Hi, I'm Idris. I'm working at the Manson Unit. I'm the mapping guy. So I'm going to present a dashboard to support almost effortless spatial epidemiology. In other words, we use existing datasets and we make it easily understandable. Have you ever seen that?  Do you like it? No, it's difficult to get what's behind, especially when you get on a date every week you need to redo the whole job with Excel and so on. So why is that? It's because what we're looking at is raw data, okay? And therefore it's difficult to read. But what we want is to understand the information and to understand it fast. So the core idea is to move from data towards information. The data is the necessary first step. But what we want as an output is something that is helping us to have an informed decision making. So something which takes the data and make it visual, interactive, which adapts to you and not the other way around. So let me introduce you to the Tonkoli dashboard for surveillance. Tonkoli is in Sierra Leone, that's one district. Routine epidemiological passive surveillance help us detecting outbreaks at an early stage. But it's a lot of data collected and sometimes we struggle to understand and to respond to outbreaks on time. So this is what the dashboard answers and this is actually the data you just seen earlier. So what is it? It's a tool to visualize data and extract information.  It's a perfect fit for fieldwork, particularly in emergencies where more robust systems are difficult to put in place on time. So what it is not? It is not going to replace a standard epidemiological analysis, no health information system with dedicated software. But that's a way to facilitate and improve our routine work at local level. So we have at the moment three dashboards deployed and I will only demo the one in Sierra Leone. So there you go, that's how it works. So you load the dashboard, there is a quality check on the dashboard, on the data that you've got, and then when you hover over the map you can see the number of cases, but in that case, CHIVDAM, this is Malaria cases. We are looking at, you can see the evolution and the trends for each week. The number of cases on top and the death below is under and above five years old. You click, it reacts, it selects automatically and adapts the graphs and the map as well.  And if you're interested, you can see also the data per year, so you will have the two curve that will adapt to each year. And then you can zoom at the health center level, you can click on each health center, each round is a health center and then you can investigate at the health center level what has happened. So development started at the British Red Cross. It is an open source and available freely on GitHub. The codes can be easily reused to create another dashboard, especially if we are using the same kind of dataset. In that case, this is the WHO IDSR integrated, this is surveillance and response. The cost is decreasing as the deployment and the development goes. So you will say, great, another tool until the next one, of course. But actually it's making the link between our data infrastructure and the future information system we're going to use. Making our data management by standardizing dashboards ready for the next steps toward information management. So not providing standard tools will incentivize using alternative and uncoordinated solutions leading to a slower and less effective operational and medical response. So we need to prepare for the next steps now. So the data is being collected anyways. It's just not processed to its full potential on time. We don't change anything, we just provide the glasses to see it through. The dashboards are built for the user according to their needs. And we have great feedback from Sierra Leone and DRC so far. So what are we looking at? We're looking for other use cases, collaboration with more missions in the field, more Ministry of Health operation centers to develop it further and to secure its development and sustainability. Plus obviously integration with the health information system or the data sets, Ministry of Health logistics and so on. So finally we need to move towards information which answers the who, the what, the when and the where. Don't forget the mapping component. So I would like to thank Sierra Leone Mission, Sierra Leone Ministry of Health at the district level, the British Red Cross and Missing Maps for me that possible. And thank you all for staying. Thank you very much.


I also mentioned to the family What's in your mouth? That's not a ferris! That's not a ferris! Uh-uh! That's not a ferris!


This is State Tech Hawai'i. The community matters here. A noa'i kākō. I'm Kaui Lukas, host of Hawai'i Is My Mainland. My guest today, Jeffrey Kim, is joining us from the continent via Skype. Jeffrey's part of my recent series providing media exposure to some of the very active members of the Sierra Cove of Hawai'i. He will be a guest host on Hawai'i Is My Mainland in the near future. He's one of six people from Hawai'i to have participated in the recent political candidate training by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The PEECCC, as it's known, engages in electoral and issue advocacy, work on democracy, as well as economic populist priorities. Jeffrey is also the Energy Committee Co-Chair of the Sierra Cove of Hawai'i. Hello, Jeffrey. Thanks for calling in. Hello. So tell us about the training. Meeting Senator Elizabeth Warren, all that good stuff. Well, I guess I technically met her, but met her from 300 steps away. But yeah, it was still very exciting just to be able to see her be able to speak and see Pete Ellison speak and meet so many, you know, I guess like-minded people, if you will, in the same room at the same time for several days. And yeah, that's part of the reason I brought up the training as a talking point with this show that's titled, you know, Organizing 101. And specifically about transformational versus transactional relationships is because, yeah, especially being at this training, you know, this is kind of one of my first times seeing so in-depth and nuts and bolts of what it is to run a campaign. And yeah, it made me think a lot about just organizing and movement building overall. And yeah, and thoughts that came up in terms of how I feel about the current process of campaigning for elections. Jeffrey, set the stage a little bit for us. You were at this conference, and they brought you guys in from all over the place. Yeah, yeah, there's folks from, you know, a lot of folks from New Jersey for some reason specifically. But, you know, I believe all the state were represented. I don't think I heard of anybody from Alaska being there or not, but yeah, pretty much everybody from some state. And the common denominator was that all of you are going to do what? Most likely, but not officially everybody, run for office, yeah, from everything from, you know, something like a state legislator to, you know, all the way up to Congress. So, yeah. So there's, there were, you were one of six people from Hawaii. So tell us about Hawaii's team and what, what do you think was special about Hawaii, if anything, in, in our participation in this? Okay, so yeah, in terms of the teammates who went with us, it was, it was myself, Representative Chris Lee, Representative Nicole Lohan, Representative Kaniela Ng, and also Kaniela Ng's wife, Kara, who, you know, leads the nonprofit and also some campaign efforts herself, and also actually a good friend of mine, Ian Ross, who yeah, is as well most likely going to be running for office. Yeah. So that was like a very dynamic team.  