Plot

Joe Rogan and Peter Thiel discuss topics that include the economic and technological stagnation in the U.S., the implications of AI advancements, the challenges of nuclear energy, and the cyclical nature of civilizations.

Peter Thiel joins Joe Rogan for a conversation that covers the current economic challenges facing the U.S., particularly the rising budget deficit and the limitations of technological progress. Thiel discusses the paradox of AI development, where significant advancements like passing the Turing Test are happening, yet their societal impact remains unclear. The conversation also delves into the complexities of nuclear energy, exploring why it hasn't become the dominant power source despite its potential. Thiel provides a historical perspective on the cyclical nature of civilizations, drawing parallels between past and present societal shifts, and reflecting on how today's stagnation might protect us from potential catastrophic outcomes. The episode offers a wide-ranging discussion on the intersection of technology, economics, and history.—J. Spurlin

Joe Rogan welcomes Peter Thiel to the show. They briefly discuss Thiel's situation in Los Angeles, where he feels trapped despite frequently contemplating leaving the city. Thiel moved from San Francisco to LA in 2018, which he describes as a significant move, but now he is considering whether to leave the state or even the country. He mentions places like Florida, New Zealand, and Costa Rica as possible destinations, although he has not yet made a decision.

Thiel reflects on the difficulties of finding a better place than the United States, acknowledging that while there are problems in the U.S., most other countries are doing worse. He shares that he often talks about leaving, but talk has become a substitute for action. Despite contemplating drastic moves, Thiel remains in California, partly because he does not want to move twice and partly because the alternatives are not necessarily better. Rogan and Thiel then discuss the challenges of other countries, such as Australia, where strict laws and crackdowns on free speech create a sketchy environment.

The conversation shifts to how the relative strength of the U.S. compared to other countries distracts from addressing its problems. Thiel points out that when he mentions leaving the country, people often respond by highlighting how bad other places are, which in turn prevents a meaningful discussion about the issues within the U.S. Rogan adds that many people struggle to criticize the government in power due to their ideological alignment, leading to mental gymnastics that justify current policies. Both agree that while the problems are well-known, finding clear solutions and understanding how the situation deteriorated in the first place are much more challenging.

Thiel discusses the challenges of the U.S. fiscal situation, focusing on the rising national debt and the interest rates that have recently returned to positive levels after years of near-zero rates. He explains that from 2008 to 2021, the U.S. benefited from borrowing at low interest rates, which masked the severity of the debt problem. However, with interest rates now back up, the U.S. faces a "runaway deficit problem" that has been warned about for decades, but few take seriously due to its long history of being dismissed.

Thiel explains that the deficit is financed by people who buy government bonds, including many foreigners who reinvest their surplus dollars into U.S. government debt due to chronic trade imbalances. He elaborates that these trade deficits result in foreigners accumulating more dollars than they need for American goods and services, leading them to invest in assets like U.S. government debt, houses, or stocks. Thiel notes that the deficit problem is closely tied to these trade imbalances.

When asked what he would do if he had supreme power to fix this issue, Thiel humorously dismisses the question as a "ridiculous hypothetical," but then suggests a libertarian approach to solving the problem. He proposes smaller government, increasing the age for Social Security, and means-testing Social Security so that only those who truly need it receive benefits. Thiel acknowledges that such proposals are "insanely unpopular" and politically unrealistic.

Thiel and Rogan discuss how Social Security works, with Thiel explaining that it was originally framed as a pension system rather than a welfare system. This fiction, as Thiel calls it, led to everyone receiving benefits regardless of need. He argues that if Social Security were recognized as a welfare system, it could be more easily reformed. Thiel notes that while benefits are partially related to how much people contribute, the system also includes guaranteed minimums and a cap on contributions.

Thiel continues discussing the challenges of the U.S. fiscal situation, particularly focusing on Social Security. He notes that one way to address the issue would be to uncap Social Security taxes, effectively imposing a 12.4% income tax hike on all income. Thiel explains that progressives argue against the current system, where Social Security taxes are capped at around $140,000 to $150,000, meaning that those who earn more than this amount do not pay Social Security taxes on their marginal income. He points out that while this makes sense if Social Security is viewed as a retirement savings program, it becomes illogical if seen as a welfare program.

Thiel and Rogan discuss the high taxes in California, which have recently been raised to around 14.3%. Rogan expresses frustration that the state wants more money despite doing a terrible job, leading many people to leave California for the first time in history. Thiel acknowledges that some people at the margins do leave, but the state still manages to collect more revenue due to the inelastic nature of the tax base. He describes the situation as crazy, with the state continuing to function despite its many issues.

Thiel compares California to Saudi Arabia, noting that both places have a "crazy religion" (wokeism in California and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia) that distorts everything. However, just as Saudi Arabia's oil fields pay for everything, California's big tech companies generate massive wealth that supports the state. Thiel argues that while the system is not ideal, it is stable. He points out that people have predicted the collapse of Saudi Arabia for decades, but it has not happened because of its oil wealth. Similarly, California's tech wealth keeps the state afloat despite its flaws.

