On this episode of Skeptico, the science battle, and a clip about a real battle.  Waiting sir. Waiting for what? Private Doss.  That's from the movie Hacksaw Ridge, the true story of a warrior. In this episode we probably call him a light warrior. We'll explain what that means in a little bit. But he's a guy who in World War II wouldn't shoot a gun, but as the scene that I just played shows, he had gained so much respect from his fellow warriors that they wouldn't go into battle until he finished praying. And like I mentioned, real story. This guy Private Doss was a real person, conscientious objector, went into one of the most horrific battles in World War II, bullets flying all over his head, pulls at least 75 soldiers out of the battle to safety, risking his own life every time going back and back and back to save more lives. Yeah, that's a warrior. But you might be asking, what's all this warrior stuff? I mean, we're just talking about science here, right? He would try to tell other lay people, you see, he's not a real scientist. He's more of a sort of a mystic, but it's true. I became a neuroscientist based on a few spiritual experiences that happened in my life. That's Dr. Mario Beauregard, and if you've been around skeptical for a long, long time, you'll remember that I interviewed him 10 years ago about his book The Spiritual Brain and Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul. Keep in mind this guy's not a religious guy. He's just following the data. So now Dr. Beauregard has a new book and you'll hear about it in this interview with him. But you also hear that although he's been engaged in the battle for a while, he's a warrior that senses that the battle is changing. It's very hard to be able to unite because there are many differences. Even post-materialist scientists include people who are not spiritual at all. A lot of these scientists, they don't want to have any problem and they don't want to go out and to face... They're not warriors, light warriors. They're not willing to do that. But in my case, it's very different. I'm an author. I'm a warrior. I'm used to it because I've been trained like this. I had to fight for my survival and so it's okay for me. We're fighting with more than materials at the East in so-called skeptics in science. The fight is much bigger now. It's dark versus light. It's darkness and it's a spiritual war. Like you, I'm not religious at all. My parents wanted me to become a priest but that was not for me. I have a sense of mission so I do what I have to do.  By doing what I've done, I made a lot of friends all over the planet. The ultimate version of materialism and atheism is transhumanism. I'm in contact with people all over the planet and friends and the same process is going on in many, many countries. Yes, a lot of people were not realizing what was going on. Now they're switching. They're changing. I can see that everywhere. So I'm very optimistic but it will be rough, bumpy for a while. But I think they're cooked on the other side. I can't stay here while all of them go fight for me. What you figure this war is just going to fit in with your ideas? I don't know how I'm going to live for myself if I don't stay true to what I believe. And so the battle continues. No big. We were made for this. We were made for this time, this place, this battle. Stick around for my interview with Dr. Mario Beauregard. If you like it, tell somebody. Welcome to Skepticoe where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Sicaris. And today we welcome actually welcome back Dr. Mario Beauregard to Skepticoe. If you've been with Skepticoe for a while, you might remember ten years ago. It's really been that long when we interviewed Mario about his excellent book, Brain Wars. But in case you remember, he doesn't stretch back that far. Let me just kind of remind you. Dr. Mario Beauregard is a neuroscientist, multiple fellowships, dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed papers, publications all over the place. I'm even pulling up a picture of him hanging out with the Dalai Lama. He's done all these other really cool projects all around this idea that maybe we should look beyond materialism. And that would lead us to his latest book, Expanding Reality, The Emergence of Post-Materialist Science. So Mario, welcome back to Skepticoe. Thanks so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. Well, great. So tell us a little bit about what you've been up to. You've been hanging around with those wonderful folks at the University of Arizona and their consciousness paradigm busting exploits or endeavors lately. But what's going on in your world in general? Catch us up before we start talking about the book. Well, during the last few years, I've been involved in the development of what we could call the post-materialist paradigm. So we first met at the University of Arizona in 2013. So it was after the Grand Wars. And so we met with Gary Schwartz and I from the University of Arizona and Lisa Miller, a research psychologist at Columbia University. We organized a meeting and people from various fields, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, psychology. We gather with these people and lots of these people were very well known like Charles Starr, for instance, Dean Raiden, Rupert Sheldrake, Larry Dossy, and so on and so forth. All Mavericks in their own fields, all Black Sheeps, if you will. The meeting lasted for a few days and we examined all the evidence, the empirical evidence in the various fields of research challenging directly the old materialism. And following that, a few months after that, I drafted what became to be known as the manifesto for post-materialist science. And we all worked together on the multiple drafts and it was published four or five months after the meeting that was held in March of 2014. I think 14, and the manifesto was published three or four months later. And after that, there were a lot of reactions from the materialists, of course, but also from other people. And we asked people who were in line with this manifesto to sign it, to endorse it, and we received hundreds of signatures. And many of these people, we signed the manifesto, they were very well-known researchers, but many of them were retired, so it was not too dangerous for them to sign it. And then it was translated in the various languages around the world. And three years after that, we met again in Tucson, Arizona, and then we created an academy, the Academy for the Development of Post-Materialist Sciences. And we're pretty much the same founders, the same people. So now it's growing, and we've published a few books, collective books, about the primacy of consciousness and also the emerging post-materialist paradigm. Expanding reality, it's about all of these developments, but it's for laypeople, it's not for scientists themselves, but it's very simple to read. But it's a summary of all the empirical evidence showing us that now we need to switch to a new paradigm that we call post-materialist, but post-materialist doesn't mean much. It means that we are at a certain point from a historical perspective and that we need now to undergo transition toward something different, but this emerging paradigm is very much complementary with what was said for centuries by all the great spiritual traditions of the world. So it's like if science is now the new science of consciousness, it's converging with spirituality in a certain sense. Well, I think that's fascinating. I've been on this trail with you for a while in my own way, and I think it's all fine and good, and we're going to kind of get past all the fine and good for a minute. But I first wanted to touch on this book. I think a lot of people will find it, a lot of people listening to this show will find expanding reality, the emergence of a post-materialist science, a relative quick read, you know, a lot of stuff that we've kind of heard before, but it's nicely organized. I'll tell you, Mary, the one thing that really caught my attention and kind of surprised me was your personal spiritually transformative experience and in particular how you feel it's directly guided your work in this area. I just, I got to hear more about that. Well, before that, I didn't want to talk about this because I thought that it was in the perception of people and especially my enemies, the materialists, the atheists, contaminating science that they would use this information to attack me and they would try to tell other, you know, laypeople. You see, he's something, he's not a real scientist. He's more of a sort of a mystic or, but it's true. It's true that I became a neuroscientist based on a few spiritual experiences that happened in my life. I'm not alone because at the Academy, we were now creating a new book and that will be published probably in, I think, by the end of next year. And it's a collection of essays by 50 different scientists. And you can see when you read these accounts, it's very interesting because a lot of scientists decided to become scientists because of spiritual experiences. But it was never told before because it was taboo. We couldn't say that openly. Now I don't care.  I don't care what people may think. But yes, the first experience happened when I was eight years old. My parents were farmers here in the province of Quebec in Canada. And we had fields for the cows. We had a small forest and during the summer break, I went into the small forest.  