on family-friendly activities. Instead, the focus could be on activities tailored to tourists and vacationers to keep them active while away from home. Would you agree?
Lupo: Yes, and the same applies to New York and San Francisco. These are also diverse areas, ethnically speaking. The diversity pushes for various activities to cater to different ethnic groups. You have to consider the overall population and various activities that suit their needs.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Another factor to consider is the cost of fitness facilities. For instance, there is a huge difference in monthly fitness club fees between places like Garland, Texas, and Anaheim, California—up to 16 times the difference in average cost. How does that disparity affect people’s ability or even desire to get a gym membership and use it?
Lupo: Garland, Texas, is an interesting case because it’s essentially a suburb of the Dallas–Fort Worth area. Anaheim is similar—it’s about 40 miles outside Los Angeles. Individuals seeking more adventurous or dynamic activities are often venturing outward. These areas are largely commuter towns, so residents frequently leave their home areas to access entertainment or fitness opportunities in the larger cities. It’s the same dynamic we discussed earlier with Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.
Jacobsen: That’s an important point. You mentioned Irvine, California, earlier. Could proximity to cities and the distances between activities within a city factor into the physical activity levels of adults? For example, could these distances make people decide to stay home and spend more time online instead of engaging in physical activities?
Lupo: Absolutely. Irvine is an excellent example. It’s in Orange County, a suburban area of Los Angeles. Public transportation is a significant issue in Southern California, and traffic congestion discourages people from travelling to nearby cities. In Irvine, you might spend much time driving into and out of Los Angeles. As a result, people may prefer staying home, telecommuting, or working out at home rather than dealing with the hassle of travel. All of these factors contribute to physical inactivity in such areas.
Urban planning, transportation infrastructure, and local amenities all substantially shape people’s activity levels. We’re talking about these large, sprawling areas where public transportation is a significant problem. It’s a college town, so there is much walkability. Many students don’t have cars for various reasons. So, at least within university environments, it’s a walkable area. In this particular study, only a few factors were given double weight: basketball hoops per capita, baseball and softball diamonds per capita, and average monthly fitness club fees.
Jacobsen: Those factors and the share of physically inactive adults were given double weight. Additionally, fitness centers per capita, hiking trails, and playgrounds were double-weighted. Hiking trails are particularly interesting because they offer Americans access to physical activity for free. Were there any metrics considered for triple or quadruple weight?
Lupo: Not that I’m aware of. The ones that received double weight, especially basketball hoops and baseball diamonds, are among the most popular recreational facilities. Whether you’re renovating or constructing these facilities, they’re relatively easy to maintain once built. There’s also a high demand for them, so they were prioritized in the weighting. Soccer fields follow closely behind in popularity, but basketball and baseball facilities tend to dominate.
Jacobsen: Air quality is another factor I’ve been thinking about. Does poor air quality impact people’s willingness to go outside for physical activity? Or is it more about whether their health is directly affected while exercising outdoors?
Lupo: It’s a bit of both. As we discussed with traffic issues, people might avoid going outside or driving far to exercise. If the air quality is poor, they’re likely to stay indoors, exercise at home, or find recreation closer to home to avoid prolonged exposure to unhealthy air. For example, the recent fires in Los Angeles have made air quality unbearably poor. Southern California has struggled with air quality for years, and events like this only make things worse. It will be interesting to see how this affects outdoor activity over the coming months.
Jacobsen: Another fascinating aspect is the inclusion of Google search trends in methodologies. Google accounts for over 90% of all searches, so when we’re talking about search engines, we’re talking about Google. The inclusion of search terms like “workout at home,” “ab workouts at home,” “chest workouts at home,” “leg workouts at home,” “bodyweight workout,” and “dumbbells resistance bands” is intriguing. These searches aren’t the physical act of getting out and doing something but indicate a major precursor to physical activity.
Lupo: While these searches don’t directly measure outdoor activity, they provide insight into how people adapt their fitness routines. Search trends like these show a shift in behaviour, with many opting for at-home workouts due to factors like convenience, cost, or external conditions such as poor air quality or traffic. It’s critical to understand how people maintain active lifestyles in different environments.
Jacobsen: Either they’re searching to buy something for someone else or to buy it for themselves. Could there be a context under which these searches are so significant that you would have given them double weight rather than full weight?
Lupo: I think so, particularly during COVID, when people had little choice but to stay home. This is becoming a trend, much like working from home. More and more people are shifting toward home-based fitness. If nothing else, these searches show at least an interest in working out at home. You can build your gym and customize it to your preferences. It’s yours once you pay for the equipment—no monthly gym fees.
If you relocate, you take your equipment with you. You don’t have to worry about finding another gym or whether a gym chain has a location in your new city. It’s about maintaining interest and staying active but also reflects practicality.
Jacobsen: Before we wrap up today, do you have any final notes to make as an inclusive statement on this particular study?
