Bishop Barron Presents | Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein - Evolution and the Modern World

[Music] well i am delighted to be here with brett weinstein and with heather heing two people that came on the cultural radar screen maybe about five years ago with the evergreen state college situation but have emerged i think in the last five years has really trenchened commentators on all sorts of aspects of the culture so delighted you're here with us today we'll talk about your book a hunter-gatherer's guide to the 21st century and i think lots of other issues maybe where religion and science find some interface i thought we'd start with evergreen state and i don't want to force you for the thousandths time to tell the story i thought maybe i could do a quick little summary for our viewers and then i want to ask you just one pointed question about it so my understanding is at the college where both of you were professors there was a tradition where people of color would voluntarily withdraw for a day from the campus sort of highlight the important contribution they make to the mainstream culture but then tables returned in 2017 when white members of the community were basically instructed we're told you have to leave the campus for a day you saw that as a frankly racist move and given your jewish background something especially chilling to be told you know where you can and can't go when you objected to the authorities along those lines um all hell broke loose i think it's fair to say i've seen some of the on youtube some of the extraordinary films of the students you know responding to you and it to me it was like we're not in america anymore it's like we're in bathurst iraq or we're in paul potts cambodia or something and i urge people watch those videos sometime but here's the first of all is that basically okay that telling of the story what am i missing one thing i will correct um [Music] we were not told we could not come to campus but we were coerced into knocking on campus there was no question the administration did not want white people on campus right that day and they made that very clear that has now they have now made it murky in the aftermath of this emerging in public but here's the question i want to ask both of you i've been a critic of vocasm in different contexts what's the what's the one thing the most important thing you learned about wokism from that whole experience um i would say one has to begin to ask the question what it means for somebody to believe something and the more iterations of this we see the more i realize that we don't we don't mean the same thing when we uh we say we have a belief and so when looking at a a mob that appears to be compelled of something that is obviously nonsense one has to ask the question well how did they arrive there and you can't really have a conversation with those people you will you will talk past each other if your purpose is to compel them that what they believe isn't true by your metric so we have to recognize we're having two different conversations and that's part of the reason that we make no progress talking past each other heather what's that what's the one lesson you got about wokism boy i'm not sure i have i have a one i mean i think i think what brett said is is absolutely apt um i came to question maybe this is exactly the same thing that brett was just saying but i came to question the every conversation that i was having about what what the words that i was interchanging with people seemed to me and what it suggested about world view and you know we had as you said we had both been professors for 15 years and loved it and it loved our students and you know our students never never turned on us never never came for us in fact they defended us to the end but one of the things that you learn as an educator who really comes to know your students who really cares about your students is what what can you what kinds of tools can you use to get into their brands and their pasts such that whatever it is that you're trying to encourage them to learn how to do can really land and they can then own it as opposed to oh i just have to remember what heather was saying like no no this this that's that's not that's not what education is so uh when the vast majority would appear of a college suddenly turned on two professors who had been living what we thought were wonderful lives there for 15 years what did it say about all of those conversations and relationships and friendships in some cases about what what was actually underlying those relationships and i think uh that's not that's not unique to the woke ideology that uh that we end up betraying ourselves by saying things that aren't aren't actually true but i do think it it allows people to be more confused about their true selves yeah you know it's interesting because the question of truth what what bugs me the most is this complete relativizing of the even the notion of truth so that even in your field so perhaps in the you know social sciences or in philosophy where there's a kind of a greater flexibility you might say but in math and the hard sciences it's it's still maintained well you know that's truth because you're part of the patriarchy or you're saying that's true because you're a part of the oppressive class that when we give up on the idea of truth we're giving up on something that brings us together right if we if we abandon truth as a as a value in itself god help us and the second thing for me is the is the end of a public conversation we can't have a public conversation where truth is the criterion that we all accept and that we respect each other enough to have that conversation something so fundamental is broken down in our society yeah you're you're in exactly the right place this is the meta conversation that haunts everything over which we cannot reach agreement and in fact heather and i began uh discussing the conflict over covid policy and at some point we realized that we were dealing with the exact same thing that we had seen over uh questions of patriarchy and white supremacy uh in evergreen and we started referring to it as a question of medical wokeness what was really taking place was we were being told that we had misunderstood something when what we were really being told was this is not the place for us to have an open conversation and you know i i don't agree that that that is a place that can exist right in a cosmopolitan society where we don't all share the same belief structure we have to figure out how to navigate controversial issues and we have to do it uh with a shared agreement that our purpose has to be to remain you know as one people to govern ourselves well and to do the best we can in an emerging complex scenario but we've lost that somehow we're not all on the same team with respect to uh to