It was quite hot and after I walked for about an hour and then I became tired and I decided to sit on a big gray rock. And while I was sitting on the big gray rock, I looked at all the trees that were surrounding me and I could see also the field which was far away in the cows. And all of a sudden everything became more vibrant. I knew that trees were alive but I entered into a sort of enlarged state of consciousness. And I realized that all the trees, the grass and even the rock itself were all part of a single whole unified being. And me, a small Mario was part of this unified field, this being. And so to me, my parents were a Roman Catholic and so I thought that I had encountered God. But what was interesting in this experience is that after that, after this insight, it's like if I downloaded information about my life plan. I received information showing that I was supposed to become later on because I was only eight by then but I would become a neuroscientist and my task would be to unite with other scientists around the world to demonstrate that the brain does not create the human essence, mind, consciousness, spirit. It acts as an interface. So that was the starting point and then I became very sick 12 years at the beginning of my 20s and I've had a near-death experience. And during the near-death experience, I've received more information about the kind of research program I would undergo a few years later. And so many, many times, journalists asked me, why did you do the study you did with regard to spirituality and, you know, contemplative nons in the scanners, things like that. Near-death experiences, these two experiences were the main reason I have to admit. That's really great and I'm glad you shared that because one of the interesting things about your work, that you have to, you don't really have to dig that far to get it, but is the spiritual angle, you know, you wrote a book, The Spiritual Brain, you've done, like I said, you've sought out the Dalai Lama to connect with spiritual people. You talk about spiritually transformative experiences and even that, you know, is a line that some folks in this frontier science, post-materialist kind of thing, it's a line that they don't want to cross and it's understandable too. It's particularly understandable for people who haven't had that direct experience. You know, I've spoken with Dean Raiden a couple of times. I don't get the sense and I've asked him that he's had that kind of direct spiritual experience. So he doesn't report on that. In a way, it's even, it's wonderful that we can have people who can intellectually get there as well as people who can experientially get there and then say, now let me see if my science can help me get there as well. So what do you make of that on a practical level? Because you're, you are a guy who has this then spiritual insight, the spiritual knowing that is so, so profound. But you've also had to walk a careful path down the science. Yes. Because I got a lot of thoughts on that, a lot of concerns that maybe we're not being aggressive enough and really kind of calling bullshit on what's happened. Yes. Well, I've not been balanced. I've not been wise because after these experiences, I knew exactly what I had to do and I wanted to do. So when I received my PhD at the University of Montreal, I had to do a postdoctoral fellowship that, how it works. So I checked the entirety of neuroscience back then. It was in the, you know, in the beginning of the 90s. Nobody was doing the kind of research I wanted to do. So I knew that I had to do something else. I had to wait for a few years.  And I knew that it would be a useful technology to study these experiences and to see what's going on in the brain. But I also met with famous neuroscientists who were still alive back then. And I told them about my dream, what I wanted to do.  It's a suicide. You will be destroyed. And I asked them, why? Why? Because it's then that I discovered that neuroscience is supposed to be objective, but as a science, but science is not objective because it's conducted by human beings. And human beings have all their, they have their own belief systems. They have emotions, motivations, hidden agendas and so on and so forth. And then I discovered that neuroscience was like, you know, religion. And there was a Vatican, there was a Pope, and there were a few central dogmas that you have to respect. And one of these dogmas was the idea that the brain produced the mind as, for instance, deliver, create certain enzymes, stuff like that. And so I started, right then I started to fight with these famous people from the Montreal Neurological Institute. And they were, I realized that they were playing a game. But the system was built upon a certain number of these assumptions and, and they, they made me realize they told me if you're not wise, and if you don't respect, you don't play the game correctly. You will be expelled. That's, that's what is going to happen to you. And this is exactly what happened 17 years after that at the University of Montreal. So I went to the United States to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Texas in Houston for a few years. And then I came back at McGill University at Montreal, the famous Montreal Neurological Institute. That was created at the end of the 20s by Wilder Penfield, famous Neuroscience, one of the pioneers of the neuroscience. And Penfield started as a mainstream scientist, as an atheist. And at the end of, the more he was progressing in his career, the more he started to have doubts about the central dogmas of neuroscience. And at the end of his life, he was, he had become a dualist. He, and he wrote a little book about this and he was quite old by then and his colleagues that I met were very old. They all thought that he has lost, you know, his compass that he lost it because he was a bit demented. But that, you know, he was seeing very clearly. And, but, you know, all these guys, what did Ed told me was right. And I experienced it myself because after McGill University, the University of Montreal hired me to become a researcher there. And we were starting the new brain imaging center and so I was involved in that. And everything went well for a number of years when I was doing the classical studies that they were expecting me to do. And the partnership with Dick Farmer and things like that, they enjoyed that. And there's a lot of money involved in this. And, but that's not what I wanted to do. So I started to do studies that were considered to be that didn't fit within the system. Because I, for instance, I convinced. Carmelite nuns who were living in the convent and they were contemplative so they were not supposed to leave the convent. But after several months of discussion, I managed to convince them to leave the convent and to lay inside a scanner functional magnetic resonance major scanner and to try to enter into a spiritual state and so on and so forth. And I've done several studies like that. And then I started to have problems with the direction of the medical school at the University of Montreal because and they started to try to intimidate me because they told me that they could play with my life professionally with my salary. And if I didn't listen to what they were telling me bad things would happen to me. And so I've been bullied like that for years. I never talked about this openly. That's the first time I do that. And I don't care if they come back in because I have too many proof evidence of that. And behind closed doors. They told me, you know, the leaders of the medical school, you cannot do this within the walls of the University of Montreal, this type of studies. We don't want that. We want you to do partnership with big pharma and the classical studies using all the various tools of neuroscience. And I said no every time they were doing that once a year, reviewing what I had done. So they refused to give me my tenure.  I was invited to meet with the Dalai Lama. I was invited to speak at the United Nations in New York. The department concerning science and evolution of society and so on and so forth. I was bringing them a lot of visibility but not the kind of visibility they expected from me. They didn't want that because and I realized that they were there to maintain an ideology in place. They were not interested in truth. They were not. No, they were interested in, you know, they had a system and they wanted to protect the system.  I was a maverick. And people start to say that about me all over the planet. But since I was a nice person, it was going well over the planet. I received offers from various universities around the world in United States and Brazil. And people were telling me we wanted to create something new. And so, but I was expelled in 2013 from the University of Montreal. My contract, my research contract, even though I had grants, it was not renewed. And they were not able to give me the reasons, the official reasons, because of course I would have hired a lawyer. I would have sued them, but some people spoke to me. People were members of the committees who decided what would happen with me. And some people have told me.  And they didn't want that. So a few weeks after that, Gary Schwartz was another controversial researcher, but at the University of Arizona. Two years before that, at the University of Arizona, they created the first research center on consciousness. And several well-known scientists and philosophers of science, like David Chalmers, they were all involved in the creation of Amroth and others. They were involved in the creation of this center. And Gary Schwartz didn't know me personally, but it's so funny because he said, there's an inner voice that told me to contact you. So he found my email address. He had seen my books. So he knew I was a, but, and then when I saw him online, he told me, is there something wrong? Or is there something that I could do for you because I'm pushed to, I don't know. I feel that I have to call you and to ask you what's going on. And so I explained to him what just happened to me. He said, at the University of Arizona, we would be proud to have somebody like you. We wouldn't see you like a black sheep, but to the contrary. Because there's open-minded, more open-minded for various reasons because of the people that were there. And so it was a mix-back. You had also the atheist materialist, but you had also more open-minded people. So that's how I became affiliated with the University of Arizona. It's another interesting story. And that's how after having talked to Gary and who I proposed, you know, to launch this new most post-materialist movement. And so he helped me and we organized the first meeting and then the manifesto, then the academy and so on and so forth. So right now I'm doing theoretical work about a new model of mind-brain relationship, including spirituality, spiritual experiences. Now that's, I think that it's a new, to me, this is the real new science of mind and consciousness. Not the old stuff of Candle and Edelman and Changer and all these old guys, you know, they did. Yeah, so I'm very much involved in this transition toward something new. And there's progress because some people like, for instance, Christof Cook was working with Francis Crick for several years. He was an opened materialist, atheist, like his former boss. And now he's changed his discourse. Now he's coming very slowly to our camp because he's recognizing that perhaps we won't be able to use materialist models to explain or to reduce consciousness. So it's a primary principle, but he's still trying to, like David Jalmers also, but these guys, to me, they're like chicken. They're not as enough courageous to say openly, you know, tell what you think real, because they have things to protect. The Cook director, he's the director of a research center and or an institute and so on and so forth. And in my case, I never, I never cared about all those things and I destroyed several relationships and I lost many opportunities because of that because I, you know, I was, I didn't care. You know, I just cared about what I felt deep within and my sense of mission, what I had to accomplish. And I knew it would be a battle, but you know, I decided to go for it because it's who I am. So I think that's a really, really important story and I'm glad you shared all that. I'm glad you shared that about Gary Schwartz because a lot of times he doesn't get credit for standing and holding that space, you know. So he's done some things and people can kind of laugh, you know, Geraldo and all the rest of that stuff. But no, he has marched forward and held that space and he's brilliant, right?  