there we go. So this is the OGM call for Thursday, January 19, 2023. And the first couple times I wrote 2023, I, I couldn't sort of figure out how I'd gotten as far as 2023. So there we are.  It feels like you've made a dent into the century when you start getting near the quarter, the quartermark. We're living in the future, Jerry. We are. We're living in the future we didn't imagine. Although I for one, I'm glad we have zoom in the internet. I for one, welcome our new ant overlords. Exactly. Oh, man. Now, is that an acronym for superior intelligence? Or do you just mean the critters? The Simpsons. Oh, okay. It's from the Simpsons. I have not watched enough Simpsons episode in my life. Shortcoming. You know, I resisted for a long time.  And I found out it's incredibly subversive and very sophisticated. It's the same thing happened to me with Futurama. I was like, I'm going to love this series. And then I just didn't get hooked. It's very strange. I got hooked on the Simpsons after two episodes. Well, we are reconvening in the spirit of improving our dialogues. And we have with us this time, instead of me experimenting with what I thought Doug's format was, we actually have Doug Carmacko with us to explain what this was and take us in. Doug, the con is yours and I will step in whenever you wish. So I'm going to run this process. And then at the end of the morning meeting, I'll talk about why we're doing it quite this way. Because there's some interesting ideas about it. It's quite simple. What I want everybody to do is be thinking about what in the last week was the most important thing you thought about that would make a good conversation. And what we're going to do is go around the room and have everybody speak without interruption by others. And we're going to start off by getting somebody to volunteer to go first. And when that person finishes, they pick the next person who then speaks and then they pick the next person and so we fill the room. So I think that's pretty clear. It's just a number. What's been on your mind in the last week that you think is most worth a serious conversation? So who would like to start? Anybody volunteer to start? I'll start. Thanks, Ken. I have a pretty simple short thing that's really been on my mind. I'm working with a client right now and the question they're asking me is how do we influence people that we have no power or authority over? These are folks you have to work with and maybe they don't really want to be in partnership with us. So how to create an environment where when we need something from someone who is in our network and perhaps a stakeholder in our company who isn't really, they're reticent to work together, but we need to work with them and they don't want to actually meet us where we need to be met. So how do we address that? So pick the next person. I will pick Judith. Thanks, Ken. Let me think for a second. I think for me the thought I had was how do I select the activities and the engagements that are most aligned with my long-range goal of using my time to somehow make the world a better place for folks? And what are my criteria for choosing which organizations I work with or which groups I try to influence? So pass the baton to somebody. Klaus? Yeah, my aha moment this week was I've spent the last since my retirement really working on climate food and climate change connected issues. I've been trying to break into my own industry. I know this a lot of my former colleagues are following me on LinkedIn, but I've been trying to get someone to actually act on what it is that we know about a changing climate and its impact on the food system. And I gave up about six years ago working as a consultant because I ended up working on theme parks and stuff like that and joined NGOs and worked my way into several NGOs sort of in an advisory function. I mean Mr. Seraclub, International Grassroots Network, but I keep trying to link up with my industry. Klaus, can I get you to state what the issue is that you've been thinking about and let us fill in the details later? The core issue is that all these high tech innovations that are coming into the food sector, particularly in biotech and so on, none of them consider the impact they are having on ordinary people and how that will impact their lives. Because food being at the system of the pyramid of our needs deeply impacts the way we live, the way we function, our health, our well-being and everything around us. And you can't get a company, no matter what size, to think it's any of their business that they should worry about what that does to people living in the inner cities, living in world districts. You just can't make the connections. It doesn't sink in because you can't make any money there. So that's my big beef this week. Gil, do you want to go next? Please. Let me pass for a moment, please. Choose someone else. Can you then pick someone else? Okay, I'll pick Pete. Okay. Thanks, Klaus. Most important thing I thought about last week is it seems like small, but it's also really big. How can individuals know what's true and what's not? How do we know what to believe? I'll pick Stacey. I've been thinking sort of a combination of what Pete and Ken are talking about, but mostly I've been thinking about how we have many solutions, but sometimes we're trying to force a certain solution in the wrong direction. And what I mean by that is sometimes there's an overcorrection where it's almost like if you give medicine to a healthy person, you make them sick. And I think I'm seeing a little bit of that in looking to find a balance between male and female energy. Stacey, pick the next person. I'm sorry. Doug. Which one? Oh, I'm sorry. Doug Bay. Well, this week, this last week, I had someone suggest a share I made to her was my Dharma reason for being here, but it revolved around the idea that the source of all of our ills are the law and the current legal system. And having people give that up requires offering them a replacement. And the dots that connected for me because of my elemental work is that the true natural law are the five elements and that we could actually replace current legal systems and structures with elemental principles, which are the prevailing reality that we live in and that actually govern what happens in it. So that's me. And who hasn't gone? Rick or Eric? I'm not sure.  Rick, you want to go first? Next. You know, I want to thank Doug for presenting this format. I was in another group and we were struggling with how to use Zoom more effectively. And what I'm particularly interested in is the notion of co-creating generative dialogues and getting away from our sort of talking head type of presentations or regurgitating our scripts that we've said many times before, where you actually say something original that triggers somebody else to come up with original thing. And the sharing of that sort of novelty and creates a different sort of space of transformational collaboration. So that's what I'm interested in. And, you know, the difficulties is how to create some simple rules for Zoom to do that. And I'll just share the evolution of the thought, which is not complete in trying to facilitate this. And that is how to create a thread. I mean, this is what we're doing now is divergent. It's a gender setting, whatever. There's merit to that. There's no question it's good to know what's on top of people's minds. But if you want to go into a theme of something, then an evolving thing that can go off in different directions, depending upon the flow that's the collective flow of the group, is when somebody speaks, it's sort of, you know, just like a using the talking stick. But the problem is, is you don't have the same cues in a Zoom environment of, you're not watching everyone the same way if you're in the room and you get a sense of people's energies of how it's, you know, emerging. So the ideas we came up with is that when you respond, you respond to what the person's saying first. And then you can, you can ask the person to respond to your response so that it's not serial monologues. But to add a twist to it, you're going to have one finger, two finger, and you can't put them up until the person's finished speaking. Because once, I experienced when people, a lot of people, you know, when people put their hands up, it's sort of, you know, your thinking changes because of what the previous person said. But if you allow people to spontaneously say, I just want to respond, or I want to respond and add, and then go back to the person to respond to it. So it creates a more of a dialogic format. And so anyway, that's what I'm interested in, how to create Zoom experiences where there is a theme or a question you start off with, and let the group co-create, emerge new ways of thinking, understanding, etc. So that's what comes top of mind for me. And by thought, is Eric the last one? Do you see? Is there? Yeah, thank you. Okay. Okay, I'm going to paste and chat the thoughts that popped into my mind today. But sometimes whether we want to talk about that or something else. I think I just feel a sense of acceleration since the year started. And I don't know if we're accelerating off a cliff or what. So I'll leave it at that. Okay, you want to pick the next person? We've got several still to go. Stewart, did you go? No, who else? No, I'm left. I'm still left. Okay, Gil. Yeah. Jerry. Okay, Gil. Muted. How, how will we get through the next two years? Better position for the next 20, not worse position for the next 20. Make a next person, Stewart? Yeah. So, Stewart, what we're doing is what's been most on our mind in the last week that's worth a serious conversation. Thanks. No, I heard the direction. Thank you, Doug. So what's up for me here is the notion that the US Congress is literally driving the bus over the cliff. And we're sitting here watching it. They're driving the bus over the cliff. And what that evokes for me is the words of the Declaration of Independence of the people, by the people, for the people, not of the congressman, for the congressman, by the congressman. And the egoic thinking is just rampant. And that's a microcosm and a macrocosm that we're living in in terms of the underlying thought processes that we've all been brainwashed.  So, next person? I will pick who hasn't gone yet. Michael. Hi, Al. I've been thinking about something that relates a little bit to what Stewart was just saying about driving off a cliff. And it's the easily seen difference between responsibility and cooperation among members of a not dysfunctional family that where a baby isn't competing with an adult and a stay-at-home person isn't competing with a someone going out in the workforce. They're figuring out how their interaction works for the entire family and an elder is looked after and not expected to make their own way. And versus the notion of competing individuals in a capitalist world, particularly, but in general, people competing for resources opposed to understanding that sharing their resources and skills and abilities is the way to succeed. And the scaling of that, which has been successful and unsuccessful among certain families, tribes, communities, states on up over the millennia. And trying to figure out how we can, obviously, the ideal is that we reach a state as a global family where the circumstances of the least able of us or the most threatened of us is important to the most resourced or able of us. And we just naturally are moved to take care of ourselves as a whole family. Can I get you to stop there and pass on? Sure. Yeah, I'll do that. And I'll pass on to Carl. Carl, what we're doing is what's been on our mind in the last week and some of the most important thing for our conversation. Okay. Obviously, the craziness of being inside the Beltway and work for the government. I mean, the situation is kind of crazy. I guess that's sort of the short term. And then the longer term stuff is, I mean, we got all this stuff that's they talk about seven generations and stuff, but every generation as a seventh generation or your group, you've got the connections for the generations plus or minus three of yours and things. So yeah, that's kind of where my thoughts have been on stuff really looking at some of the long term strategies and scenarios. That's kind of what I've been looking at. So I'll stop there because I'm not sure if I have the right context or not. So I think anybody not gone yet besides me? Jerry and John and Mark. No, there's John.  