Yeah, there's, there's, there's some pretty good times that we're able to have together. Yeah. And that was something actually kind of interesting. I feel like, you know, yeah, because we, we were one of the few groups that everybody knew everybody, you know, in from that state, you know, like even, even smaller states, you know, in terms of the progressive community, if you will, like Arkansas or something, like, there's only about like four or five people who came from there, but none of them knew each other, or I don't know, I just didn't really see that with any of the other states. So that, that did make me feel a little, yeah, yeah, it was, it was right there. Yeah. Excellent. Yeah. So we're doing our Hui thing. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And, and, and, you know, I'd often see, you know, most, yeah, a lot of times we'd be sitting together for a lot of things too. So, so that's good. Yeah, I think also, I don't think there were too many other states that had currently elected officials present. So that was really, I think, especially kind of, I don't know, especially empowering for me to be able to have that much sort of personal time with, with some of our legislators and, and yeah, be able to talk really in-depth shop that, you know, I don't think I'd always had the time to do or opportunity. Yeah. Yeah. Three of them. That's, yeah. Okay. So, so talk to us about that, that part of the transactional versus transformational that, that was really made an impact on you. Sure. So real quick, just to kind of distinguish between the two words. This is kind of a way of thinking that I take from the Sierra Club organizing manual.  It's like, hey, I need something from you. You know, okay, great. You've given me the thing I wanted, you know, thanks. See you later.    But yeah, I feel like as an organizer, your main job is actually to empower other people, not necessarily a lead, you know, I mean, like, certainly, you know, like, I think, you know, you got to have a team captain in many situations, but, you know, that's basically, you know, how the way I feel about those two words actually, leadership versus organizer, you know, leader, because literally by definition, it implies followers, you know, and yeah, and I just don't think number one, that's a vertical relationship. Yeah, it's, you know, and it's, it doesn't really help develop that person, you know, just to follow orders and so forth.   Well, I have a little question before we take a break. I am always interested in sort of the weather report, and I don't mean what's happening in the clouds, but how did it feel in Washington D.C. to you, and to be being part of this progressive event? Did you, was there, what did it feel like? I don't want to lead you, just Vanilla. Okay, sure. Well, yeah, one quick thing, I actually really noticed just feeling different, for sure, once I actually, you know, stepped off the plane and got in D.C., and just, I actually talked a lot about this with, you know, friends I made on the trip who are from there, and especially the person who was housing me at the time, like, you know, I was shocked because, you know, having been in, even though I am from the mainland originally, like, I haven't been back in a long time, and yeah, and just people just started smiling quite as much as you are, as people you're here, I feel like, and yeah, and just, and I don't know, I, but, you know, at the same time, like, you know, outside of, I feel like all within, like, Capitol Hill area, and like, and on the metro and stuff like that, but yeah, when I was out in, like, the suburbs where I was staying and just the grocery store and so forth, like, people were really, you know, were very, very nice actually, it was a really great community, but I don't know, you know, from my own observations and just talking to people, yeah, who, you know, work and live there, like, I think there is, you know, kind of a different level of pressure in many ways, even though, you know, we certainly face a lot of pressure on our own for economic reasons and others, but yeah, so that's something I, and I felt so grateful actually that, like, you know, that's something I actually, you know, literally this thought ran through my head when I, you know, was here for the first few months, and just thinking like, wow, like, you know, it's just one of the most expensive places to live in the country, you know, in terms of cost of living and, you know, but the job opportunities don't, you know, always seem to meet the demands in terms of the cost of living here, you know, quite like New York or San Francisco, you know, which are the one of three, you know, two of three of the cities which were included in terms of highest cost of living, and just the fact that people here though, like, you know, are, you know, some of the friendliest I've ever, you know, met, and like, I've lived all over around the country, and I would almost assume that it'd be more of a rat race, you know, here than anywhere else, because it's like, right, you know, just the odds stacked up in that way, so that's, yeah, just that's something, you know, specific to Hawaii that I really thought a lot about when some, yeah, when it's getting back to the mainland, and, and, yeah, so, yeah. So definitely we're going to take a little break, and then talk some more. Welcome to Sister Power. I'm your host, Sharon Thomas Yarbrough, where we motivate, educate, empower, and inspire all women. We are live here every other Thursday at 4 p.m., and we welcome you to join us here at Sister Power. Aloha and thank you. You know, the, the kind of things that we're going to talk about in training. Today we have Jeffrey Kim, who is joining us from the North American continent somewhere, and recently he participated in a candidate training in Washington D.C. One of the things that Jeffrey and I have been talking about is this idea of transactional versus transformational relationships in organizations. So we're going to go a little deeper on, on that. And I, it's always helpful to have very concrete examples. And so, Jeff, I was wondering if you can kind of hone in on why, why changing the way political organizations at this grassroots level need to be focusing on the transformational? Like, what does that mean? Yeah, for sure.  It's like, I, I want something from you and hopefully I'll be able to get it from you, you know. And then once I've gotten it, it's like, all right, cool. That's, thanks for doing business. And then, you know, transformational, yeah, it's, we're like, I don't know. I mean, just to be really casual, but being real people, you know, and people who care about each other and care about each other's growth. And in a specific, like, organizing context, I feel like, yeah, you know, really spending the time and, and the energy to try to empower others and, and help others empower themselves and other people and so forth. You mentioned in the context of the Sierra Club that this was something that, that you felt they were very good at. Yeah. And it's, well, at the very least it's, it's in, you know, yeah, it's, it's literally the part of the official organizing manual. So, yeah, and I think that that philosophy is, is a part of the Sierra Club mindset in practice as well. Okay. So, did you have a chance to indulge one of your other great interest, jazz, while you were out there? Sorry, I just had to ask. Oh, okay. I actually did. Yeah. Yeah, I went to this, yeah, something that I think, yeah, we probably should start soon here is a monthly jazz open Mike's jazz specific.  