governing ourselves it's dangerous one of the master images in your book is the campfire which i love a lot of good things happen around campfires you argue but one of them is conversation the sharing of ideas and i've always been struck by you know i'm classically trained so going back to plato and aristotle those people that the philosophical tradition begins in many ways with dialogue so the platonic dialogues it's a conversation out of which truth emerges my hero saint thomas aquinas the middle ages didn't have lecture hall so much they had disputed questions where an issue would be raised and then all the different points of view would be exchanged you see that in thomas's you know writing the conversational model i don't like the move descartes makes the koji toad i think the sort of withdrawal into privacy and then coming up with philosophy out of that experience i'm a koji thomas sort of person i mean we think and i love that about the campfire right from primeval times we gather around campfires but if we lose the capacity to talk to each other in a civil way we lose the campfire something essential is lost very much so and this is you know this is one of the moves if you will that we make in the book with regard to how we define consciousness yeah and it is not it is not inherently a standard definition of consciousness but uh we we find definition of consciousness in the exchange of ideas right you know that which rises to consciousness is that which can be packaged for for the exchange and uh that reveals i think how social we are right you know we we are an inherently social organism and you know all of us have private lives of course um but we i so i think maybe it's these two things that we have so far talked about it is um there is some underlying truth there is an objective reality and you know religion science art all of these things and more are seeking seeking an understanding of that and we may never arrive at it and we may not agree on what it is but we are all seeking it and the you know the woke move the postmodern move is at some level to reject maybe that it even exists right and that's kind of you know that's a non-starter for conversation splinter then and conversation ends at that point yeah it it ends and that's so that's a non-starter for then the shared experience that is at its most fundamental what humans are is the shared experience for instance around the campfire so if i can uh try to put what you've said about the retreat into the personal thinking uh into our framework there's an ebb and flow between a an interactive collective consciousness and a necessarily private version and i would argue that it's something we have undeclared dark ages in which the exchange of ideas are not welcome and so really i actually have a term for it i call the people who think independently when thinking collectively isn't allowed keepers of the flame and um you know so i think some compassion for their position has to be has to be extended because what happens when it is again possible for us to talk together is that those who remember how to do it because they brought it into uh a less obvious space those people jump start the process and unfortunately we are now at this moment facing a bizarre kind of dark age where in some ways we have never had better tools for interacting with each other and it has never been less welcome that we do so and so uh yeah looking for the mechanism now to re-jump start that conversation which has to start with this question that you raise which is do we not agree on the conversation as paramount and it's an epistemological issue it's a political issue it's a cultural issue the breakdown of conversation at all those levels i think is is to me is a dire um consequence of this vocalism stuff can i shift from locism um somewhat happily to these science religion issues because i mean i'm privileged to have two scientists on it usually we talk to people more in you know the social sciences or in the in philosophy religion and so on so it's good to have scientists and it's a major block for young potential believers when they why why have you left the church why don't you have faith well science refutes religion science has proven religion wrong i'm a science person and it's opposed to religion so i've been on this um crusade for a long time to say this is a false dichotomy this is highly problematic and i've said look the church god knows we have a checkered history going to galileo and the company but that at our best we reverence the sciences go back to gregor mendo copernicus himself come to george le met i mean some some great scientists were profoundly believing people so we love the sciences but what we don't like i've argued is scientism and i gather from your book you don't like it either and my here's my definition of it i want to just talk about that mine is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge so the scientific method the scientific way of knowing is absolutely valid for certain aspects of reality but not for all aspects and to reduce everything to the scientific is scientism talk to me about that i'm just curious to know your takes on science scientism etc yeah i would i think i have a slightly different take on scientism but it's it's coincident with what yeah what you're arguing uh i see much of what is passing as science um as not science uh because and this you know this is maybe just a slight tweak on what you have said um because it is easier uh to to discuss with the public and even with other scientists that which is easily uh measured that which is easily quantified that that which is easily reduced we end up focusing on those questions and then the mistake is we think that those are the big questions those are the real questions and we sort of replaced the language of the small with the language of the large and we pretend that we've asked the big questions and evolutionary biology tries to ask big questions and uh and certainly you know that's what we're trying to do in the book in part to give to provide a toolkit to understand really some of the mistakes that humans have made in arriving at the 21st century with our era of hyper novelty and like how how can we think more more largely about who we are and what we are and what we can be um rather than imagine that well science says that uh what you need to do to not get say skin cancer is to stay on the sun and therefore you need to always slather yourself with sunscreen well we were living for our entire histories until yesterday evolutionarily speaking outside what are the chances that the sun is actually the source of a major health problem as opposed to if you start obscuring yourself from the sun entirely you will probably cause more health problems it's it's that kind of thinking you know you know sunscreen is the answer to skin cancer