Lupo: Sure. Let’s take another good look at the top ten. As we’ve mentioned, these are, for the most part, urban areas—sprawling urban areas, to be precise. To reiterate an earlier point, the study evaluates only the city proper. You’ll notice that while the top 10, 12, or even 15 cities for active lifestyles rank well, the outlying areas often don’t fare as well. This is because residents in those areas are likelier to enter the major city to access physical activities or recreational opportunities.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Chip, thank you as always.
Lupo: No problem. Talk to you later.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/31 (Unpublished)
James McCarthy, Vice President of Marketing at RedCloud Technologies, discusses marketplace technology, AI-driven insights, and digital payments. He highlights the need for specialized fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) marketplaces, emphasizing supply chain transparency and demand prediction. AI enhances efficiency by helping brands, distributors, and retailers optimize inventory and reduce waste. Digital payments streamline transactions, but challenges remain in integrating them fully. McCarthy also addresses the 18% inventory gap and the resilience of independent retail despite e-commerce growth. RedCloud Technologies aims to leverage AI and data-driven solutions to enhance market penetration and consumer engagement through bundling strategies and predictive analytics.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with James McCarthy. He was recently appointed—last fall- as Vice President of Marketing at RedCloud Technologies. He has extensive experience with major companies such as Microsoft and Vodafone. Thank you, Vodafone Ukraine. It is incredibly helpful for security and has the cheapest data I’ve ever had.
RedCloud Technologies announced his appointment on social media and expressed excitement about the news. Today, we’re discussing your role, focusing on the future of marketplace technology, AI-driven insights, retail distribution, the rise of digital payments, and unlocking global supply chains. So, how is marketplace technology evolving? What role does AI play in shaping that future?
James McCarthy: Before diving into AI, I’d like to address a few other key aspects regarding the future of marketplace technology in the future of marketplace technology. First, there is currently a lack of marketplaces tailored to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), which include perishable and non-perishable products that people buy and consume daily.
Typically, B2B marketplaces are not designed for high-volume, fresh, and perishable goods. However, getting these products into the hands of retailers, who then make them available to consumers, is crucial. The first step in advancing marketplace technology is to create platforms that empower retailers, providing them with more choices to stock their shelves with the products their customers demand.
The key to the future of marketplace technology lies in building specialized marketplaces that serve the unique needs of specific groups around the world.
At RedCloud Technologies, we have identified a niche market in the independent retailer space for FMCG. Our platform enables retailers to access multiple supply options based on product, price, and sourcing flexibility. Some suppliers offer delivery with varying fees, while others provide better pricing. The goal is to give retailers the power to choose their suppliers more flexibly and efficiently.
AI’s role is closely tied to empowering brands, distributors, and retailers. AI helps independent retailers source the best products from the most suitable suppliers at the best prices, ensuring their shelves remain stocked and their customers are satisfied.
AI enables sellers to connect with new buyers, efficiently meet market demand, and optimize operations. Additionally, AI helps businesses collect and analyze trading data to anticipate market trends, reduce waste, and optimize pricing strategies by offering insights in real time.
Ultimately, AI enhances marketplace efficiency by making it easier for brands, distributors, and retailers to trade transparently and fairly. It ensures inventory arrives at the right time, place, and price so consumers can access the necessary products.
We envision this kind of marketplace, which is precisely what we’ve built for the FMCG sector.
Jacobsen: We are at the early stage of this. AI depends on big data, so the more purchases and transactions occur, the more precise the predictions will likely become. In a way, the amount of waste will be reduced—not exponentially, but significantly, at least in the early stages, over time.
McCarthy: Yes, if you look at the problem with waste, it traditionally occurs in the middle of the supply chain. The issue is often in distribution.
Brands can sometimes over-manufacture, but the distribution network often fails to understand regional demand accurately. As a result, the wrong quantities of products are shipped to the wrong locations. If the goods are durable—such as canned soup—this is less of an issue, as they can be redistributed.
However, for perishable products, which comprise a large portion of FMCG, getting the right products to the right place at the right time in the right quantities is essential to maintaining freshness. Logistically, this is difficult without precise demand forecasting from consumers and stores.
The primary driver on the issue of waste is the lack of communication within the supply chain. Companies struggle to anticipate and predict demand without proper connectivity, leading to poor decision-making.
Too many products are sent to one location while another experiences shortages, creating an inventory gap. We estimate that the global FMCG market is worth around $11 trillion, but approximately $2 trillion represents an inventory gap—where products fail to reach consumers because they are unavailable on store shelves when needed.
This is a massive problem. When supply chain inefficiencies occur, they not only lead to empty shelves but also result in products being stocked in places where they should not have been, causing waste and profitability issues.
Jacobsen: Brands are missing approximately 18% of additional potential profits because consumer demand exists, but supply chain inefficiencies prevent fulfillment.
McCarthy: Correct. It’s an estimate, of course—no one has mapped the full end-to-end process with complete accuracy—but it is likely a valid approximation.
