And welcome to your barns daily takeout. I'm Karl Walsh and I'm postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Research, Interpretation and Education here at the barns. And today I wanted to have a look at a small Egyptian statuette which is in a cabinet in the east wall of room 16.  We have things from Egypt and from Greece and from Rome and including this lovely Venus head which my colleague Kaylin Jewel recently talked about in one of her takeouts. And the figurine that we're going to have a look at today is this one that sat up on the top shelf. And you can see it's quite small. So if we zoom in.  And you can see that she has this nice contouring dress that she's wearing. She's got a really nice intricate beaded collar around her neck. And then her hair falls down onto her chest and also down onto her back as well.  And then she has this curious kind of stepped shape on top of her head. And if we just swap the view over you can have a look at this a little bit more closely.  And it's the sign for Isis's name, Iset in Egyptian. And if you have a look at it, it actually looks very similar to the throne that she sat on. And that's because it is indeed a throne hieroglyphic. So this is a nice little kind of play on words and imagery in the statuette that is kind of referencing the throne that she sat on as well. So this is kind of turned into a nice little headdress on top of her head.  And you can see that Horus has all these chubby features of a child and he has a shaved head except for this trailing and curling lock which falls down on the side of his face. And this is a pretty standard depiction of a child in ancient Egyptian art. They usually have a shaved head and then they have this kind of youthful lock which denotes them as a child. And when they kind of reach into adulthood, this is usually shaved off. But Horus also has a nice little rearing cobra on his brow. So this is also showing that he's a god rather than just any old child. And this little scene altogether kind of is very much communicating the divinity of these individuals. And we'll come back and have a look at that a little bit in terms of the story that is behind this too. But the really bright green color of this statuette relates to the material that it's made of which is called faience. And this is a kind of ceramic like material and it's largely made from crushed silica which is made into a paste with an added colored glaze and then it's fired. And because it's made into this paste, you can pour it into a mold usually made out of stone or ceramic in Egypt. And the benefit of using a mold is that you can mass produce these quite finely made objects without the laborious process of carving each individual statuette. And if we zoom in a little bit on this statue, you can actually kind of see well actually can kind of see already that the details on this statuette are actually quite fine. So I think it's very likely that this was probably made in a mold. And we have a number of other examples of these types of statuette statuettes which date to the Ptolemaic period. So this is about 300 to about 30 BC. And these seem to be a really common mass produced object in Egypt at this time. And if you go to a lot of different museum collections, you often find statuettes like this. There's a really nice example in the Metropolitan Museum in New York if you want to have a look. And to get this really bright color, the Egyptians added a color glaze. And this can be applied through either just painting it onto the surface or you can immerse it in a powdered form of the glaze or you can actually just mix the glaze into the faience paste. And then when you fire it, it kind of bubbles to the surface and creates a kind of even glaze across the object. And I think that's probably likely the technique that was used for making this statuette because it seems to have a pretty even coverage of glaze over it. And it doesn't have any noticeable brush marks on it that would suggest it was painted on. And this really lovely bright green color that you're seeing is through adding copper oxide to the glaze, which produces this really nice green blue kind of turquoise color. And this is one of the Egyptians favorite colors to use for this type of object, because green has this really kind of regenerative symbolism to it. And it also probably is likely providing a cheaper alternative to green stones like turquoise or kind of blue stones like lapis lazuli, which are expensive and kind of hard to get hold of. So it provides a cheap alternative to that as well. This would have been then fired in a kiln, and causing it to harden and the color to brighten as well, and the production of a smooth, glassy finish to the object. And the Egyptians called faience chenet, which means literally gleaming or dazzling. And I think looking at this statuette, you can see that that, you know, bright hue and the actual kind of shining surface and gleaming surface is quite apparent. It reflects not light in a really nice way. And so it's certainly deserving of this term of gleaming and sparkling. And the image of Horus and Isis together is also part of a larger story that was really popular in ancient Egypt, which is the myth of Osiris. And it tells of the Primeval King Osiris and his wife, Isis, and how Osiris was murdered by his brother, Set, who is the god of violence and chaos. And Set chops up Osiris's body and hides all the pieces around Egypt, so they can't be found. And then this also denies Osiris a place in the afterlife. But Isis kind of secrets herself away into the marshes of the Nile Delta. And there she secretly gathers and finds all the pieces of Osiris. And with the help of other gods and her magic, she's able to kind of temporarily revive and reunite the pieces of Osiris. So and before he's able to travel to the land of the dead, where he will become the god of the dead there, she's able to conceive her son Horus with him. And Isis spends a lot of time giving birth, raising, nurturing and caring for Horus in the marshes in secret, and protecting him from all the things like snake bites and scorpion stings and illness, while trying to keep him, you know, safe and secret from Set. Until Horus is able to reach maturity and challenge his uncle for the throne, which he does successfully and kind of restores order and the natural balance through inheriting his father's throne. And I think this myth really encapsulates the Egyptians belief in the natural order and the cycle of life and the ability for people to travel into the afterlife as well, which is why it's such a kind of comforting story to the Egyptians. And the image here of Isis and Horus together would have been really symbolic of the renewal of life through a mother's love. And I think it's likely this kind of statue up was made as a voting vote of offering for Isis. So it would be purchased by someone and then taken to the temple of Isis and given as a gift as an offering to the goddess in hopes for some kind of aid or help. Perhaps this could be something like a mother looking looking for protection during childbirth or in helping to treat an illness or a scorpion sting or a snake bite in some way. And so it's really a kind of an image of hope and renewal for the Egyptians. And I think that's something that really resonates for us today as well. And now that everyone's at home as well with the family, it's really about the kind of the power of family as well. And I really wanted to share the story with you because I think this is a great time to be able to explore kind of stories from other cultures and societies that allow us to interpret art in new ways as well. So next time you're in the barns, take some time to have a look at this statuette and what it potentially meant to the people who made it as well. So that's today. That's it for today's barns takeout. If you haven't already, please do subscribe to the channel and leave a comment. We really enjoy reading and responding to these. Please stay safe and take care. I'm Tom Collins new Bauer family executive director of the Barnes Foundation. I hope you enjoyed barns takeout. Subscribe and make sure your post notifications are on to get daily servings of art. Thanks for watching and for your support of the Barnes Foundation.


Hello and welcome back to Mass Effect, or rather, Mass Cluchette and Dramatop. I'm currently in an elevator. Shoutouts, no one cares about you. Thank you for your input. I decided to play around with the settings of the game. Now I am currently wondering whether it looks better? Well, that is creepy. I'm sure everything will become clear. Hello. Care to tell me what's going on? Funny man in a Star Wars helmet. Why would you think that? What's wrong with you? I'm Tyrann Candles. I lead our militia on the nexus. Hello. I'm Zara Ryder. This is Korra Harper and Liam Costa, part of the Pathfinder team. Why don't we have our guns on? I'm sorry for the confusion. Our sensors told us an arc could arrive, but Helius is notorious for scrambling equipment. We thought you were just another malfunction. Well, I've got a shipload of people that says we're here. Of course, it's just you're the first arc we've seen after a year of waiting and no sign of the others. We shuddered this area and stopped looking. You've been stranded for a whole year? Longer. I'll fill you in on the way to Ops Center. Everything that could go wrong with our plan has. We arrived 14 months ago. Right away, we hit a band of dark energy that knocked us off course. Oh my god. Virtual intelligence kiosk. What is this? A lot of people died. No power, no food. Helius, we're not close. It finally led to armed rebellion. When order was restored, the insurgents were banished. Exiles, we call them. Are things back to normal? Not even close.  No word from the other Pathfinders? No word from any one, period. Any threats from the locals? So far we've stayed hidden. We're in no shape to deal with an attack. We had a first contact situation on Habitat 7. All things went south.  That wasn't first contact. We know about them. Those aliens are going to... we're here. Well, good to disrupt human centers then. You should know our command structure has been fractured. Some of us are filling in for leaders who died.  They said drop everything and report for duty. And no one was expecting an ARC to finally show up. Well, good to know that I'm full of surprises. Stand by to merge Hyperion power into the grid. Gentlemen, ladies, hello! The crew of the Hyperion. Indeed. Queer of the Pilgrims. I'm Geraint Tan, Director of the Initiative. You have no idea how much your arrival means to us. We're here to assist. We've heard about what happened. And we're ready to help. We could use any supplies you have. Food, water, we're short on everything. This is Foster Addison. She oversees colonial affairs. Where's the Pathfinder? I am the Pathfinder. You're not Alec Ryder. My father's dead. He made me his successor. Want to know how I got that scar? He's dead. Quite. Please understand, the entire initiative is at risk. None of the Golden Worlds panned out. They're a bust. And there's been no word from the other ARCs. What happened to them? Surely there's a plan B, C, or something. Our supplies are nearly depleted. Rationing part of some time, but even that's running out. We need to find our supplies. You don't seem to plan. And we can't wake them up. The colonization of a new galaxy too well. But I have somewhere to live. A Golden World. Now more than ever. We need a Pathfinder. It now falls to you Ryder. Are you up to the task? No, it goes. Well, I'm ready. I'm ready to step up and do what needs to be done. I can handle it. Youthful enthusiasm will only get you so far in Andromeda. Gee, thanks. I don't want to read a cast. Lady Crone. Hello. You look... Lovely. Well, too bad. Just don't look at them in the lips. Just don't look at lips. Don't look at the lips. Indeed we are. Thank you. I'm happy to work out the details with your associate. My associates. Well, welcome to the Nexus. Thanks for helping. Thank you for standing up for me there. Hopes and short supply here. A hopeful Krogan should have a chance. Ma'am, I can't get caught in our line. Let me show you something. Well, everything burst into power suddenly. I don't know, that was all dark. But with the power from your ship. You're keeping the lights on. Indeed it does. You've got my vote. I want the power runs out. You'd best go talk to Director Tan. Make sure that doesn't happen.  