Okay, yes. Well, at the risk of just going with the headline as opposed to something I've been cooking all week, I just got the headline or the YouTube this morning about artificial wounds. Some company putting this out and it was the reaction to it included the possibility that it was entirely fake. But if it was even half serious, it opened up all kinds of issues immediately in terms of the most obvious brave the world 1984 when would be a state manufacturing people and ensuring their loyalty because it manufactured them. So that was pretty nightmarish thought. So that's worth discussing. And does anybody else who's left? I can't see the screen. Jerry and Mark. Okay, Mark, if you're there. Yeah, I'm here. So in terms of this week in particular, I've been part of a group sort of finance sector and climate change. And it's been intended to be an advanced sort of expert dialogue, 60 people. And it's just been maddening. I mean, it's done by email and it's just a serial monologue that literally just every 60 seconds, I get a ping that there's a new email in my box and a new post on the system. And I just can't figure out what the point is at all. And yet everyone in the group seems perfectly happy with this serial monologue that will go nowhere over the course of five days of dialogue. So that certainly been on my mind this week. Jerry. Thanks, Doug.  And just thinking about the things we would like to sense do about the top question that's on my mind is how do you build sufficient trust that people will soften enough to lower anger and fear to cooperate to make their lives better in any way they want, that they need. Because I think that that's a formula for dissolving some of our dilemmas in the world right now. Like there's a couple layers to it, but that's kind of the formulation I've gotten my head right now. So I think we've gone around everybody. I'm going to leave myself out for the moment. At this point, we've been stimulated by what everybody's been thinking about. So the floor is open for wherever it wants to go. And the only nudge is because you know you're being listened to try and keep it short. So since we have this quiet, I'm going to stick myself in. What's been on my mind this week is the conundrum of new economic activity creates new relationships. Relationships tend to be a little sticky, which means that it might change even harder. You imagine a hundred people gathered shoulder to shoulder in the middle of a football field. Any one of them can move through the group with a little resistance. If everybody reaches out and grabs the arm of a person nearby and holds on, nobody can move. And that's kind of what's happening in society right now. We're increasing activity, which creates relationships, which are sticky, which increases the glue, which means changes even harder. So that's what's been on my mind. And so in the spirit of jumping in on conversations, I'd love to just jump into what you just said, Doug. Partly because I'm unclear that stickier relationships, which I think means more trusted relationships. And here we can bring in the weak ties versus strong ties work and other things like that. But I'm unclear that stickier relationships mean less change directly, that the binding somehow prevents motion. There are group dynamics that clearly do that. Like this is how cults operate. They create extremely sticky relationships, so there's no leeway for change, innovation, or trying to break out of the cult. But that's not what I think of as regular the stickiness in social interactions. Sorry, Doug, I just wanted to add that. Yeah, an example is the states which have passed laws, which make it illegal to put new transmission lines across the state line. So that makes doing a new grid almost impossible. Sorry, how's that an example of human? Because you have these contractual regulatory relationships. So contracts is one form of relationship. Laws are one form of relationship. And they just make things sticky. So yeah, I totally agree. Anybody else who wants to jump in, please do. For me, like, laws are a way of trying to pour concrete around social arrangements. And so sticky, like very sticky, if you prohibit things, you know, like we are currently trying to stop, I'm currently trying to stop the US from becoming the handmaid's tail. Because it seems like a bunch of people want to make things very sticky on that front by passing laws that prohibit really legitimate healthcare interventions, which is crazy. And so I did not think you were talking about laws. I thought you were operating at some other level. So I was I was jarred when you brought in laws in that sense. Anybody else thoughts? Dark B. And you're muted. There you go. The definition jar you just shared, which is law as a sort of agreement by and between um relationship and agreement alone doesn't equal law. What the word law definitionally requires is that the agreed conventions by and between that the violation of that agreement breach of that agreement carries a penalty. It is the enforceability of the agreement by that mechanism that is fundamental to the law and the legal system. If you shift orientation and drop the penalty for failure to comply or align or or behave in conformity with of and you shift orientation to the why that happened and what's needed to help those not in compliance. It changes the whole equation and orientation as a contribution. Thanks. Let's do it. So I just wanted to throw into the mix that um from from everybody's comments um and I'm thinking specifically at Gil, because I'm looking at his face when he said, you know, how are we going to get through the next two years? We've got all these things percolating the war in Ukraine, climate issues, food issues, um legal issues, governance issues, and they're all percolating. And um and I'm reminded and I think I've said this here on this call before from my my my time in the you know when I was doing a lot of mediation and the mantra used to be oh they haven't felt enough pain yet and in in all of these things that are percolating it's not mass pain. We haven't felt that. I found myself last week you know in response to a lot of friends saying how you doing in these terrible mass floods in California saying that I'm dry feeling kind of like yeah I'm I'm I'm one of the fortunate ones. But um maybe what we need is a mass event to really wake more and more and more people up although my sense is if that happens people will continue in their same um individual and personal carping and and won't uh won't start to let go and and and see the collective. Jerry you mentioned softening and I think that that's exactly what I was just kind of pointing at. Thanks Stuart. Uh Klaus. Yeah in this in the same way as Stuart was just mentioning um I think we need to have a common agreement about the peril that we're in as the collective and um the only you know a real example that comes to mind that is more contemporary would be World War II. The mobilization that took place during World War II but only after Pearl Harbor happened and you know when you look back historically through a lot of um interactions that took place before the US engaged um and and really did this mobilization to the internal conflicts at the time were very similar to what we have today. Normally at an active Nazi party you had all kinds of uh uh streams within the within society. It wasn't until this became a real existential threat where you could see long term this is a serious disruption um that could that could imperil you know the United States itself did did it really engage but once that happened when you think about the the uh implications right when you converted an automobile factory within six months to hold out tanks or another factory that within a really short bit of time produced airplanes and then mass produced these things think about what the takes to make that happen. There had to be some engineer who was working on an assembly line before making cars who now had to figure out how do I change this and you could not direct this top down. It had to be built bottom up where everybody in this factory knew what the uh intended outcome was right and and self directed self mobilized here and that's what it will take right now we will really need um to have a collective understanding where people self mobilize to do the right thing meaning you know we need to restore our environment we need to have uh we need to protect our food supply we need to have people who are at the low end of the economy not just in the us but period to to help them to help themselves right because people who are desperate to cut down the last three to live another day so you so you can't let people get desperate right you have to prevent desperation in the uh base of pyramid economy and so to for that to happen is a mindset shift it's a reformation that needs to take place where with where our own instincts you know tell us to cooperate because I need to help somebody who's helping somebody to fix stuff kind of mentality and and I think we're getting pretty close unfortunately we can't afford to get much closer because then we'll have crashes with tipping points where no it's going to be too late um Doug I've kind of stepped in as traffic director here would you rather like uh run the room um I let it let itself manage itself okay I will stop managing it so I'm going to come in just as a person class uh in the example of world war two the factory already had relationships which could change what they were doing uh the whole society was organized around laws that could be implemented through the structure of congress and the president's office to respond to the crisis we don't have those structures now that could play that role yeah on top of it it's global right because the globalization the world economic forum has more influence and power than any individual government so so clearly um what would have to happen is that the elites or financial elites are really controlled and a very few people really control the the core levels of the uh economy would have to come to the conclusion that we need to change course here and we need to engage sectors of the economy that we never paid any attention to so so government has always been like in a mediating role right because to maintain social systems uh that that you know perpetuate no society as a whole but the with the loss of of influence by individual governments you have companies supersede this power and and social systems have been degrading ever since no i'm not ever since i mean they have been degrading well you know um maybe the elites need to come around to this point of view or maybe there needs to be a different kind of power structure in the world right uh i would disagree with Doug uh i think the structures are there but they're being fought over and seized and directed in different ways than they had been um had been intended or had been in previous years i've been i've been asking um folks what might it be like if we did businesses though we actually belong to the living world and as though we actually belong to each other and i guess the variation on that question that comes to mind class listening to you is what does it take for us to come to that belief uh us in the broad in the broadest possible sense yeah um and uh you know as a and it's a profound shift in worldview it's one the humans have lived in for tens of millennia but not lately um i'm reminded listening to you guys of um a sort of weird joke that the great ray anderson used to tell of somebody who um leaps or falls or tries to fly off the top of the empire state building and as he's plummeting toward the ground he's passing 83rd floor someone opens the window and looks out and says how you doing he says pretty good so far and you know that's the mood that most folks are living in is we're pretty good so far uh i think most people don't have any grasp of the scale of the calamity of the ecological calamity that we may be facing certainly no grasp of exponential growth um you know tap