But the other thing that you said that I think is, is, is the next level stuff that we got to get to if we're really going to support gladiators of the light, which you are Mario, you are a gladiator of the light. You are not interested in compromise where in the scientific sense, right? So if a scientist isn't interested in stupid ideas and compromising and saying, well, you know, everybody has a point of view and if you kind of ran the numbers this way. No, that's our that's the beauty of science. Is it allows us to play this game that we really can measure things because we know we can't really measure things. But if we were going to measure things, this is the result that we have and this is where we get. So what are the things I want to do in this interview is kind of pull you further into and get your thoughts on how deep this thing goes, how deep this battle. And it really is. And this is again going to turn people off. But at some level, this is a deeper spiritual battle that we are somehow engaged in. And I say that not knowing what that means. I'm not a Christian.  But it's kind of hard to deny that there's some elements to this that do look like a battle. Let me play you a clip because in your book in this latest new book that people really need to check out as well as your other books, expanding reality. One of the things you touch on because you have to because it's such an important part of this whole story. It's such an important part of reclaiming our history is the remote viewing project Stargate at SRI. But it goes very deep. And in some ways it goes much darker than we're willing to sometimes go to. Let me play this clip. It's a couple minutes long. And then let's talk about it. I have an interview coming up in a minute with Lance. The creator of the fantastic movie Third Eye Spies. A true story of CIA psychic spine. Okay, I don't really have to play that clip and you can go listen to that show if you want. But also I don't have to play that clip because I kind of tee it up and summarize it to Mario here. So let me stop it there. My point is we have to fully embrace this history. We have to pull it apart. And I think frontier scientists like you are and we know the frontier scientists because they don't only have arrows in the front from the people they're pushing against. And they have arrows in the back too, because that's the guy who's always out front. He's got arrows in his back as well as the front. This is our history.  So the people at Montreal are playing some kind of game because the real players at McGill locked in the MK ultra lab. They were way past materialism. They were how do we operationalize this? How do we mind control people? How do we do telepathy? How do we do remote viewing? They weren't sitting around wringing their hands going, gee, is remote viewing true or is sensory deprivation true? Is disassociative identity in split person? Is that true? They were not questioning that. They were operationalizing it. That is our history. And so that's, I guess, point number one and point number two that comes along with it is a bunch of other weird stuff that we don't talk about because it's not comfortable to talk about. But, you know, that would include all the UFO stuff and all that. So let's just start with the first part of embracing our history, fully engaging with it.  It's one funeral at a time.  There is some kind of directive behind this that says we do not want to go in this direction. We do not want people thinking that there's that there are these expanded divine beings that are somehow connected to something much more. We want them to stay limited, controlled biological robot because that's fits more with our agenda.  Well, yes, I agree with you. It's a, it's part of a social engineering program. Clearly. And, you know, in the video, we talked about Sydney Gottlieb. Well, he had a double life. So he was a well known neuroscientist, pharmacologist, worked with big pharma was one of the pioneers actually. But he had, you know, he was doing in secret, all those experiments. And he was doing that with the people at Montreal Neurological Institute at the Allen Memorial, the psychiatric institute. So the, all the guys I was talking to when I was a spy neuroscientist. These are the people, the same people. Cameron, you want to talk about Cameron? I never met him, Cameron. No, but I met all the other ones. And so they were, you know, and it was clear that they were upset. And one of them told me, and she's very, she's a celebrity. She's almost a hundred years old now. Very famous. I won't mention her name because people will recognize her. And she told me, as long as I'm alive and I'm controlling the Montreal Neurological Institute, you'll never do studies, neuroscience studies on spirituality. Never. So she, she organized something with all the other members of the committee, the ethics research committee and the scientific committees to prevent me from doing these studies. I had her a grant from the Templeton Foundation based in the United States, but I was not allowed. They blocked me because and what, and I asked them, what for? What is the reason? And I, when I started to argue about them regarding spiritual experiences, they were becoming bizarre, totally. Like if so. And then I knew that it was more than it was a war, really, between two contrasting two different, totally different paradigms. Dark. And like, that's what I understood that. But I couldn't prove it. But now with everything that is happening on the planet regarding the, you know, what it's very obvious. Now it's very clear. I think I think it is obvious. And I think more people need to stand up and talk about it. And I think we need to wind it back a little bit because they've shifted the game a little bit. It's no longer about consciousness per se. There's no longer the Dawkins and, you know, that kind of stuff. But what they have introduced is kind of a direct, you know, you look at just Lane Maxwell being tried now. And, you know, this is Satanism and it's openly satanic practices. And we've interviewed people on this show that have been part of satanic ritual abuse cults. And you get to this, this associative identity disorder. And again, folks, don't take this wrong. I'm not a Christian. I don't know what a satanic cult is. I don't even know what that means inside of my worldview. I know that there is this extended realm that because people like Dr. Beauregard come back and say, hey, we study it scientifically. We study near death experience. I don't know what to tell you. There's an extended realm.  There's reincarnation. I don't know what to tell you.   We don't have to pull out the Bible and say this is what it means.  Those guys at McGill, the guys at Montreal knew there was an extended realm and they were playing with it. And they were trying to tap into it. And they were trying to justify it as, well, if we don't tap into it, and this could be both dark or light, if we don't explore all the sides of it, well, then darn it, the Russians will it. And what if they got Satan on their team? And believe me, folks, these are really the kind, if you look through the documents, the released FOIA documents released in the Canada and recently US, this is what these guys are talking about. And in one way, you kind of got to go, well, I'm glad somebody's at least considering that, but where they went with it in terms of the experiments that they did do and where they were willing to go and the lines that they were willing to cross, all of which were in this extended post-materialist realm, it gives us pause as to considering what you're saying is what is really behind them not wanting to go and look at this research. Yes, well, they are actors. They are participating in this battle, but they are on the other side, clearly. Yeah, because it's true that several of these old people were there when I started. They were part of this theme, exactly, that we're doing studies in collaboration with the CIA and the MKLTRA program. So let's take this one other direction kind of on a less, take it down a notch for people who can't maybe go there all the way.   How do you do that? Oh, yeah, and I earned several scientific prizes, awards and all over the planet. Yeah. That is, that is the proof right there. And here's what I kind of tie it back to. And that is, have we, and this is the way that most people in this community, this broader community that you work in that aren't willing to really entertain that discussion that we just had. They just can't go there where they can go is this idea that you alluded to that we have a sense right now that in some ways the social contract. Between science and policy between science and government between science and culture that that contract has in a way that I've never seen in my life just been thrown out the window.  