And yeah, that was really, that was a surprise and also very refreshing. So, yeah, so I did get to play a little bit. Yeah. Cool. All right. So back to politics. Sorry, just had to. No, no, no worries. So as far as the, the decisions that were made, I don't know that there were particular decisions made, but for those of you who are in the training, can you talk about some of those personal transformations, maybe that happened with the participants or how the growth was able to happen as a, as a result of attending this conference and being with, I mean, people like Elizabeth Warren, I listened as you live streamed from Facebook, her talk, and I thought it was fantastic. I mean, just over Facebook, but I imagine being in the same room, there was something to it. Yeah. Well, just in terms of some of the just experiences overall and the feelings, like, yeah, that it was extremely, you know, I, yeah, you know, I don't think this word gets used enough in talking about what I'm trying to talk about. But, you know, I think it is the kind of the most pro reward, you know, solidarity, basically, you know, just feeling that that sense of just everybody being on the same page, not only in ideas, you know, of course, you know, progressive is still a pretty wide range of term, you know, and but still like just not only the same values, but also the same, I don't know, excitement and drive, if you will, like everybody, they're really, really wanted the things they believed in, you know, and yeah, I, I really feel that way. So if you could think of the maybe top three agenda items that you heard a lot in that room, what would they be? Oh, interesting, top three.  So that was one thing that I realized I don't think enough about and, you know, but I certainly think is, is needs the attention.  Sorry? If you had to put a timeline on that, what would it be? What it is in your mind? What, what kind of a timeline are we dealing with in climate change? Okay, sure. Well, there, you know, luckily, University Oxford actually has a website that, you know, basically tries to answer that question specifically. It's called trillionton.org, tons spelled the British way, but at any rate, it's a carbon, it's a ultimately estimated, but, you know, it's a, nonetheless, it's a calculator for the amount of carbon dioxide we're putting into the air, you know, like as we speak. And, yeah, and they even have a prediction, and it's, by 2037, we'll hit the two degree limit, which is, you know, basically, to put it really casually, like the point of no return, if you will, you know, basically, we do not want to pass the two degree limit. That's, that's just the main kind of thing to know there. And, yeah, so that's 20 years, based on just a carbon calculator, but sorry, I just want to throw this last part in. But methane, you know, there is no calculator for that one out that I've been able to find. And, you know, I want to play it safe and say that methane is at least half the problem. And so then, yeah, if we're going to play it safe, 10 years. Well, that methane bit is the sobering one. I don't know why we don't hear that talked about a little more widely. When I had Stuart Scott on my show, he said the same thing off camera. I'm like, Stuart, why didn't you say that on camera? And he's like, it's so scary.   I think we should be more scared than we are for as a population overall. But, you know, that's not to say that we, you know, we shouldn't act towards solutions, because yeah, we need to. But anyway, the reason I brought up climate change was in terms of answering a question about the conference, you know, like as one topic. Yeah, that's something that resonated certainly well with the room when this one speaker really, you know, passionately was kind of like, how do I put it? Basically, that, you know, that in so many ways, a lot of sort of the, you know, the messaging and the kind of, yeah, the messages that were being sent over the last couple of decades about climate change and what we can do about it, you know, have been mostly about individual action, you know, and certainly for myself, you know, that's a mindset where I've been for a long time is like, yeah, like we clearly are beyond the point of individual action alone, at the very least, being able to save the day, you know.  But I think that too often, people have the right intentions when they, you know, try to help out to protect the environment, but, you know, to use kind of a nature-themed metaphor, you know, I think sometimes people see trees too much instead of forest. And, and yeah, and so that is a topic that did come up, sort of, put a little bit, a little bit more, less diplomatically than I'd put it, but yeah. Jeffrey, I can't help asking you, I just crossed my mind that you are in the middle of the continental North America right now in the U.S. You're not at home in Hawaii, but there's a lot of talk here about North Korea, which you probably know about. What's it like where you are? There's not actually been that much talk about North Korea where I am right now, but I mean, I'm in a pretty rural area right now, but in quite a rural area for a while, where, you know, you don't really see houses for, you know, a couple, a couple of whatever. So that's, it's hard for me to say, yeah. Okay, just to add to that? Yeah, yeah. No, no, that was, yeah. You can't go, you can't go too far down the street here without, without it, somehow. Somehow coming up, yeah, wow, okay. Yeah, so, well real quick, if you don't mind, I kind of, I wanted to be able to dig in a little bit. Okay, we have one more minute. It's yours. Oh, sounds good. Well, so since, you know, the topic of the show is about transactional versus transformational relationships, yeah, I just feel really strongly about some thoughts that, you know, yeah, that, that, that I formed while I was at this training. And, and I think I really can kind of boil it all down to this one breakout session, which is all about basically volunteer engagement, you know, and, and for that breakout session, I mean, really that running a campaign for political, you know, candidacy, it pretty much spelled out to me as like similar to running a campaign for anything, you know, in terms of like a nonprofit scenario, like, you know, running a campaign for a specific bill or, you know, XYZ.  But, okay, well, I can't wait to see what you do with it when it's your time, or when you're helping your buddies, when you're organizing for your buddies who are going to be running for office next year. Yeah. So, you know, I don't want to say too much, but certainly for myself, if I, I'm still not 100%, you know, committed to the running, but, you know, if I do, yeah, I want to run a campaign that will probably look relatively different than a lot of other campaigns you've seen, you know, and, okay, and yeah, anyway, so, so, so, yeah. Thanks a lot, Jeffrey, for joining us here on Hawaii is My Mainland, and we'll see you when you're back in Honolulu. Aloha.