any tap any hundred people on the street and how many of them know that 70 percent of insect species are gone you know and that 90 percent of top fish in the oceans are gone um and um you know and that and you follow that trend further it doesn't look very nice but you know who knows that no it's not it's not discussed it's not reported on and even there you know the sense of how that the rate of change changes it's you know itself is just it's not in the common mind so how do we learn to be part of the living world and act as if rick you're muted so we don't hear you i was just using my one finger as a signal that i wanted to respond to gill um entomarch and um i put a question in there about uh the issue of pain how much pain will it take and i i think where as i said in this little entree we were we're living in a narcotic age of wokeness denial misinformation disinformation so we're sort of numbed and we're not responding but we're also building on what mark was saying we're we're ineffective we're ineffective collaborators we don't know how to come together with a a communitarian way of moving beyond the hero's journey etc which is remarkably ineffective which means we have to think about working together in a very different way that we have been doing because the magnitude of the problem is so enormous then um well we by the way there can i i would say we in terms of people who aspire to be change agents i'm not talking about we the royal beyond that people who feel like they want to take on the challenge to see if they can improve and address the problems we are which i think almost everyone in this room probably would like to work towards but the question is how can we do it together well one of the things that we've done as a as a culture as a society we've taken all the indigenous wisdom and put them on reservations we just crowded people into these little reservations and and these are the folks who have a different psychology it's no wonder that there's so much alcoholism on on Native American reservations because um being forced to live in a in a in a concrete created man create person create human created world caused this incredible level of on we and and and that that's the place to find some connection to the natural world as a beginning i'm reading you know a little book now by a guy named four hour four arrows who's also has a an American name he's a phd professor in multiple universities i can't think of his name but it's it's quoting the wisdom of symbol which is just kind of eye opening in in in so many different ways and just coincidentally there's a lot of reference here has been a lot of reference to collaborating in a different way my my daily poem today is called agreements which i'll be happy to read at the end if if people want to hear stacy you had your hand up please come yeah this is actually what i've been thinking about this week it didn't come to mind before but what i wanted to respond to gill and to you is can we actually live with the natural world if we don't address our own human centricism i don't know if human centricism is actually a word but i think that we all have some of it and we may not be aware of that don't wait for anybody to direct you just jump in if you want to and uh yeah um yeah four hours is one of the professors at at fielding where i'm going to school so i've had many conversations with him yeah it's um yeah he's he's a lot of his passion is about this um decolonizing the curriculum is a big big part of that so actually a lot of the stuff that ties together i've had ideas that i'm going to be pitching for a fielding symposium or a series and things so that's one of my one of my projects for the for the year yeah i mean there's so much um well i brought it up before but yeah i've had ideas um i did i have to do a lot of writing too i've been hanging off but one of the ideas i have is about a pascal's wager revisited and uh pascal um yeah it was basically there is a god there isn't a god you live a virtuous life you live like there's not a god so it was eternal salvation eternal damnation you live a virtuous life or you uh it doesn't matter kind of thing so the you should live a virtuous life and i think we can apply the same kind of thing to um climate change in the problem so i have ideas for a pascal's wager revisited so curl i've i've had a similar thought before and i don't i don't i have never gone into pascal's wager in enough depth and i'm wondering if anybody else in the zoom has done so my understanding of pascal's wager is well just in case there is a god you might as well act well because in that case you're gonna be okay you know when you're judged in the afterlife even if you don't happen to believe in god and so for me one of the things i've puzzled over about climate change deniers is hey let's just what what if this thing is actually sort of off its wheels uh wouldn't it be wouldn't it benefit us to sort of do some work to mitigate climate change but and i'm i'm wondering if that's the same interpretation you had and i'm wondering also if i'm misinterpreting pascal's wager yeah um the stanford um encyclopedia philosophy there i mean it's it's amazing you've had uh centuries of theologians and and philosophers like um arguing these exquisite arguments and stuff and it's like it's a mathematician i mean he's he invented or he's the one who brought together probably in statistics so he could have an advantage rolling dice so my my main premise is that that was a thought experiment about infinite payoffs and stuff so that's one aspect of it that i'm kind of looking at so it would be getting into game theory and all this type of stuff too but maybe that's somebody is that somebody else's dissertation or i've got about at least a dozen let's go to gill part of the part of the climate denier world is the folks who believe in the rapture you know and don't care about is they're focused on an afterlife and in fact folks think the sooner the better um which is kind of analogous to the folks earlier who are talking about it maybe it's got to get worse there's not enough pain uh which reminds me of the line from some of my old marxoid friends which drove me crazy about heightening the contradictions of like let's make stuff worse so that to build the revolutionary potential so things will blow up and change and it always struck me as a not only cynical deeply immoral way to view the world you know so my my question i think was back to you steward is uh you know do we just have to wait for stuff to get so bad that people pop or there are ways to encourage uh and nurture a less less crazy transition yeah um i think it's back to um one of the things there's that old quote that's attributed to Churchill but apparently it's not him that uh that americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other possibilities yeah yeah so maybe humans only get intelligent when our backs are utterly to the wall and we've you know everything else we've tried has failed i don't know yeah it's it's in what just popped up in my mind gill is is you know our worst famous statement climate change you know denial is not just a river in egypt um we know what to do we know what to do in other words you know we we we could do mass transformation of human psyches human programming um where we are we could do mass education you know i don't think we have a resource problem on this planet really don't i think we have a distribution problem i think if we if we figured out how to how to create basic needs for everyone um you know we could we could turn this into heaven on earth uh but the the will is not there and people's psychology uh seems to mostly go in the in the in the in the opposite direction or and that just may be my fantasy um good morning i apologize for joining this late um i have had a uh incredibly wonderful um weekend in couple of days and i'm kind of really mistrusting like it feels like somebody has the finger on the positive scale and just i'm hitting all the green lights and um having incredible conversations and i'm really not sure what this conversation is about but i'm reminded of a couple things um one is one of my favorite lines from a comic book i completely refuse to admit that i'm in denial and uh so i've healed from cancer hopefully although um the uh you know cure um of the chemo um has incredible side effects um including you know chemo brain confusion and i've just been you know doing the right things and i feel oddly enough smarter than ever and i don't trust that as well i don't trust kind of this feeling of invincibility um talk to the doctor yesterday and they said yeah that could be a mania we really want to pay attention to that and um so you know hopefully i'm wise and smart enough to um yeah follow through on this um yesterday was a cancer um uh group um called the ucsf survivorship wellness um put on by their psycho oncology department and um oddly enough the theme was dealing with uncertainty and so i've been uh you know it was just one of these you know synchronicity coincidences that um you know it was just like oh my god this is really too cool but one of the um participants said you know she no longer fears death and it was a real um opening an awareness and blessing for her and i had to reflect and go yeah because of a lot of the work i've done and through the shit i've been through i am absolutely no longer in fear of death and it's just like you know um every day i wake up that's a good day um but it's not part of my psychological complex anymore and damn what's it used to um and i just feel it's such a blessing um go ahead um gil i'm just on that mark how has that shift affected you it's different in your life with that belief being different the honest answer is i don't know yet so my research has to do with the assumption that feeling human feelings are real they're as real as you know the atomic number of lead being you know a certain number they're as real as two plus two equals four there is a you know reality um not only to communication to life to intelligence but also on a much deeper level feeling is something that moves people um it moves animals um you know there's lots of science fiction that you know it's another dimension where other beings live um and and certainly religious um tradition as well and um to tell you the truth gil i just don't know yet um oddly enough um one of the other coincidences was i'm kind of trying to research this multivariate polar coordinate system for threat detection but also friendship of and closeness of say a brother or mark can i get you to be a little aware of time sharing sure i will um sorry about that but basically how do i how do i visualize either threats or love of a group of people in a visual and interactive way um and i'm i'm you know just starting to play with us um thanks for the question gil i don't know um and doug go ahead yeah um mark you and i at some point should connect we have more commonalities that are uh visible to the universe um so i just wanted to correlate some loops um class you mentioned the mobilization in world war two and there's a there's a story there's a subtext to that um um roosevelt was confronting a country that did not want to get involved and john toland wrote a book on hitler and uncovered that roosevelt knew about pearl harbor two days before it happened and he did not take any action to mitigate the damage because he felt he needed that in order to catalyze the country into engagement in world war two that was a deliberate decision rooted in using the human mechanism of fear to motivate that collective bottom up activation and fear has been to mark's comment about the emotions fear has been the principal for our you know for the developed world and cultures um almost from inception and the evolutionary shift and the question is whether as a species we're evolutionarily up to the task of doing it is transcending motivation by fear and scarcity and actually shifting orientation into um love and care and inclusion and a value set that uh is oriented toward what's needed to enable balance each and service to each other um versus the competitive dystopic nightmare that we are in the middle of now so i think we have mark up next mark trexler uh yeah just a