Let me play a couple of clips really quick and then we'll chat about that. Okay. So the first is from our friend Rupert Sheldrick back in 2013 when he was, his TED talk was banned. And I'll play you my show on my interview with him just a few seconds of it and then we'll talk. On this episode of Skeptico, Alex talks with Dr. Rupert Sheldrick about being censored by the TED conference. The irony of this is, if not hilarious, it's certainly inescapable. I mean, a reputable scientist publishes a book claiming that science is dogmatic and then is censored by an anonymous scientific board. What does this say how science can be dogmatic without even realizing it's dogmatic? Well, I think in a way there's this whole controversy and the people who weighed in in favor of the TED actions do indeed confirm what I'm saying, that these dogmas are ones that most people within science don't actually realize are dogmas. They just think they're the truth. And the point about really dogmatic people is that they don't know they have dogmas, dogmas of beliefs. And people who have really strong beliefs think of their beliefs as truth. They don't actually see them as beliefs. So I think this whole controversy has actually highlighted exactly that. So I'm going to pause it there for a second. And I would almost say that those are the good old days because it seems like there was some restraint back then. There was actually, it caused a stir when a reputable scientist like Rupert Sheldrick was banned. People were kind of up in arms and say, hey, you can't do that. Science has a right to speak and speak freely. That is our social contract. That is what we demand. It's been broken. It's not there anymore. So let me play a clip from an interview I just did recently with Sarah and Jack Gorman. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. These people are super smart, qualified. Sarah, you know, undergraduate degree, Harvard, PhD, Columbia. Here's where I start, which seems obvious to me to anyone who cares about science. And that is, should we limit scientific debate? I do think that anybody who spreads information about a medical technology that people need in order to survive, that's not true. And usually it's intentionally not true. I don't think that they should be allowed to have any platform they want. Sarah, who would determine what's not true? Isn't that the job of science? Yeah, while science has already determined certain things about vaccines that they're safe and effective, certain vaccines that they're safe and effective. So I'll cut it off there. This is the water.  But what comes through to me and the reason I played the Sheldrick clip first, and you totally got this. So I want you to speak to it is it's different now. It's like Sarah Gorman, PhD from Columbia is really that clueless. She really, if they're burning books in Columbia in the center square that don't agree with her. Even if they're from the most reputable scientists who's published in Nature multiple times, which are as many have. And they're being banned. She's like, no, I'm bought into the program that we don't have to listen to people who don't agree with this. So speak to that because that if people don't get the spiritual warfare, they get they get that that's somehow a breaking of that contract. Well, that's the kind of scientists who will lead us to a tyrannical system. And that reminds me of something, you know, there's a famous university in Paris. It's very old. It's called the Sorbonne. It's a bit like Harvard, but for the French people. And about 10 years ago, they invited me to give a lecture on my work. And I went there and the organizers invited members of the French Academy of Sciences. That's, you know, that's an habit over there. That's how they do it. So they lit, they start by listening to you and then they will make comments on what you just presented. So I was seeing that during my talk and it lasted for a few hours, their pressure was rising. They were red. And at the end, the president of the Academy, very a noble man, very well recognized in France.  I said, I think I have an idea. They would use the gate, the guillotine or even they would burn you at the stake. Yeah. And people started to argue with them and because because they were late people, it was during an evening. It was a public lecture. But, but for scientists like Sarah. And this is exactly what's happening with regard to the so-called, you know what, I don't want you to be censored. So, yeah, this is exactly the same process. And there's no end to it. So, and this leads to tyrannical systems and very dangerous because if you agree with you, it doesn't make any sense. Mario in your career, because I guess one of my one of my gripes, I think frontier scientists like yourself are in a unique position to speak to this. And they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, and they should because we have to, we have to be the gladiators of light for the spiritual part. But the other part, even if you're not a gladiator of light, if you're not into all that, you got to be a gladiator of the truth. You got to stand up and say, this is not, this is not right. This is not true. And I think frontier scientists are in a better place to do it. And I think that I'm surprised more of them don't notice where we're at like you do. You seem to be able to put your finger on it and say, no, this is really different. We've now crossed a line to speak to that. Have we, how different is this? Is this feel different to you? Oh, yes, it's no, there's no respect anymore, no examination of the evidence, but now they do that openly. So with regard to the, the sanitary state of the world. And so last year in line with my convictions, I participate in a group of people who decided to sue the government, the provincial government and the federal government of Canada. But guess what happened? The judges, they're corrupted. They're part of the same system. So they, my role was to demonstrate scientifically to review the literature showing that you don't put people in normal people, healthy people in lockdown that last forever. You don't ask them to wear mask and so on and so forth. And I, I, you know, I reviewed all the scientific literature about this. And we sent that to the judges, but it was the Supreme Court, the highest level. The judges never review our lawsuit. They've examined it. They decided to sit on it forever to protect the puppet politicians who are in place right now. That's what they did. But it's, it's very similar in size. It's a, and you know, they have their own private club. And if you're not a member of this club and, you know, you, it will be very hard to accomplish something unless we unite. You know, but we need examples. I am willing to go because some, a lot of people behind closed doors, scientists, all during all my career, they said, that's nice, what you're doing. It's nice.  And so they need other people to fight. But, but how do we, how do we even unite is tricky, right?  There's still this, there's still this left, right thing that goes on. And it's, it's troubling to because I'm like, okay, I get that some people are just wired to be political. I'm not, I'm a political anyone to me, anyone who looks at this. You just see it's, it's, there's some level of control beyond that. But for people who are in that, what can we unite on? What, what do you think is a potential answer of something within this community that they can, they can coalesce on and everyone can more or less agree? Is it post materialism? Is it what do you think it is? Well, science is influential because it has replaced religion as the ultimate cognitive authority. So if you use the angle of science, you may convince more people because a lot of people have left the church, the churches for a few decades now. And so yes, yes, but like you're saying it's very hard to be able to unite because there are many differences. And, you know, even post materialist scientists include people who do not believe at all or not spiritual at all. And some of them are even almost at ease. So it's, it's difficult to, but what I decided to do to influence the outcome of the future of humanity. I decided last year in response to the so-called pandemic to create a new social network to unite people conscious, await people spiritually, spiritual people we could say, all over the planet. So now it's not only, it's not only science or scientists within, because a lot of these scientists do not want to, I know them, I interact with them. I'm part of the same academy, but they don't, they don't want to have any problem and they don't want to go out and to face. They are not warriors, light warriors, they're not willing to do that. And some of them are quite old now. So I can understand. But in my case, it's very different. I'm all for it. I'm a warrior. I'm used to it because I've been trained like this. I've been trained. I had to fight for my survival. And so it's good. It's okay for me to do this kind of job, but with other people. But I think if we have a global, we want a global transformation, we have to unite, but at a much wider scale than simply post-material science. Now we're fighting with more than materialists or so-called skeptics in science. The fight is much bigger now. It's dark versus light. It's darkness and it's a spiritual war, like you said before, to me. I have a sense that you're spot on on that. I also think we always have danced with this kind of inherent contradiction of post-materialist, which is kind of a strange term because it isn't really post-materialist. It's like pre-materialist. It's like consciousness is fundamental. Yeah, I agree with you. I didn't choose it. Yeah, right, right, right. No, I totally get that. No, no, you did the right thing, which is if we're going to communicate effectively, sometimes people don't get that we have to use the term. But I mean, you're almost in their playing field and it becomes kind of the Stockholm syndrome kind of thing. But it's like, no, it's obviously not. Science has obsoleted itself. That's the conclusion, right? It's like, we can't really measure everything because there's something beyond that. There's something above that. So you can't really get in bed with those people 100%. And that's what I think you're pointing to. And you're saying we have to we have to reach towards something beyond that. Let me ask you this as we begin to wrap things up. I am fascinated about your pre-cognitive experience that guided your life. And if we circle back to that, it's really quite remarkable. And I have to wonder, do you think you signed up for all of this? Do you think you knew it was going to be like this? Do you think you knew that, you know, you're not going to get, you may not get, you may not get the big prize at the end. You may not get the, at the very end, you might. But in this realm, you may not get the a pat on the back of, gosh, darn, Mario, you were right all along. We're so sorry kind of thing. Are you okay with that? Did you sign up for the whole thing? Yes. Yes. Yeah. No, yes.  