sometimes in some circumstances okay yes but that's that doesn't feel like an actually scientific interpretation so that for me is an exam perfect example of scientism which comes in the language of and even the methods of science but the the correct questions weren't being asked and the right framing wasn't given to the problem yeah in part uh the problem is that we made our biggest early gains in science in the simple sciences and i don't mean simple to understand physics and chemistry are difficult to understand but they are the study of simple interactions and there is a problem which comes from what we call emergence and emergence is essentially the unpredictable outgrowth of simple things into some phenomenon that we can also study but we can't explain exactly how it emerges from the level below and i think most of most of us scientists believe in an unbroken chain of causality that if we could see everything and test everything and had infinite time in which to do it there aren't going to be gaps in what can be explained by the levels below but we are permanently and permanently will be stuck without the ability to see what's in all of those gaps so the question is how do we even conduct science when the gaps are inherent to our being stuck at a place in space and time and stuck with you know an incomplete library of knowledge and noisy data sets and so that's one problem which is that because the what we do and don't understand is incomplete by its nature we have to figure out how to govern ourselves even with the partial partial information and then the other question is does the factual structure of the universe tell us what we are supposed to do right does it tell us something about what's good and what's bad and there are those who will argue that it does and this is our problem it's an is our problem and i think it's very neatly divided because if we can say an awful lot about what is and then the question is well if we get to choose amongst what might be you know are there better and worse things on the list and does it matter that that's either scientifically justified or not right we should prefer that people don't starve for example whether or not we can justify that on scientific grounds and maybe we can't classical moral theories have something similar you understand the nature of a human being and from that you draw conclusions about behavior so here's certain behaviors call them virtues that lead to flourishing and that's based upon some knowledge of the pattern by which human beings are so yeah i mean to me that's sort of a realist way to do it can i ask you i'll put my philosopher's head on for a second go back to plato's cave sorry so plato says we're mostly stuck in this cave all we see are flickering shadows on the wall then there's this moment of liberation i turn from that and i see oh those are just reflections of higher realities then i escape all together from the cave i go outside in the blinding sun then i eventually see the real things of which those puppets were a pattern of which the shadows were a pattern so i go to higher higher levels and the first step out of the cave for plato is mathematics which always strikes me as fascinating because a scientist would deal with the world of the empirically verifiable and what i can experiment upon for plato that would be and there's no insult to scientists it would be standing staying inside the cave right what what are mathematical objects and numbers and do they represent like these sheer intelligibilities that go beyond what the sciences can immediately measure is that a step to a higher dimension of being mathematics i think it's a dimension a higher dimension of thinking um but i must tell you this again gets to this question of the fundamental versus the emergent okay you know we are tropical biologists right we go to work with our rubber boots on and a machete and if there's one thing you can say about studying what goes on in tropical forest is there's no place to start it's not linear we don't understand uh how the place works and so you can't go in and begin at the beginning what you do is you begin somewhere and so you can't do it with math you right the math is there but you can't you can't understand it through the math right the math is revealed pieces of math are revealed in so doing but i think the thing is plato may have envisioned the the route there as starting with math and that may be a route there but it's not the only route there and if you if you talk to scientists who do work in this extreme emergent realm i don't think it would be intuitive that you start that you you start by saying well what what patterns can i detect and what do they imply what might they imply and then you check and they either do or don't imply that and you know so it's a start anywhere all roads lead to rome yeah i guess i would um i would say i could equally well argue that the math comes last um or or exactly as brett was just saying you start anywhere and uh you know by some metrics i guess uh you end up with the math uh but you could also equally well end up at god right like you you could end up almost anywhere no matter where you start if you start with an openness and you know and really i think as we already talked about you know just an understanding that there is an objective reality out there that you are trying that you are seeking to understand knowing that you have all of your own biases that you can never escape and you can use methods um that you and others before you have discovered by which to produce those biases you know all of these things are wondrous ways to approach it but um but you can't fully escape them and there is an objective reality and beyond that let's let's go right like let's let's try to explore in almost any way that we can whatever works and what we're going to do there's actually a marvelous example of exactly what heather's pointing out um in the fact that we uh we use lynnean classification in biology um linnaeus didn't know anything about evolution he was working as if the creatures were all specially created and unrelated and that effectively god had sat down at a drawing board and was in you know a particular frame of mind and design designed a bunch of monkeys and that's why they look alike right we now understand that the monkeys look alike for a very different reason but the point is it doesn't invalidate what linnaeus was doing which is why we still use it right that you can do this on the basis that the creatures are similar because of the mood of the creator or you can do it on the basis that they're similar because they have inherited similar characteristics from an ancestor they also had them and you end up in the same place and i think this is the point you you definitely do start with the monkeys right you you look at the monkeys and you do