couple of follow-up uh points one you know for many years ago there was this theory that once we had some real climatic events i.e hurricane flooding new orleans that that would be the trigger point for people responding to climate change and and it now that we've had a whole series of sort of empirical tests of that it it turns out it's not true that that as people experience that kind of disaster all they want to do is recover they don't want to think about alternatives and new strategies and new worlds they just want to get back to where they were and and so it turns out that's the hardest time to actually influence their thinking about some of these issues so so that's a real challenge in terms of waiting for the waiting for the big one so to speak the other just point is that we always talk about sort of the climate denialists etc a bit i'm always struck by the fact that that based on a bunch of different research out there you know there are a hundred million people in the us who are alarmed or concerned about climate change a hundred million people about 50 of them actually know what they could do most effectively to tackle climate change in other words basically no one everyone says i recycle which has nothing to do with climate change and so you know we've got this massive group of people out there and if we wait for them to figure this out on their own we're going to be waiting for a long time and yet there are no we have no structures out there to sort of inform people on a day to day week to week month to month basis where they could be most effective at any given time in tackling one piece one chess piece on the chess board of making progress on climate change and i think it's remarkable that we we keep talking about all of these issues so much and yet some basic structures for helping people be effective simply don't exist and i'll stop there i think the common theme that's coming to mind for me is two things actually whether or not there's any sense of connection that people feel with anything because it feels to me like we've become very disconnected which then means we that tends to lead to disengagement and other things and i think also that the vast majority of humans don't spend a lot of time thinking they're so engaged in doing and if you're doing without thinking then it's not very effective i don't know how to remedy either of these two issues but i'd be interested in what people think well yeah i would argue there are actually structures available to engage with because in every community you have literally a dozen NGOs who are working to help people who have fallen on hard times or are impoverished or not children who needs support because we have millions of children living in the street and being food insecure i mean we have conditions that are just that are just incredible but the resources don't go there and when you when you raise awareness that the help really needs to get into these communities when you have where you have food deserts and people living in the street and so on you can't make any money there this is not a commercial zone that allows a top-down approach where you know you create a product and or a franchise or what have you and then you roll it out and become a billionaire so there's the resources currently i mean enormous billions of dollars are going into greenwashing schemes they're going into all kinds of investments that have no impact on helping people that that need to become self-sufficient as a first step and and need to be secured so it's simply a matter of reprioritizing and and and apling i mean i constantly run into the issue that people who really want to help others are constantly begging for money you know they have to donate their time and then lo and behold they may get a cramp someplace right but it is just amazing whereas on the other hand people who really have talent technical skills engineering skills thinking skills they are busy you know thinking about the next invention that is going to make them a millionaire so so there is this uh so the infrastructure is there we just need to pay attention to it and resource it well it is my feeling that anytime you put money into a project it generates activity which creates more co2 is that part of where we're stuck i'm not sure i agree with this that um because you can put money into um you know local programs that that assist people to find housing to build communities to secure their food supply that does that does the opposite is that you can you can invest carbon negative absolutely it's possible okay i i like i like hearing what judy said um that it feels like we've become very disconnected and i think it's actually something different um what i think is that people can't really imagine stuff bigger than your extended family so when we see population scale things happening um it's it's not that anybody's directing that it's an emergent property of lots of small many many small groups kind of interacting so you can kind of imagine the size of your extended family and whether or not they're doing well and whether or not that extended family is doing well or whether you want to partner with them or whether you want to fight with them um maybe you can imagine maybe some of us can imagine you know i've got a gang of thugs um and i'm going to run around and take things from other other extended families um and then maybe there's there's kind of viral effects uh we obviously people you know can move in millions uh one way or another way in in opinion but that i think is not thinking it's not thinking about let me move with a million people it's a lot more like lemmings and of the million people i can see you know 20 or 30 or 50 in a few extended families around me and they seem to be moving towards the cliff and i should be moving towards the cliff oh my god why wouldn't i move towards the cliff everybody else is so i i think where we find ourselves is imagining that the united states or the world is the 20 or 50 people in an extended family and try to have a lever to move it because in the same way that i would move 20 or 50 people in an extended family and it's just a like you know like three or four or five orders of magnitude different in scale and that amount of scale is just something that's really really really hard for any of us to navigate and i think that's the problem the problem is we see problems we want to work on problems but we don't know how to move people in more than a group of you know 50 or 100 or 200 or maybe a thousand thanks so again synchronously i've been talking about this with many different people and as part of the internet archive we serve millions of people a day for free we have been raising incredible amounts of money i think as donations we had a dweb meet up last night where brilliant people working for the good all met each other there are nonprofits that in local bay area that get together at least twice a year and you know electronic found freedom foundation wikipedia internet archive you know the the neighbors i live next to we we try to you know exchange numbers in case of emergencies you know working at many different levels of scale our truck internet archive truck got stolen we posted on reddit somebody found it in oakland and we're getting it back and i'm proposing that at least one panel the kids at the sutra elementary school half a block from the internet archive are you know given a donation or supported to paint one panel of the truck and then you know engage other artists in the bay area i just you know and you know the recent experience of you know having cancer and being part of support groups where everybody is just like i wish for your best health and know you're you know going through shit right now because i've been there um that's good action i think we're doing it here right now um i certainly see danger and i see challenge but i also see possibility and um i thank everybody here for uh listening and uh you know trying to connect thanks um go ahead sewer thanks i want i want to start uh by by reading um the yesterday zen quote which i think is wonderful in this living world the body i give up and burn would be wretched if i thought of myself as anything but firewood i think that's just a wonderful kind of philosophical construct and moves us off of our own ego now that being said i think we've come through a period of great luxury uh great luxury meaning to live in a in a democracy and and to be able to you know kind of flourish in some ways in democracy but i think we've come to the end of that rope as as i've looked at at at um you know history i see that the greatest mass social changes happened because of autocracy um and i can't believe i'm about to say this but but but i i know gill you you you could disagree and many would disagree and that's okay you know it's okay but continual disagreement is going to have us go over the cliff some benevolent quote dictator or some other term to kind of massively organize where we are and and and and make a plan to move us forward okay my uber's would you know volunteer for the program but you know it doesn't look like people will will put me in charge in in this lifetime but we we know what the challenges are we know what to do it's a question of organization and and meanwhile you know so much of the activities we're engaged in are you know fiddling while Rome is burning um and here we are i'm struck by that phrase that we know what to do i hear it all the time i don't think we know what to do we need to cut uh co2 and cutting co2 means cutting some kind of commercial or domestic activities uh i look around my room right now and there's power going to the computer there's an electric heater uh there are two kitties uh that eat food out of a can which has to be manufactured and that um stuff in the can has to be grown uh i see uh a dozen projects that are going to be undertaken slowly like uh wiring a uh a plug that seems to have come disconnected uh none of them are in the spirit of cutting co2 they all add to it and i'm just puzzled uh with this idea that we know what to do i think if we knew what to do we have a very difficult different conversation i don't think we know what to do some of it is all of a sudden i think doug just putting a stop to all those activities and to live in a way that's much more you know close to the land and that's why i keep going back to we don't have the political or in or individual will to actually um do that but i think that that that if you if you brought a group of people together you know they could say we need to do this this this this and this and speculated without regard to the cost or the transition or the changes in in the way people are living massive massive massive difference you know as if we if we all went out on a camping trip okay or i remember years ago there was a somebody who said you know i could live in central park and just went out into central park in new york and was able to forage for food etc etc yeah when we are so far from ready to do that that's the kind of action that i think you know needs to happen but what about on the camping trip you know it's going to take a vehicle to get us there uh that's going to use gasoline we'll walk kill yeah i don't think you can fit all of new york and central parks do it um i'm i'm of the perspective that we actually know a lot about what to do this has been sort of the core of my orientation and worked for the last 50 years since doing world game with bucky and the crew which confirmed for me that we could be successful on this planet that we're not constrained by resources but there's other things in the way than that um dug you and i just agree on that um uh but you know your wiring of your plug and feeding your kitties is a pretty small piece of the problem well actually i'm not i'm i'm wiring your plug let's leave the kitties out of it kitties are part of the problem but you know we we need to look at a sense of proportion about where the scale of the damage comes from and so is it like 70 percent of global emissions are the result of a hundred companies activities so we can start to get strategic about things and think about other ways of doing plugs and um you know if if if i if i mine the copper with with coal powered