I left the church when I was, he wanted to become my parents wanted me to become a priest. And, but that was, it was not for me. He sent me to a seminary, but I started to fight with the priest on, you know, I, regarding the Bible content. They are dogmas. And so, but no, I don't, I'm not doing, I have a sense of mission. So I do that. I do what I have to do. I don't care if people like me or hate me or, but you know what, by doing what I've done, I made a lot of friends all over the planet. I realized that, you know, the lay people, I saw a big progression from when I started to travel 30 years ago. From now, from past few, the last few years before that at the beginning of this craziness, there's an evolution of consciousness really in society. I see that. I can see that I see that because people write to me and talk to me about their own experiences and, you know, but and using social media now and there's really a so there will be a big clash because and I, and it's, it's right now, we're, we're in it now. It started. It's about two different worlds, two totally different trajectories. And, you know, the ultimate version of materialism and atheism is transhumanism.  They don't know anything really about consciousness and spirit and, you know, they, they, but they are trying to, you know, they're, they're, they're salesman and they, they are trying to convince so. But I'm not, I don't think their project will will be successful. I want to pick up, I want to pick up on that because I agree with you, but I want to be honest about it too. And I hold on to two quotes that are both inspirational and also I think true. And the first is Mahatma Gandhi who said, good always wins. Look at it through history. He says, I'm not paid to be, I'm paraphrasing, but he goes, look, I'm not saying that just to sound to make you feel better. I'm like, look at history, good wins, good wins. But the other quote I really like is from my friend, McGill Connor.  And I think, I think we might begin it be beginning to see that there's more people who are just kind of ordinary people who've just kind of held, kept their nose to the grindstone. They haven't listened to too much, but now they're kind of gone. No, dog, that's, that's just too frickin stupid, even for me to buy into that. Well, what do you think about that? What is there a reason to be, to maybe to let the light shine through us? Do we have to be dark and do we have to be down about this? Is there a reason to be optimistic? Yes. Yes. I see that. And I'm in contact with people all over the planet and friends. And the same is process is going on in many, many countries. And yes, a lot of people were, were not realizing what was going on or were not, they didn't care about that. But now they're switching, they're changing. I can see that everywhere. I have contacts, friends. And so I'm very optimistic, but it will be rough, bumpy for a while. But I think they are cooks on the other side. Right on. And I think science is going to play a key role in that because that is the beauty of science. It does shine a light towards truth. It may not be the truth, but it cannot know just a little closer. What do you think? Real science, not pseudo science, like the one utilized by puppet politicians right now.  They talk all the time about science and that's not science at all.  That's not true. That's, yeah, we're talking about real science, which has the power to change, to transform the world. Yes. So it's been absolutely terrific talking to our guest, Dr. Mario Beauregard. Please check out his books, his latest expanding reality you will enjoy. You can go back and listen to our interview on brain wars. And that's still relevant. And also a check out his very nice website where you can find what's going on with him. And maybe you can tell us in a couple of minutes we have left Dr. Beauregard. What is coming up in your immediate future?  You're very obviously a very driven and focused guy. What is coming up for you? I'm finishing to create a new psycho spiritual approach based on all the research I've done throughout my life. And also based on the findings of other researchers as well. I have come with a new psychospatial approach to help people know not mystics, normal people to have access to their inner essence, their spiritual side. And I have developed a kind of technology to do this. And to work with this with regard to all the various aspects of human life can be emotions, can be the life plan and so on and so forth. So it's a huge endeavor and it will become public in 2022 in French, but everything will be translated into other languages. That's fantastic. Certainly is ambitious. Do you say technology? Are you speaking of kind of a method, a series of techniques or kind of a model? I use isochronic sounds to alter, to expand the awareness. But I'm also using various types of exercises and sometimes guidance like you do in hypnosis a bit. I've been doing this kind of work for over six years with thousands of people in Europe and also in Quebec and Canada. And I realized that it's because very often the journalists were interviewing me about my research on spiritual experiences. And they were asking me, well, okay, it's interesting to know what's going on in the brain, but how does it help normal people to connect? So this stayed with me and so I worked on this and I developed an approach to facilitate the access to the spiritual world, if you will, without having to die clinically. That would be a requirement. Well, that's terrific. And I do hope you come back next year when it's out so we can tell people about it because I'm sure a lot of folks. Yes, because I want to go to Gary Schwartz has been pushing me since a few years to go to United States, present that. And I would like to do that very much too. But right now I'm in jail in Canada. I cannot travel. You know why. It's okay. It'll pass. It'll pass. Murray, it's been terrific, terrific having you on. Best of luck with all that. And let's stay in touch. You know, when you come down to Tucson, let me know. Sure. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thanks. Thanks again to Dr. Mario Borgart for joining me today on Skeptico. The one question I up from this interview is kind of an obvious one. What do you think of this idea of a battle in science, light versus dark forces? Come on. I mean, science is about doing good work, about protocol standards, publishing peer review, and deceiving others in order to advance the shadowy agenda of those who would seek to control. No, no, no, wait, scratch, scratch that. Of course that's not in there. That's never a part of science. Let me know where you stand on that one. Love to hear your thoughts. If you like the show, tell a couple of people. Lots more to come until next time. Take care, and bye for now.


They imagined about a building with solar panels and plants on it. It's amazing. I'm happy to be here. Let's put it this way. It's very eye-opening. This could be the future that we look into. I think it speaks a lot the possibility that we have with the green bonds. They have come all the way to Sweden from Thailand, Nigeria, Georgia and Turkey, bankers from emerging markets. Participants in a five-day program specialised training on green bonds and sustainable finance initiated by a member of the World Bank Group and the largest global development institution focused on the private sector in emerging markets, the International Finance Corporation, IFC. The aim of the program is to find ways to channel money from developed markets to emerging markets by way of green bonds in such a way that the money going to emerging markets will help these countries cope with the impact of climate change. Europe's leading asset manager Amundi manages the world's largest green bond fund. Participants learn from the fund managers what they expect from green bond issuers. By the end of the week, I believe that participants are actually very well-equipped and they understand very well what needs to be done to issue green bonds. So our expectation is that they would go back to their countries, do all the work needed and actually go ahead and issue the green bonds. And as Amundi and in particular for our Amundi Planet Emerging Green Bond Fund, we would be very happy to see those bonds and very happy to buy them. Delivering arguments to an investor to buy a green bond hands-on practice. Well, what we really want to do is to give the participants the opportunity to pitch to a real-life investor their own green bond framework. So that's a critical part of the whole green bond process and a very valuable one for them, I think, and also the opportunity to practice their persuasion skills for their own senior management. The main advantage of this program is that it is more comprehensive and more hands-on than anything that so far exists in the market. Out in nature, the program's venue outside of Stockholm offers peace, quiet and room for learning and reflection. First of all, it's a green environment, which is good. We are in a forest right now here. But in the green finance point of view, we have to keep this environment clean all the time. That's why we have to issue green bonds to keep such an environment in the world. I think this program is quite unique and it's kind of one of a kind. It provides a big overview, also in-depth details of the green bond as itself. And also we have access to a lot of experts in the field that can really give insights and answer any questions that we have. Here is where some of these experts work, Swedish Bank SEB, a first mover on green bonds. Sharing experience in pitching, issuing and reporting impact of green bonds. We look at Sweden as a kind of centre of excellence in green bond market because you have a lot of green bond issuance that we can study. Then you have an investor base. So you have a lot of pension funds who are very interested in environmental, social governance practices and they like green bonds. Sweden's capital Stockholm, home also to world renowned think tank Stockholm Environment Institute and to Stockholm School of Economics Executive Education, leading in that field. In terms of content we really try to find the needs of these participants. What is it that they need to get that final push and go home and issue green bonds? And then in terms of process we know from experience that it's important to meet different kind of learning styles. So we want to have a variation during the week in terms of lectures, workshops really have the time to reflect upon your learning and do hands-on work. Field trips are also part of the program. One goes to a school financed with a green loan, the construction, massive wood. It's just tremendous how much can be achieved with a bit of effort and planning. So I think the sky is the limit. There's so much that we're going to be able to achieve and the green bond is a useful part of kickstarting it. It's amazing to see what they achieved here, you know. If an investor see a project like this in my country they will invest in. For sure.