Thiel and Rogan discuss the many successful companies based in California, such as Google, Apple, Nvidia, and Meta, which have market capitalizations over a trillion dollars. Thiel notes that there is no ideal place to live, and while California has its issues, it also has many people generating enormous wealth. He observes that it is difficult for people to simply pack up and leave, especially when there is no perfect alternative location.

Thiel discusses the difficulty of finding a suitable place to live with no state income tax. He notes that there are a few states without cities, such as Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota, and New Hampshire, but these states lack the amenities of urban areas. Thiel then lists the states with no income tax that do have cities, including Washington, Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. He critiques each option, explaining why he finds them unsuitable, from the weather in Washington to the nature of the cities in Texas.

Thiel singles out Nashville, Tennessee, and Miami, Florida, as the two most viable options for him. He acknowledges that Miami is fun but finds it too chaotic and party-focused to consider living there. Thiel appreciates Nashville for being a "real place," noting that he could live there without much problem. Despite these options, he admits that he remains a "sucker" for California's weather, which has kept him in the state since 1977. He finds California's climate tough to beat, especially along the coast, even with the state's high taxes and other issues.

The conversation then turns to the weather in Austin, Texas, where Joe Rogan lives. Thiel finds the summer heat in Austin brutal, while Rogan, accustomed to the heat through his daily activities and sauna use, doesn't mind it. Rogan argues that heat is more tolerable than extreme cold, which can be life-threatening in certain situations, such as breaking down on a remote road in Wyoming during winter. Both men agree that the migration of people to the West and South in the U.S. reflects a preference for warmer climates, despite the challenges.

Thiel discusses the challenges of relocating during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially considering rising real estate prices and interest rates. He mentions that while he considered moving to Florida, the increased costs have made it much harder. Thiel notes that people who wanted to move during COVID had a brief window when it was feasible, but now it's significantly more expensive. He explains that house prices have doubled, and mortgage rates have also doubled, making it four times more costly to buy a home compared to four years ago.

Joe Rogan adds that the real estate market in Austin experienced a boom during the pandemic but has since cooled off, with high-end properties now struggling to sell. Thiel agrees and comments on how different regions experienced varying degrees of migration, with Austin attracting people from California, particularly those in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Miami saw an influx of people from New York, especially from the finance sector. Thiel observes that while it's easier for finance professionals to relocate, the tech industry remains deeply networked in California, making such moves more challenging.

Thiel draws a comparison between the tech industry in California and the auto industry in Detroit. He notes that Detroit was once the hub for car manufacturing due to its extensive supply chains, but as the city became more mismanaged, companies eventually moved their operations elsewhere. Thiel suggests that a similar unraveling could happen in California, though it would require significant changes for the tech industry to relocate. Rogan and Thiel then discuss the paradox of the internet, which was supposed to eliminate the "tyranny of place" by allowing people to work from anywhere. However, internet companies still remain concentrated in California.

Thiel discusses the shift in the tech industry from crypto to AI, noting how crypto was seen as decentralized and libertarian, allowing tech companies to move out of California. In contrast, AI feels more centralized, dominated by big tech companies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Thiel makes a comparison, suggesting that if crypto is libertarian, then AI could be considered "communist" due to its centralizing tendencies. He emphasizes that the scale of the AI industry makes it difficult to break away from Silicon Valley, predicting that the Bay Area will remain the hub of AI development.

When asked about the future of AI over the next five years, Thiel expresses modesty, stating that no one really knows what will happen, including experts. He provides a historical perspective on AI, criticizing the use of buzzwords like "big data" and "cloud computing," which he feels abstract away from reality. Thiel views AI as an abstract concept that can mean anything, depending on context. He contrasts two visions of AI from the 2010s: Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence," which imagines AI as a godlike intelligence, and Kai-Fu Lee's "AI Superpowers," which focuses on surveillance and control, particularly in China.

Thiel explains that the development of ChatGPT in late 2022 and early 2023 marked a significant achievement in AI, as it effectively passed the Turing Test. The Turing Test is a measure of whether a computer can fool a human into thinking it is also human. While the test is somewhat subjective, Thiel notes that ChatGPT meets the criteria for an average person with an IQ of 100. He describes this as the "Holy Grail" of AI research over the past 60 years, a goal that had previously seemed unattainable. Thiel reflects on the psychological and sociological implications of reaching this milestone.

Thiel reflects on the debate between Nick Bostrom's concept of superintelligence and Kai-Fu Lee's focus on surveillance technology. He suggests that this debate might have been a form of psychological suppression, as people were avoiding the significance of the Turing Test, which was about to be passed. Thiel views the passing of the Turing Test as an extraordinary achievement that will have a profound impact on society, reshaping economic, cultural, and political structures in dramatic ways. He argues that while there is much discussion about achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the Turing Test is more important for humans, as it either complements or substitutes human capabilities.