energy or renewable powered energy the impacts are different down the road so that's the whole conversation we could have at another time perhaps but to stewart your your dream of autocracy um which dug i've heard you speak about you've heard you speak about it also um is to me is very flawed for a couple of reasons one is that you know it's not true that only social changes only come out of autocratic activity and we can cite you know lots and lots of examples of other ways that that has happened in fact out of deny a challenge to work to autocratic activity but the the logical flaw in that argument is who the fuck is the benevolent autocrat and who's choosing them and so that that ends that strategy pretty quickly i mean it may happen at random you know there was a while where people thought elon musk might be a good contributor to that uh i don't think anybody's thinking that this this week right so um um the autocrat theory breaks for me on on ashby's law of requisite variety you know nobody with that much power can be aware of what they need to be aware to do what needs to be done so for me that's a dead end we need to go find some other path than getting an autocrat or living in central park off the land by the way um you know one of the things that people have argued for a long time is zero population growth or declining population too many people on earth china appears to be on a verge of demographic demographic collapse um which you know some people say great less resource load but on the other hand less people to make stuff and less people to pay taxes and so demographic collapse economic collapse um so anyway i'll stop there i i just need to say gilf thank you for taking my bait i'm being a pro i'm being a provocateur is what i'm doing okay i'm half awake enough to just fall into the traps i'm not i'm not i'm not i'm not saying that you know this is the only way but i think in the discussion it's important to look at that as as as as as you know potential opposite and and elan must did cross my mind also he and he and you know donald trump saying you know trump saying i could i can i can fix everything and and we thought musk was going to be part of the answer but you know he's driven himself off the cliff mm yeah if i may come back to uh dux point do we actually know what to do i mean the reason why i really uh loved theory you that whole concept is because what we typically do is we identify there is a problem there is a there is an issue here and then we jump over to okay here must be the solutions and what we don't do is go the curve of exploration to really understand the problem so we we don't lack solutions we lack understanding of problems because when you see what the the tech world comes up with these are not solutions to the problem the way most of us understand them so they're fixing stuff without understanding the systemic relationships of the issues that they're playing with right you're playing with a complex adaptive system so any anything you do in that system requires you to have a deep understanding of the moving parts that you are impacting within that system and that's what we're disconnecting you know we're spending literally they're spending billions of dollars when you look at the world economic forum and stuff that just makes no sense and in fact in most cases make stuff worse right so why is that it's because the the nature of the problem is not being accepted there is almost like like emotional rejection right because it implies the need to change at a profound level that that changes business models you know at a level that people who are in charge of those things simply can't even imagine wrapping their mind around so no we don't we don't have a solution problem we have a definition problem of what is the problem I'm going to come in here and say a word about the process and then have Ken do his poem after a discussion about the process several things that I ran a thing at Stanford for a while called the Stanford strategy studio and the idea was to experiment and how to have better adult conversations and I learned a lot from that of which the stuff today is a part the reason to have each person speak is it really changes the person's perception of themselves if they've heard themselves speak in the group it's really quite powerful and it prevents well the other thing by going around the room and getting what's been on everybody's mind is it opens up into multiple agendas and prevents the tendency groups have to want to narrow down to a single topic in order to lower the anxiety from all the issues today was a fairly good example of doing this although there seems to me a stiltedness in the rooms in the room so to speak but I think that's coming from the existential situation we're in and not anything about the group process so those are some thoughts any reactions to doing things this way um yeah I'm on the abalone alliance consensus process which basically um and there's other consensus processes that I researched on the net and basically there are processes you know always have a facilitator and as well as a leader on ken and I have had conversations about you know his you know conscious conversations as well I think you know human training we can learn how to do this and thanks I just posted to the list earlier this morning a piece about how can a how can a business with four times the revenue per square foot of its surrounding businesses with 10 000 workers and no CEO operate other models up there yeah Doug I thought I thought it worked well um it at times verged on being a conversation um the hand raising is something it's a practice I think we're used to but I think we would be better off if we all learned how to be respectful in terms of time so that there could be more uh real interaction the other comments on the process I mean in a way the the process is aimed at being almost inconspicuous uh so that things happen fairly naturally um the idea that we're having a consensus conversation in a way this method is to avoid a consensus too early uh and to open up uh to the groups uh many pseudopodia out into the reality we're living in if there's no more comments uh Ken you want to give us a poem about actually I was going to comment on something else the not about the process but uh Stuart said he has a poem so I will defer to Stuart for a poem well that's right oh sorry okay sure I'll share the poem I was also going to briefly comment very briefly on what Klaus was saying um the whole notion of um people's opinions are based upon their underlying psychology and value set and the only way that I think we're going to progress forward is if our leaders had the capacity to be reflective enough in that way to see that they're operating within the system and they need to get out of the system uh in order to produce some real value going forward okay um Stuart before you go I I actually feel compelled to to share what I was going to share before which is I've been observing this conversation that all agency appears to be centered in humans and we are in a living world where there are all kinds of entities that have tremendous agency that we're ignoring and um until we can actually come to grips with that and feel it in ourselves we're going to continue to try and reinvent uh we're going to continue to try and get out of the box run by by feeling the walls of the box going okay we have to break through this I don't think that actually works I think we need some very new thinking so rather than an engineering approach of how do we solve this I have the question of what does a a human level immune response to we have humans currently are an autoimmune disease on the planet you know we have we have violated so many of the biological and natural um quote laws that are out there that we have put ourselves in the position of being on the verge of extinction so what does an immune response not an engineered response right immune response that comes sweeps over the entire organism and wakes it up and has a per has it lived at a different level has it produced a different kind of um reaction I think is the question that for me is more interesting than how do we solve our problems thank you I'll be quiet now and and and contrary to what I said before about a uh uh one person you know running the whole show the bubbling up um that happens when we're in in conversation and dialogue at a deeper level is where the solutions may come from so the part where the silence is more important than the speaking so the poem is called partnering agreements all over the place don't pay attention conflicts to face guiding grounding focus collaboration producing results beyond expectation expressing joint vision and a plan build trust with woman and man alignment enables states of grace with the gift of agreement in place alone don't do much stumble about harnessed in tandem we become stout hook up talents to a group with a mission marvel the results of a shared vision partnerships grounded in covenant light you up with energy abundant connect with people at work be clear with loved ones don't be a jerk know what you are what you're about join with others stand back and shout amazed and thrilled with delight joyous teamwork makes your life bright outcomes beyond what you had in mind life force of traction wells up you find satisfaction fills your heart joining others life becomes art you're ken do you want to do a poem no i think we should just sit with search books good and i have to actually prepare to hear that poem again then i have to head off the call so i'm going to turn the con over to ken but thank you all i'm dug thank you for for running the session yeah i'll post it in our in our in our email thread thank you actually thank you and and i was going to say i was almost moved to say a dog when he asked can if he had a poem what's the matter to mine wasn't good enough i think that expression was what what am i a chop liver it was a good one you don't like the red tie looks like people are leaving good to see you all have a wonderful week see you next week i hope take care don't close the con yet can i want to grab the chat okay everybody wants to chat go ahead and get it before i close the meeting but thank you thank you ken thanks everybody all right adios hey ken good to see you good to see you mark yeah been a long time it has how's your how's your weather and hillside and everything we're doing okay where i am we have not had any uh any flooding here in centerfell but you know you don't have to go very far to find some pretty pretty nasty stuff out here no i mean i i know uh in past um uh rain um you know all kinds of stuff has happened and fair facts and along you know um