President Ronald Reagan once said that the greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He's the one that gets the people to do the greatest things. Well, the topic relating to any facet of leadership, be it leadership skills or its development is very immense and huge. I could speak on the topic for hours together based on my experience as well as having studied the lives of several leaders in different walks of life. But as I have limitation of time, let me just touch upon some vital areas of leadership. In the context of individual leadership, I would say leadership is the capacity and ability to lead, run, manage or guide other individuals, teams or entire organization. This is putting it simply. Research is conducted with regard to leadership has generated many concepts and characteristics which are essential for leadership. According to me, there are 18 characteristics attached to a good successful leader. Possessing some exceptional qualities, interpersonal dealings, crisis management skills, timely responses, spontaneous actions, defining roles, performance, conduct, behavior, power, mission, vision, goals, sensitivity, compassion and intelligence. My research shows that any good and successful leader should have minimum 10 exceptional characteristics. But the lives of leaders which I have studied, I have seen leaders, very few leaders who have 14 to 15 traits of leadership. They were Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Martin Luther King Jr. And in the present times I would say that the Chinese online retail giant Alibaba founder Jack Ma as a great leader. So I would sort of advise all of you that it would be worthwhile if you will go through the written material about their lives and biographies. You know of these four leaders whose name I have just shared. There are many commentaries on leadership skills and roles. But the aptest one I found was in the commentary by Jia Lin on Sun Tzu, Art of War, the most important and popular military classic of ancient China. You must read the translated texts of the Art of War. Jia Lin interpreting the text says that leadership, listen carefully, that leadership is a matter of intelligence. One, trustworthiness, humanness, courage and discipline. Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness, exercise of humanness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has these five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. And leadership is not a static role. It must develop and grow each day with the changing needs, challenges and evolution and expectations beg your pardon of the society or the cooperation as the case may be. The leadership is not about only yielding, holding power and authority. It's about good governance. It's about accountability. It is about creating more leaders. It is about leaving a formidable legacy. Leadership is about governing, not merely ownership, even an owner has to learn to lead. Indeed, its underlying principles have been long established and discussed at length in Arth Shastra which was written in the 4th century BC. This thesis of practice on governance and leadership is said to have been written by Kotalya, the Prime Minister of India's great Emperor Chandragupta Moria. In the context of leadership, one could draw the crux and core from the muleas or values found in Kotalya's Arth Shastra which reads as Praja Sukhe Sukham Rajya Prajanam Acha Hiteh Hitam Natma Priyam Hitam Rajanaha Prajanam Chayatam Priyam Which means in the happiness of his subject lies the king's happiness. In their welfare, his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him alone. So, I'll close by saying that leadership is a way of life and not a set of rules. A way of life that necessitates taking into account the interest of all concerned. Thank you so much and see you next time with another topic of your interest.


October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Mountain Top Spoe with Tammy Riley, the Public Health Director for the Pike County Health Department to learn about resources and statistics. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and in Pike County we're certainly wanting to raise awareness of local resources and regional resources that are available to individuals either suffering from domestic violence or at risk. You want to save money and Appalachian Wireless gets that. Right now you can get up to $650 off select devices including the latest and the greatest on the Advantage Unlimited Plan with a trade-in. Did y'all hear me? Up to $650 off select devices including the latest and greatest with a trade-in. I'm not a math whiz, but this deal, it's amazing and you'll be on the region's premier network. We are you, we are Appalachian Wireless. See AppalachianWireless.com with complete terms and conditions. Kentucky is currently ranked number one in the nation for domestic violence. Domestic violence not only puts individuals experiencing it at risk, but also first responders. We don't want individuals calling in the midst of a crisis calling 911 if it's not necessary, if they can call before we get to that crisis. We want to prevent the crisis. So we want to definitely increase education and outreach. If you or a loved one is experiencing domestic violence you can call Turning Point Domestic Violence Services at 1-800-649-6605 or Pike County Advocacy at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For Mountaintop News, I'm Kelsey Dean.


Hi, we're back. We're live at two o'clock block. I'm Jay Fiedel. This is Think Tech Hawaii. And the name of this show, which has a lot to do with the name of our guest, is Climate Change Beyond Outrage. That's the name she gave her show, which played on Think Tech for some years. Anu Kriti Hiddle, who is a researcher at East West Center researching climate change. Welcome back to your show, Anu. Thank you, Jay. It's a pleasure to be back. And yeah, I guess I play a researcher on television, obviously. I have a different day job. So happy to be back. Oh, good. Nice to see you smile and face. So let's talk about climate change. And the reason I say that is, first, this is 25th anniversary is something I would like to hear from you about that. And second, we don't talk as much about climate change as we used to. It's like the elephant in the room that nobody really pays attention to. So tell me about the 25th anniversary. Well, I was hoping to just tell you that let's talk about being 25. And that's where you come in and say, Anu, you look 29, not 25. To which I would say, no, no, Jay, I was talking about you turning 25. Anyway, thank you for that. Maybe we both remember when we were 25. I can't remember back that far. Neither can I.  That's right. So where exactly have they gotten us on? That's the question. So 25, that sounds like a big number, but I'm trying to talk about how my point with asking you, do you remember what you did when you were 25 is that 25 is really not very old when you come to think about it. And when you're talking about maybe 200 governments, are they how slowly government works and how slowly government moves? Do you think 25 years is a very long time? So, you know, people have been saying we've just had. So last year in December, we had COP 25 or the 25th year of the convention of the parties, which is the meeting. It wasn't a party. It was just a meeting of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change. So that's a mouthful, but it essentially led up to the what most people know as maybe is more familiar, the Paris Agreement in 2015. So when you really look at it, the Paris Agreement is five years old, and we all know what toddlers are like, right? So I mean, it's not really been that long. And I started looking up, well, how long have other institutions been around, you know, Sierra Club, gosh, you know, in the late 1800s, nature conservancy in the 50s, you know, so these are these are sort of older middle-aged institutions. And so the UN Convention on Climate Change, and which is the global negotiations for what the whole world is going to do about climate change. And then Paris is the agreement that we came to what we need to do to keep that global warming below two degrees Celsius. I mean, 25 years, five years, so, you know, just a moment in time, right? Well, yeah, it's a moment in time, but there is a certain exigency about all this. And I think we do forget that. It's a one-way street, and it's very hard to reverse it. And when you get to the end of the street, well, the planet is unlivable. And it's getting that way. I mean, there's so many indicators in so many places. And that for some reason, people don't say, you know, when I see an extreme, extreme storm season, like I think we might have, you know, in the next few months, including here in Hawaii, I say that people don't associate that with climate change. When you see them say that the hurricane is on the way, they don't say it's climate change. You have to figure that out.  