Thiel draws an analogy between AI in 2023-2024 and the internet in 1999. He notes that, just like the internet was clearly going to be big and transformative, AI is expected to have a similarly significant impact. However, he cautions that the development and application of AI could take decades to fully materialize, much like it did for the internet. Thiel believes that while AI is a big deal, the challenge lies in figuring out how to apply it effectively across various domains.

Joe Rogan agrees with Thiel's assessment of the Turing Test, noting that the rapid acceleration of AI advancements has led to a reluctance to fully acknowledge where we currently stand. Thiel mentions that for years, he has been skeptical about the progress in science and technology, particularly in Silicon Valley. He questions whether AI will lead to much higher living standards for everyone, drawing a parallel to the internet, which, despite being a massive achievement, had a more nuanced impact on living standards.

Thiel discusses how, in an era of relative technological stagnation, when something significant happens, people struggle to process it. He compares the development of Bitcoin to the internet, noting that Bitcoin was systematically underestimated for over a decade. Thiel suggests that we live in a world where big developments are rare, and when they do occur, they are not fully recognized or appreciated at the time.

Thiel continues the discussion by comparing the significance of the Turing Test to the internet and Bitcoin. He argues that passing the Turing Test is on the same scale as the internet in terms of its impact, although it might be underestimated due to the relative stagnation people have felt over the past few decades. Thiel and Rogan reflect on the major technological changes they've witnessed, from the end of the Cold War to the rise of the internet and now the ubiquity of AI on smartphones. Rogan considers the widespread use of social media and AI as one of the most bizarre cultural shifts.

Thiel agrees that the changes are significant culturally and politically, but he questions how they measure up economically. He wonders about their impact on GDP and productivity. Thiel describes the last 50 years as an era of relative stagnation, where progress has been limited in the "world of atoms," or physical things, while there has been significant progress in the "world of bits," or information technology. He notes that while there has been incredible advancement in information technology, many other areas, such as transportation and infrastructure, have seen little progress or have even regressed.

Thiel elaborates on how the definition of technology has shifted. In 1967, technology would have included not only computers but also rockets, supersonic airplanes, new medicines, and agricultural advancements. Today, technology has largely been reduced to information technology, which Thiel sees as a sign of the strange structure of progress. He points out that while there has been intense progress in the world of bits, other areas have stagnated. He notes that air travel has even regressed, with the decommissioning of the Concorde and the added delays from low-tech airport security measures.

Thiel highlights how the distraction of modern devices masks the lack of progress in the physical world. For example, someone riding a century-old subway in New York might focus on their smartphone rather than noticing that the subway system itself hasn't changed in a hundred years. Thiel questions how much the world of bits can compensate for the stagnation in the world of atoms, arguing that as physically embodied beings, the material world is crucial. He emphasizes that when progress in the material world stagnates, many things stop making sense.

Reflecting on his time at Stanford in the late 1980s, Thiel recalls how in hindsight, many engineering fields, such as mechanical, chemical, nuclear, and aerospace engineering, were bad choices because they were stuck in regulatory gridlock. He notes that while nuclear and aerospace engineering were already recognized as poor choices due to legal restrictions, other engineering disciplines also faced similar stagnation. Thiel's broader point is that the most dynamic progress has been in areas related to information technology, while other fields have faced significant barriers to innovation.

Thiel continues discussing the stagnation in various engineering fields, noting that while nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering were already recognized as poor career choices due to legal restrictions, other fields have also suffered from stagnation. He points out that electrical engineering, particularly in areas related to semiconductors, has made some progress, but overall, the only field that has seen significant advancement is computer science. Thiel reflects on how, in the 1980s, computer science was not taken seriously and was often seen as an inferior subject, similar to social science or political science, which he views as "fake" fields compared to physics or chemistry.

Thiel discusses his skepticism about the scientific rigor of climate science. While he acknowledges the possibility of climate change, he questions how scientifically rigorous the field is, suggesting that it lacks the kind of vigorous debate seen in other scientific disciplines. Thiel criticizes the term "climate science," arguing that its use indicates a more dogmatic approach rather than a true scientific inquiry. He contrasts this with fields like nuclear engineering, which are recognized as legitimate sciences without the need for the "science" label.

Joe Rogan and Thiel discuss the influence of ideology on climate science, noting that there are corporations and environmental projects heavily invested in the green energy movement. They talk about mandates like California's requirement that all new vehicles be electric by 2035, which Thiel finds ironic given the state's power grid struggles. Thiel suggests that the environmentalist argument often bypasses rigorous science, with some believing that there isn't time for a scientific approach because of the urgency of the climate crisis.

Thiel questions whether the focus on carbon dioxide is misplaced, suggesting that methane might be a more dangerous greenhouse gas, but acknowledges that the science isn't clear on this. Rogan and Thiel also discuss how certain environmental solutions, like regenerative farming or planting trees to sequester carbon, are sometimes dismissed by figures like Bill Gates. Thiel finds it absurd that planting trees, which naturally convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, could be considered an ineffective solution.