For more videos and people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. On March 13, Iran launched a missile attack on the city of Erbil in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for the strike and said that the targets were locations used by Israel. Media reports said at least one such base used by Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was confirmed destroyed in the attack. What was the immediate provocation for the Iranian strike? Rana Khalik of breakthrough news explains. So the context of these Iranian strikes in Erbil is very important. On March 7, two officers from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or the IRGC were killed by an Israeli strike outside Syria's capital Damascus. And this isn't new. Israel has conducted hundreds of strikes against Syria since that country's civil war started. And they're usually aimed at what Israel insists are targets related to either Iranian or Lebanese Hezbollah weapon systems that might make their way to either Lebanon or to the Syrian border with Israel. This is what Israel says is the reason behind these ongoing strikes that we often don't hear much about in in the Western press. So normally Iran is silent about these attacks and doesn't respond, or we'll say they're going to respond in due time, right? But after the March 7th attack, the IRGC admitted that they actually like admitted they had lost men and blamed Israel and vowed revenge. And so again, this is after numerous incidents of not just in Syria, but also numerous instances of sabotage against the Iranian civilian nuclear program and assassinations of its top scientists presumed to be conducted by the Israelis. So then on March 13, the IRGC fired missiles at the Kurdish Iraqi city of Erbil, and it claimed that the target was a base for the Mossad, which is Israel's intelligence service. So it is well known that the Israelis have been cooperating with the Berzanis. The Berzanis are the ruling family in Iraqi Kurdistan's Erbil. It's well known that they've been cooperating since the 1960s and have had men stationed there. So some people thought, you know, is this a signal to the Gulf states who are embracing Israel? I've heard a couple people suggest that this was one of the reasons that the Iranians did this to signal to countries like, you know, the UAE and Bahrain that they shouldn't allow Israeli military or intelligence officers to be stationed in their countries or else they'll open themselves up to being targets as the Iranians are saying Erbil has become. And the Emiratis had already made it clear to the Israelis that they wouldn't allow their territory to be used against Iran for this reason, actually. But Bahrain has signaled that it's more open to the Israelis being stationed there. So this might have been also kind of like an extra reason that Iran did this. But the significance of this is that the Iranian response is the first time it struck a target that's inside Iraq since 2020, which is when the Iranians hit the al-Assad base in Anbar province in retaliation for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani by the Americans inside the Baghdad International Airport. So the attack on Erbil also did land quite close to the U.S. consulate, which is by initially, the initial reports with the U.S. consulate in Erbil was hit. But then the Americans actually came out and denied that the consulate was a target. And, you know, pro-Iranian media in the region claimed that the Erbil attack, again, was retaliation, or they also claimed that the Erbil attack was a retaliation for a February 14 drone strike on a military base in Iran that originated at the Erbil facility that was another one of the regions given. But, you know, at the same time, these are all kinds of things that we're hearing through the media, through the Iranians. We still don't know the actual truth. You know, Kurdistan's government, of course, denies that there were Israelis there and says that this house belonged to, like, the CEO of something called the CAR group, a man called Sheikh Baz. And then you have the New York Times quoting an unnamed U.S. official admitting that the building also served as an Israeli training facility. And then another U.S. official stating that it was a civilian residence only and did not serve as an Israeli training site. So the point of all this is to say that we still don't know what's really going on, except that Iran is not targeting Americans or the Iraqis. And it is showing an increasing willingness to retaliate. And there's also the fact that, you know, the U.S. very quickly did this, the fact that they dismissed this as an attack on the U.S. shows a couple of things that the U.S. maybe is preoccupied right now with other things. And I'm specifically talking about what's going on in Ukraine with Russia. But also the fact that the U.S. really is not interested in any sort of escalation at this time with Iran. The attack on Erbil also drew attention to the politics of the Kurdistan region in Iraq. The power centers of that region have long had a very close relationship with the United States and even Israel. The current prime minister of the Kurdistan region, Masroor Barzani, has been a key player in these relationships. How do we understand the politics of this region and the relationships with other countries? The Barzani is one clan among two that really controls Northern Iraq or, you know, what they call the Karachi, the Kurdistan regional government. They control it from Erbil. And then there's also like a rival family that has control over Salamania, which is in a different part of the Iraqi Kurdish region. And they've been, the Barzani's have been longtime collaborators with the Americans. They believe in, you know, they did believe in like having their own state. And they actually allied with the Americans in the, you know, the occupation of Iraq, basically. And they've had a long time, kind of like unofficial relationship with the Israelis. And part of that is like a bit ideological. They are Kurdish nationalists. And there's like kind of similarity between that and the sort of like Jewish nationalism that you see in Israel and having like an ethno-religious based character. But moreover, I mean, this is just basically like a client of the Americans and a client of imperialism. And Iraq and of course the Americans have had a long time interest in chopping up the Middle East in various ways by weaponizing the sort of ethnic or religious nationalism that various groups tend to believe in and funding it and supporting it and arming it in whatever way they can in order to balkanize various countries. And so in Iraq, for a long time, one of the ways that that manifested was through the sort of like Kurdish nationalist project. But to be, but to be clear, when it comes to the Barzani's at the end of the day, the Barzani clan is about enriching themselves. And that's, that's all it is. And then like much of the politics in Iraq, it's about enriching themselves. It's one of the most corrupt areas of Iraq. I've been there. I've been to northern Iraq. It's one of the most dictatorial areas of Iraq where journalists are like disappeared and killed. It's not this haven of democracy and freedom as like the US and the Western countries have often tried to claim. It's quite the opposite. I would even argue it's like a little kind of Saddam version of Iraq, but under the leadership of the Barzani's. The attacks also came at a time of rising uncertainty about the nuclear deal. Is it possible to analyze this assertion by Iran in light of global developments around the deal? What kind of position is Iran taking with regard to the deal, especially considering the war in Ukraine? You know, I mean, that's a good question. I can't tell you what the Iranians are thinking, but with the nuclear deal happening in the backdrop of this, it does seem as though there's like an emboldened Iran. The Iran feels emboldened to retaliate at this moment. I'm not sure how related that is to the nuclear deal, but what's happening around the nuclear deal right now is interesting because, you know, in the Western press, the Russians are being accused of being the big obstacle to the deal, right? The deal, the negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal have been suspended and people are pointing their fingers at the Russians because the Russians were trying to insert a demand that these new sanctions against Russia would impact the JCPOA or the Iran nuclear deal. And it looks as though so far, if you look at what the Iranians are saying, they've actually made a, they've actually decided that it's more in their interest to, even if they're maybe frustrated with the Russians to stick by the Russians, because from their calculation, the U.S. administration, this administration, as much as Iran would love a nuclear deal, because it would help alleviate some of the worst impact of the sanctions at the moment, it would be good for the Iranian economy. The Biden administration will be the one making that deal. And the Biden administration only has two years left in office. It's going to likely be a Republican administration that takes over if domestic politics in the U.S. continue on the road they're on. Therefore, that likely means that whatever deal is made under this administration will be torn up once again by the next administration. And as we know, the Biden administration has said that they can't guarantee to the Iranians that that won't happen, that the deal won't be torn up by a Republican administration that comes after them. Whereas Putin doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The leadership in Russia is going to be in charge on a longer term basis than the leadership in the U.S. So the Iranians so far seem to be calculating that it behooves them to stay close allies of the Russians, even if it means, you know, a delay or an obstacle to the nuclear deal at the moment, because in the long term, that's going to be a partner. Whereas it's unpredictable what might happen in the U.S. given what happened under Trump would tearing up the deal.