Come see me when you have a chance. All right. Well, that's real pretty.  That's not. But that. That looks great. Press escape to view my channel. Nexus reunion. Speak with Director Tan at Pathfinder headquarters. If I must, I will. I also levelled up. Off cam. You speak to the consoles. You're insane. Then here's the salarine. Oh my god. This. All right. What happened? To who? To whom?  Oh god. Sorry. My face is tired from dealing with everything. And right now I just want to know what happened with Alec. Not how he died. I pulled those logs. She fixed my grammar. And then she made some mistake. In the moment it saved my life. But it seems my father meant for me to get the role eventually. It isn't hereditary. If we wanted an inbred monarchy, we could have left half our gene stock back home. Lady. Not home. The Milky Way. This is home. This mess. We don't have a lot of options Rider. Maybe you'll prove your father right. After 14 months of failed colonization. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Insighted to strange deck. The plan for the hostiles. All right, colonial director. Nice hee. Well, you probably would have died anyway. Let's see. Failing outposts. How many tries is that? Less than you'd think. The scourge. Spoiled worlds. Exiles. The scourge. Is that how we call them? We've done an outpost and expect picket fences. We need the pathfinder and Sam to scout, evaluate, and inspire. The initiative promised a goal. Andromeda has not cooperated. And if it had? Beautiful utopian horseshit. Colonies that produce and support each other. The nexus of Citadel. Not headed by Tan. Or even me. Oh, or even you. Such nice dreams. Leaving power behind. What is the plan for the hostiles now? Speak to me. Colonial director. There must be some kind of plan for encountering hostile aliens. We can't have been that naive.  Not an enemy that refuses to talk. They don't attack. They disinfect. We're nothing until we're bacteria. Sorry. Fourteen months and you stooped to poetry. That's how bad it is. That's your version of poetry. But with all the Kett. Kandross will know more. Maybe too much. You don't trust him? I trust him to defend us. I do not trust a rising military influence in a supposedly civilian initiative. We came here to fight him. I can see a conflict happening here. Not repeated.  Haha. All right, Captain Woman. You are... ...editating. And the tech thinks different. Oh. How do you even know what the Hyperion Logs say? For God's sake. I mean... ...logical massifics. Oh, is that so? Oh, my. Well, that is a fairly nice outfit on things. I will now... Excuse me, Dr. Addison. Rider? It's Pathfinder. Rider, we're starving here. If we don't get a foundation of outposts to feed the initiative, we might as well be 600 years dead. Alec promised a lot. None of it panned out. That's what you're up against. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. That's what you're up against. Why people won't trust you. Why I don't trust you. Prove me wrong. Oh, my heart, Addison. I miss my jetpack. This would be so much easier with my jetpack on. Everything in life is easier with the jetpack on. I just want to point that out. This is the planet where we landed. Habitat seven. It wasn't even close to livable. But it was majestic. The true of every world we found. Rider. It was really pretty. We were discussing your next expedition. You trust me now? I thought I didn't measure up as Pathfinder. Director Addison keeps her own council. I keep mine. And when you disagree. I oversee the entire initiative. And I have decided to give you a chance to prove yourself. It's not like you've got to dagger to your back. Whatever it is, our scientists theorize it's not natural. An artificial energy cloud? So the sketch is a thing in the galaxy. All the golden worlds unlivable. Then there's the aliens you ran into. The cat. They're obsessed with alien structures we found scattered around the cluster. They'll do anything to prevent others from accessing them. It seems like our exposition is to the Milky Way. And now the challenge is to settle in spite of our own. This one here, Eos. How? You need to increase the viability of the planet so we can establish an outpost. Then we can bring more colonists out of stasis. The more colonists we have, the more resources we can gather to support the Nexus. Everything depends on it. There are six worlds we hope to settle. Okay, but you said every planet you found is unlivable. So how do I? A good pathfinder would relish the challenge of solving it. Right. I think I should go check on things. And if I fail, I guess it's no sweat off your back, right? He'll just look for another pathfinder. Placing bets on people is part of my job. Some of them pay off. Others? Don't play games with me. The way I see it, you need me.  But first, you have to succeed at being the pathfinder you pretend to be. Where's my ship? Banta. They're prepping it now in the docking bay. The coordinates for Eos will be in the computer. And when you have a moment, we should discuss the missing arcs. Good talk. I was wondering about that. Something wrong? Rider, can you see me and Samnud on the Hyperion? Your implant needs attention, and we need to discuss a confidential matter. Interesting. No, I'm fine. It's just, you know, hibernation sickness. Let's speak before I go. You may have a less than flattering view of me, but I want to express my condolences for your father. Thank you. That's kind. I didn't know him very well. Although I understand he played a key role in planning the initiative. I'm sure he'd be concerned that we still have several arcs missing. What happened to them? Any idea where they went? Nothing certain. But tens of thousands of colonists are unaccounted for. It paints the initiative in an unflattering. And that is all you care about, isn't it? Did you have some other business? Well, I came here to talk about missing arcs, you... Any more information you can give me on the missing arcs? No, and that is the distressing part. The Asari, Turian, and Solarian arcs are completely unaccounted for. If they're the same problems with the scourge that we did, I fear the worst. Should you find any clues, please investigate. Without the other arcs, the promise of the initiative can never be fulfilled. That's why he is worse than a mantis during mating season. Are there any other arcs we should expect? We had hoped quarians would be part of the first wave, but before departure in 2185, we got word that technical problems with their ship. It seems they're also bringing along Drell, Hanar, and other species as well. Managing all of their biological needs caused complications. It's a hot spot of aliens, not late. Let's see, Nexus troubles. Towns rolled, yeah. Why do I sound so much like a teenager? Not angry, angsty. In practice, we argue, debate, and yell at each other until a decision is made. If we're lucky, it is maddening. You need something like a bath finally. What's your problem with you? Point to the way. I'm not, Jean Garson. Our founder was charismatic, eccentric, larger than life. Traits I cannot hope to mimic. She had a circle perished in the scourge, some at the hands of the exiles. Some never made it out of stasis. Exiles. I was deputy assistant for revenue management. Then all seven leaders above me died. I was next in line for the role. Oh, good. Excellent.   We are all capable of more than we know. When I was young, I was fascinated by the idea of exploring space. Life had its detours and I went a different direction. Then I heard about the initiative and saw my chance to try the path not taken. You're very happy about it now. Why would I be setting foot on new worlds? My authority can ensure that you do. Right. Sorry. Why am I apologizing? Plunt viability. What do I need to consider in making a planet viable? Assuming the planet supports life and outpost is critical. People like a roof over their heads and you'll want to live in a total threat. Whether that's the cat or other terrors lurking in Helios, colonists being murdered on site can be discouraging. Oh, really? I thought it would be a plus. Something you can put on the travel brochures. Forward stations, what? What can you tell me about forward stations? I was afraid you'd ask. It's mostly what the engineers tell me. A forward station allows mining, equipment repairs and resupply for field teams. I mean, who wouldn't want that? But seeing as how every colonization effort has failed, is just theory at the moment. You get to test it out, Ryder. Oh, joy. Sounds like the Nexus has had a rough time of it. Publicly, I would say we're more than up for the challenge. Privately, I can tell you it's been a disaster. I prefer the public image. There's still hundreds. Many of them are senior leadership. Even the founder of the initiative, Jean Garson, is dead. How did Jean Garson die? With the rest of the leadership, when the Nexus hit Scourge, a large wing of Stasis pods was destroyed.   Jean Garson never glimpsed Helios. She never saw her vision realized. That seems odd, actually. Candace mentioned something about hitting the Scourge. How did it play out? Criminal elements took advantage of the emergency and preyed on people's fears. An uprising followed. We had no choice but to turn to the Krogan to deal with them. They crushed the mutiny and the criminals were banished. Not just executed or tried. We called them. I doubt we've heard the last of them. They're led by an outlaw, Sloane Kelly. She used to be one of ours. Who is the Sloane Kelly? She was head of security on the Nexus. She opposed the uprising at first, but eventually turned traitor. And Jo... You can't beat them! Miss Kite is sympathy for the plight of the common citizen. Nonsense. They posed a direct threat to our existence. And what was that about the Krogens? There don't seem to be many Krogan around. Good riddance. The Krogan demanded a greater say in political matters. The last place you want them involved? Their muscle. Nothing more. And you're racist. They're fighting and lifting heavy objects. When they didn't get what they wanted, they left. Why don't you like the Krogan?  