Thiel discusses the relationship between plants and carbon dioxide, noting that more carbon dioxide leads to greener environments. He highlights that this is why Earth is greener today than it has been in the past hundred years, which he acknowledges is an inconvenient fact for those with a narrow perspective on environmental issues. Thiel then mentions the 1972 manifesto "The Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome, which argued that unlimited growth would deplete resources or create pollution constraints. In the 1970s, concerns centered on overpopulation and running out of oil, but by the 1990s, the focus shifted to pollution, including carbon dioxide and climate change. Thiel reflects on the improvements in oil extraction, such as fracking, but notes that the scale of these advancements is not sufficient to provide an American standard of living to the entire planet. He suggests that the real environmental argument might be more about resource constraints than pollution.

Joe Rogan asks how much the demand for oil could be mitigated by nuclear energy. Thiel responds that nuclear power could significantly reduce oil demand, particularly if electric vehicles become more prevalent. He notes that a combustion engine is difficult to power with nuclear energy, but electric vehicles, which can be charged at night, are more compatible with nuclear power. Thiel then discusses the historical trend of moving toward more compact and efficient energy sources, from wood to coal to oil, and potentially to uranium. He argues that more dense energy sources take up less space and have a smaller environmental footprint, contrasting this with the environmental impact of wind and solar energy, which require vast amounts of land.

Thiel and Rogan then delve into the question of why nuclear energy did not become the dominant energy source of the 21st century. Thiel notes that the standard explanation involves safety concerns, citing accidents like Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011. However, Thiel proposes an alternate theory, suggesting that nuclear energy was halted because of its dual-use nature-it can be used for both power generation and nuclear weapons. He points to the 1974-75 period when India developed nuclear weapons after receiving reactor technology from the United States, which was initially believed to be non-weaponizable. Thiel argues that the difficulty in separating civilian and military uses of nuclear technology made it too risky to pursue nuclear energy on a large scale.

Thiel discusses the geopolitical challenges associated with nuclear power, particularly the double standard where the U.S. maintains nuclear weapons while preventing other countries from developing nuclear power. He explains that this creates a difficult situation, requiring either a strict global governance system or extensive regulations that make building new nuclear plants prohibitively expensive. Thiel notes that even in China, where nuclear power is growing, the increase has been much slower than expected due to the high costs of over-engineered safety measures. As a result, coal remains a cheaper energy source in China, and nuclear power accounts for only a small percentage of the country's electricity.

Thiel points out that there are more efficient designs for small nuclear reactors, which could reduce costs, but the dual-use issue remains a significant obstacle. He argues that the real problem with nuclear power was not the accidents at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, but rather India's development of nuclear weapons in the 1970s, which highlighted the risks of nuclear technology. This event, Thiel suggests, led to the widespread fear and overregulation that has hampered nuclear power's growth ever since.

Thiel reflects on why technological stagnation has occurred, offering several possible explanations, including a more risk-averse, feminized society, a decline in the effectiveness of the education system, and the exhaustion of easily attainable innovations. He acknowledges that the reasons are likely overdetermined, with multiple factors contributing to the slowdown. However, Thiel emphasizes that one key dimension of this stagnation is the dystopian or apocalyptic potential of many scientific and technological advancements, particularly in the realm of nuclear weapons.

Thiel discusses the impact of the development of nuclear weapons at Los Alamos in 1945 and the subsequent creation of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s. He suggests that the realization of these weapons' destructive potential had a delayed effect on society, leading to a world where technological progress has slowed. Thiel questions whether the resulting stagnation is a positive or negative outcome, noting that while we may have avoided building more weapons capable of global destruction, we also live in a world where much innovation has become inert.

Thiel discusses the possibility that if nuclear reactors had been more widely developed, the world might have already faced catastrophic consequences. He suggests that the current stagnation, while frustrating, may have had a protective effect, preventing worse outcomes. Thiel reflects on how this stagnation, though it has deranged society in many ways, might have saved us from a more dangerous path.

Joe Rogan shifts the conversation to the topic of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and how some people, like Erich von Däniken, have hypothesized that ancient advanced technologies might have originated from extraterrestrial visitors. Rogan shares his skepticism about von Däniken's ideas, explaining that he believes ancient human civilizations were responsible for their own technological achievements. He mentions that while some evidence points to cataclysmic events in the past, such as the Younger Dryas impact, there's no compelling evidence that aliens were involved.

Thiel and Rogan discuss the collapse of civilizations, including the fall of the Roman Empire and the Bronze Age collapse in the 12th century BC. Thiel suggests that these events are important to understand because they illustrate the cyclical nature of civilizations rising and falling. He notes that some civilizations may have been highly advanced but were ultimately undone by advancements in areas like weaponry, leading to widespread destruction.