This issue is particularly pronounced in emerging markets, where retailers tend to be smaller and more geographically dispersed. Unlike large-scale operations that manufacture and ship directly to major retailers like Walmart, these markets operate with a far more fragmented distribution network.
The inability to align supply with demand creates a significant challenge. In emerging markets, store shelves are often empty simply because deliveries do not arrive on time. Conversely, stores may stock products consumers do not want—simply because those are the only available products.
This presents a major challenge. Brands struggle to meet their full demand potential, retailers cannot access the products they need, and distributors—who operate on thin margins—must navigate complex logistical decisions while maintaining profitability.
Jacobsen: How do digital payments impact this sector?
McCarthy: Digital payments represent another friction point in the supply chain. It is crucial to create orders on a marketplace and ensure seamless payment for the right product at the right time. This enables buyers to access lending services, while distributors and brands benefit from payment guarantees and insurance. This ensures that when they deliver products, they receive payment, which has several implications.
From a retailer’s perspective, a key challenge is affordability. Many small retailers cannot purchase in large quantities to secure better pricing. Instead, they are forced to buy in small batches at higher prices. However, with digital payments and financial instruments, retailers can establish structured agreements with suppliers for a set number of weekly units. This creates more predictable commercial terms and guarantees payments for both parties.
For small independent stores, the challenge is even more fundamental. While some may accept digital payments through contactless terminals, their businesses are not necessarily digitally integrated. This creates difficulties in tracking revenue for each product sold, associating payments with supply agreements, and ultimately understanding business profitability. Managing the business efficiently becomes a significant challenge without a clear link between consumer sales and supplier costs.
Jacobsen: I see a couple of key points of contact here. One is consumer uptake and demand—ensuring the right supply is available. Another is the adoption of digital payments and their integration into the system.
These issues fall under the larger umbrella of customer or consumer engagement. How do you enhance consumer engagement with consumable goods and digital payment technology? Can these processes be integrated for optimization?
McCarthy: That’s an interesting question. We are seeing a steady increase in digital payments, even in emerging markets where cash has traditionally been dominant. Cash usage is declining significantly in most markets, and contactless transactions are becoming the norm. What do you mean by engaging consumers with products?
Jacobsen: Sure. The most obvious gap between supply and demand is the 18% inventory gap, where consumers want unavailable products on shelves. The challenge is getting the right supply to the right locations and leveraging technology to predict demand more accurately. Additionally, integrating payments into this system could further streamline the process.
The payment side is a bit trickier, but I can give a practical example. In Vancouver, we have a transit system called SkyTrain, which uses a Compass Card. To use it, you must first purchase the card, load funds onto it, and connect it to a bank account for automatic reloads.
In contrast, in Ukraine, public transit payments are much more direct. You tap your Visa card to enter it without an intermediary system like a stored-value card. After tapping, you descend into the subway via long Soviet-era escalators to reach the station.
So, different systems create varying levels of efficiency. Some require extra intermediary steps, while others provide a more seamless, bank-connected experience. There are likely ways to streamline digital payments in retail to make consumer engagement smoother and more intuitive.
McCarthy: Oh yes, that’s correct., If you look at the datasets, based on the data we collect, our marketplace allows us to gather a significant amount of first-party information on how transactions and trade are happening.
Regarding consumer demand, we can analyze retail store throughput—how much product moves through them. We can also assess trade volume geographically for specific product categories and determine what types of products are selling and in what quantities.
This data allows us to make supply chain predictions based on factors like seasonality, helping us estimate future demand for various product categories and subcategories. Additionally, since we track which brands are being shipped, we can provide valuable insights to brand customers, helping them predict demand for their products.
However, what we do not track is the consumer point-of-sale transaction. When a customer purchases an item with a contactless card, we do not capture the sell-through data at the cash register.
Since we do not own or operate the point-of-sale (POS) systems, that part of the data remains outside our scope. However, we do know what products are being supplied to each store. Assuming that everything supplied is eventually sold, we can make informed estimates about consumer demand at a macro level.
Jacobsen: Is AI enabling more transparent and resilient supply chains?
McCarthy: Yes, it is. Primarily, AI helps sellers identify underserved market segments and discover ways to meet their needs more effectively.
Regarding resilience, AI is critical in helping the supply chain anticipate demand, ensuring that businesses can maintain sufficient stock levels to fulfill consumer needs.
Resilience is a particularly interesting challenge. It essentially means structuring supply chain operations to enable predictability, allowing businesses to plan, stock appropriately, and respond effectively to fluctuations in demand.
Let me clarify: Resilience is the outcome of predictability.
Jacobsen: What strategies should brands adopt to leverage digital platforms for better market penetration?
McCarthy: Brands need to analyze and predict consumer demand at a much more granular level—not just through supermarket chains and traditional distribution channels but also through local communities and specific consumer groups.
Rather than relying solely on tier-one distribution data, brands should strive for end-to-end visibility into how products move through the supply chain. By understanding who is buying their products at the final stage, they can gain much better insights into sales performance and demand forecasting.