How do I find out whether it's climate change? Well, I'll tell you how to find out. It is climate change. Everything is climate change, and we're not paying attention to it. And we're not even reminding ourselves of it. I think we've lost our way. What do you think? Well, I just, you know, I wanted to that brings up a really good point, because maybe we haven't paid as much attention to it, because it's not the frontline fire that's burning right now, right? We've got a pandemic raging out there. So, so that's, that's obviously right there in the front lines, we have to put out that fire. But in the background, we've got these other things going and they're going to be multipliers. So meaning that they're just going to make climate change is just going to make all these things worse, right? So your storms, of course, Hawaii's always had a hurricane season, but now is it going to be more frequent? Is it going to be more intense? Is it going to actually make landfall? These are all things that are exacerbated by climate change. So I think one thing I was, I wanted to just mention with starting with that 25 years, just going back to that for a second, is it's not a long time for institutions, but maybe because we need to move so fast, maybe the best place to do this work is not the national government or the international set of governments, you know, the family of nations, maybe that's not the place to do this work, because they move so slowly. That's been one of the conversations going on at COP 25 last year in Madrid. And this year, it was supposed to be COP26 in Glasgow, but they've moved it to sometime next year because of the pandemic. And one of the conversations that was happening around that is should we have it every other year, every couple of years? I mean, even the Olympics aren't every year, right? Does anything get done anyway? Well, so that's the point is that, you know, it's such as it takes so long for a government to move. Imagine 200 of those governments just rounding up, you know, 200 of those governments moving at all in a year. I mean, I know what it's like firsthand to be how fast government moves now. Well, you know, but you say, well, we shouldn't have government do it. There are 190 some of governments in the world and they can't get together in anything. And I will totally agree and some of them are really unable to ever get together. But are you proposing that we go to the nonprofits? I mean, there's 100,000 nonprofits dedicated to climate change. Do you think they're going to be any faster? Not just nonprofits, but I would say business. And I think everyone really so nonprofits, research, business and governments and local and state governments, not just national governments. So I'm not saying climate change shouldn't be the realm of global governments. I'm just saying that maybe global governments are not the only place where that should reside. And that was the conversation. And it's not just me saying that that was the conversation in Madrid is where are we going to take subnational actors, meaning states, cities, regions, and where are we going to take? What's the role going to be of non state actors? So they're just we, we is the global community. I'm sure we, you know, we can work this out together, give us a couple of hours or it can be my puppy who is very wise and thoughtful. But I don't know who else is going to be able to do that. Well, these were at the negotiations last year. And this was the conversation outside of so it's been very, you know, focused on the negotiations have been focused on just governments and ministers and so on, bringing bringing their their countries line to this. And it's been a very rigid agenda. And it's been, you know, you can imagine, right? A lot of bureaucrats all in one space. What about the United Nations? Right. So this is under the United Nations. So they're bringing all these countries are coming under the aegis of the United Nations. This is the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. It's okay. And the United Nations have the clout these days to bring people together and make it happen. Because I mean, Trump pulled money, he pulled prestige from the United Nations, nobody did with the World Health Organization in the time of pandemic incredible. Does the United Nations have the cloud? They seem to be deteriorating. No. Well, I mean, these actually, it's given some room for some of the other countries to step up, you know, it can't always be the United States leading these things. And of course, it could be the United States. It came to the United States now, because we have a problem in Washington. But I think it needs more than just the United States. That's the point is that it can't just be only the United States and that other countries do have to pull their weight. And they do have to step up. And the European Union, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, all these folks who are, you know, who are needing to show leadership as well as needing assistance. They need to come together. And they need to say they need to have some goals. They can't just be saying, Oh, the United States isn't doing anything. Well, so so I think it has given some room for the Europeans to step up for 25 years. Why haven't they stepped up yet? Because we were kind of crowding the agenda, I think. That's my take on it. And I think also 25 years, like I've been saying, it's not a long time for governments, you know, it gives them, it gives them some time to just waffle, but not enough time to actually do anything. So can we afford to spend another 25 years in endless discussion because this is happening? No, we can't. And that's why I'm saying that maybe it can't be just the realm of the governments. And that's what has been our, you know, the subnational actors, that's been our sort of maybe not fault, but that's where we need to step up and say, All right, make room over here. Let me get in and do my thing, you know, and that's where the action is. That's where the implementation is. That's where the needs for capacity and funding are. And that's where I think the United Nations could all these countries at the global level could be making alliances to put capacity and funding. You know, the problem is that the United Nations Secretary General changes. You know, membership changes is, you know, there's ongoing politics within the United Nations with a complex, I'm sure you're close enough to know that. And so the problem is that getting people to focus, getting that institution to focus on this and treat it as a high priority because everything in the paper, everything in every paper is begging for priority.  And it's very hard for something so, so existential as climate change to get on the priority list. So nobody talks about it really. So, so the conversation with the pandemic and recovery has basically been, at least in the climate change arena has been to do a green recovery, right? So that a green recovery is actually going to be better than a brown one. So, you know, it's use the co benefits of what we would do for climate change, use that as a recovery strategy as well, because it will make you more resilient, you know. And then I think like the UN has come up with something very like people are thinking about how do you pandemic proof, you know, your future. So I think there's like something like 75% of zoonotic of diseases that are going to come up are of zoonotic origin. And that basically means that we need to keep the wild wild and that we're not doing that. So, you know, that's another issue. But all of these things, you know, my research and my focus has been on the global negotiations. And I'm really starting to see how and how very organically the it's almost a movement, you know, how very organically the subnational actors and the non state actors have come together and are sort of almost rising up, if you will, to become part of that conversation and start doing because they are the ones who are doing things at the ground level, you know, it's not the big ministries and the big departments and so on. Those are the funding. And that's very important. That's the funding and the capacity building. But then you're looking at who's actually doing this, you know, I mean, who is a candidate for leader within this organization, this this group of organizations. I mean, is there somebody there whose name comes to mind? Yeah, so this has been interesting. They're calling, they're calling them sorry to speak over you, Jay. They're calling to mind. What they're saying is we need a high level champion, you know, we need someone that has name recognition that can champion the cause. And so I don't know if this Sir David Attenborough is still the high level champion or but last year he was, I think last year or the year before he was the high level champion. I mean, the fact that I don't know who the high level champion is kind of tells you something. I haven't I haven't kept up with that one. But, you know, that is something that that has possibility is like who is the sort of who's a name that everybody would know and that people look look forward to Greta Thunberg. I was just going to say, you know, would it be Greta Thunberg and it's going to it's going to take 20 years for her to get into position, but things aren't going to go anywhere for the 20 years. So we can wait, but that's just it. She doesn't need to with a high level champion. You don't need to have a job that's going to get you anywhere. They're just going to appoint you a high level champion and then you start being a high level champion. You know, that's the beauty of it. It's really funny we having this conversation. I would not have thought of her, but you're right. And she's, Trump calls her sort of angry. I think he says she has an anger management problem. That's rich coming from him. So I mean, but she could be the one. She's iconic. She's smart. She's articulate.  Right. Maybe you and I should be the high level champions. Only we're kind of low level. So, you know, maybe we could be the low level champions and that's what we are. Right. I mean, I like to say that, you know, when my daughter, when people ask me what I do and for my day job, my daughter, when she was filling out her common apps or colleges, she says, I can't find your, your occupation in here. And so what are you looking for? She says, I'm looking for petty bureaucrat. So maybe I could be the petty level champion. That reminds me of a conversation. I don't know if I told you about this. I had with a student at one of the local colleges and which will be unnamed. And she was studying environmental things. That was her degree. And I said, oh, good. When you, when you get finished and you have your environmental degree, you'll go work for the federal government where you can do some good. She said, never. I'm never working for the federal government. It isn't capable of doing anything good. And okay, I'm not, I'm not sure I fully agree. If I were her, I would maybe reconsider that. But, but, but the fact is that there's nothing happening in the federal, you know, they're building pipelines. They're not doing green energy. You know, the AOC green new deal. That's a, that's a dream. It's aspirational. It's too, it's too heavy a word for it. And the federal government's not doing anything. Did an uncle Joe come up with something?  