Long ago, they wed with their war on one another. And their planet was decimated. My people tried to uplift them, but the Krogan could never tame their worst. Your people tried to use them as weapons. We have to bring their tempers to Andromeda. We'll all be dead. Speaking of Andromeda... It represents the greatest migration ever attempted. No one had ventured beyond the Milky Way before. We've all left home in search of freedom, fortune, perhaps a new beginning. We are the bravest souls each species has to offer. I hope the Nexus will serve as the seat of government for us all. Let's see. What are your motivations for coming there, Ektitan? Why do you think most people came? There are thousands... Not what I was interested in. One for every colonist here. What does any pilgrim seek? Usually, happiness? A new start? Finding the thing that eludes them? The thing to fulfill them? While we cannot promise they will find it? We can't facilitate the search. You sound just like a brochure. What do you know about the early days of the initiative? As most everyone knows, Jean Garson's vision made it happen. She was an entrepreneur on Earth. Wealthy, young for a human. Garson had the idea for the initiative in the early 1970s. I've spoken with Jean. He thought leaving the Milky Way was impossible. But he purchased the Earth. And as with most great ideas, the doubters were wrong. Looks like a melting pot around here. The Nexus is home to several initiative species. Many came ahead of the arcs. The hope is that this station will one day serve as the governing body in Andromeda. Though I'm not sure what they were thinking, lumping Krogan into the mix. As a Solarian, I'd like to have a low opinion of them. Nothing I've seen here has changed that. You're really annoying. I like the Sol... The Krogan. Thanks for your time. I like the Solarians as well, but... As you pointed out. This one. Need each other. Our futures demand each other's success. All right. Entering of interest. Anywhere around here. Oh, I suppose not. Well, time to get going. What am I to look at? Information wall. No. Letters not spend another 10 minutes in conversations with information wall? What? What? What? What's that? It's not right. It's not fair. Oh, God. You had a typical Vower quest which asks me to save someone. Oh, God. Oh, it's that quest. What was it trying? Come on. It's pee. They say it's murder. They're calling him the first murder in Andromeda, but the dead man was his friend. He wouldn't have. There are witnesses and evidence, but it's all circumstantial. At worst, it was an accident. His name is Nilkin Rensis. He could give you the details if you were willing to speak with him. Please. There might not be time to deal with us. At some point, maybe. There are tens of thousands of people in my care. I hope. I hope you'll find the time before it's too late if you do decide to help. Oh, please. Oh, God. Tell Nilkin I love him. This is so, so, so... Clichéed. Right. Oh, there's another quest. Right. Over there. Right then. Let's take the other secondary quest and be on our way for the main one. Are you the one? Hey, you okay? I'm fine. My arms got the brunt of it. Stuff exploding like this happen often? Back right after the mutiny. We had a lot of this happening. But not lately. I wasn't there during the mutiny. This is a slightly Indian accent. I thought we were done with this, honestly. But maybe I was just being paranoid. Why? We've had three malfunctions in the past week. That's not good. Sorry. Understatement. Yeah. And now I have more repairs. Did you report this? Did you talk to security about this? How can I? For all I know, someone in security is the one doing this. I've scanned all the potential sabotage areas I can think of. But I don't know who to trust anymore. Sounds like a lot went down before the Hyperion docked. Yeah, I guess. Wait. That's it. You can't possibly be involved in this. No, I cannot. Do you think you have time? Maybe you could help me if they start hitting critical systems. Sure, I don't know. What can I do? If you could scan these other panels while I fix this one, that would really help. I've sent the locations to your omnitune. Just send me the data when you're done. Oh, joy. Such joy. Right then. Apologies for this. But the following footage you will see is a compilation of the next half hour I spent in the Nexus. Unfortunately, what happened is that my audio recording software decided to go kablui. And as such, some of my commentary is lost to time. Oh well, you've missed nothing of value. Anyway, what you will see now is me or rather my character speaking with some of the artificial intelligence and then you will listen to a few audio playbacks. Hello, Sarah. Welcome back to Sam Note. I've adjusted my connection to your implant. The headache you experienced before shouldn't reoccur. Yeah, what was that about? You said we need to discuss something confidential. You should know certain facts before you leave on your expedition. It seemed best we speak alone. Sam, if we're going to work together, you can't keep hiding things from me. Apologies. I am simply following your father's wishes. What was he keeping secret? My true capabilities. Alec overrode the implant's safety protocols. It allows me unrestricted access to the Pathfinder's physiology. And that's me now. And only you. I can act as a force multiplier, dramatically enhancing your motor and neural skills when required. Alec called them profiles. They provide unique tactical augmentation during combat. Your father preferred to keep this factor himself. I can understand. People might get the wrong idea. Super soldiers. A computer having control over a human. Providing an enhancement to the human. It is a symbiotic relationship that benefits both. What do you get out of it? Though I'm artificial in design, I am fully sentient, far beyond what even the initiative understands. I don't follow. You're in AI, so what's different? I am a new form of AI drawing directly from the human experience.  That's pretty amazing. But beyond what many people will accept, your father knew some would fear it. Yeah, he's got a point. So what does this mean for the two of us? I find myself in an unusual position. Though I had access to your father's experiences, there is a gap in my understanding. How so? He plays the block on portions of my memory array. Why? Perhaps so when you asked me what his plan was I wouldn't know. Ah, and dad strikes again. But not without recourse. The further you explore as a Pathfinder, the more blocks will be removed. Perhaps you should begin in your father's quarters. In the meantime, unless you have more questions, your new ship awaits. Sam? What was that? An idetic trigger, related to your father, and the portions of my memory array he locked. What triggered it? Alec tied it to your progression as Pathfinder, not to a location. Puzzling as it may be, my programming is clear. Locating more of these triggers will unlock the memories. One of your father's memories is now accessible. Return to Samnode on the Hyperion. The coffee machine mom got for dad. He was so busy designing you. Needed the caffeine. I did not realize I owed my existence to a bean. And now you know what humility feels like. What's on here, Sam? Your father's personal locks. Several of them are encrypted. That lock is not currently accessible. Unlocking my memory array may enable it. The day is finally here. We're pushing off from Earth. We'll jump through a few relays first, then we hunker down to the long trip across Darkspace. It's daunting thinking about all the hopes and dreams aboard the Hyperion. I certainly have my own. I wasn't the husband or father I should have been. Sam, here's hoping 600 years can change a man. Sam, this is a reminder about Dr. Liara Tasoni. She's an Asari archaeologist I corresponded with a few years back. She's got experience studying ancient cultures. Make sure the team gets her research. Could be useful in Andromeda. Liara Tasoni, huh? She studied the Prothians. When my team used to dig up artifacts, we'd debate her work. She had some pretty controversial theories as I recall. Never gained much traction. I have loaded Dr. Tasoni's research onto data pads. This is Dr. Tasoni. I'm flattered you contacted me. Most scientists dismiss my work, but I'm young and Asari, and they are getting older. So we will see who has the final word. In the meantime, I'm happy to pass along my research. I hope your team finds it useful. I received your message. I must say the thought of exploring another galaxy has my head spinning. I am honestly not sure how people could survive a trip like that. And anyway, I could not bear to leave the Milky Way behind. There is so much about the Prothians I still hope to learn here. So much potential wisdom to tap. I wish you much good luck and future success. Dunns agreed to a scouting mission on Habitat 7. I'm gearing up now. I'm worried about Scott. Dr. Tepero says he'll be fine, but he's my son. How can I not worry? I hate to leave him like this. It's these moments when you wish you told your children you love them more often. Or ever, which brings me to the tough part. Kids, if anything happens to me, there are things you're gonna find out. I hope you'll understand. The blocks your father placed on my array are opening. I can now recall specific memories which Alec wanted you to see. Wait, I can actually see his memories? Yes, you will experience them via your implant. Okay, something new every day. Let's see it. This memory is from the time when your father was posted on the Citadel. Alec, your recommendations will never fly. Artificial Intelligence? It's our best option. If the Council gets wind of this, it'll set humanity standing back decades. You're overreaching. Ambassador Goyle, I'm the military attaché on the Citadel. My mandate is clear. Find an edge for Earth. And AI is your answer? We need to catch up. The Asari, the Solarians, they're centuries ahead of us. But it's illegal. Their rules, not ours. Why deny Earth an advantage? Define this advantage. It will set us free. We're prisoners of our own five senses. There's a reality greater than ours that we can't perceive, but an AI can. How? By augmenting our own abilities and adding a few new ones. Well, none of that stopped those geths from revolting. Because they were separate from their creators. But AIs and humans interface directly, experiencing the world together, that if it's both, there's no creator to revolt against. I'm sorry, Alec. We can't take the risk. I appreciate your work, but your request will be denied. Ellen, what did the doctor say? He told me to appreciate the time I have left. There's no cure, Alec. Restonement. Not on my watch. Hearing mom again. I never knew that's how dad found out. Alec was a stubborn man. I would hope so. Mom's life was worth fighting for. It would seem his obstinance extended to me as well. Nobody wanted to listen. The idea of you scared people too much. After this, dad moved us back to Earth to care for mom. Wonder why he wanted me to see this. Perhaps it was the beginning. Of what? Unknown. Private audio logs are now available in your father's quarters. I detect additional memories that they are currently locked. They may yet hold answers. Okay, I'll keep working on it. What more can you tell me about my implant? The implant itself provides me with direct access to your senses. I can see, hear, and experience the same stimuli you do while in the field. This raw data enables me to provide real-time feedback and analysis of the situation. Then dad added the secret sauce. You removed the restrictions on my access to pathfinder physiology. Uh-huh. Just promise you won't fry my brain or anything. Trust is an important concept in any relationship. Alec taught me that. I will not fry your brain. It would end badly for both of us. Me more than you. What did he mean by a symbiotic relationship? Symbiosis is a mutually beneficial relationship between two life forms. A flower provides nectar to a bee who in turn