Jacobsen: I’ve heard a lot about traditional retail potentially declining—things like shopping malls becoming obsolete as more consumers shift to online ordering. Is that trend having an impact on the market as well?
McCarthy: Not really. In some markets, there may be an impact, but when it comes to day-to-day consumer goods—particularly fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)—local convenience stores, small supermarkets, and corner shops remain an integral part of the community, especially in urban areas.
You might do your weekly grocery shopping online and have it delivered, but you’re still likely to visit your local shop to pick up extra milk, bread, or other last-minute items you forgot to add to your online order.
In many countries, the relationship between independent retailers and their local communities remains very strong. This is especially true when these small retailers can stock the right products that their customers need.
Providing them access to a broader selection of brands, including leading ones, is essential to ensuring they can meet local consumer demand. This strengthens the value of independent retail at the street level.
Jacobsen: How can retailers use AI-driven insights to personalize customer experiences and drive sales?
McCarthy: One way to do this is through bundling. We’ve been working with some of our customers to recommend combinations of products that complement each other and match consumer buying habits. Bundling strategies help retailers optimize product offerings. By analyzing data on consumer behaviour, we can identify which products are frequently purchased together and recommend bundling them in-store.
This allows retailers to create promotional offers encouraging customers to buy complementary items, enhancing their shopping experience and increasing sales.
We’ve seen some strong results with this approach. It’s all data-driven, ensuring the recommendations are based on purchasing patterns.
In the future, we envision a space within our marketplace where these bundles will be automatically generated and recommended, which is exactly our direction.
Jacobsen: James, thank you for your time and the opportunity today.
McCarthy: My pleasure.
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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/31
Dr. Stanley G. Payne is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and a globally recognized expert on fascism, authoritarianism, and 20th-century European history. He earned his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1960 and has authored numerous influential works, including A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 and Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Known for his comparative approach, Payne’s research explores the origins, ideologies, and impacts of fascist movements, with a focus on Spain and Europe. His groundbreaking scholarship has significantly advanced the study of political ideologies, shaping modern understandings of authoritarian regimes and European political history. Payne explains the historical context and enduring legacy of fascist politics. Fascism emerged in advanced nations with organized nationalism and modern systems, distinct from communism’s reliance on force and violence. Fascist movements used alliances and systemic manipulation to achieve power, unlike communists who seized power through coups or revolutions. Modern political movements share superficial similarities with fascism but lack its foundational elements. Leaders like Giorgia Meloni and Marine Le Pen succeeded by distancing from neo-fascist traits, reflecting how fascist strategies influence today’s political landscape without replicating its essence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with the eminent historian and scholar, the prolific academic Stanley G. Payne. You are an expert in Spanish history, fascism, and 20th-century European political movements. You are an emeritus professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. You received a Ph.D. from Columbia University, an M.A. from Claremont Graduate School, and a B.A. from Pacific Union College. Some of your key works include Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany, and World War II, published in 2008; Cuarenta Preguntas fundamentales sobre la Guerra Civil, published in 2006; The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism, published in 2004; A History of Fascism, 1914–1945, published in 1995; Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977, published in 1999; and The Franco Regime, 1936–1975, published in 1987. As with every superhero story, there is always an origin. What sparked your interest in fascism, and how did this develop into your world-class expertise over time?
Prof. Stanley Payne: Well, it has a long history. Like all scholars, I had to write a master’s thesis and a doctoral dissertation. My advisors directed me to the fascist movement in Spain, which had never been studied on a scholarly level. We are talking about the late 1950s, a very long time ago. None of this work had been done yet; there was no research. I took up the topic as a project during graduate school. I wrote a book on the early history of the Spanish fascist movement.
I became interested in fascist parties, even though my main focus was on Spanish history. I began reading extensively about other European fascist movements and eventually wrote two books on fascism as a broader topic. One was a more political science-oriented account focusing on definitions. At the same time, the other was more fully empirical and had a general history of fascism. Over time, this developed into a specialization in fascist studies, which finally emerged as a recognized scholarly field toward the end of the 20th century. Now, there is even a fascist studies association, although I am not a member, as I think that might be gilding the lily a bit too much.
Jacobsen: Here is a big-picture question: What is fascism’s character? Additionally, what defines the key figures involved in fascist movements?
Payne: Fascism was a European revolutionary movement of the early 20th century that became increasingly popular during the interwar period, though it was never predominantly popular. It was primarily a phenomenon of the era of world wars in Europe between 1914 and 1945. This period of fascism represented the most extreme aspects of European nationalism.
Fascism was an authoritarian nationalist movement with several distinctive features. These included charismatic leadership, a focus on authoritarianism, and even, to some extent, a distinctive economic policy that emphasized militarization. It also had what we might call a “therapeutic” doctrine of violence, as opposed to a “necessitarian” one. This unique combination of characteristics defined the fascist movements of that era.