to hear the various views on one, the afterlife, because there seems to be the living indefinitely versus living forever. And if you live indefinitely, you know, how long is that? And what happens, what is there to forever, right?  And that doesn't seem to be something that you can really put in. Sure. Hi. Hello. Yeah, well, my first, you know, point is that I don't believe in forever at all. The word is completely misnomer. It's irrelevant. There's no way to prove it. So there's nothing forever for me at all. And regarding the afterlife, I believe it's emptiness, blankness, nothingness in terms of our consciousness. I'm a true believer in just it ends and it's over. However, as a transhumanist, I can, I do firmly believe that there is coming a time when we will ascend and evolve so far that we will have the power to bring back the experience of that person perhaps perfectly, perhaps so, you know, exactly as they are that we would not be able to know the difference. And I am looking forward to that moment in time. I'm not quite sure how to answer that. I guess I probably most go with a Buddhist model at this point, still figuring that out. So, well, not actually in that second. So that's more like the reincarnation until you reach the level where you get out of the cycle of suffering. That things are awesome. I don't know. I'm still learning about all of these. So, all right, I'll go with, I don't know. But that's what I'm leaning toward at this point. Thank you. Two comments on that. The first one is that one of my favorite philosophers happens to be Zoltan's favorite philosopher, Frederick Nietzsche. Frederick Nietzsche had this idea of eternal recurrence and he used this idea of eternal recurrence to avoid nihilism because so often when we talk about forever and immortality and heaven, it's very escapist and it takes us away from embracing life and being true to life, as Nietzsche would have put it. I share that sentiment. I fear that sometimes we put heaven too far away and make it too otherworldly and we're too passive and waiting for it. So the first comment then is that I think that the aspirations for life should be about life, not necessarily, you know, infinite, whatever that means because that's a tough thing to talk about. So that's my first comment. My second comment is that from a Mormon perspective, Mormons have a concept that we call eternal progression. And in eternal progression, each one of us has eternity to become more creative and more compassionate, experience more things, improve more relationships, and just generally improve the quality of our experience indefinitely. Forever, infinitely, I don't know what that means for sure, but it's a beautiful idea to me that I want to keep participating in right now indefinitely. Maybe there would have come a time when I wouldn't want to. I have no idea, but I do know that I want to be true to life. I disagree with the idea that death is required for meaning. I think change is required for meaning and death is a form of change, but it's not the only form of change. So let's progress, let's change, let's evolve, let's become something greater, more loving, more compassionate, more creative than we are today, and I think that's a beautiful idea to aspire to. No, so far as I'm concerned, and this is a Mormon transhumanist perspective, not necessarily a mainstream Mormon perspective, spirit is information, and information persists, and we may even be able to engage in something like quantum archeology in the distant future using massive amounts of computation to bring dead people back at that big database of names that were generated. Maybe we'll use that and bring us all back, and we'll have the opportunity to continue to progress again, enjoy relationships again, create again, and that motivates me a great deal. There's a passage in Scripture that says we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in a perpetual burning hell. The references to hell, Seventh-day Adventists regard as a cessation of existence in more of a euthanistic perspective, people who would be uncomfortable to keep living, people who would, they don't want to go anymore, they don't have a sense that they want to go on, then they are as they never were, they just don't exist anymore. Seventh-day Adventists believe after a very complicated eschatology that ultimately people who want to continue to exist occupy this earth, actually this earth, and that the earth would be improved, that whatever geological things that represent scars or whatever we've done to goof it up with our lack of concern for the environment, that it will get redone the way it was in an Edenic state, sort of a perfect park like setting with plenty of wilderness to go to. And indeed the idea that we will live in body form, although if we did die before this transition, the information that is us will be put back into a similar and improved version of our body, we would actually live in perpetuity. Question two and then possibly three. So this is an open question. In your belief system, in short, what do you believe the purpose of life is and in your answer, how would that relate to transhumanism or becoming a cyborg or anything to do with humans and advanced technology? Well for any of you who have read my novel, you know that this is one of the most challenging questions. I propose in the book because I take on a very controversial ideology with it. I think we are all on the path towards becoming as powerful as we can be and I call this the omnipotenter, one who contends for omnipotence or all power. And I believe that one entity will eventually reach that and become everything. And I think that we were all coded or as my philosophy teft goes, teleological egocentric functionalism, which is explained in detail in the book, we are designed to try to each one of us accomplish that. In fact that each one of us had that opportunity to do it right now.  