provides pollen for the flower. The bee gains nourishment and the flower can propagate. In similar fashion, my own evolution was shaped by your father's experiences and will now expand with yours. In return, I provided with capabilities and analysis beyond normal human faculties. We each benefit. Do you know anything more about Scott's condition? I monitor Dr. Carlile's reports. He is providing Scott with the very best care possible. I'm afraid there is nothing more to be done at this time. What are your capabilities? Each arc houses a SAM, simulated, adaptive, matrix. Each is an artificial intelligence designed by Alec Ryder to support pathfinders and their teams. But AI is illegal in the Milky Way. How did my dad get around that? Exceptions were made. The initiative deemed his research vital to the mission. Our design was conducted in secret. So there are other SAMs out there? Correct. However, your father continued to modify my own routines until the Hyperion's departure. I am the most advanced SAM in the initiative. I take it you're based here in SAM node? Correct. This is where my core processing unit resides. However, using quantum entanglement communication, I remain in constant touch with you and the pathfinder mission team, even over great distances. That's all for now. Of course. Your father's personal logs. Amazing how life can change in an instant. Suddenly, my career doesn't matter. This incredible woman I've been married to all these years. She's facing the end. All I think about are the times I wasn't there for her. Well, that's going to change. It occurs to me that SAM might be more than I ever imagined. I am Dr. Liara Tasoni, and I've spent several decades researching ancient Prothians. It is common knowledge that the Prothians were an advanced race that flourished in the Milky Way about 50,000 years ago. Then went extinct. Even at the time of this writing, the year 2182, their culture remains a mystery. During my studies, I have developed some practices that can be used when analyzing any ancient culture. I hope they may prove useful for the research community. When studying a dead race, the most obvious problem is the lack of an observable population. This raises the question. Your father's first sidearm. A memento of his early alliance service. I bet that's not plenty of action. Alex's first kill occurred in combat during the First Contact War. Back when Turrians were the enemy. Crazy times. You're not on the bridge, Captain? We powered it down. Can't afford to waste energy. Though Cryo Bay and Sam knowed her exempt. And I told him to keep their hands off Alex quarters. You have access now. Thanks. Hey, sorry about your father. He was really good at what he did. Just not so good at working with people. He was right about going planet-side though. As long as they did their jobs, he didn't care what people thought of him. I noticed that. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Thanks for the talk. All right. I have request to submit administrators to harass and people to wake up. I'd better get to it. Good luck out there. Ready to see what Tan gave us? I hear it's something special. Pathfinder en route. How's the ship? In final checks, looking great. We won't be long. The way things are going, we'll be on our own out there. In other words, we're making this up as we go. We used to call that tactical improvisation. But at least we'll be doing it in style. They call her the Tempest. Let's go take a closer look. Pick it up a bit, people. We're 14 months late. So you're the one who's making everything happen. Vettra. Vettra Nix. Initiative Wrangler, Provisioner, Gunner, and everything in between. Are we ready? The sooner we get out of here, the better. You're coming with us? Yes. Otherwise, there's no way they're letting the ship off the station. What's the rush? Just don't want to waste any more time. Hold it, hold it. You're not going anywhere. Damn it. Is something wrong? Director Addison wants to see a complete report of the Tempest's supplies, munitions, and crew. Director Tan overruled Addison. The ship's loaded out with equipment for outpost discovery, squarely under Director Addison's purview. It's in your round, Ben, right? Came here with a family, didn't you? Son still in cryo? I could pull some strings, get him to the front of a line. Really? Yeah, really. They told me he wasn't essential, but I miss him. I know. I got family too, Ben. It's done.  Nicely done. Part of the job, Pathfinder. All things considered, it was an easy ask. And right now, you need people tearing down obstacles, not putting up more. At least someone who cares about doing stuff and not just talking about it. Everything's data-the-art. Labs, sensors, exploration gear. Lesser crew, of course. The best in their field. Good to see you're looking so well, Sarah. The engine core is based on the Ark's Odyssey Drive. Who runs a hell of a lot quieter? That's Gil Brody. Engineer, mechanic, all-around lunch jockey. We call this the research room. There's space for upgrading equipment, gathering intel. Router engaged. Securing connection to Tempest. Welcome aboard, Sam. And Ryder, of course. All run by Suvi Anwar, our science officer. Your quarters are below. Plenty of space up here to get everyone together. It's all yours. She's light, stealthy, and the fastest ship in her class. It's really going to be something, isn't it? I haven't even shown you the best part. When you're ready to fly, head over to the bridge. Our pilot should have everything good to go. Better head to the bridge when we're ready to go. What am I, a prophet?


Welcome to Free Thoughts from Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. I'm Aaron Powell. And I'm Trevor Burrus. And joining us today is Paul Mueller. He's an assistant professor of economics at the King's College in Manhattan. He's also a columnist for Libertarianism.org. Today, we're going to be talking about Adam Smith. So maybe let's start with just some bio. Who was he with his background? Sure. Adam Smith was a Scotsman. He lived in Scotland in the 1700s. He was born in a small town called Kerkaldi in 1723, and he died in Edinburgh in 1790. During the course of his life, he did a number of things. He went to the University of Glasgow initially for sort of undergraduate, and then he went on to study at Oxford for a few years. After that, he returned to Scotland, gave a series of public lectures in Edinburgh, which were quite popular. And then he was offered a chair of logic at the University of Glasgow. And then within a year or two, he received the chair of moral philosophy at Glasgow, where he spent a decade or more, a little more than a decade teaching and writing at the University of Glasgow. He writes The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written and published in 1759. And then he leaves Glasgow University to be a private tutor for young nobleman, the Duke of Bucklow, and travels all over France, meets a number of French economists while he's over there, and continues working on his largest book, what he's most well known for, which is An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. And then returns to Scotland, he continues to write and to be involved in various intellectual circles and returns back to Scotland and finishes out his time there. What, do we have any sense of what kind of personality he had or what kind of person he was? Sure, he was a bit eclectic. He's described in some of his correspondence and by some of his students as being a little bit odd. He would take long walks and forget what time it was or how far he'd been going. He recounts a time when he was out walking, thinking about something, and realized all of a sudden he was four or five miles away from where he had started and had to walk all the way back. He was also very passionate, there were a lot of accounts of him having discussions with students of really being interested in the ideas that he was thinking about and trying to help them understand. So he's a bit eclectic, but also a really faithful friend to the people that he knew best. Now you mentioned that one of the things that got him some amount of popularity were a series of public lectures, which I encounter in different books when they're talking about Enlightenment Era. And I'm trying to figure out if that means that it was the kind of situation where you would put up a flyer saying that someone was going to be lecturing about philosophy and a lot of people would come, or are we talking about university engagement type of situations? More of the former. In Scotland over this time, and we might touch on this later, this is kind of during what's called the Scottish Enlightenment, and it's really a fascinating time of intellectual history and commercial history. There's a lot of growth and change going on, and one of the most fascinating things about this period was sort of the circle or the network of intellectuals and scholars who were in Scotland at this time. Of course, there's David Hume, who most people know, and Adam Ferguson, but there were many others. There were inventors, there were writers, poets, artists, and Scotland itself was very small. So all of these thinkers and scholars knew each other, and there was a very tight network, a lot of different kinds of clubs, associations, public outlets for conversation. A lot of the businessmen were involved as well, the various kinds of commercial merchants and people who were involved in industry would also come and would engage in kind of coffee house style conversation. The public lectures in particular were sponsored by a friend of Smith's, the Lord Cames is his name. He's a little bit older, an eminent lawyer, and they're sponsored, which means he sort of advertised them. He paid Smith to give them, and it was in Edinburgh, which was sort of the intellectual center in Scotland. Aaron Powell So this friendship of his with Hume, which was, I mean, is it fair to say that they were really good friends? David Hume Absolutely. Aaron Powell Absolutely. Aaron Powell So how did that influence work? Because Hume was a bit older than Smith, right? David Hume Yes. Aaron Powell So did Hume influence Smith's thoughts on the issues that he then went on to write about? David Hume Yes. I think he did. In terms of specific influence, it's a little bit hard to tease out. I'm not, I haven't looked at that in particular. I think Smith thought very fondly of Hume and of his ideas, and at the same time there was a lot of friendly banter back and forth between them and letters. You can see that they're mostly on the same page and how they're approaching the world. But Smith also, in theory of moral sentiments, he calls us out a few times. He's also going to take a slightly different perspective on a number of issues than Hume does. So for example, Hume talks about morals sort of coming out of their usefulness, that it's actually useful for people to treat one another well and properly and to do that. And Smith says, that may be true, that we get sort of social benefits from being respectful, honoring contracts, keeping our word and so forth. But that's not actually what motivates people to do those things. And so he, in the passage in theory of moral sentiments, he's clearly referring to Hume but also trying to take a slightly different approach on that topic. Now you mentioned one of these people in terms of the other influences of Adam Smith's thought around the Scottish Enlightenment. You mentioned Adam Ferguson, for example, and another one is Francis Hutchison. What were