Of course, the problem with fascism is that when you outline its characteristics, most of them—though not all—overlap with communism. Fascist characteristics were first exhibited in Russia in 1921, but fascism evolved into a very different kind of West European nationalism. Its enemies labelled it as a right-wing movement, and, in some sense, it was indeed a right-wing movement, but it was quite different from communism. However, the overlap in authoritarian movements is very significant.
When people say, “Oh, this and that characterize fascism,” they are not necessarily wrong. The issue is that “this and that” are often characteristic of communism and other authoritarian movements. To specify what is uniquely fascist, you have to identify the aspects of fascist movements that are distinct from communism and other forms of authoritarianism. This narrows the scope considerably and demands much more precision.
It isn’t just about dictators—there are all kinds of dictators. It isn’t just about authoritarianism—there are many forms of authoritarianism. It isn’t just about nationalism—there are numerous types of nationalism. Fascism was a specific kind of European radicalism that emphasized a non-rationalist, anti-materialist approach rooted in the European Cultural Revolution of the 1890s. This movement had a unique cultural and philosophical background, characterized by vitalism, non-rationalism, anti-materialism, and distinctive aesthetics. However, its defining feature was a particular approach to violence and militarization.
It wasn’t merely about being authoritarian. Communists were often more authoritarian than fascists. While communists could be just as aggressive as fascists at times, their actions depended on circumstances. Fascism’s doctrine of violence, however, was more therapeutic and fundamental in its ideology than in communism.
After the end of the fascist era, the term “fascism” has been widely discussed. In the post-fascist period, the term is almost always used pejoratively as a means of stigmatization. It has become a term of political labelling rather than a reference to genuine fascism, which was a historical phenomenon that could not be recreated after 1945.
In the past few generations, when people refer to fascism, they’re not talking about Mussolini and the Italians, who were a minor political authoritarian phenomenon without much importance. What they actually mean is Hitlerism and Nazism. If that’s the case, why don’t they say Nazism? Why do they consistently use the term fascism?
The reason fascism remains such a potent term of stigmatization in the post-fascist era is multifaceted. First, fascism, unlike communism or socialism, doesn’t have a clear definition or meaning. Communism means something. Socialism means something. Liberalism means something. But a fascist? Presumably, that refers to a “fash.” And what does that mean? Nothing in any language other than Italian. As a result, the term is completely malleable, capable of being shaped to mean whatever someone opposes or dislikes.
Moreover, there’s the aesthetics of the term itself. If you say “Nazi,” it sounds odd but not particularly sinister. If you say “fascist,” it sounds much more menacing. The double sibilants give it a sinister tone. “Fascist” becomes a politically charged and ominous adjective, making it especially useful as a term of stigmatization.
Jacobsen: It’s a boo word in many ways.
Payne: It has lost all cognitive content. Eventually, after 1945, the term “fascism” began to lose its cognitive content. It’s what linguists call an empty signifier—a word for which you supply the meaning. The meaning is not inherent in the word itself.
Jacobsen: So, it is less about the direct cognitive meaning that ended in 1945 and more about the colloquial intent of the term when it is thrown around, typically as either a social or personal epithet—”fascist.” Could we delve more into what they mean when referring to authoritarianism or authoritarian tendencies in the current period? Is that a more accurate usage?
Payne: Yes. It can mean virtually anything undesirable and is usually unrelated to Mussolini because no one knows much about Mussolini. They mean Hitler. When people talk about fascism and the breakdown of democracy, they don’t mean Italy in 1922 because most people know nothing about that. They’re referring to Germany, the Weimar Republic, and the rise of Hitler. Of course, they don’t typically know much in detail about that either. Still, it’s an idea broadly understood in a general sense.
Jacobsen: So then, outside of terminology, in terms of the actual structures, processes, and outcomes of these movements, what threads do we see connecting communism, fascism, authoritarianism, Hitlerism, Nazism—these ideological and personality-driven movements that you’ve previously stated had a therapeutic character in some ways? What was the ailment they aimed to address?
Payne: The therapeutic aspect lies in the perception of violence and its use. Communism was always extremely violent, practicing violence on a massive scale—even during peacetime, more so than Hitlerism. However, communism viewed violence as a necessary evil. The communist idea was that violence isn’t inherently good but must be employed against enemies to achieve its goals. In that framework, violence was justified as a necessary evil to be used, often on a massive scale. However, it was something to be hidden.
What was different about historical fascists was their emphasis on the glorification of violence and militarism. Coming out of World War I, fascism was born from the massification of militarism and violence. Fascists promoted militarization as intrinsically valuable because it fostered discipline, idealism, morality, unity, and a sense of collective purpose—working for the common good. This was presented as a positive national culture to be developed.
This distinction sets fascism apart from communism. While communism also used violence and militarization on an even larger scale, it did not openly glorify these practices as fascists did. Fascism, in a sense, was more transparent—it didn’t disguise its qualities the way communists excelled at doing. Fascists were overt, openly glorifying aspects that most people would consider inherently negative or destructive.