Thiel emphasizes that the study of past civilizations is not just of antiquarian interest but is relevant today because it challenges the naive, progressive view that history always moves in a positive direction. He argues that recognizing the cyclical nature of history is crucial for understanding the potential risks and vulnerabilities of modern civilization. Thiel suggests that the belief in constant progress is a revisionist view that overlooks the real dangers that have led to the collapse of past societies.

Thiel reflects on the decline of past civilizations, using demographics to illustrate the rise and fall of empires like Rome. He notes that the Roman Empire's population declined drastically after its peak, with the city of Rome itself shrinking from a million people to perhaps 10,000 by the mid-7th century. Thiel contrasts this with the progressive view that population growth has always been steady, which implies that society has continually improved. He argues that civilizations have experienced significant rises and falls, agreeing with the idea that something similar could happen to modern civilization. However, Thiel believes that our current civilization is more advanced than any in the past, citing nuclear weapons and space exploration as examples of our technological superiority. He suggests that if modern civilization were to collapse, the failure would likely differ from those of past societies.

Joe Rogan agrees and adds that technology in ancient times may have progressed in a different direction, particularly in structural and building techniques. He highlights the Great Pyramid of Giza as an example of an ancient achievement that remains incomprehensible today, with over 2.3 million stones, some weighing up to 80 tons, being transported from a quarry 500 miles away. Rogan finds it astonishing that the pyramid was constructed without modern machinery or electricity, leaving us to wonder how it was done. He notes that while other ancient structures like the Parthenon are impressive, the pyramids stand out as an enduring mystery that defies conventional explanations.

Thiel agrees that the cultural motivations behind such massive undertakings are difficult to understand. While Rogan focuses on the physical challenges of building the pyramids, Thiel is more intrigued by why these ancient people were so motivated to create something so monumental. He notes that the pyramids are not livable structures, which raises further questions about the cultural or religious significance that drove their construction. Both men express amazement at the achievements of the past, which continue to baffle modern observers, even thousands of years later.

Joe Rogan introduces a theory by Christopher Dunn, an engineer who believes the Great Pyramid of Giza was not just a tomb but a power plant. Dunn suggests that a subterranean chamber within the pyramid created a specific vibration, with chemicals poured into shafts connected to the Queen's Chamber, generating hydrogen gas. He theorizes that energy from space, like gamma rays, interacted with this gas to produce electricity. Rogan acknowledges that while the theory sounds far-fetched, it raises interesting questions about ancient technology. Thiel humorously notes that if the pyramid was indeed a power plant, it would have required a containment structure far larger than a modern nuclear reactor. The conversation touches on how ancient technology might have harnessed energy differently than modern nuclear technology, even though the efficiency of such a structure remains questionable. Rogan adds that while established archaeologists insist the pyramid was a tomb, newer archaeologists are exploring alternative theories, challenging the traditional understanding of its purpose.

Thiel shifts the discussion to the origins of monarchy and kingship, drawing on ideas from thinkers like James Frazer and René Girard. He explains that in ancient societies, kingship might have evolved from the scapegoat mechanism, where a community blamed its crises on a scapegoat, eventually attributing divine powers to that individual. Over time, the scapegoat could delay their execution and solidify their power, becoming a monarch. Thiel suggests that the first tombs might have originated from the stones thrown at victims during these ritualistic executions, with the construction of larger and more elaborate tombs, like the pyramids, representing the evolution of this practice. He reflects on the connection between the concept of a monarch as a "living god" and the idea that gods might be the remnants of murdered kings. Thiel's explanation highlights the complex and ritualistic origins of leadership and power in ancient societies.

Thiel explains how the Pharaoh in ancient Egypt was eventually transformed into a living god, a practice that may have originated from a time when pharaohs were ritually sacrificed after 30 years of rule. He mentions the Heb Sed Festival, an ancient Egyptian ceremony that celebrated the continued rule of the pharaoh. Thiel discusses how, as it became unthinkable to kill the pharaoh, the ruler was instead deified and worshiped as a living god. This evolution, from ritual sacrifice to deification, reflects a significant shift in how power and leadership were maintained.

Rogan remains focused on the engineering puzzle of how the pyramids were built, while Thiel is more intrigued by the motivational puzzle-why ancient people were so driven to create such monumental structures. Thiel argues that understanding the motivation behind these constructions is key to solving the larger puzzle, as it could explain how entire societies were organized to achieve these feats. He suggests that if the motivation can be understood, the organization of labor and resources would naturally follow.

Thiel and Rogan debate the origins of religion and politics, contrasting the views of Enlightenment thinker Voltaire and 19th-century anthropologist Émile Durkheim. Voltaire believed that religion originated as a conspiracy by priests to maintain power, implying that politics came first and religion was invented to support it. In contrast, Durkheim argued that religion came first, with politics emerging from religious structures. Thiel finds Durkheim's view more plausible, believing that religious categories are primary and political categories secondary.

Rogan proposes that the origins of politics could stem from tribal societies, where leaders naturally arose, leading to dissent and power struggles. Thiel counters that this is a whitewashed, rationalist interpretation and argues that the origins of politics are much more vile, involving murder and sabotage rather than negotiation and social contracts. He suggests that early politics was dominated by madness and violence, rather than civility.