those two, the thinking, the kind of thinking that they did and how did that lead into Adam Smith's thought? Sure. So Francis Hutchison was a Smith professor at the University of Glasgow. He was a professor of moral philosophy and was really the leading moral philosopher in Scotland at the time and had a huge impact on Smith. Smith writes in one of his letters about the never to be forgotten Hutchison. He was very fond of him. And Hutchison's work is a lot about moral theory, about where morals come from. And Hutchison in particular talked about something he called the moral sense, sort of like the sense of sight or the sense of smell. He says, people just have this sense of what's right and wrong, there's this moral sense that God put into people. And that's why we have a conscious, that's why we behave the way that we do and have this sort of sense of morality. And Smith actually rejects that particular idea very explicitly in the theory of moral sentiments. But it's clear that Hutchison as a professor, as a mentor, as a person was very much admired by Smith. And I think Smith wanted to imitate him in some ways. He ended up taking Hutchison's chair years down the road. There were one or two people in between, but he ended up taking a similar position at University of Glasgow. In terms of Adam Ferguson, the relationship's a little more complicated. They're more contemporaries and there's not a lot of letters between them. And so I don't know exactly the relationship back and forth. I think they certainly knew each other and interacted some, but there's not a lot in terms of personal correspondence to go off of. This is maybe a broader question, which we can get into in a variety of ways. But in terms of the Scottish Enlightenment in general and Hutchison and Ferguson and Hume and others, is there anything that we can sort of say that unifies the kind of thinking that they were doing in the sense of was it more bottom-up thinking than top-down thinking? Could we compare it to rationalists, for example, in France or Descartes and say it's different in some basic way that the Scottish were on to something thinking about things in a different way? Yes, very much so. I think this is an area that warrants a lot more study and work to talk about. But the Scottish Enlightenment was happening basically simultaneously with the French Enlightenment. And there was a lot of interaction back and forth. David Hume went over to France for a number of years, really hit it off with the philosophers over there. They thought really well of each other. And yet the Scottish Enlightenment in terms of its main ideas and contribution was really very different in many ways in the French Enlightenment. The French Enlightenment, one such difference is that the French Enlightenment, they were very antagonistic towards the church. They saw the church as holding down science, as holding down advances in knowledge, as being realms of superstition. And so the French philosophers like Voltaire and Diderot and so forth were pretty adamant that the church should really go in the modern world. And the Scots, the Scots were a little bit less so. They weren't necessarily huge fans of the church per se, but they thought that it was useful and that it was good and that you could work within, work with the existing church institutions. And so they had less of a revolutionary bent, you might say. The French Enlightenment was sort of, we have reason and Rachel, we're gonna start over and there are a lot of ideas and ideals that led to the French Revolution. The Scots were much more, well, wait a second, let's not overturn everything. Let's think about how to change things more slowly. But to get back to your earlier question about what specifically characterizes the Scottish Enlightenment, here are a few things. First, and anyone who knows Hume knows this quite well, there was this kind of skepticism of rationalism. There was this skepticism of just how much reason can tell us by itself. And both Hume and Smith are kind of skeptical of how far rationalism by itself can take us. And in place of rationalism, or maybe not in place of it, but in addition, they thought that it was important to understand sentiment and sense, that the emotions and the feelings that people have are important in understanding how they interact with each other, how society, how social norms work. The Scots in general also, even as they're less rationalistic, they're more empirical. They're more looking, going out and looking at what's going on. Smith, for example, in the theory of moral sentiments, one of the things the book is praised for is that he gives lots and lots of examples of what he's talking about. He says, you can imagine this situation, or we've all experienced this, or you see this here, the wealth of nations. He also gives lots of statistical data, lots of observation. It's not pure theory. It's not pure logic going on. It's sort of a mix of logic and sentiment and observation. What do people do in society in terms of their commercial relations, their moral relations, their intellectual pursuits? They were studying all these different facets of human culture. And that's part of what was so interesting about this period. You had philosophers, obviously, but also artists and inventors and engineers and all these different people in different branches of knowledge interacting very closely and interested in this whole project of understanding human beings better. Well, let's turn then to the theory of moral sentiments, which of Smith's two big books, it's the one that our audience is probably less familiar with. What is Smith doing in that book? Well, he's doing a number of things. I think he's doing two primary things. One is he's doing a little bit of psychology. He is going out and looking around and trying to understand where do people's morals come from? Why do people have moral beliefs or ethical beliefs in the first place? So in that regard, he's just kind of studying, observing society and saying, this is the way it seems that people behave. At the same time, at a deeper level, and towards the end of the book, he's very clearly throughout also comments on is it good or bad that people form moral sentiments this way? He's generally very optimistic that through a process of interaction and exchange that generally good moral norms develop over time. And you have all of these private social norms that check people's behavior, promote social cooperation, and so on. But there were a few dangers. He thought people admired the rich and the famous too much. He thought they might value riches too much in a way that they think it'll make them happy. But it ends up they find out that it's not that sometimes our passions are so great that they overrule our reason and the views of an impartial spectator, which we might get into a little bit later. And so people don't behave morally for those reasons. But on the whole, it's observation. This is how people behave and inform moral judgments and then also commentary on whether it's good, how it's good, how it's bad, how it can be better, and how in particular individual people can pursue virtue and thereby pursue happiness in a better way. So what is this process of forming moral judgments or making moral decisions look like compared to so when we talk about moral philosophy and free thoughts, we talk about how at least in the current era, it tends to break down into two major schools. You're consequentialists who, to make a moral decision is to weigh the various outcomes and pick the one that leads to the best circumstances at the end of the day. And then the deontologists who say, if I'm trying to do morality, it means having a set of rules and just applying following those rules. Does Smith fit into one of those or what is the process of making a moral decision look like in this sentiment's approach? Good question. I think he doesn't quite fit into either, in my opinion. And so the way that he thinks about morals and moral development is very social in many ways, which might kind of give you a moral relativism perspective. And at the same time, he also has maybe more of those deontological perspectives. He thinks that there are principles or virtues that are important and persist over time. And yet the way you carry out those virtues can vary a lot. What it means to be respectful, what it means to be generous, what it means to be brave versus foolhardy actually can vary a lot by circumstance and by culture over time. So it's a little bit of a mix of those things. But here's the process, a very abbreviated process of how it works. He says, first of all, his main point is that human beings naturally have sympathy for one another. And by sympathy, he really means empathy. That is to say, we can relate to and imagine how other people feel and respond and put ourselves in their shoes, so to speak. We can imagine how they feel if they've been wronged. We can imagine their thankfulness if someone has given them something out of generosity. We can put ourselves in their shoes. And similarly, they can put ourselves in our shoes. And what Smith says is that what really moderates and guides people, keep people's behaviors, is that we are concerned about how impartial spectators would view us and judge our behavior. Someone who is not partial to us, looking on to whatever situation or circumstance we're in, would they look at our response and say, yes, you have an appropriate amount of thankfulness, or maybe you have too much thankfulness. Maybe you're fawning, or you have an appropriate amount of anger, or maybe you're overreacting, you're way too angry. And so we moderate, we, the actor, moderate our passions and our responses to things that happen to us and our motives based upon either what literal people around us, impartial spectators around us, would say or think about our behavior. And then a step removed, which we can get into in a little more detail, is we can also create in our mind an imaginary impartial spectator. After we've experienced years and years of impartial people around us commenting on our behavior, our responses, our motives, we begin to form in our mind, even when there are people around, we have this sort of imaginary impartial spectator that still can check our actions, where we think, OK, how would other people view this, even if there aren't other people there? So this sounds, as you're describing it, it sounds very Aristotelian in a lot of ways. Is there any sense that Smith was influenced by that, or was part of that tradition? Yes, that's an excellent question. I think it's certainly fair to say he was influenced by it. The last book of the theory of moral sentiments goes through and looks at a number of philosophers or philosophies over time. And he kind of compares and contrasts his theories with those of Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, the moral sense theorists, utilitarians. He talks about Mandeville. He looks, he goes through a broad group of theories and compares and contrasts himself with them. So Aristotle, he certainly draws on. He also draws on the Stoics a lot. So the short answer to your question is that, yes, I think there are certainly Aristotelian elements to this. Well, it seems like the other interesting thing, in addition to the Aristotle element, which was very about, again, like man, how a man can live a good life and the way you describe theory of moral sentiments and then the way you had described the themes of the Scottish Enlightenment that it was more