That said, it wasn’t always straightforward. Even in Italian and German fascist regimes, leaders often had to disguise their actions because they were dealing with general populations that had not been fully “fascistized.” These regimes sometimes had to pretend to be something other than what they were. Still, these tendencies and characteristics remained fundamentally distinct from those of communism.
Jacobsen: So, these values—meticulousness, discipline, embracing military structure, and respecting military order—are the values. As they were implemented, what were the actual outcomes?
Payne: Well, they were implemented, and the logical outcome was destruction and annihilation, to the extent that it has never been possible to reconstitute a significant fascist movement after 1945. There have been attempts at imitation. It’s true. There have been some efforts at neo-fascism in various places. However, they always fail because the culture of Europe and the world has changed so much, and the examples of extreme militarism have proven so destructive that post-fascism no longer dares to invoke them.
Even authentic neo-fascist movements cannot officially label themselves as neo-fascist. They don’t dare. Most so-called neo-fascists are not even truly neo-fascists. They aim to borrow elements from authoritarianism or extremist nationalism that can be repurposed in other contexts.
Each historical period and its corresponding phenomena must be studied and analyzed on its own terms. Politically, authoritarianism is a common and recurring temptation—a perpetual temptation. It is, historically, the normal style of politics. As a result, authoritarianism always reappears in one form or another. The challenge for political analysts is to study each successive form of authoritarianism in detail, examining it for what it truly is, without imposing anachronistic or ahistorical labels that confuse more than they clarify.
You should strive to be as specific as possible about the political phenomena you’re dealing with in the present moment. If you’re talking about new political phenomena, don’t pretend it’s a recreation of 1930. What happens in 2030 will not be a recreation of 1930; it will reflect the unique characteristics of 2030.
Jacobsen: What about two things, both centred around worship? First, the worship of personality. Second, individual worship practices in small communities as used for political purposes—essentially, theocratizing a state or using religion for political ends. How have these two phenomena historically played roles in fascist movements? Do they play roles in authoritarian movements today?
Payne: Not in quite the same way. In the first half of the 20th century, it was typical to sacralize extremist political movements and turn them into substitute religions—not political religions, because that’s a contradiction in terms, but something akin to religions. You saw this in the Soviet Union and fascist Italy. At one point, they even said, “Fascism is like a religion.”
At other times, they would acknowledge, “Well, of course, the Catholic Church is a religion. We are not a religion.” Both statements were true in their own ways.
Jacobsen: Because they said, it’s like a religion.
Payne: Fascism was somewhat like a religion, but it couldn’t be a real religion. Mussolini didn’t pretend it was an absolute religion, as he officially recognized and signed a concordat with the Catholic Church, which was considered the real religion. In National Socialism, however, the situation was different. The culture of German Romanticism—what is called the völkisch or populist culture of Germanism—antedated Nazism for a long time, going back into the 19th century.
In Germany, there were very cult-like forms of this culture, even more so than in fascist Italy. Similar dynamics could also be observed in the Soviet Union, albeit in different forms. The most religious-like political movement, however, is found in communist North Korea. There, a secular religious cult, Juche—the national doctrine of Korean communism—has been officially established as a form of religion.
It’s fascinating that North Korea was the part of Korea most heavily Christianized by Western missionaries before 1945. In Juche, Christian elements are transposed into a secular political cult, with the ruling Kim dynasty becoming almost pharaonic in stature—more like gods than political leaders. North Korea exemplifies a regime where the ruling family embodies absolute power and functions as a kind of divine center.
This sacralization is not unique to historical fascism. It can also be found in other forms of authoritarianism. Certain elements central to fascism are broader phenomena, not exclusive to fascism. However, this is often overlooked or misunderstood.
Jacobsen: Do you think the missionary zeal, along with the attempts at conversion and successful conversions, softened the population for Juche?
Payne: No. The Soviet military takeover made Juche possible. It was a straightforward Soviet power play. Much like Hitler, Stalin was an ideologue, but he was a more rational political strategist. Stalin had learned from Lenin that politics is the art of the possible, requiring supreme opportunism, even if it meant temporarily betraying one’s own nominal principles.
Stalin’s approach relied on using ideologies like Hitlerism as icebreakers for violent political takeovers, then following up to consolidate power. The Soviet entry into North Korea set the stage for the emergence of Juche. There might be an indirect, bastardized, pseudo-Christian influence in the development of Juche in North Korea, but whether this softened the population is debatable. It depends on how we define “softening.” We need a longer discussion to explore that.
Jacobsen: What about Franco and Spain from 1923 to 1977?
Payne: Franco didn’t have the same issue because he had a real religion. Franco was always a devout Catholic. He declared, “We’re going to have a very Catholic regime.” After initially dabbling with fascism—a complicated phase that we may not have time to delve into here—he realized during the later stages of World War II that fascism was doomed. It was a losing ideology.