Thiel and Rogan explore how early human societies may have been driven by brutal power dynamics, with Rogan suggesting that agriculture and stable resources eventually led to more civilized behavior. However, both agree that the origins of human conflict are filled with murder and chaos, reflecting a darker view of early societal development. Thiel asserts that the beginnings of human society were likely marked by madness and murder, with any semblance of order arising much later.

Thiel elaborates on the idea that violence in early human societies was not external, like hunting large animals, but internal, involving conflicts with those nearby. He contrasts this with the dominance structures seen in primates, where an alpha male's strength typically prevents fights to the death. In human societies, culture plays a crucial role because people can communicate, coordinate, and potentially gang up on the leader, leading to a different dynamic from the natural hierarchies seen in primates.

Rogan introduces the documentary series "Chimp Empire" on Netflix, which showcases a tribe of chimpanzees observed by scientists for decades. He explains that while there are similarities to human societies, such as politicking, coalition-building, and even warfare over resources, there are also significant differences. For instance, smaller or older chimps can maintain dominance by forming alliances rather than relying solely on physical strength. Rogan notes that chimpanzees value fairness, which can lead to violence if they feel treated unjustly.

Thiel acknowledges the similarities between chimpanzee and human behavior but emphasizes that there are also critical differences. He suggests that while some aspects of human evolution are continuous with our animal past, other developments, such as language, represent a dramatic discontinuity. Thiel argues that although chimpanzees are intelligent, the lack of a rich symbolic system like human language creates a fundamentally different social structure. He believes that understanding these discontinuities is important for fully grasping what makes humans unique.

Thiel elaborates on the role of language in human society, explaining how it enables coordination, especially in directing violence toward specific sacred or religious ends. He contrasts this with primates, highlighting that while humans and our closest relatives share similarities, humans uniquely tell stories, many of which are myths. Thiel considers this a fundamental difference that distinguishes humans from other primates. He ties this to the significance of ChatGPT passing the Turing Test, noting that language was historically considered a defining feature of humanity. Thiel reflects that, until recently, language was seen as a clear binary marker separating humans from non-humans, which makes the advancement of AI particularly remarkable.

Rogan then questions what factors led humans to diverge so dramatically from other primates. He mentions the doubling of the human brain size over two million years as one of the great mysteries of the fossil record, acknowledging the various theories, such as the use of a throwing arm or cooking meat, but admits that the true cause remains unknown. Thiel offers a linguistic perspective, referencing Aristotle's idea that humans have a greater aptitude for imitation than other animals. He suggests that humans are "giant imitating machines," much more adept at imitation than apes, and posits that this imitation ability is central to human development.

Thiel explains that imitation is crucial for learning language, transmitting culture, and mastering skills. However, he also notes that imitation has a conflictual dimension, where people desire what others have, leading to competition and conflict. Thiel argues that this imitation-driven culture has both positive and negative aspects, contributing to both the greatness and the troubles of humanity. He suggests that the problem of imitation needed to be solved, which may have led to the development of rituals and religion as a way to channel these impulses.

Thiel considers the idea that the motivation behind imitation was a key step in human evolution. He hypothesizes that as humans' brains grew larger, their capacity for imitation increased, making them more powerful and capable of cultural transmission. However, this also led to the creation of better weapons and increased violence. Thiel argues that imitation had to be channeled through rituals and religion, suggesting that these developments happened concurrently as a way to manage the destructive aspects of imitation.

Thiel reflects on the evolutionary changes in humans, such as the growth of the brain and the loss of hair, which made humans physically weaker than other primates. He suggests that these physical changes were a trade-off, with more energy being allocated to brain development rather than physical strength. Thiel theorizes that humans became stronger than other primates by using their brains to build tools, like axes, which gave them an advantage despite their physical weaknesses.

Rogan introduces the idea that humans underwent an extraordinary leap in evolution, which is different from any other animal. He mentions the theory by Terence McKenna, known as the "Stoned Ape Theory," which proposes that the consumption of psilocybin mushrooms played a key role in the development of human consciousness. Thiel acknowledges this theory but emphasizes the importance of imitation and cultural development as the primary factors in human evolution. He speculates that these developments were crucial in dealing with the conflicts and violence that came with increased cognitive abilities.

Thiel expresses skepticism about the "Stoned Ape Theory" because he feels it often overlooks the darker aspects of these rituals, such as violence and chaos. He recalls a conversation with Brian Muraresku, author of "The Immortality Key," about the ancient rituals and their connection to psychedelics. Thiel suggests that these rituals were likely tied to both religious experiences and violence, particularly in the context of warfare. He draws a parallel to the Vikings, who are known to have taken mushrooms before going into battle to reduce fear and enhance their combat abilities.