And I believe that life is essentially just the playing field for all of us trying to arrive at that spot. And the controversy arises from the fact that it's impossible that everyone will make. In fact I probably tend to believe as the book points out to great controversy, only one person will eventually arrive at that. But that's what I think the meaning of life is, is to achieve that ultimate state of power. Okay, so somewhat similar on this except that I think there is actually room for everyone to reach their potential. So I think reaching a state where you reach your own ultimate power and everyone else does is an ideal that we're aiming toward. The example, the Christian example of Jesus Christ glorified as a creative and compassionate being who invites us to become one in that creative and compassionate act is, so far as I'm concerned, what the purpose of life, one way of describing the purpose of life. We could also talk about it in more secular terms. That pursuing a radical flourishing in compassion and creation would be the purpose of life. I'm happy to talk about it in lots of ways. I'm a Mormon so I, you know, the one that goes back to my youth and my education, my upbringing is the Mormon expression of it. But what I see as purpose in life is the life itself. And it's going to be painful and hard and difficult and suffering sometimes. It is for every one of us. But I think that there's also an opportunity in those difficulties to learn how to maybe detach from our own egotism as some of my Buddhist friends have taught me. And maybe opportunities to console and heal each other and learn compassion as Christians often focus on. And it's worth doing. When those things happen in life, those are the things that make life worth doing. And I'm not in a hurry to end that. I'm actually in a hurry to make that even better and technology can help us make it better. Facebook connects me with people that I never would have been able to be friends with before.  And so technology is not good or evil, it's just opportunity. And it can be risky, it can be terrible and it can be wonderful and we have to shape that and we're all involved in that. So the purpose for me is compassion and creation. There's a passage in John where Jesus said, I am come that you might have life and have it more abundantly. I believe that Seventh-day Adventists embrace that passage as a mission statement. In terms of looking at what our purpose would be in perpetuity, the model that is narrated really involves maximized freedom, the least constraint, freedom to be creative. Something that we regard as an explanation for how there could in fact be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity. And then we see babies born with spina bifida, for instance. The real atheist-maker question, I think, Seventh-day Adventists have a real powerful narrative that involves a God who would not be willing to curtail the freedom of creatures. And so whatever it took to get to the point where bliss was voluntary and community was spontaneous, it would be worth it in a sort of balanced sheet method comparing the amount of positive sensation and joy and the like against suffering, which if the other was perpetuated forever, then any finite amount of suffering would be outweighed. Question here in the front. So for one panelist or many? This is for Robert. Can you just elaborate a little bit on the idea of death and resurrection in the tradition? Is it something you're saying that if a body dies, a person dies, they cease to exist? But because there is no ghost or spirit or mind or consciousness that's separate from all that, the machinery sort of makes it in some sense. So if you could perfectly record that and recreate it with technology or God could do it, that leaves open that kind of whole idea. There's no speculation I'm aware of in Seventh-day Adventist theology to discuss mechanism, just agency. And so by whatever means, which is assumed to be beyond our ability to conceive, that there would be infinite intelligence and infinite intelligence would also involve information, all information is permanent. And if there is a God that has infinite dimensionality, then that God exists at all points in time and dimensions we cannot conceive of, very, very compatible with just beyond string theory, I suppose. There's passages that confuse tenses of verb in Scripture like before Abraham was, I am. And the I am in Hebrew, even I've seen some commentators suggest that there's a confusion of tense to the point that it might best be translated when Moses asked for God's name. I am the always having been will-being. That there's a sense that this transcendence of time would mean omnipresence in all dimensions. So when we would be reconstituted, it would just be whoever created the thing in the first place just puts it back together. They know the formula. They know the specs. Send it to the theo printer, I guess. And then all that is that person's character and memories as they survive would be placed in that person. However, interestingly in speculating on the notion, people telling the narrative and there's something in Ellen G. White's writings to suggest that eons into eternity while we're free to remember things, we're still going to be biological entities and we may be finding ourselves saying while we're fellowshiping, do you recall much about that? Not so much anymore. It's just kind of faded by the glory. There's a passage in Scripture that says, at thy right hand are pleasures forevermore. There's another that says, I hath not seen nor ear heard the glories which shall be revealed in us. This is sort of exultancy and bliss in who we really are. Yeah, I guess the one I'm after is more sort of in the way, at least I think I'm hearing you say it. Theoretically, if we had the technology... Yeah, okay. We'll hold it for later. Yeah. I was just curious. I had a question.  They're kind of coming to the conclusion that religious brains are different than non-religious brains, like that they're actually wired differently and different parts of the brain activate differently in religious brains and fundamentalist brains and people that are sort of like in between like me like doubt her brain. So do you ever wonder if all of this is sort of predetermined? Like sort of neurologically, genetically predetermined and that we're all just sort of talking about how our own brain thinks about anything and there's actually no truth other than the way that your own brain perceives the truth? You understand what I'm talking about here? Because that's actually what I believe and that all of this discussion is... It's just predetermined, right. And we don't actually even have any kind of free will about changing our opinion. Go ahead. Well, I definitely believe in free will. I think the complications and the complexity of the mind and just experience from the past and just basically look at a string theory and some quantum mechanics. It allows for that to occur. But regarding religion, I tend to see it as something that is more built into the way we develop culturally and something through our past history. And we are slowly discarding pieces of religion as civilization evolves and matures and we're coming towards concepts that are not needing any of those kind of... I don't want to say straw puppets, but I'm going to sort of straw puppets in our mind the idiosyncrasies that we have just to get along and just the strong bond that we have from history. It's very difficult to imagine ourselves outside of all the things we've learned and unfortunately the way it works going... I discuss this at