Franco began transforming Spain into a monarchy, with himself as a pseudo-king or regent for life. His approach was rooted in traditional legitimization, not revolutionary ideology. Franco’s regime became the most overtly Catholic regime in the world, using real religion as the cultural and moral foundation rather than relying on any form of cultural or political religion.
Franco’s Spain was characterized by Catholicism as the core of its identity, contrasting with regimes that relied on substitute or quasi-religious elements for cultural cohesion.
Jacobsen: So you’re referencing a transposition from Soviet Stalin’s cynical political maneuvering. What about the transposition of real religion about fascism? How does that work out? It’s different, but it seems broader in terms of the level of dogma.
Payne: Fascism, as distinct from Soviet communism, operated in a European context—an institutionalized, civilized, and more sophisticated setting—quite different from the more backward and chaotic context of Russian Bolshevism. In Europe, there had to be more careful and calculated approaches to Christianity.
In the Soviet Union, communists were enemies of Christianity from the outset. However, Lenin was a skillful opportunist. When the Bolsheviks first seized power, it was not through a nationwide takeover but by controlling key cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg. The communists solidified their control of Russia during an enormous civil war that cost 15 million lives—far more than Russia’s losses in World War I. World War I was relatively mild compared to the Civil War, even though it led to the collapse of the tsarist regime.
Lenin understood that launching an all-out assault on the Orthodox Church during the Civil War would be impossible to win. Thus, he postponed the attack until the war was over. Once the communists secured power, they began systematically dismantling the Orthodox Church.
In contrast, the Italian and German fascists, if we include the Nazis as fascists, operated in more politically complex contexts. Unlike Russia, which collapsed after World War I, Italy and Germany retained their institutional frameworks. If Mussolini or Hitler had attempted a coup d’état similar to Lenin’s, they would have been swiftly crushed by their respective armies.
Hitler initially did not grasp this reality. His failed coup in 1923 taught him the importance of adjusting his tactics. Fascist movements had to make alliances, form political deals, and come to terms with existing power structures, including the influence of Christianity.
After Mussolini became dictator, he negotiated a Concordat with the Vatican, establishing a formal relationship between fascism and Catholicism. However, this created a fundamental contradiction. Fascism aspired to be totalitarian, yet recognizing the autonomy of the Catholic Church undermined this goal. Fascism invented the term totalitarianism but never achieved its full realization. It simply wasn’t strong enough.
The Germans, under Hitler, followed a similar path. Hitler negotiated a Concordat with the Catholic Church and made arrangements with the dominant German Protestant Church, akin to the Lutheran tradition. He attempted to create a symbiosis between National Socialism and German Christianity.
This symbiosis, however, was not about equality. National Socialism sought to become the predominant force, granting Christianity only a limited sphere of autonomy. Hitler went even further than Mussolini in making Nazism a political religion in Germany, albeit within this symbiotic framework.
Unlike communism, which relied purely on raw power and avoided alliances, fascist movements depended on forming alliances to achieve their objectives. This necessity for collaboration made fascism a more complex, albeit contradictory, ideological and political system compared to Soviet communism’s monolithic approach.
Payne: Since fascist movements never had the raw power that communists wielded from the outset, they were forced to rely on political deals, especially in their early stages. This included making arrangements with the predominant forms of Christianity. However, these deals often didn’t work out well for the Christians, nor did they always work out entirely well for the fascists, particularly from the Italian perspective.
Jacobsen: Before the 1900s, were there any proto-fascist movements that could be identified or pointed to?
Payne: This is a matter of interpretation. Some historians argue that, yes, you can identify what is sometimes called the “roots of fascism.” Where do you find these roots? If you look at Italy or Germany in the 19th century, there aren’t any clear examples. However, in France, you can see the origins of modern European radical nationalism.
The French invented much of modern European radicalism, including radical nationalism, before these ideas emerged in Germany or other countries. During the early years of the French Third Republic, in the 1870s and 1880s, radical nationalists began to express ideas that resembled some aspects of fascism. While they didn’t encompass the full range of fascist ideology, these movements could be considered the first proto-fascist expressions. If you were to find early examples, they would be in France, not Germany or Italy.
Jacobsen: Have we learned any lessons from the fascist movements of the 20th century, and have we avoided repeating those mistakes?
Payne: I think so. We’ve learned the dangers of neo-fascism very well, to the extent that no neo-fascist party has been able to establish itself since 1945 firmly. Those kinds of movements haven’t been replicated.
Since the end of World War II, democracy has become the dominant political form in the Western world. Almost all political movements in the West now identify themselves as democratic, regardless of their ideology, and no one openly imitates fascism.
There’s a saying attributed to Huey Long, the “Kingfish” of Louisiana and a formidable Democratic Party politician during the early 1930s. Long was said to be the only rival Roosevelt truly feared because of his ability to appeal to the masses, perhaps even more effectively than Roosevelt. According to this attribution—which I’ve never been able to verify and may have been invented by a journalist—Huey was asked in 1934, “Will fascism come to America?”