So, I'm going to present a very simplified perspective. It's been my observation at this meeting and a couple of others that there are at least three, three different main groups attending these meetings. There's the pharmacogenomics group, what I'll call the GWAS Common Disease Group, and then the more traditional medical genetics or rare disease group, and the last is the one that I come from. And talking about how you move things from research to clinical applications is part of routine medical care and standard of practice in genetics and genetic testing, and it has been the case for 50 years since the introduction of the karyotype and biochemical genetics testing both in the early 1960s. That evolved over time to become a more formalized process where we have CLIA-certified genetic testing labs. These are usually in a genetics environment or a pathology lab medicine environment. There's a critical team of experts that are involved in performing the clinical genetic testing, including lab directors that are either certified by the American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics. I forgot its new name for that professional organization, or by College of American Pathologists and the Subgroup of American Association of Molecular Pathologists. There's usually a medical director or medical consultant associated with the labs that make cosine reports and is responsible and also in advising and developing new tests. And there may be other clinical experts, specialists associated with the lab. And for most genetic testing, genetic counselors are involved directly with the laboratory in an expert role advising about new genetic test development, as well as interpretation and reporting of test results. So this is clinical practice. There is a process of how we move new technology and new scientific information into clinical practice, and I've made a simple diagram here as a pointer. Okay, on the left shows new technology, much of it coming from industry sources, new information from scientific literature and meetings, et cetera. Many clinical labs have an R&D component, either formally or informally of variable sizes that's involved in implementation of new technology and also new information and development of new tests. Again, this team of experts associated with the clinical lab is the one that's advisory about what is, quote, ready for prime time and can be applied clinically, and CLIA specifies the clinical validation process for offering these new tests. Now, when the first one or two or three labs start implementing new technology or new specific genetic tests, they often report case series in the literature. So there's a feedback from the clinical labs who are participating in clinical research that contributes to the literature, either the laboratories and genetics experts or professional societies made to a meta-analysis, and then depending on the nature of the magnitude of the change, a new technology or a new clinical application, professional societies, usually the same major ones in terms of laboratory guidelines, that would be the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics or the College of American Pathologist. For practice guidelines, the clinical specialty area would be the ones who would determine the appropriate clinical application of new technology or new tests. So from my perspective, what's happened now is we're moving into a major new technology change in capability with whole genome sequencing. For me, it's not totally distinct from what I started out doing with karyotype analysis, which is looking at the whole genome in a single laboratory test. And when we first started doing karyotyping, there were variants of uncertain clinical significance that required a large amount of empiric data and experience to determine which were clinically important and which were benign population variants. So now if we just move to genomic testing, I would make the argument that whole genome sequencing for undiagnosed patients is no different than what Genetics has adjusted to and evolved around new technology with every major technology increase. The magnitude, the frequency of variants of uncertain clinical significance or unclassifiable variants is much greater than in the past. And the opportunity to identify incidental findings that may or may not be clinically relevant and appropriate to reveal is much higher but not qualitatively different than what we've dealt with in genetics for many, many years. The question I would pose to the group, and I'm not sure if the answer is does this model, it has existing methods of assessing new technology at the individual lab level, forming networks or consortium and then having professional societies review the data for readiness for prime time. Does that work for pharmacogenomics and for risk assessment and common disease GWAS? Or do certain elements of it work? Can it be expanded? Or is the common disease risk assessment, pharmacogenomics applications of genetic data totally unique from what we've been doing in medical genetics? And I won't presume to know the answer for that. Now I would say that what we've not done a good job in genetics and has come up a lot at this meeting and other meetings recently is the determination of clinical value. So we've done a good job of the early translation feasibility clinical validity step. But in terms of the impact in health care, the impact on outcomes and value to health care system and quickly moving this into routine clinical practice in the broadest way we've not addressed. And so I think adding significantly more efforts in the genetics community and related areas in that area is important. And that's the last of my slide and the last of my comments. So I think that one thing that strikes me about this and in terms of the straddlers and I think is a huge issue that wasn't addressed is the training of geneticists and bringing up geneticists through the pipeline. And so the number of physicians going into genetics as we know dropped and has been relatively stable recently but did go down and has not really come back up. And I think that the physician workforce that's going to be needed for this is really lacking in a big way. I mean there weren't enough to begin with and there certainly aren't that many people going in, aren't enough people going into it. And I know this is something that the ACMG and we've certainly addressed at that level, but I really think that we need to think beyond this. How are we going to bring trainees? How are we going to bring physicians? How are we going to educate people who are really interested in translating this information, educating both practitioners and physicians? I think that's a big issue. Those are the straddlers and it's also true of generally a physician scientist that there are fewer and fewer people becoming physician scientists. I just want to point that out because I think that's an unimportant issue. I think that's an important point but it's a daunting task giving the declining number of physician geneticists being trained currently. I think the other opportunities look at other current geneticists and revamping their training. We had a discussion at dinner last night about genetic counselors being trained with more bioinformatics and genomics training and the opportunity to greatly increase the training program sizes for genetic counselors that might help in this area. Again, my bias as a PhD laboratory person, there are a gazillion underemployed PhDs in the U.S. that could be rebooted and trained in more clinically-oriented, computationally-oriented genomics-oriented way to serve a valuable role. So I'm going to point this out because I just got three emails about this this morning. Genetic counselors can't build. Well, but that's a problem that we should be addressing and not. But the genetic counselors associated with most laboratory programs are well-absorbed by the profit margins of the laboratory. Just a comment, David, to follow up. I like your concept of the R&D unit for laboratories. I would extend it to include some very well-defined clinical environments with the full complement of the workforce that is part of this as opposed to just the laboratory. I think what we've been talking about here and where I think some of the resistance is to implement things on a system-wide basis from the get-go. Why not think about having small centers of innovation in R&D within health systems that implement, innovate, and either diffuse or kill something when there's sufficient justification to do so? And so the concept, I think, far from the cancer community is the rapid learning healthcare environment. And I think it's not hard to do on a small and well-circumstribed basis if you try to do it system-wide. It probably is doomed to failure. And I forgot to comment. I've also borrowed from the cancer community the notion of a comprehensive genomics center or program that had all of the key expertise in one place to participate in the R&D validation and then implementation of new technology and new information. Going back to Kathy's point, there's also a movement from my understanding on ACMG and EBMG to move geneticists into the model of ophthalmology, where they do one year of internship and then go straight into genetics. And I think that's exactly the wrong way to go if you're talking about genomics. In genomics, you need to be broad. You need to understand heart disease. And you need to understand pediatrics. And you need to understand pharmacogenetics. And trying to get a group that's so specialized to genetics too early is only going to harm the field in the long term. Maybe Mike knows more about current trends than the restructuring training read. Sorry. So there are American Board of Internal Medicine or other similar groups in trying to think of something like a one year certificate of addict qualification or those sorts of things for let's say oncologist or adult cardiologist or these sorts of things to kind of potentially take up the slack with regard to qualified certified clinical practitioners. But I think that if you're sort of in the trenches as a medical geneticist, you see what's happening. And there are fewer people. And there are all these issues. And I think that this group really wants to do it. I have the MD clinical geneticists here. I just put them after the lab. No, no, no, no. It wasn't that. It's not that they're, it's just that we need more of them. Absolutely. I think as a community of how we get more people appropriately trained, that's all I'm bringing up. So David, there are already CLIA labs for next generation sequencing. Has the group here been working on standards in addition to CLIA? So where are you guys? There's a group of CLIA labs that have informally gotten together. I think the first meeting was at Harvard Partners. And Heidi Rimm organized that meeting. I'm not sure what their plans for continuing to meet. And I know that there's some working group discussion by the college about guidelines around next gen sequencing technology applied to diagnosis. At the moment, I don't know how much of that is gene panels versus exome sequencing. But yes, that group of experts doing sequencing diagnostics is meeting and discussing the same topics we're discussing.


So we were in a coffee shop sort of, we're in a tavern, we're not in a coffee shop, we're in a tavern Why are you lying? We're in an empty tavern, it's a completely organic We're in a pub It's an organic, it's an empty space It's a pub? It's a pub So module bundling is a thing It's one of those other things that make us cry on a daily basis to be honest But it's a necessary evil because then we get all the years 2015 goodness today You've been dealing with a lot of the tools that end in if I or iffy Browserify, Babelify, Rollupify is my current if I set because I tried Babel and Rollup without the iffy bits and it didn't work Somewhere, someone envies you It's not me, someone probably does No it doesn't We should probably talk about what all that stuff is Yeah, you tell me how to fix it and that would be great It's not happening So Browserify, Browserify Let's start off with Browserify It's a tool for compiling your Node, Flavor, CommonJS modules into the browser It's basically stuff you grab off NPM It'll analyze your require calls Build a bundle that you can serve up to the browser using a script tag It's pretty Yeah, so basically when you do like require brackets, whatever you put inside What it does, it looks for that file And then just basically inlines it into one single JavaScript file So then you create a JavaScript bundle Yeah, so basically packages published to NPM Originally intended for Node will just work in the browser It's kind of nice for little utilities and stuff like that Yeah Using it's pretty straightforward So you go and require something like, I don't know, a module called Magic They're probably easy I don't even want to look it up You've made it I haven't made it You have Carry on Okay, so let's say that you've required in a module called Unicorn You can then go and start using it Like do you want to go and dance You go and run Browserify against it to generate a bundle And when you try it out in the browser It'll go and log a message Dance like nobody is watching you Because they're not I'll always watch you dance, Addy And that's where the lawyers come in So we talked about Browserify Yep We'll come back to that We also have to mention Webpack So Webpack Webpack is like the new hotness and I've not looked at it Because last time I spoke to you using this You seemed like you were in severe pain I had a bucket next to my desk for my tears Just came from Webpack So Webpack it's great, it's useful It's not the nicest thing to use So Webpack is another module bundler It packs