length in my book, it's called baggage theory which is that we just carry all this stuff again and again from ourselves and if we could start over, we would start over with whatever other baggage we carry. It's really a baggage culture and I think the goal moving forward with transhumanism and also with just looking at religious ideologies and stuff like that is to try to carry as little irrational baggage as possible that is in the benefit of the human race and hopefully the transhumanist race moving forward. I have a couple of thoughts on this. One is I remember there was a study about taxi drivers where they had a very enlarged portion of their brain from learning all the streets. Yep, a campus. Yeah, so it does seem like that can change over time depending on... I don't know if the religious part of your brain can get larger or smaller depending on what you're doing so that's one thought that comes to mind as far as that goes. Another thought that comes to mind is I had experiences of feeling like I found things like that when I was an atheist and it was interesting at the time to just like, oh, that part of my brain must be turned on, I guess. Isn't it interesting to observe? So it didn't actually affect me at all at that time. I think that's worth putting out there for what it's worth. I don't think that our conscious mind is merely epiphenomenal, that it's just kind of an experience that we have while our body and environment are determining everything. I actually think that our conscious mind can influence our anatomy and our environment, but I also don't think that it's purely in control. I think that our environment and our anatomy, there's intelligence built into my body. Somebody was talking about that earlier. There's mechanisms built into my body, built into my unconscious subconscious brain and mind that also inform my consciousness. So what I see us in is a really complex feedback loop between consciousness and what isn't part of my consciousness and between each other, the world, and is it an infinite feedback loop? Is it a closed deterministic system? I can't answer that question. I don't know if anybody can, but I think that it's not very practical to go around assuming that I can't influence the world to be more how I desire it to be and hopefully in a compassionate way. I think that the talk we heard earlier about where you focus matters because it influences the world, I think that's exactly right. I could be wrong, though, but I don't think it's very practical to assume I'm wrong. I think it's most practical. I'm a pragmatist. Another one of my favorite philosophers is William James. I think that we should act as if we can influence the world for the better and even if we're wrong, who cares? There's a certain Pascal's wager in what you said just in case. Maybe we should do that. I agree with what you said, Dolphin, about some of the frontier science as it is suggested. If you want to read more about it, I'd suggest Jeffrey Schwartz's book. He's a UCLA psychiatrist and dabbles in neurology speculation called Mind and Brain. That's worth it. Also, Kaku's book that just came out, I think, in January about the brain. He addresses some of that. You might zero in on the quantum Xeno effect as one area to pursue. I believe that that is a question that religionists have argued in terms of predestination and free will and that sort of thing violently and with death. But right now, we have the ability possibly to do things that make a difference because of that. In the past, we were left simply with, well, should we hold anybody accountable for their morals? In fact, the quantum Xeno effect overlays with some recent imaging study that shows that we might actually have just a deluge of potential ideas that are rifling through parts of our brain all at once and that when we lock something in, we don't really have a possibility, according to that brain imaging, which is parametric and assumes we only function with time zero. But it suggests we might have won't power. We might have the ability to say no to an nearly infinite number of things and then just sort of let the ones by that we can. Anyway, the delays in decision making imaging appear that's a possibility. Okay, great.


All right, you ready? Hello everyone and welcome back to the channel. We're hot pack, we're, we're beer, we're buffalo. We are here today, it's me and my boy Andrew. If you remember Andrew, then you remember him. He's a real one. He's a real one. Back in the day we met in second grade and he's here visiting. I am. Today, thought we would do a fun little video where we test the limits of the human liver. That's right, and our friendship. To see how well we go together. One, two. Like peanut butter and jelly. I'm allergic to the newlyweds game. It's been around for centuries. I'm talking to you second camera that will be used intermittently. Twice. We will be playing the newlyweds game. A game where we, you'll figure out how it works. And if we get it wrong, hold on. That was too hard though. There it is. We have to take a shot. Are you ready? Yes. The newlyweds game featuring my questions that I found. Don't do that. Actually, porous both a shot. Buntainer. Whoa, that'll be yours.  We should do haves, baby. Well first one we gotta do the thing. Okay. So what we do, we'll go back and forth of what's my favorite movie. And I write what my favorite movie is. You write what you think my favorite movie is. And if we have the same answer, then we win. This is far too complicated. Are you ready? Yes. So we're gonna do me first. What is my coffee shop order? I know this because we, well, we did it today but I also remember. I'm done. I'm finished with writing. Are you ready? Yes. One, two, three. It's a caramel macchiato. Yeah, it is. And you smell it. I don't know.  This is for you now. The wording on this is hilarious. I'm gonna change the wording a little bit. What did you, or what did I want to be when I grew up before the depression? I mean the recession, the recession. What did I want to be when we were growing up? I don't wanna see what your answer is because it's gonna break my heart. All right, ready? Uh-huh. One, two, three. An actor. Yeah. Hey, I got it. If I had money in vacation time, where would I want to go? You do have those. This might be the first shot of the night, baby. I think it will be. Ready? One, two, three. Brazil! Japan! Fuck! Now in the hands, baby, first one of the night. Hey, jeez, motherfucker, I'm spilling it. That was large. How would you rank my driving skills compared to my answer for driving skills? What? One to 10, am I a good? Oh, we're doing one to 10. I have a sentence. What does that mean? I have a sentence of how you drive.  