Payne: And he said, “Oh, of course, fascism will come to America, but here we’ll call it democracy.” This takes us into a very convoluted argument, but it highlights a key point: fascism did not emerge in primitive countries. It developed only in relatively advanced nations, which already had organized nationalist movements and modern political systems.
Otherwise, there’s no need for something as complex and seemingly contradictory as fascism. In primitive societies, you simply have dictatorships—such as African or Latin American-style dictatorships. There’s no necessity to take the full fascist route. Fascism, emerging in more advanced and sophisticated nations, required complex forms and a more intricate path to power.
One enduring legacy and danger of fascism is not necessarily its ideology but its strategy—the fascist style of taking power, which is not overt. Consider Hitler’s attempted coup in 1923. He came within an eyelash of being shot dead during that effort. He was walking arm in arm-with a colleague when a bullet struck the colleague and could just as easily have hit Hitler. He was pulled down by the fall of his comrade, which dislocated his shoulder. While not wounded by a bullet, Hitler was injured—and extraordinarily lucky. He had been lucky throughout his early life, surviving World War I and this failed coup attempt.
Hitler learned from the failed 1923 coup: Don’t attempt coups. Lenin never attempted a coup, understanding that a fascist party—or any similar movement—would be swiftly crushed if it tried such a thing in a functioning state. Italy, for example, had a victorious and united army after World War I. It would have been invincible against a coup.
Therefore, fascist movements had to find allies to come to power. No fascist party in a fully developed political system could seize power on its own; it needed alliances, and those alliances had to be ones the fascists could dominate. The only two successful examples were Mussolini in 1922 and Hitler at the beginning of 1933.
In both cases, they used and worked the system. Violence and force, the tools of communists in more broken-down or primitive systems, could not be the primary strategy in advanced constitutional democracies. Fascists had to navigate within the existing political framework, forming and leveraging alliances.
Mussolini and Hitler demonstrated this approach by forming alliances that enabled their rise to power. This strategic manipulation of democratic systems remains a cautionary tale. A danger to democracies lies in the ability of movements or leaders to exploit alliances and use democratic systems against themselves.
Payne: Alliances are crucial in determining who leads and who benefits within them. In advanced democracies, no political alliance has ever fully replicated the characteristics of fascist alliances, but that strategy remains a notable threat. Fascist movements come to power not through coups but by working within the system and forming alliances. This fundamentally differs from the communist strategy, where movements almost always come to power through force and violence—a historical and political constant.
Fascist parties, in contrast, achieve power by navigating the system. This strategy, though devoid of current fascist actors, is still relevant. For example, after the fall of communism, the Cuban government adopted what they called “21st-century socialism.” While Cuban communism originally came to power through civil war and direct violence, the global political climate of the 21st century no longer permits such overt methods. Today, alliances and systemic manipulation are required, which mirrors the fascist strategy more closely. In this context, the Cuban regime began to emphasize this strategy as a practical necessity for functioning in more advanced political systems.
The legacy of fascist politics is, therefore, this practical strategy: working the system from the inside out. Movements that emulate fascist tactics often lack the power for civil wars, insurrections, or coups. Instead, they must operate politically, using alliances and systemic influence to achieve their goals.
Jacobsen: Are there any political movements or quasi-political movements in Western Europe or North America today that share some characteristics—or even many—with fascist movements leading up to 1945? If not, do they share traits we associate with authoritarianism?
Payne: The candidates for comparison today are predominantly right-wing forces. However, being right-wing is not synonymous with being authoritarian or violent. Right-wing movements may or may not exhibit charismatic leadership or authoritarian tendencies.
Take, for example, Giorgia Meloni, the Prime Minister of Italy. She is not a neo-fascist. Her political organization had to deliberately “de-neo-fascistize” itself to become effective and lead a parliamentary coalition. She operates within the political system and has no intention of overthrowing it.
The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is a constitutional political party in Germany. While it is very much right-wing—anti-immigration, pro-populist, nationalist, and so on—there is nothing inherently neo-fascist about it. It operates within the framework of German constitutional democracy.
Similarly, Marine Le Pen’s party underwent significant de-neo-fascistization in France to achieve its current size and influence. This process of distancing from overtly fascist traits is a recurring pattern. There’s a rule of thumb here: the more successful a putative neo-fascist party becomes, the more it must abandon the significant characteristics of historical fascism.
In short, while some political movements may share superficial similarities with fascism or authoritarianism, their methods, goals, and frameworks remain fundamentally distinct from the movements that defined the early 20th century.
My rule of thumb is that the more genuine fascist characteristics a given party has, the smaller and insignificant it is; the more a given party frees itself of genuine fascist characteristics, the larger and more successful it is, like Marine Le Pen and Meloni.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Prof. Payne.
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.
In-Sight Publishing 