empirical, it was more about looking at how people actually behave. So it seems like he's doing somewhat almost anthropology here. So partially he's saying here's how people actually behave and any good moral system would have to work with how people actually behave. And less giving moral truths from on high, whether it's a moral book that says the way to do morality is to ask what God wants or what some sort of command is needs. This is far more anthropological than from the bottom up, which seems to fit into the rest of the Scottish Enlightenment and also his future work. Yes, yeah, I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that Smith, in a way, if you want to compare him to Aristotle, I think you could say he has a much weaker sense of telos or ends. Not that there's no ends, that there's no telos, which many sort of social theorists might go if you go way down that path of complete kind of moral relativism, social and moral relativism. He does have a sense of human beings having some kind of nature and of there being certain principles that are going to endure over time and across cultures. But he gives a ton of room for that to vary by cultural context, by person, by time period, by circumstance. I think much more so probably than Aristotle would. Well, that's kind of interesting, though, because a lot of moral theories would not give any room to vary with cultural context whatsoever. And I just think it's interesting because there seems to be a connection between this and looking at economics as sort of an anthropological endeavor of how people actually behave and not trying to impose something onto people that they're not going to do or don't have a predilection to do in the first place. Yes, absolutely. And actually, I don't know if you're familiar with Jim Ottison's work. He's... Yeah, Jim's been a guest on that. Yeah, for thoughts. He makes that comparison very strongly where he says just as an economics, you have exchange of physical goods and services. In morals, you have exchange of approval, disapproval, approbation and so forth. And so there certainly is, there are some strong similarities. So the way that you've described theory of moral sentiments, it sounds like a book that says, here's how human morality works, but does it have a... So it's a descriptive account, but does it have a normative account of morality where he says, look, here's how you ought to act, here's how morality ought to work? Yeah, so people dispute this. I think there is some of that in there. And I think it's in there for a couple of reasons. First, Smith talks about happiness a little bit. He says, why are people happier? How do people become happy? And he doesn't take a normal economist's point of view that says, well, people are happy when they can increase their utility through consumption of some form or another. That the more opportunities or the more wealth they have, the more consumption they have, the happier they will be. Smith says, look, consumption's really important and we should have it, but there's also like virtue is really important and you can have lots of consumption. If you lack virtue, you won't really enjoy it.  And he doesn't moralize in terms of he says, you the reader should do this, you the reader should do that, here are the three things you need to work on. But he's just very clear, like he says, people with a great deal of self-control and magnanimity, that's something that's admirable. Like he's very clear, that's admirable versus the other things are less admirable. What is the goal that we have? It's to, we have this impartial spectator in our minds. He says, our goal should actually be to take on the views of the impartial spectator in every way that we can of our own behavior so that we moderate our behavior to be perfectly proper and virtuous in the eyes of an impartial spectator. And so he speaks of that in very normative ways. I'm not just saying this is what people do, but like this is a good thing to do. And it's what we strive to do in general. So he writes this book in 1759 when three of Moral Son of Men's, correct? Correct. So he writes this book about moral philosophy. And then I think that a lot of people would say that what he did next seemingly would be decided to change subjects and study sort of proto-economics and look into economic money and economies and spent and sort of completely changed his focus academically to focus on exchange and proto-economics. And then 27 years later, or sorry, 17 years later writes the wealth of nations, which is just a totally different subject matter than the theory of moral sentiments. Because we say, oh, this is an economics book and this is a theory of moral philosophy. And people today would say, those are not at all the same thing. Is that an accurate, did he totally change his subject matter in those intervening years? Sounded like a leading question. You think so? No, so I don't think that really describes what was going on at all because, first of all, economics is not a discipline back then. He's just moral philosophy. And remember that the Scots are really concerned with the science of men and understanding people in all the different aspects and ways that they relate to each other. And what you do highlight is there has been a lot written about this in the 1800s. There was what's called the Doss Adam Smith problem where the German philosophers in particular came in and said, look, you've got the wealth of nations, which is all about self-interested exchange. And then you've got the theory of moral sentiments, which is all about virtue and benevolence and self-control and caring for other people. And they say these two books are very different and can't be reconciled. A lot's been written reconciling those. I think the consensus today is that there's not a deep problem, but here's why. One way to reconcile them is to say, first, that Smith is addressing people in different contexts. In the theory of moral sentiments, he's talking about personal relational interaction. How do you respond to individual people, family, friends on a day-to-day basis and all the different kinds of interactions you have over the course of the day versus the wealth of nations is talking about how do you interact with strangers? And in particular, how do you interact with strangers regarding commerce and trade and production and so forth. And I think you could apply the ideas of theory of moral sentiments to the types of transactions that go on in the wealth of nations and find a great deal of consistency between the two in terms of treating other people properly of understanding that they're seeking their self-interest and I'm seeking my self-interest but we're engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange. And that's quite all right. Like, we're both aware of that. We're both benefiting and that's a totally proper thing to do. An impartial spectator would look at that and say that is totally appropriate and like a good thing to be doing. And that situation versus if you know your five-year-old gets up and you're trying to trade his cereal with him for him to do something for you, an impartial spectator might look at that and say, you know, something seems off about that. That sort of social relationship, the way you're trying to make that exchange doesn't seem quite right. First in the marketplace, the impartial spectator would say, you know, that's totally appropriate and good. Also, sorry, one other thing I wanna say about this as well is that yes, there's a 16 or 17-year gap or 18-year gap, I guess, between when Theodermal Sentiments was published and The Wealth of Nations, but we have some records from student notes that he was talking about many of the themes in The Wealth of Nations while he was teaching at Glasgow. So the idea is it wasn't, okay, I've written, I'm just thinking about moral philosophy. I've written my book, I'm gonna turn to this other thing. We have evidence that he was already thinking through and talking about a lot of these ideas even before he went to France. Some people say he took a lot of his ideas from the French economists, but we have evidence that even before he left, he had been writing, talking about these issues. And then The Wealth of Nations is a big book. He took his time to get the details and to really put it all together. Well, The Wealth of Nations is big, not just in the page count sense, although it's, yeah, it's very big in that regard, but it's also, it's big in the sense that it's widely regarded as the foundational text of modern economics. So maybe before we get into the content of The Wealth of Nations specifically and Smith's contributions to economics, what did economics look like before Smith? That's a good question. I think the answer is it was a kind of a hodgepodge. So people dispute this in a number of ways, but, you know, when I teach students about sort of the history of economic thought, there's not a real strong theme of this economic ideas being developed in a consistent manner. It's more episodic, that is to say, you have a philosopher here who talks about prices and you have a philosopher here who talks about wealth and whether it's good or bad. You have this philosopher that talks about, you know, whether this exchange is justified or not. And so, what you find, I think, is that leading up to Smith, more and more people are talking about economic issues from Mandeville and Locke. You have the School of Salamanca, which is you're talking about, in a relatively sophisticated way, talking about various kinds of supply and demand issues, subjective value issues, but it's relatively disconnected. It's a philosopher. It's mostly philosophers or theologians or people who are doing other things who then will kind of comment on economic issues as opposed to people really tackling it as a subject area or as a comprehensive field, if you will, that explains and applies to a ton of different phenomena in society. Now, was the word economics even being used in that fashion at the time? I mean, I actually don't know the answer. I've only read large sections from Wealth of Nations, so it's been a while. Is the word economics in the Wealth of Nations? Or like prominently or often, at least? That is actually, that's a really good question. I think that economics or economy by itself is not so much, what most people talked about was political economy. And political economy, remember, is really, is this Aristotelian idea where Aristotle talks about ordering a household. And so when Aristotle talks about economic ideas, it's like within a household production, how do households produce things. Then political economy is the idea of, well, let's apply the household to the country. How does the country organize things, laws, rules, and so forth? So political economy was a term that was used by many people in Smith's Day and people had written about it. But in more of a household management, mercantilist public policy perspective, not applying what we think of as like microeconomics, studying individual behavior in a really detailed, thorough way. So getting into the book itself, let's start with the title, which as you mentioned earlier on, is not the Wealth of Nations. It's a little bit longer title than that. That's right. Yeah, so it's actually an inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. And what does that tell us? Yeah, which is interesting. I mean, it tells us, so inquiry is just, talking about what it's studying, but it's two parts. It's the nature and the causes of wealth in countries in particular. And he certainly talks about the nature of wealth throughout the Wealth of Nations, but it's a little bit, definitely the minor chord. What he's really talking about is how wealth is generated over time. But he does spend time saying, look, wealth is not simply how much gold and silver you have.  