your common JS modules Your AMD modules in the browser It has a few other features It's got like things like loaders For transforming resources into JavaScript So you could take something like JSX Just load it in It'll do all the transformations for you Loaders are sort of like tasks In other build tools So you'd use it as a way to get you Sort of front-end build steps Ish? This is the things like I'm struggling to figure out what it does Over Browserify and everything else Okay, so let's ignore anything that I've said there The main thing that I like Webpack for Is a feature called code splitting Code splitting lets you basically Split your code base into chunks And you can then go and load them on demand It's kind of nice Does it just have a cross-browser way Of loading in these extra chunks of JavaScript? Yeah, basically you can configure What you want, how does it You want to split your code base up And it'll just figure out the rest It's kind of nice It also has this other feature called hot module replacement Have you heard of that before? No It sounds great, it's HMR So that's used to inject updated modules Into your active runtime So let's say that we had a chat widget That relied on some sort That relied on a bunch of different modules And some of those modules ended up getting updated You could inject the updates Into your active running runtime And just get it working Fair enough It's kind of cool It's like live reload for every module But on live It's extra live Using Webpack is pretty straightforward Go and install it globally Run it against your app to go and generate a bundle And then just include it using some script tags Pretty straightforward It's got a config file as well Everything's got to have its own config You're probably wondering What the difference between Webpack You don't care anymore You're just dead on the inside I can kind of see there being some advantage But at the same time I don't think I'd ever Used the Webpack features What's wrong with you? Well, Browlify just makes sense And if I could get away with not using Browserify Then I would, but I can't Picking, you know A choice between Webpack and Browlify Is a little bit more nuanced than just Saying they both do the same thing If you only care about features, it depends on the features If you want the code splitting Or the hot module replacement, go and use Webpack Browlify is a little bit Smaller and more modular It lets you go And select plugins And compose them with transforms It's nice Webpack, I would say Brings more features to the table And it puts those in core But they're both pretty extensible So try them both out, use whatever makes sense Moving on Samsung recently put together this repo Called the cost of transpiling ES2015 to ES2016 And he tried out a whole range Of different module bundling strategies He found out that there were Some very small differences Once you start pairing Browlify And Browlify, your Webpack configs And other bits and pieces The numbers They vary slightly You don't start really seeing huge wins Until you try out closure or rollup Have you tried out rollup before? I've added it now Because I think we had this discussion of Why would you need rollup in a Browlify, Babelify world And it was the tree shaking Yeah, so rollup Assumes in some cases that you're going to be Probably working with ES2015 modules And it's got this nice feature called tree shaking That excludes your unused Exports from bundles Webpack to Beta, I want to say Has got support for tree shaking as well If people want to stick with Webpack But it's a useful feature Good for eliminating Sort of dead code That you don't really need I believe Richard Harris has got A good blog post on Medium That explains the differences between tree shaking And dead code elimination And it's worth checking out But rollup's pretty straightforward to use Just go, install it globally Specify what format you want your output bundled to take Whether it's common JS or what have you And it just does its thing As it turns out, rollup's output Was a few kilobytes smaller I think I read somewhere that a few people Trying this stuff out have found On average, they were getting 20 or 30% wins Using rollup, that's again Assuming you're playing around with ES2015 modules But presumably as you use it more and more The options might actually grow as well If more libraries are using ES2015 But also, this is a nice little Visual from Sam Basically, the TLDR Is Closure actually giving you the smallest size If you're looking at module bundling stuff We didn't even talk about Closure At all But people should check out this repo It's a good helper for roughly Guessing what's going to be Useful running through its runtime And it's nice seeing all the options I think the thing is It comes down to a point of what works for your project And is the easiest For you to work with There's no clear winner On there to the point where it's like If you clearly do all this pain You're going to get to a nice clear reduction In file size, it's going to be minimal Yes, so if you're not Using an if-i tool In your current workflow Well, Webpack doesn't have an if-i in it So we go Webpackify The thing is, I can see it happening next week now Webpackify Well, that's our job, slowly making JavaScript worse On a week-to-week basis


J. T. L. L. O. The Jell-O program starring Jack Benny with Mary Livingston, Phil Harris, Kenny Baker, and yours truly, Don Wilson. The orchestra opens a program with for no rhyme or reason. I know you've often heard people say, today was a red letter day for me. Well, let me tell you any day can be a red letter day by those big red letters on the Jell-O box. Well, they spell Jell-O, and Jell-O spells a treat. That name is your guarantee of grand desserts, because the name Jell-O is a trademark. It's the property of general foods, and it tells you here is the genuine, the one and only Jell-O. If you hear any other Jell-O dessert called Jell-O, you'll know that is incorrect, and that's why we ask you to insist on Jell-O by name. For Jell-O brings you that delicious, extra rich fruit flavor, a wonderful refreshing fruit freshness that just can't be topped. Now when you go to your grocer, don't accept any substitutes. Those big red letters spell red letter desserts, for they spell Jell-O. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to announce that next week this program will move to the new NBC studios on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. So tonight, folks, let us bid adieu to this old room, where for three years every Sunday night, you have heard that same old sweet voice saying, Jell-O again, this is Jack Denny Talkies. Thank you, thank you. Well, Don, this is our farewell performance under this old roof. Just think, after three years of work and worry and fun, we got to move. I don't know how you feel about it, Don, but I'm ready to go over in the corner and have a good cry. Oh, Jack, I wouldn't take it that hard. After all, it's just moving from one studio to the other, that's all. I know, Don, but I'm sentimental, and I just can't stand changes. I felt the same way when they raised the prices at the Brown Derby. But I'm built that way, and there's nothing I can do about it. But, Jack, this new studio will be wonderful.  Don, none of that, please. I'm not a child that can be bought with chromium and tinsel. You can't tell me anything. I made up my mind to be brokenhearted tonight and I'm going to stay that way. But, Jack, you're so silly. After all, this is only a building with so much brick and steel and cement. Brick, steel and cement, that's enough, Don. That's like saying garbo is a rag of bone and a hunk of hair. You're just cold and callous. Now, wait a minute, Jack, I've got feelings. Why, I've got more sentiment in my little finger than you have in your whole body.  Your legs are land that were smaller than that. You and your feelings. Don is right, Jack, you're always making a mountain out of nothing. What's there to be sad about? Yeah, why are you always trying to get sympathy? You haven't got any more sentiment for this building than a termite. Oh, I haven't, eh? I haven't got any sentiment, eh? Well, let me show you something, Phil. You see my watch chain here? You think that's an elk's tooth hanging on it, don't you? Well, it's not. This tooth belonged to the first girl I ever went out with. Rosie Gum. And another thing, you know that big moose head that hangs in my den? If that's her mother, I'll scream. Well, it's not. If you want to know something, I got that moose head. Come in. Pardon me, Mr. Benny, but we were sent over here to move the furniture out of the room. The furniture already? Yeah, come on, Mervin. Okay, Laverne. Well, for heaven's sake, can't they even wait until we're through? We've been here three years, another 10 minutes isn't going to make any difference. That's our business, buddy. Grab that chair, Mervin. Okay. Imagine that, fellas, all this rush to get over into that new building. Well, what's the matter with that new building? Don't you believe in progress? Don't you believe in the advancement of radio? Well, certainly I do. But listen, Phil, you should be the last one to want to go into that new studio. Why? Because when we get there, your orchestra will have to wear shoes. That's why. Oh, yeah? They're going to wear shoes next Sunday night, and that's an order. Order or no order, you're going to see plenty of bunions tap in time.  Eight hillbillies, four huckleberry fins, and a zoo. Phil, I wish you'd tell your first violinist, incidentally, to stop selling sandwiches while the program is going on. Well, he's got to make a living some way. A lot of my expense. I bought a three-decker from him last week, and all it had in it was a strip of bacon and two bars of the Lambeth Walk. And I'll tell you one thing, Phil. Hey, Mervyn, give me a hand with this ashtray, will you? The ashtray, I got it. Together now. I give you my word of honor, folks. That ashtray doesn't weigh over three ounces. Now, look, be as quiet as you can, will you, fellas? Okay, okay, we'll watch it.  Yeah. Gee, Mary, look at him taking those chairs out. I can't bear to watch it. Just think, we spent three years working in this one little room. Yeah. We've got to leave. Oh, well, we've had some mighty funny programs come out of here. We've had some mighty other kind, too. Well, naturally, we can't always click. Even a castanet misses once in a while. Gee, Mary, don't you feel sad about leaving here? Do I? What do you think I got on this piece of paper? Hey, Mervyn. What? I'll bet it's one of them lousy poems. Now, you keep out of this. Is it a poem, Mary? Yes, it's a farewell to this old studio. Well, this is one time I'll appreciate it. What's the title of your poem? I've got those. I hate to leave this studio with its fond memories where I've spent so many happy days blues. Well, take a deep breath and start the poem. Okay. I feel so lonely, sad, and blue, I could bite my nails and say boo-hoo. For today we move, this gang and me, from NBC to NBC. That's very clever, Mary. Now get funny. You may say, what does it matter? But here we've heard Jack's funny chatter. It brought a smile, a laugh, a roar. That's right. And now and then a great big snore. Mary, I feel bad enough as it is. When programs here we did begin, Don Wilson only had one chin. Hey, he did at that. And little me was sweet 16. And Kenny looked like Bobby Breen. Gee, and it seemed like yesterday. Hey Laverne, ain't that something? Yeah, have you got an aspirin? That all, Mary? One more verse. In my throat there is a lump, as we leave the dear old dump. Dump? So here's good luck and loss of joy from Flatfoot Mary with a Floyd Floyd. Well, I thought that was one of your best poems that was simply grand. And you know, Jack, I wrote that one in bed. In bed, huh? Yeah. Was I surprised when I woke up? Well, imagine there would be a shock. And our folks, Phil Harrison, his orchestra will play a brand new peppy tune called What Have You Got That Gets Me. Are you ready, Phil? All set. Hey, Mervyn, shall we dance? Yes, comrade, let's. Play, Phil. I'll collect the tickets. The god that gets me, played by Phil Harrison, his orchestra. Say, Phil, that number is from my new Paramount picture. Artisan model's abroad. I know. That's why I played it. Well, it's a swell tune. And you know, Phil, originally, I sang a whole chorus of that number to Joan Bennett in one of our love scenes. Didn't I, Mary? Yeah, but the cotton in her ear showed, so they had to cut it out. It wasn't the reason at all. They just didn't want me to conflict with Crosby. After all, we both worked for the same studio. Well, how does the picture look, Jack? I mean, how are you in it? Oh, I'd rather not talk about it, Don. You know, it'll sound like I'm conceded and I'm bragging, you know. Wait until it comes out, and you'll see for yourself how great I am. No kidding. Now, on the level, you know, now here, I'm supposed to be a comedian. Yet, I handled the love interest with Joan Bennett about as well as, well, I won't say better, but as well as any lover on the screen. And believe me, I'm sincere. Oh, sure, sure. Well, I did. Why, Jack, I saw it, and you didn't kiss Joan once in the whole picture. Well, I... Well, what's that, Jack? You didn't even kiss Joan Bennett? Well, Heavens knows I tried to. Phil, she's as quick as a deer. But you know, there was one other scene I had, fellas. Now, you talk about pathos. Well... Hey, Mervyn, bring over the stepladder. I want to take these drapes down. The stepladder. Now, Phil, you talk about pathos. Here it is, Laverne. Oh, it's steady now. Now, you talk about pathos. There's one scene where Joan and I quarrel and she says goodbye and leaves me. And there's a look that comes over my face that... Isn't that awful? Did you hurt yourself, Laverne? Yeah, I banged my elbow. Oh, I'll kiss it for you. Oh, what's the use? Let's forget my picture, will you, fellas? We're way ahead of you. Hmm. Now, wait a minute, Jack. Wait a minute. Was there any place in the picture where you were able to mention Jello?  