So one to 10? And then write the sentence below it. Okay, you ready? Yep. Three, two, one, seven out of 10. Eight, eight. Not aggressive enough, sometimes distracted. You drive for others. Oh, that's kind of sweet. We talked about this once, because I kind of drive them progressively. I drive for myself, the comfort of my own, myself. I'm an anxious driver, but I'm very, I'm very, I'm very defensive. All right. Do you think that I'm a good driver? Yeah, no, I think you're a very good driver. You're just very like, I'm the king of this roadway. The king of the road. You see this highway? It's my domain. It's my domain. I guess I have to take a shot. Is this a dub to highway? No. Slap, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap. Yum, yum, yum. Okay, I have a good one. So for me, which store has the greatest charge on my credit card? Fuck. We're going with store. I can't say Zillow. You can't say Zillow.  Ready? One, two, three. B&H. I tried to do an ampersand, and I did it weird. Nice. Jordan, animate that. No, don't, I'm kidding. Jordan, just fine. I'm tired. That was definitely not going to. All right, ready? Great music, go.   I have a little absolutely stump here. Craig. What is my favorite beer? I can give you a hint if you want. Sure. Do you want the brewery? Sure. Russian river. Ready? Ready? Three, two, one. Shipyard export. Why are you the elder? Never heard of that. You are from New England, and you know about shipyard, shipyard export, it's like Chinese. Hey, wow. I have one that might stump you. Are you going to do a mean one? You're allowed to do a mean one now. Yeah, to the nearest $10.   One, two, three. 43, 67, 92. That's very, 1750. Fuck.  What? Sweet Child of Mine. Oh, we should have made that a question. Fuck. I'm trying to make like weird hot takes that I have that you know about. Oh, I gotta go in. Who is my actor man crush? All right, ready? Ryan Gosling. Rye Guy Goose Boy. There he is. Who's my manly man celebrity crush? Do you want a hint? Yeah, give me a hint. To my knowledge, the last big thing he was in was a horror movie that was a sequel to one of the most famous horror movies of all time. Ready? Three, two, one. You and McGregor. Dude, the shining doesn't have a sequel.  You want to know something crazy? This is for bonus points. If you get this wrong, you don't have to do a shot. If you get it right, I have to do a shot. Who is my female celebrity crush? Has that changed? No. Oh, he said that like I knew it, but I don't fucking...  Who the fuck, give me a hint. Just give me a quick little hint. No, it's a bonus. Dude, what are my favorite movies of all time? It's definitely not that way, dude. Who are you about to write? You don't know? You were writing a name down. She was in a movie directed by Dan Trachtenberg. Oh, oh, oh. That's such a big hint. Power couple. What is it? Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Yes. Do I have to take a shot? Cause I kind of gave you really big hints. No. Which fashion decision was my biggest mistake? Can I put two things?  Ready? Three, two, one. You're uniform. My uniform.  When we were children. Up until what grade? I think it was only one year. Or maybe it was two. I think it was sixth and seventh grades. Andrew's uniform used to be camo, cargo pants, and then...  Yeah, and then a Patriot's hat. Or a Patriot's, did you wear a Patriot's sweatshirt? It was either, so it was a Patriot's hat, but then it was a Patriot's sweatshirt or our high school's football sweatshirt. The pants were like fleece lined. I remember the hat. And I would wear those on days where it was not super cold. Yeah.   That's so gross. What if we just took a shot in the spirit of friendship? We got to get food at some point, because... Do we? I mean, yeah. I have one that will stunk you. How'd my fingers smell? What was my most embarrassing moment? This is really specific. Fuck. Can I get a range of time that it would have been in? It was in middle school. I think it was seventh grade. Is it embarrassing in hindsight or was it embarrassing at the time? It was embarrassing at the time. I don't even know if I've ever told you this.  It's not very embarrassing. Absolutely. It's just the most embarrassing that I've been because I haven't had a lot of embarrassing stuff happen. Oh, hold on, hold on. And I don't get embarrassed easily because I just play everything off. One, two, three. I asked a girl if she had eaten peanuts before you kissed her for your first kiss. No, I wasn't that embarrassed for that, actually.  Bleep that last name out, Justin. And I got very embarrassed because I had a little bit of a crotch on her and someone threw a basketball and I was talking to her and it hit me in the face. I remember.  Let's do some hard ones. I need to take a shot of that. You do. This is gonna hit us very hard in like 20 minutes, so just keep that in mind. Oh, I know. That'll be perfect, actually, because we'll stop this recording and then we'll start playing Mario Kart. It'll hit and we'll throw up in each other's mouths. Like, oh. This is a very specific one, but I've taken more shots than you, so I'm gonna ask it. What do I put on my pizza?  We never talk about pizza. That's why I'm asking it, because I've had one or two more though. Is it normal toppings? I call this pizza old faithful. Can I ask how many toppings? Three.  All right, you ready? Three, two, one. I'll say mine first. I haven't seen it. Pepperoni, onions, mushrooms.  And the thing you dip it in is crystal.   What was it? Oh, banana pepper. Yeah, so pepperoni, mushroom, banana pepper. And then I dip it in blue cheese.   Have I ever had, do you know how many? I was eating pizza when you were in short pants. School. Did you say school? Yeah, because I'm bald. I need to pillow. Well, just wait. We're gonna do one more. One more.  I don't, please. You say that like, what? If I died, what would you want of mine? I saw that one.  What would you want of mine? I know what I would want from you. What? I would want your record collection. Okay. Because you're so into music, it would be nice to remember you by. A house, I guess.  Like, I don't know. No, no, no, the bikes. The bikes. All right. I know my last question. This is for the newlyweds game. So just imagine that you and I, your spouse takes your hand and pulls you to the dance floor. What is the DJ playing? Oh, wow. Yeah, easy, done. Ready? Yep, one, two, three. Wins with it. Scaring the fuck! No! Well, hey. One for the road? Yeah. Andrew, is there anything that you want to plug before we head on out to the field? You already asked me. Oh, what did you say anything? I don't know, I don't have anything. All right, well, you can follow Andrew on Twitter. Or on Instagram. Tweet sometimes. Well? Hey. Tooters and hotters. Don't forget. Don't forget, family guy TBS Saturday night. I guess.