Wealth, what we really care about is what material stuff do people have that they can enjoy? And he talks about the common laborer, being able to have coats or having access to food or shoes or beer. He talks about beer. He's like, it's sort of the things that we can consume and enjoy and have. Like the more of these sorts of material things that we can have, the more wealth we have as individuals or as a nation. And he's responding very strongly to, mentioned earlier, this mercantilist idea, which is that, well, for countries to be powerful, they need to collect a lot of gold and silver to pay their militaries. And Smith points out, and Hume has talked about this as well earlier, but that accumulating gold and silver is not going to feed people or clothe them any better. And in fact, it's going to lead to inflation if it's in circulation and it's not going to really make a country that much stronger. Because what do you need for armies? Soldiers aren't gonna eat gold and silver. They're not gonna wear gold and silver or put it in their guns, right? You actually need stuff that you can produce. And so it's the productive capacities of a country, whether in warfare or in peacetime, that are really of concern. And that's what Smith spends his time analyzing and talking about in the wealth of nations. Early on in the book, he gives this rather famous example of the pin factory to illustrate how specialization works. Can you tell us about the pin factory and what point he's making there? Yes, it's actually, it's beautiful in its simplicity. And I think Smith was really onto something in terms of we're still asking the question today, how is it that countries can become wealthy? Why are some countries wealthy and others are not? Asimoglu and Robinson, two prominent economists, wrote a book recently, Why Nations Fail? And they're asking the same question that Smith was asking 250 years ago. And Smith's description of what generates wealth, why countries become wealthy is relatively simple in terms of when people are free to exchange and there's a large market, there's this natural incentive to divide labor and specialize. And when you do that, you become far more productive. So, and this is what the pin factory is about. He says, imagine someone working in a pin factory, you're trying to create pins and there might be 15, 20 different operations to the pin, you have to pull out the wire, you have to cut it, you have to sharpen it, you have to put the head on it, you have to package it. There are all these different parts to doing it. He says a single person who is doing all of that by himself would have to move from task to task might have to move around the factory floor. He would be slow, he wouldn't be great at any of the tasks and maybe at the end of the day, he produces 20 pins. You can add more people, but if they all work independently, you're just adding 20 pins per person. Maybe you have 10 people all working independently. At the end of the day, they produce 200 pins. Not terribly impressive. But he says in the pin factory, if you divide the labor and you specialize, so you have one person who is just pulling the wire, one person who's just cutting it, one person who's just sharpening, he says what you discover or what you get is a huge, huge burst in productivity. You might go from 10 people producing 200 pins a day to 10 people producing 20,000 pins a day. Just because you save in terms of efficiency and wasted time moving around, as people specialize, they get much better at what they do. They get faster, they find ways to innovate doing whatever simple task or tasks that they have, doing it better and more efficiently. And you specialize within a pin factory, but you can also specialize across an entire economy, and you get all these gains in real productivity through this process of specialization. So this was really, again, it's difficult for us to often remember what it was like to think before certain revolutionary thinkers created new concepts or discovered them, but this had really never been hit upon before Smith, or at least in not any popular way. It seems so obvious.  It seems so obvious. Or you make the interns split up. Some of the interns like the envelopes, and some put the stuff in. But I mean, it seems crazy that at least no one had ever popularized that. Was it just him saying that this was actually the source of the wealth of nations that was the kind of new observation he was making? Yeah, that's a great question. I think what Smith really brings to the table, as I said before, is he really brings a big picture perspective. So that example of the pin factory, actually, I don't think is original to Smith. I can't remember where he got it from, but I think it may have been like in an almanac where someone had kind of just talked about, hey, this pin factory produces more because people divide tasks. But the person who put that example together didn't really explain how that applies not just to a pin factory, but to every kind of factory, and not only within factories, but across factories. And another example that Smith gives in the first part of the wealth of nations is he talks about a woolen coat and how to put a coat together, you actually have dozens or hundreds of people in many different countries contributing to that process. And that is the division of labor extending beyond a single factory across countries, across many individuals in many different occupations. And that is generating unbelievable amounts of wealth and production at lower and lower costs. And no one had really talked about it that much in sort of that grand scale. They saw individual examples, of course, people experienced every day. You know, if I spent a lot of time doing something to get better at it, if we share our labor, we tend to get a little more done. But Smith, I think, really brought that big picture vision and said, you know what? This is happening not just here and there, but it's happening throughout the entire country, throughout the entire economy, and even across economies. And we can see, particularly on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, you saw technology coming into play in a new way and all of this is really coming together and he kind of gives us the really big picture of like, this isn't just a one-off thing here or there, but this is actually happening throughout society and is really making a difference in how much stuff we can produce and have. This idea is fairly straightforward. The pin factory makes the point quite clearly and the argument that this wealth comes from specialization and trade and not propping up industries or hoarding gold. So I guess the question is, if that's what he's getting at and it's relatively straightforward, then what is he talking about for the thousand-plus pages of the book? Right, that's a good question. I think he is doing empirics. I also think it's important to remember that Brevity was not a huge goal of 18th century writers. This is true, they were not rewarded for that. But what he does is, one, he looks at a lot of different cases and issues, and he really just does a lot of empirical stuff. He looks at different industries, he looks a lot at laws, he looks at how laws affect this exchange. So you've got division of labor because people exchange, you get specialization, but very importantly, the division of labor is limited by the extent or the size of the market. You might be able to produce 20,000 pins a day, but if people are only willing to buy 1,000, then that's not terribly useful. Yes, you have a lot of pins, but people aren't paying you for them, you just have all these pins sitting around. And so if the demand is only for 1,000 pins a day, then it doesn't pay, it doesn't make sense to specialize that much.  And so you actually need large markets in order for specialization to make sense. And that's one reason why he was very, a big advocate of free trade is you're extending markets outside of a country. And certainly he advocated free trade within a country. So he talks about that, but he talks about a number of things. He talks a lot about supply and demand, about the skills that are brought to the table, how people develop skills. He talks about a lot of public policy, education, taxation, public works in the last book. He attacks the mercantilists for a whole book about why a lot of their theories are really destructive and don't make sense. Can I just interrupt you for a second there? Sure. Can you give a summary of what the mercantilist vision was because I think it used a lot, but like what exactly was that? You kind of mentioned a little bit about sort of countries and armies, but was it pretty much that? I mean, that was sort of, that was the predominant view when he wrote this, correct, was that correct, would you say? It was a very popular view, certainly. I don't know how predominant exactly, but it was very popular, particularly among people who were trying to get the attention of politicians because the mercantilists wanted certain policies to be put in place. And so they were constantly lobbying Parliament to put these laws into place. And the mercantilists varied in terms of how scholarly they were, a lot of merchants signed on to mercantilist policies because it helps them. So the mercantilist idea, it's basically early forms of protectionism where they argue a number of different things, but the main idea is that when we import goods from other countries, we are exporting gold and silver. We are not producing those goods ourselves that come in so we don't have as many jobs. And that is gonna hurt our country relative to others. So if England is importing wine from France and cloth from France and other sorts of things, that is making France stronger and it's making England weaker. Versus when we export goods from England to France, we're making England stronger and France weaker. So they see the money flows represent some kind of strength or influence.  