Well, Don, it was very difficult. You see, the story is laid. Hey, Mervyn, take these pictures and load them on a truck. Okay. You see, the story is laid in Paris. Well, Joan and I had one scene in a restaurant, but I didn't know how to order Jello in French. Jack, all you had to say was, garçon de la moise de Jello. Oh, donnie moise de Jello. I see. Well, supposing the waiter asked me, what's play ball? Well, there you could have said, I want z'estroberie, or asberie, charie, orage, limon, or ze lime. Don, that's about as French as corn, beef, and cabbage. Well, I pray not. I suppose I should have asked to see z'e big rouge, la terre, as un z'e facade. Anyway, it's too late now, Don. Hey, Mervyn, hand me that screwdriver, will ya? Oui, oui, monsieur. Oh, go away. Say, fellas, it's about time for Kenny's song. Where is he? I don't know. I haven't seen him. See, he comes in whenever he feels like it. Oh, well, if he doesn't show up, I'll sing. Hey, hey, hey! Hello, Jack. Gee, I'm burned up. Well, so am I. Where were you? You should have been here when the show started. Well, it's not my fault I'm late. I got here an hour ago. Well, what happened? Well, every time I try to come into the studio, two guys have picked me up and thrown me in a truck. Darn those movers. What did they think you were? A statue or something? Oh, I guess the one guy said, careful, don't drop it. Well, Kenny, that's the topper. You didn't have to be shoved around like that. Why didn't you tell those monks to let you alone? I thought it was part of the program. Oh, you did. Bend over, Kenny. Like this? Yeah. Ouch. That's part of the program, too. It's getting to be more fun every year. It sure is. Now, let's drop it. It's time for your song. What are you going to sing? Well, at first, I was going to sing.  Uh-huh. And then I said to myself, no, Kenny, why don't you sing Now It Can't Be Told? Oh. And then I thought it over and said, Kenny Baker, the song. Well, it cut a long story short, Kenny. What's it going to be? Oh, I'm so mixed up now the heck with it. The heck with nothing. Go ahead with your song. Hey, Mervyn, give me a hand with this, will you? I got it. Put him down. He's got a safe. Now, listen, you fellas, I've had just about enough from you. You can finish all of this moving later. Ah, pipe down, you old mackerel. Mackerel, those are fighting words, brother. Yeah? Would you want to make something out of it? You're just lucky I got this cold. Sing, Kenny. I've got a date with a dream, dream divine. I've got a date with a dream. Got to hurry up. Oh, corner becomes a corner of heaven. The clock would tick faster. I wish the weary day would hurry by. The sun would start to leave. I've got a date with a dream. I've got a date with a dream. I've got a date with a dream sung by Kenny Baker. And that was swell, Kenny. You were an excellent voice. Thanks, Jack, and it was quite of you to admit it. Well, there's nothing... There's nothing quite about it. You have a marvelous voice, and there's no getting away from it. Oh, but so darn marvelous. What do you want to get away from it for? I don't want to get away from it.  You did? Yes. Bend over, Kenny.  He don't know what you're talking about. Well, it's your own fault. You always try to mix them up.  That's what I say. Now listen, you guys. Yeah. Get away from me. You'll catch my cold. And now, folks, if I may be permitted to talk on my own program, I would like to announce that next Sunday night we will again attempt a stupendous and artistic dramatic triumph. We are going to present none other than the... Hold it, Jack. Come in. Come here. Well, well, the mayor of Van was sure glad to see you. Gee, I thought you forgot about us this year. What if you finally showed up? Yes, sir, and I better be terrific. Well, make yourself at home, Andy. This is your hangout. Hiya, Mayor. Hello, Curly. How are all the girls? Are they still chasing you? They sure are, Andy. Well, if you get out of breath, let me know. Hey, Andy, look who's here. Hello, Your Honor. Hello, Mary. I'll give you a kiss if I thought you'd appreciate it. I won't, so un-pucker. Well, that's settled. We don't have to waste a sound effect there. Hey, and there's Kenny. What have you been doing, kid? Oh, just singing and bending over. Hey, Andy, you're not going to forget your old friend Don Wilson, are you? I should say not. Hello, Don. Hello, Andy. You put on a little weight, haven't you? Hey, one at a time, fellas. Well, Andy, we're sure glad to have you with us again. Tell me, did you have a good time this summer? I had a swell time, Buck. I went to Honolulu and I took Ma and Paul on. The Honolulu? Say, that must have been a real vacation. See, I could just picture your Paul with those Hawaiian girls and their grass skirts there. Wow! Oh, he didn't hang around too much. What's the matter? Was he bashful? Oh, it wasn't that, Buck. Ma had him on a leash. Oh, she had him on a leash. Hey, how did it work out? Well, not so good. We had trouble getting him into restaurants. Oh. Well, anyway, Andy, I envy you. I should have waited a little bit there, Paul. Anyway, Andy, I really envy you that trip. Gee, I remember when I was there and saw those beautiful hula dancers. See, they are gorgeous. But then that's nothing compared with the marvelous scenery, the palm trees, the tropical flowers, and the coloring of the sky against the blue Pacific. Yes, sir, they sure can wiggle. Andy, I wish you'd keep up with the conversation. I was talking about the flowers and scenery. Oh, I can enjoy that stuff when I'm on the Townsend plan. That's right. Hey, say, Andy, how about the boat trip? Did you enjoy your boat trip? I sure did. But there was one day when it was awful rough. You want to hear about it? Yeah, bend over, Andy. Don't bother. We can hear about it later. What do you got in that package, Andy? Oh, I nearly forgot. Here, Mark, here's a little present I brought you. A present? Well, something from Honolulu, huh? Go ahead and open it. Gee, that was sweetie, Andy. Gee, where is it? Oh, fellas, look at this. A real pineapple. Gee. Gosh, I don't know what to say. I've always wanted one of these. Well, for heaven's sake, Jack, you can buy one at any grocery store. Not one like this. This is a real Hawaiian pineapple. I know, because when I was over there, I used to look up and see thousands of them growing on the trees. Why, Jack, you couldn't have looked up because pineapples don't grow on trees. They're plants, and they grow right out of the ground. Well, this was years ago. I was short then. Don't tell me about pineapples. Jack, you must be thinking of coconuts. I'm not thinking of coconuts. I'm telling you, fellas, I used to look up and see the pineapple. Why, you couldn't have looked up and seen it. Listen, a full-grown pineapple plant is only three feet high. How tall were you at the time?  Anyway, it was mighty sweetie, Andy. Thanks for the pineapple. You're welcome. Bring some cottage cheese next Sunday. We'll make a salad. Oh, no, no. This is mine. Stick around, Andy, right after the program. I'll take you over to my place for a real home-cooked dinner. Gee, I'm hungry. And now, ladies and gentlemen, as I started to announce before, next Sunday night, we're going to present a stupendous and artistic dramatic triumph that we feel will... I'll answer. Hello? Hello, Mr. Benny. This is Rochester. Oh, you. What do you want? Are you planning to come home for dinner tonight? Well, certainly I am. Well, if you want something to eat, you better bring that pineapple. What are you talking about? There was plenty of food in the icebox when I left the house this morning. What happened to it? In the witch? In the icebox. When I left this morning, it was just bulging with food. Well, the swelling's gone down, man. Rochester, did you throw another party this afternoon? Well, come to think of it, a few of my friends dropped in for some tea and donuts. Now, listen, if you just served tea and donuts, what happened to all those lamb chops? Well, I ran out of donuts. Yes? So we bored holes in the chops and dunked them. That's fine. And what happened to that big roast turkey that was there? Oh, that. Yeah. That was first prize in the bingo game. Well, that's the last straw. You got a lot of nerve inviting people to the house without my permission. Well, I went to college with them. I don't care where you went. See that you have some food in the house when I get there. OK. Goodbye. Say, boy. What? As long as you're coming home, will you bring my fan mail? And now, ladies and gentlemen, as I started to announce, next Sunday night, we're going to present a stupendous and artistic dramatic triumph that we feel... All right, Marvin, we're nearly through. Let's take up this rug. OK, get off, buddy. Now, wait a minute. I thought you guys had gone. Now, you're not going to take this rug until we're through with our program.   I am, eh? Well, I'm not budging off this rug. Come on, Marvin. He asked for it. OK. That's the last straw. Listen, you mugs. I'm going to take this up with a head of NBC. Who do you think I am? Oh, pardon me, Mr. Swallow. I didn't recognize you in those overalls. Playing field. Ladies and gentlemen, it's not true. There's nothing new under the sun. There is. I know. It's new and it's delicious. It's the new Jell-O butterscotch pudding, one of the grandest desserts you ever dipped a spoon in. It's mellow in its creamy smooth. It's rich and glossy looking with a tempting toffee color. It's luscious with good old fashioned brown sugar. In other words, it's a swell dish. And the Jell-O butterscotch pudding is only one of three new Jell-O puddings. There's vanilla, real vanilla, a delicate creamy pudding dessert with a wonderful flavor. And there's chocolate, rich and smooth and chocolaty. And all three Jell-O puddings are amazingly quick and easy to prepare with just a few moments' cooking. Simple directions are in every package. And take my word for it, for I've tried them all. You get real homemade pudding with a perfect satin smoothness of texture and a rich, full flavor that can't be beat. So try all three and try them soon. The best way is to buy three packages at a time. Jell-O butterscotch, vanilla, and chocolate pudding. Three prize-winning new desserts your family is going to go for. We ran overtime, so good night, folks. Kenny Baker pairs on the Jell-O program for courtesy of Mervyn Luroy Productions. This is an actual broadcasting problem.