https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Bh6GeofJhg4
Do you think there’s a link between the rise of behavioral disorders in children and the changes in society? Or is it just a case that we are now more aware? Oh, no, no. We’re definitely destabilizing kids. There’s no doubt about that. Women too. Women are way more unhappy than they were 30 years ago. There’s a huge body of epidemiological data on depression and anxiety among women. Women are far more unhappy than they were in the early 1960s. There’s all sorts of reasons for that. Children, well, all we do to our children, pretty much, much of what we do to our children is confuse them in relationship to their identity. And even in relationship to what identity is, we tell our children, and we’re compelled to tell them this now, well, your identity is just what you feel you are at this moment. It’s like, well, what do you mean by feel? Exactly. Well, we really haven’t thought that through because all we’re doing is feeling. And what do you mean by at this moment? Do you mean like this tenth of a second? Do you mean this minute? Well, we’re not really being that precise. You say, yeah, that’s for sure. You’re not being that precise. And where did you get this idiot idea that identity has ever been subjectively defined? Try defining your identity subjectively with your wife and see how well that goes. Just imagine. That’s the argument. What I feel goes, woman. It’s like, oh, that’s going to work out well. It’s like no resistance is going to make itself manifest on that front. I mean, all you’re doing when you’re married, married is negotiating your mutual identities. You’re just doing that nonstop. And you either do that well, in which case you kind of understand each other and maybe you’re both improving, or you do it badly, in which case, you know, you’re at odds consistently and you can’t exist together harmoniously. But all social relations are negotiations about identity. And the idea that any given individual has the right or the opportunity to insist that their momentary subjectivity dominate the social landscape is it’s so preposterous. I really can’t believe that we’ve accepted it. So I know technically, for example, that that attitude literally characterizes misbehaving two-year-olds. That’s the fundamental existential claim of a misbehaving two-year-old is what I feel now goes. And you might say, well, why doesn’t it? And the answer is, well, how long is a two-year-old going to last if you just like bring him to the airport and leave him there? He’s not capable of orienting himself across any reasonable span of time or in a multitude of different situations. He hasn’t got the maturity. He hasn’t got the integration. He’s got this reliance on an impulsive hedonism. And that does characterize two-year-olds, by the way, because they’re not able to engage in social play, not at two. That doesn’t really kick in until about the age of three. And at three, if you’re not fixated at the level of a two-year-old, then all you do is negotiate your identity. Even if you’re a three-year-old kid and you’re trying to play with another kid, you say, here’s how you do it. Do you want to play? You don’t say, you have to play with me because I want you to. It’s like you’ll make zero friends with that approach. The kids will just abandon you and leave you in your isolation. And that’s what happens to kids who make those tyrannical claims. You have to invite people to play. That’s the hallmark of the play that leads to the development of social ability itself. And so the invitation is, do you want to play? And then the answer has to be yes. It has to be voluntarily given. And then the next question is, well, what would you like to play? And what that means is, it means this technically. What identity would you want to experiment with, with me, for the next span of time? That’s what children are doing when they engage in pretend play. So maybe the boy asks the girl, would you like to play house? The girl says yes or not. And if not, well, then it’s up to her to offer a different game. No, I’d rather play tag. It’s like, okay, we need to agree. And then we’re going to assign rules. We’re going to play tag, you’re it. No, I want you to be it. Okay, I’m it. But then you’ll be it if I tag you. It’s like, okay, your terms are acceptable to me. And so then in tag, one child plays pursuer, and the other child plays the pursued. And then they flip roles and they experiment with those identities. And if they’re playing house, the boy maybe plays out the father or the cat, who knows? And the girl plays out the mother. And that’s an experimentation with identity. And it’s not only that the boy adopts the role of father and the girl adopts the role of mother, let’s say. It’s that they jointly adopt those roles dynamically in a way that supports the others’ play and makes the whole game fun. It’s very, very complicated and very sophisticated, as you know, because you have to play that game all the time with your wife or husband at home. And it’s very difficult. And so to adopt those roles, husband and wife, and to do that in a spirit of voluntary participation and play, it’s a sign of mastery to manage that. And all of that’s reflected in the behavior of children. And all of that’s a consequence by the time they’re three of their willingness and ability to engage in the social negotiation of their identity. ExpressVPN is a simple app that encrypts your network data and tunnels it through a secure server. Their trusted server technology makes it impossible for ExpressVPN’s own servers to store any data. They’re so confident in their no-logs claim, they even had one of the biggest assurance firms, PwC, audit their technology. ExpressVPN is incredibly easy to use as well. You just fire up the app and click one button. It works on all devices so you can stay secure on the go. And ExpressVPN doesn’t slow your connection. That’s