I mean, I'm sure you can already hear a lot of echoes of this in modern political rhetoric. There's a certain guy with tiny fingers that you're kind of sounding like that now. The 300 year old myth that he's still perpetuating. That's right. I make a lot of hay with my students about how this is really amazing. There's always a role for economics and economic thinking because people never really get past it. But the mercantilists were arguing this and so what they proposed is they said, look, if imports are bad and exports are good, we should do two things. One, we should make it difficult to import. We should tax all the imports so that we import less and we take some of the money that would go to France and we put it in our treasuries. And we're also going to try to encourage exports where we might even provide subsidies or bounties is the word I think that Smith uses to some of our exporters to encourage our companies to produce more and then export it to France or Germany or other countries. And Smith, of course, highlights that this doesn't make any sense for all kinds of reasons. Justice reasons, efficiency reasons, that it's not really making countries stronger to have more gold and silver. He really takes them to task on this issue. So people think as Adam Smith today though, the thing that we haven't mentioned this yet and so it's a conspicuous absence is this idea of the invisible hand. In fact, probably most people think the invisible hand is what the wealth of nations is about. So is that accurate and what is the invisible hand? Sure, the invisible hand is an analogy in a sense. It's describing how we can think about market process. When we think about millions of people going about their days, making decisions about what to buy, what to sell, what to produce, the question we have is how do they decide that and what effects do those decisions have on the well-being of other people? We might think in sort of a utilitarian sense, well, what we want people to do, we want people to produce stuff that benefits others and we want them to work in areas that are in high demand. We want them to serve other people. I wanna make sure they get served as well. We can think about, we can describe a really prosperous society that there's a lot of human flourishing. But how do we get people to do that? How do we know what each individual person should do and how much of what they should do and when and who gets what? And it's actually become a very, very difficult question. And what Smith says is you know what? With markets and prices, people are led by an invisible hand. It would be as if we were telling them what to do or God were telling them what to do, but he's not literally telling them what to do. The hand is invisible, but it's as if they are being led by an invisible hand to do things that benefit themselves and other people naturally, automatically without any sort of human direction, particularly from governments, but even at more local levels without a lot of human direction, people by pursuing their own interests and following price signals and engaging and making themselves and their families better off are actually gonna do things that are beneficial for others. And now people use the invisible hand as it almost stand in for markets, but often people who use that are somewhat derisive about markets or about Adam Smith, I had a woman ask me a question about on a panel one time and she was like, now this guy over here doing his Adam Smith, me, me, me, greed first economy stuff, like I don't even wanna, she's actually mean to me. And I said to her, I was like, I think you really should read Adam Smith before you bring his name up again, but a lot of people think that that's what Adam Smith is. It's a greed is good, I ran kind of thing and the markets always work. Is that a accurate characterization of Adam Smith? No, no, it's not. I think self-interest is really important, no doubt, but the self-interest he talks about is sometimes people call it enlightened self-interest. I'm kind of ambivalent on that term myself, but I think he refers to self-interest as a natural and a good thing in market context, but maybe not in other contexts. And the self-interest is always constrained by morality and virtues, okay? If you're self-interest, if you're material, if you're trying to pursue your material self-interest by cheating your customer or creating shoddy products or cutting corners, Smith would say, you know, that would be an impartial spectator who saw you doing that and knew what you were doing would disapprove of that. They would say what you were doing was wrong and it would be wrong to do that. And so that self-interest that has run amok. And the great thing about markets though is that usually that gets corrected. You know, if you sell bad work, people discover it over time and you lose customers. And Smith was very aware that markets actually discipline self-interest that is at the expense of other people for the most part. That being said, it takes time and markets don't work perfectly. Smith makes some exceptions. He doesn't say that government should do nothing other than promote justice. He says, well, there are some areas where maybe people have trouble coordinating towards providing some public good or maybe there are externalities. He doesn't use the word externalities, but maybe there are costs that people might impose on others unintentionally that we should be concerned about. He has a few exceptions, but his general thrust is very much that people should be free to pursue their self-interest which includes the interests of their family and their friends and includes benevolent motives as well. And that by operating within markets in a rule of law framework, their self-interest is gonna be a really good guide towards making the world a better place. We've had 240 years since the publication of The Wealth of Nations. Yeah, 1776. It's been incredibly influential book, but in that time economics has developed. And so what does Smith, if anything, get wrong? Or important things he gets wrong. He may have described weird things but at least important concepts. Yeah, that's a great question. I think one of the biggest areas that he's criticized for is he doesn't have a very good theory of why things have value. So some people accuse him of having a labor theory of value which is partially true often when he talks about how valuable things are in terms of prices in the market. He describes it in terms of hours of labor that it took to produce that thing. There are different ways to interpret this. You might say, well, he's just thinking in an equilibrium framework where people move to what's most valuable and they have a certain amount of labor. But he can't get off the hook entirely here. Smith and his followers, Ricardo in particular, Mill to some extent, Malthus and others kind of pick up on this idea that, well, the value of things depends at least in part on how much effort people apply to it, how much work they applied to it, how much goes into it. Rather than today, economists would say, no, no, no, it's all subjective. Like the value of goods and services is purely on the side of the consumer and how much work goes into that, that's the supplier's problem. It's not gonna make it more or less valuable in the consumer's eye unless there's something that they do that makes it more valuable for the consumer. And Smith did not have a very clear conception of that at all. And it shows, like if you read later political economists or economists before the marginal revolution, they really have trouble with thinking about what value means and how value comes about and how to value different goods and what prices are actually telling us. Well, I wanna actually use the word marginal revolution and I think it's probably worth since we're kind of going in the thrust of this to fill that little gap in, what is that revolution? Sure, so this is another issue. Something that Smith didn't really see or talk about which is that when we try to analyze people's behavior, the choices that they make, we really wanna ask not how much do they value something in general but how much they value something specifically. So for example, if we're trying to understand how many pieces of pizza someone chooses to buy for lunch, we don't wanna just ask how much do they like pizza but you wanna think, why would they buy two slices of pizza instead of six or one slice instead of five or how do they decide when to stop buying pizza? All right, if they decide they wanna buy some, why don't they just keep buying it over and over and over again because it's not like they value pizza as a category less than they did before. And so marginal thinking is saying, well, you know what, how much they value an individual slice of pizza at that point in time actually depends on how many pieces of pizza they've had. That first slice of pizza is gonna be more valuable than the second or the third or certainly than the fifth. And so that's really important for understanding utility, understanding people's willingness to pay for goods and also it applies on the supply side as well. Anyway, Smith didn't really have much of a conception of that, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, none of them really talked about marginalism at all. And so the marginal revolution is what we refer to as this brief period of time in the early 1870s where three different prominent economists, Leon Wall-Raw in France, Carl Manger in Austria and William Stanley Jevons in England, all within a couple of years published major works talking about the importance of looking at utility on the margin and also talking about how utility, in terms of utility of the consumer is subjective and that is where value comes from as opposed to how much work or resources or labor goes into producing something. For non-scholar listeners, non-economists, so The Wealth of Nations is a very big book. The theory of moral sentiments is not as big but it's still a rather large book. And they're not written, they're written well but not in the stampious modern prose. Yeah, but so if you, The Wealth of Nations is the big economic treatise, but if you've gone out and picked up economic treatises today, they're often rather opaque and not written for the non-specialists. So is there value, say for our listeners in reading The Wealth of Nations today? Yes, I think so. Even for non-economists, I think so. But I wouldn't suggest that they read the whole thing. What I would suggest is read the first three or four or five chapters of the first book of The Wealth of Nations. That's where he really unpacks the division of labor, the extent of the market. He talks about money and where money comes from and sort of an emergent institution sort of framework. And then I would also, for those who are interested, you could look at book five where he talks about a lot of policy issues. Some of it's dense and it is long but if you really are interested in like tax policy or education, all those sorts of things, you can kind of see what Smith says there. Again, for the non-specialists, but really those first couple chapters, you can find them online on Econ Library. Definitely worth reading the first several chapters. And then you kind of pick and choose as you see things that interest you. And for theory of moral sentiment, it's a hard book. It's worth going through. For those who are daunted by a 400-page book, Russ Roberts' book, How can Smith Can Change Your Life is a really good introduction. Which we did an episode with Russ which we'll put in the show notes so you can link to that. Yeah, so that, for those who have less time or want to just get a taste of it, that's a great introduction. And you get a lot of quotes from Smith. So you can kind of see how Smith writes and get some of the beauty of his language. But for those who are really interested in moral theory, the theory of moral sentiment is really a wonderful book, very interesting, provocative. And I think really helpful actually for particularly libertarians to think through when we believe in limited government and a lot of freedom and choice for individuals, what can we say about moral issues? What kinds of moral judgments can we make about other people's freely chosen lifestyles or consumption choices? Like can we say anything? Can we say nothing? And I think Smith gives us some nice tools and a framework for thinking about that in a socially and culturally sensitive way while still holding on to that little bit of telos or that idea that there are certain virtues and principles that are important and enduring. Thank you for listening. Free Thoughts is produced by Evan Banks and Mark McDaniel. To learn more, find us on the web at www.libertarianism.org.