Rogan and Thiel discuss the possible benefits of psychedelics, such as increased visual acuity and edge detection, which could have made ancient humans better hunters. Thiel is sympathetic to theories about the widespread historical use of mushrooms and other psychedelic drugs, but he believes these substances were often used in transgressive, violent contexts. Both agree that violence was a pervasive part of ancient life, influencing daily activities, social structures, and even entertainment.

Rogan suggests that the use of psychedelics in controlled rituals, like the Eleusinian Mysteries, could have contributed to the development of democracy and other innovative ideas. He believes that these rituals, where people gathered to take psychedelics in a structured environment, were a breeding ground for creativity and new thoughts. Rogan speculates that many of the innovative ideas in ancient times, as well as today, may have been inspired by these kinds of experiences.

Thiel discusses his libertarian stance on drug legalization, particularly psychedelics. He believes these substances are powerful and should not be outlawed but rather used in controlled settings to gain different perspectives. Thiel suggests that in the classical world, psychedelics were likely used in specific, controlled environments, rather than as everyday substances. He sees them as tools to temporarily escape the mundane aspects of life without permanently disconnecting from reality.

Rogan then questions where the line should be drawn regarding the use of psychedelics, such as whether everyone should try an ayahuasca trip or if it should be an annual experience. Thiel responds by stating that there are no universal requirements; everyone has different needs. Rogan shares his disappointment with the FDA's decision to deny the legalization of MDMA therapy for veterans with PTSD, despite its documented clinical benefits. He criticizes the FDA's decision to require new trials, delaying access to this potentially life-saving treatment.

Thiel expresses his bullishness on the potential of MDMA and other psychedelics, viewing them as a way to bypass the traditional double-blind study requirements imposed by the FDA. He argues that if a treatment genuinely works, a double-blind study should be unnecessary, calling the process sociopathic for withholding effective treatment from patients. Thiel suggests that the requirement for a double-blind study is part of an anti-drug ideology within the FDA, and that the scientific establishment's strict adherence to these studies is a barrier to progress.

Thiel criticizes the scientific establishment for moving the goalposts by making it harder to approve psychedelic therapies, even when double-blind studies are irrelevant. He believes this is partly due to an anti-drug ideology but also due to a rigid commitment to traditional scientific methods. Rogan adds that the resistance to psychedelics might stem from a fear of opening Pandora's Box, leading to widespread acceptance of alternative ways of thinking, which could threaten the established order.

Thiel discusses the cultural shift from outer space exploration to "inner space" exploration that began in the late 1960s. He notes that the U.S. landed on the moon in July 1969, but just three weeks later, Woodstock took place, symbolizing the shift from outward exploration to inward, personal exploration. Thiel questions whether this shift was an activation toward self-improvement or a deactivation that distracted people from addressing external problems. He mentions various forms of "interiority," such as psychological therapy, meditation, yoga, the sexual revolution, identity politics, and the use of psychedelics. Thiel wonders if these inward-focused activities served as a substitute for political action, leading to a depoliticization of society.

Rogan adds that the Vietnam War coincided with the rise of the psychedelic drug movement in the 1960s, making the establishment view these "flower children" as a threat. Rogan explains that these individuals were less likely to support the war or engage in violence, which made them dangerous to the status quo. He references the book "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill, which discusses how the establishment sought to demonize the hippie movement.

Thiel brings up the MK-Ultra program, where the U.S. government engaged in an arms race of mind control, trying to compete with the brainwashing tactics of fascists and communists. He explains that LSD was a key part of the MK-Ultra experiments, with the drug being used as a shortcut for mind control. Thiel suggests that the MK-Ultra program was more extensive than most people realize and had a significant influence on the LSD movement, including Timothy Leary at Harvard and Ken Kesey at Stanford. He references Tom Wolfe's book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test," which documents the early LSD counterculture movement, beginning at Stanford and moving to Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco. Thiel notes that the entire movement might have been rooted in a CIA mind control project, starting at the Menlo Park Veterans Hospital.

Thiel continues discussing the MK-Ultra program, describing it as one of the most extreme examples of U.S. government overreach, particularly through the CIA. Rogan expresses doubt that the government abandoned such programs, speculating that similar activities likely continue today. Rogan points out how easily people can be ideologically captured or influenced by their communities, and how this could be used to program individuals for specific purposes, such as the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Rogan questions how the would-be assassin managed to reach such a position, suggesting that we lack detailed explanations and remain in the dark about what really happened.

Thiel reflects on the history of conspiracies and secret programs in the U.S., acknowledging that many covert activities occurred in the first half of the 20th century, including the Manhattan Project. He suggests that institutions like the CIA were much more functional and effective during this time, compared to today. Thiel believes that the CIA is no longer engaging in programs like MK-Ultra, partly due to the exposure of these activities through the Church Committee hearings in the late 1970s. He argues that once these programs are formalized and bureaucratized, they lose their effectiveness, which leads to their eventual decline.