He didn't win yet to say. So, I mean, I, I mean, I would like to see that. I think we have to make a big switch here because it's biblical. It's biblical. If we don't, this is sort of the divinity's way, the deity's way of testing humanity. So can can we deal with this planet or not? Right. And I think it's very interesting that, you know, that you would say it's an existential problem. And I agree with you, because this may be something people don't want to hear, but it's my lunch hour. And I can say that it's, you know, it's the pandemic touches people, right? It touches people. And it's touched almost everyone. But climate change touches everything. It touches everything. And therefore it touches us. I mean, it even touches COVID. Right. Right. So, so it really is the larger problem. And we're just putting out a, this is just a fire drill, you know. Well, let's, let's say this is my ghost of Christmas future question. Let's say that nobody does anything. That is, it's a talk fest. It goes on for another 25 years. And nobody steps up. No agency steps up. There is never any agreement on anything and no action is ever taken. Okay. What happens? Well, I don't think no action will ever be taken. So I disagree with that one. Okay. Well, I'm giving you a hypothetical. What happens?  Everything that we've been thinking about happens. Things go absolutely crazy. And if it's an existential problem, then we stop existing basically. Well, I get, you get bad weather. People don't know, not just bad weather. I think you get deaths from that. Oh yeah. Not just bad weather. I think you get, you know, really bad weather.   You lose your cities.   I mean, you lose everything. So it's, it's mad max at Thunderdome. Well, I mean, if it's existential by definition, that means that, you know, you stop existing, right? Well, you know, there'd be a few people left. You know, there'd be sticks and stones, you know, what did Einstein say that the next war will be fought with sticks and stones? We'll be, you know, we'll be rolled back into some previous time 100,000 years ago. I mean, I think there's a real chance of that if we do nothing. On the other hand, I would take your point that maybe we'll do something. It won't be dramatic. It won't be profound or thoughtful, but we'll do something.  And so the answer lies in between, or the timeline lies in between. And we don't, we don't completely destroy the planet and humanity. We just make it much worse to live in, to get food, to get water, to have a little peace and quiet. We're already doing that. We're already making it worse. Yeah. And so I mean, I think that we really, I put some hope in the fact that there is actually quite a lot happening, even if the national governments aren't lining up. And that's been my area of focus is the global negotiations. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing else going on. There's a lot going on. It's just what's the use of these global negotiations. I mean, people are saying that these things are two weeks long. They happen every year. They're very expensive. Costs have risen going to these things. Is anyone even going to notice that we didn't have one this year? And I would say that at the first COP, there were 4,000 people, 4,000 attendees 25 years ago. At this last one, it was about 25,000. And at the one in Paris, there were like 38,000. So that was an all-time high. I mean, so this has become sort of not just a place for the parties, the governments, but for other people to come for researchers. And it's become a very complex collaborative process. But do you need that? I mean, I don't know. We are doing this to resume, right? Yeah, no, I don't think you need that. You need a champion and people around the champion. I think it's very troubling to find that heads of state reject and deny climate change. I mean, it's a parallel to heads of state projecting and denying the Holocaust, which everybody knows happened. But they reject the fact of it. And it's not just Trump here, but it's others elsewhere. And they stand in the way. And their, their nations are only, you know, humanity is funny. If you elevate somebody to be the leader of a given jurisdiction, a lot of people follow that person, even if that person dead wrong. It's not only in the US. And so if some head of state says there is no climate change, it's a hoax. A lot of people are neutralized on the issue immediately. They're not going to do anything or advance any initiative. Right, some are. But you know, like, I think it's the Pew Charitable Trust have found they've got an arm that looks at, you know, they've done surveys of climate change and beliefs and so on. And what do people, how many people believe that the government is doing something about climate change? And there's, you know, I mean, they, they're about 70, close to 70, 75% of people who do believe that climate change is happening and that the government is not doing enough about it. So it's no longer, I think it's a myth to say that people think that it's not happening just because there's a leader who denies that there's a minority now and we give them equal airtime. So it seems like it's not happening, but it's not true because we give them equal airtime. It seems like it's, you know, there's a vast majority that says climate change is a hoax, but that's not true. Well, you know, I was going to ask you, and I'm going to withdraw this question as soon as I articulated, I was going to ask you, what should we do? Because I think, you know, that has been discussed ad nauseam, what should we do? Instead, I want to ask you this question. From all that we know, from all that you know, you've studied this for your entire adult life, all five years of it. From all that we know, Anu, what is going to happen? Give me your best guess. Don't, don't strain on it. Just give me your best guess about how this is going to go forward. Oh, I mean, I feel like it's going to go forward like we do with anything else that's big, right? With poverty, with, you know, all those systemic things, right?  So the way we're going, we're not going to hit that two degree target, we're more, we're more locked into like a three or 3.5 degree warming. So, you know, it's just, it's just going to get worse for people. It's going to get a lot worse. And I think the thing to do is to maybe become rich so that you don't have to deal with these things. But then we're finding like even in a pandemic, being rich may not be helpful. No, I mean, it helps, it helps, but it doesn't, you know, sequester you from everything. Well, suppose I feed it to my question, the fact that the COVID may not be over for a while. And the COVID has, it's demonstrated that it has had a profound effect on our economy, world economy. And it slowed down, slowed down productivity, it slowed down burning fossil fuel, slowed down everything. And although it's going to be painful, that's likely to continue in some degree or another, where we have a very low rate of productivity in the global economy, and therefore less burning of less fuel, fossil fuel, less of everything, less of everything. So isn't, doesn't that kind of solve the problem at least to some extent, and say, well, we have less carbon going out, less emissions, less human activity. And therefore, don't worry about it. It's going to correct itself. You know, we're going to become a very quiet species. No, I don't think it's going to correct itself, I don't think it's going to correct itself, because we're not doing any structural changes. So the minute we're, you know, this pandemic is gone, we're just going to go back at it. And in fact, probably we'll redouble our efforts of burning fossil fuels and so on. So if there are no structural changes, we'll just go back to it only more so. So that's my take on it. But I think we should end with something where we, you and I vote on a high level champion. And I think we've already cast our vote on that one. Right. Okay, well, I don't, I don't think it's you or me or my puppy. It's gonna be Greta Thunberg, right? Yeah, Greta Thunberg, she's fabulous. Or if not her, somebody else like her who's young and motivated. A zoomer. What's that? A zoomer. This age, the children who are the young people who are coming of age now, instead of the boomers, it's the zoomers. Thank you for that. I want to add one other point before we quit. And that's the reverse, the reverse of how COVID affects humanity, affects climate change. I want to turn that around and see what you think.  One very, very interesting point that has come up only recently on national public radio is that vitamin D and sunlight actually affect COVID. So it's recommended that you get outside. It's recommended that you get a little sun, not just for the vitamin D, but for the sun. Who knows? Maybe it's that ultraviolet light that Trump was talking about, but it's external, not internal. That was something else. That's another story. That's another story. But you know, I'm really wondering if somehow the environment can be turned to dealing with COVID. That it's a simple, this is a dream, a pipe dream, but as simple as going outside. And maybe if you did, you know, some analysis, you'd find that people who go outside more have less COVID. And so the environment actually has an effect on COVID. And we live in a world that's indoors. We live in a world of stale air, indoors, where we're too crowded. And you know, the nature is saying, don't do that. Go outside where you started. What do you think about that? Well, which is where I come back to what I'd said earlier, keeping the wild, wild, you know, not just for disease, but for your spiritual health and for your physical health and all of those things, you know, so keep the wild, wild. Comes back to the same point about living in harmony with nature. That's right. Respecting nature and, you know, not abusing it. That's right. And that balance, finding that balance. Well, I hope you come back and report to us because, you know, whether we, whether the public is informed and studies this or not, it's happening. And it's, it's dynamic. It's, it's evolving every day. Our planet is changing. Nothing stays the same. So for example, if you go to a conference in Marrakesh, for example, which you have done for us before, I hope you'll call in and let us know how everything is going in Marrakesh. Wonderful. Okay. In the meantime, in the meantime, I'm just calling in from Honolulu. Okay. Let's do that. All right. Sounds good. Thank you for having me. Thank you. I'm a researcher at the East West Center in Climate Change dedicated to the issue. So nice to talk to you. Very nice to talk to you. Aloha.