why it’s rated number one by CNET, Wired, and TechRadar. Visit expressvpn.com slash Jordan. That’s E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Jordan. And get three extra months free. Expressvpn.com slash Jordan. And so, and now we tell children, no, you’re just who you think you, you’re just who you feel you are this moment. And if you feel that you’re in the wrong body, I saw this horrible thing today. This, this animated cartoon, Mama has a mustache. And… It was made by Lupron, or sponsored by Lupron. That’s the company that makes the chemical that chemically castrates convicted sex criminals and blocks puberty for gender dysphoric children. And the whole ad had, you know, giggling happy children in the background, which is so sinful that it’s almost beyond comprehension. And these were little kids’ voices that were being used, I don’t think more than four or five years old, celebrating their dissociation from biological reality, sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures castrating chemicals. It’s like, Jesus, what the hell? It’s really something to behold. It’s like, are we making our children’s mental health worse? Yeah, we certainly are. Why do you think there’s a psychological epidemic of gender dysphoria? That’s pretty bloody obvious. And then that’s not all. We tell our children that the entire human endeavor, especially if it’s associated with ambition and vision and goal, is doing nothing but contributing to the apocalyptic and immediate demise of the planet. And for all the children who managed to escape that particular moral trap, especially the boys, we tell them that, well, if you have any leftover ambition after scrubbing out the guilt about being a planetary destructive force, then just remember that everything you do that’s even remotely masculine is associated with patriarchal oppression. And so, Jesus, dismal. You know, it’s so sickeningly untrue. So, a long while back, about ten years now, I worked on a committee. It was a UN committee, as a matter of fact, that was focused on something like the investigation into what might constitute sustainable economic development. I had my qualms about that, but forget about that for a moment. I did a lot of research for about two years, reading everything I could get my hands on, on the relationship between economic development and environmental degradation. Because there is environmental degradation. We’ve done a very stupid job, for example, of fishing out the oceans. And amazingly, amazingly blind and foolish. There are things we’re doing that are stupid. There’s no doubt about that. But one of the things I learned that was so cool, and it filled me with such a sense of optimism, was that the data pretty much clearly showed that the fastest way to environmental sustainability is to eradicate absolute poverty. Because as soon as you get people above about 75 Billion, which sounds like a lot of money, but is a drop in the bucket compared to the sum total of, say, international aid spending. He wrote a great book. Took 10 years of research. Then he rank ordered interventions on the international front that would alleviate human suffering. He determined where money could be spent most effectively so that the return in relationship to the alleviation of suffering would be maximized and laid out a whole strategy for multidimensional remediation of some of the genuine problems that confront us. It’s right there for everyone to read. It’s a lot more complicated than, you know, carbon dioxide is bad and the apocalypse is looming. And neither of those propositions appear, as far as I can tell, to be true. I don’t know how many of you know this, but it’s really something to know. Do you know that the planet has greened by 15% since the year 2000? So remember that the apocalyptic climate doom claim was that as carbon dioxide levels rose, the plant life in semi-arid areas would die because of the increased heat. So that was one of the claims. And so the planet would rapidly become less green. But actually what happened is that as you raise carbon dioxide levels, it turns out that plants, which live on carbon dioxide, by the way, are able to close their breathing pores because they don’t have to. It’s easier for them to breathe in carbon dioxide because there’s more of it so they can close their breathing pores. And what that means is that they conserve water better, much better, not just a little bit better, much better. And so what that means is that the Sahara Desert has been shrinking because the semi-arid areas along its fringe are now capable of supporting plant life. And semi-arid areas all over the world have been turning green. You can go look it up online. The data on this are crystal clear. And so how is that not good? The other thing that’s happened is because of the increased carbon dioxide production, crop yields have been increasing dramatically. And so we can feed people more effectively. Now that’s not good, of course, because the planet has too many people on it anyways, which is not the case, by the way. So how do I know that? Well, look, let’s say you’re 50. So when you were 10, there were like 4 billion people on the planet. Now there’s 8, which, by the way, is twice as many people. So that’s more people. And now you might ask yourself, are people poorer or richer? And the answer is they’re way richer. And so what do you conclude from that? Well, one conclusion is more people equals more wealth. And why would that be the case? Well, how about more people, especially if they’re educated, because now they’re rich enough to afford education, means more cognitive capacity, more brain. And more brain means more innovation. And more innovation means the ability to do more with less. And so the idea that we’re at the carrying capacity of the earth is the delusional and genocidal fantasy of demented Malthusian biologists. There isn’t an iota of truth in it. So.