Thiel compares the effectiveness of secret programs during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s with their decline in the last 50 years. He explains that formalization, such as the Bush administration's torture memos, leads to a loss of functionality because once everyone knows about it, it stops working. Thiel gives the example of Guantanamo Bay, where by 2007, the prisoners and their defense lawyers had effectively taken control, making it safer to be a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo than a suspected criminal in a U.S. city. He contrasts this with the informal processes that existed previously, where authorities would find ways to deal with suspects outside of formal judicial processes.

Thiel discusses the decline of powerful institutions like the CIA and FBI after the exposure of their secret activities. He describes how these organizations were once out of control and operated with little oversight, but the exposure of their methods forced them to formalize, which reduced their effectiveness. Thiel also mentions the NSA, which maintained its secrecy longer than other agencies, but even it eventually became more visible and less functional. He points out that for deep state activities to remain effective, they must be hidden from public view.

Thiel continues discussing how the judicial process has been weaponized, particularly with the Russia conspiracy theories against Donald Trump in 2016. He notes that such tactics were exposed, making it harder to use them again, but smaller, top-secret programs designed to protect American lives and extract information from people still exist. Thiel highlights the out-of-control nature of the NSA FISA court process from around 2003 to 2017-2018, indicating that these issues are recent history.

Thiel mentions his fascination with the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories, acknowledging that something "crazy" was going on that has been covered up and remains unsolved. Rogan points out the lack of consequences, aside from Ghislaine Maxwell's imprisonment and Epstein's alleged suicide, questioning the motives behind the operation and how it was pulled off without repercussions. Rogan speculates that the Epstein case involved compromising people, a strategy used to gain leverage and influence policy, yet no one is demanding the tapes or the client list, leaving the public in the dark.

Thiel agrees that the focus on the sex aspect of the Epstein case might be overblown while other questions are underexplored. He recalls that when Alexander Acosta, who prosecuted Epstein in 2008-2009, testified before Congress in 2017 for his nomination as Labor Secretary, he mentioned that Epstein "belonged to intelligence." Thiel questions what part of the U.S. intelligence system Epstein was connected to, dismissing theories that he worked for foreign intelligence, given that someone working for a foreign government would not receive such protection.

Rogan suggests that sex scandals are a powerful tool for controlling politicians, citing the Monica Lewinsky scandal as an example. He notes that such scandals can bring down presidencies, highlighting the shame and illegal activity involved. Thiel acknowledges this but also believes there are many other questions that should be asked about the Epstein case, suggesting that it may have involved more than just the typical strategies used in politics, like those employed by J. Edgar Hoover.

Thiel compares the Epstein situation to J. Edgar Hoover's tactics but suggests it was different in that people involved with Epstein might have knowingly compromised themselves as part of joining a "secret club." He uses the analogy of being a made man in the mafia, where compromising information ensures loyalty and advancement. Thiel gives an example involving the Catholic Church, where it's claimed that a high percentage of cardinals are gay, arguing that those in control ensure that only compromised individuals rise to power. Rogan agrees, noting that many politicians who seek power are willing to compromise themselves.

Rogan then asks Thiel about Bill Gates's connection with Epstein. Thiel speculates that Gates, who was known for his monopolistic practices at Microsoft and had a bad reputation, might have turned to philanthropy to whitewash his image. Thiel suggests that Gates might have sought Epstein's advice on handling his troubled marriage, with Epstein recommending divorce as a solution. However, Gates didn't want to divorce because he didn't have a prenuptial agreement. Thiel proposes an alternative conspiracy theory where Gates could have used philanthropy as a way to protect his assets and prevent Melinda from getting half in a divorce. He also mentions Gates's efforts to secure a Nobel Prize, which he sees as part of the same whitewashing strategy.

Rogan and Thiel discuss the history of the Nobel Prize, noting that Alfred Nobel created it to counteract his reputation as "The Merchant of Death" after inventing dynamite. They draw parallels between Nobel's attempt to change his image and Gates's efforts to improve his reputation through philanthropy. Thiel notes that while the underage sex aspect of Epstein's activities has gained the most attention, there's also the status-seeking side, with people like Gates seeking Nobel Prizes, and the possibility that Epstein played a role in these pursuits.

Thiel and Rogan explore the corruption in left-wing philanthropy, with Thiel pointing out that in the U.S., philanthropy is often seen as virtuous, while in Europe, it's viewed with suspicion. Thiel suggests that the European perspective might be more accurate, as people who give away large sums of money may be trying to cover up something. He reflects on how left-wing philanthropy peaked in the late 2000s and early 2010s, with a shift in societal attitudes making such acts more transparent and open to criticism. Thiel also suggests that Gates's philanthropic activities were a "giant whitewashing operation" aimed at improving his public image.

Thiel explains that the whitewashing has become too transparent, leading to its deconstruction and exposure, particularly through the internet. He notes that while many people are still unaware of the extent of the whitewashing, the truth is becoming more apparent. Thiel discusses how Gates donated over $300 million to media organizations to buy favorable coverage and public relations for his philanthropy, blending public relations with charitable giving. Rogan agrees that the extent of these efforts is largely unknown to the public.