know they seem in some ways different but an awful lot alike much more so than the monkeys look like the parrots yeah and so the point is you can go deeper and deeper and the more we uh we do the more we learn about that process and the history of the creatures in question but it wasn't invalid to start with the creatures in their full lord that's what aristotle started i mean many ways aristotle is the ancestor of what you do i mean he was this very careful observer of things and then he noticed these we'd call them now intelligible patterns he called them forms right and now how those forms emerged we speak now about emergent patterns and so on coming from below and but nevertheless there they are you know there they are and can they be grasped let's say by the mathematician if we shift the thing a little bit as a sheer abstraction and i think that's what plato saw is i'm moving outside of a purely empirical framework for aristotle of course form and matter are so intensely related to each other it's closer to our i think way of imagining it right there's patterned matter matter that's been drawn somehow into this pattern and the pattern does have a certain independent intelligibility even though it's related to just matter me with that because you know that that's the classical way of getting at some of these truths that i think is kind of re-emerging in a funny way with this all that talks about emergent patterns it sounds to me a lot like aristotle's form well think about think about uh astronomy right i mean first you have galileo taking a tool that was not intended to look at the sky and choosing to do so right which was in and of itself i mean it's in retrospect it's so obvious that you would do this but you know the the telescope was designed to uh as a tool of those who wanted to win in the market to detect which ships were coming in earliest so you could change the value of your commodity but he points it at the sky and if you step down that road we get better and better telescopes and we realize that some of what looks like stars is actually galaxies and we study galaxies and we understand their different forms and then you know very recently we come to understand what a galaxy even is right it's orbiting an ultra massive black hole the ultra massive black hole is the the right place to start the question of what is a galaxy but it's not where you start because we're all outside of all of those galaxies we see the stars grouped for reasons we think they're attracted to each other and we don't realize that there's an even more a bigger more shocking answer but you wouldn't go back and say well the whole way we studied this is wrong because you really have to start with the ultra massive black hole that brought those stars together you can start anywhere and that's just that's you know i mean that's sort of the human predicament we are in one place at one moment studying an impossibly large cosmos full of the strangest phenomena and we have limited tools to unpack them but you know what they're good enough there's there's also a question more so the more into the future we get of um what tools we're using to make our observations with and you know the kind of science that brett and i have done empirically the most as he has said is tromping around rainforests looking at organisms we may have binoculars on us and we may have a little microscope back at the field station but in general it's using our senses as we were born with them uh to and you know and and our brains to make sense of what we're seeing and to as much as possible observe without interpretation which of course is impossible but observe with as little interpretation as possible and record those observations such that then we can overlay interpretation and if the interpretations prove to be wrong we can go back and say yes but what were the observations in the first place when we're talking about astronomy when we're talking about cell biology when we're talking about almost all of the domains of modern science we are using tools that remove the human organism from the observation by at least one step yeah and so we have we have put in between us and our direct observation something that we are trusting to do a job that is telling us it is doing and that i mean that itself is an act of faith at some level yeah um and so you know recognizing where we are entrusting interesting our observations and our interpretations to others who have made promises to us that they are doing and their tools are doing what they say they're doing renders the modern act of doing science uh rather farther removed from the human experience than it has been and i think actually in some ways field biology is one of the one of the modern sciences that remains as unlimited or as as as connected to our original senses as as originally was you two remind me much more of of girtha here than newton you know that that famous uh debate gerta looked at newtonian science and he said mechanistic understanding of things i'm gonna take plants and animals out of their natural habitat i'm going to cut them i'm going to analyze them under bright lights ask them my questions and gertha you know great poet but also a scientist said this is the wrong way to do it rather you should go out into the field and sit down next to a plant and watch it unfold you know or do the jane goodall i mean go out and be with the apes or you know she was studying and become part of their community and watch them and i really sympathize with that because samia's much more classical uh i've always felt that a lot of modern science draws its strength from a certain narrowness that's to say reducing the four classical causes to two and the material and the efficient more like billiard balls bouncing off each other and so let's understand it mechanistically where form we've been talking about pattern intelligible pattern and then finality that things exist for a purpose they're they're going somewhere they're they're about something and we can construe that very naively or we can do it i think the way you guys do it is watch things and plants and ecosystems behave right and they're behaving according to certain intelligible patterns that are already inherent in them and they're after something aren't they they're after something they're getting somewhere so talk about that for me i find that interesting is the reintroduction of formal and final causality into the scientific conversation bring gerta back let me say first i'm reminded of the quote that was emblazoned atop the university of michigan museum of zoology which is where we went to graduate school um by agassi uh who was a great 19th century naturalist and um geez i think he um he was the first the founder of the museum of creative zoology at harvard and i believe that he uh came up with the idea for the ice ages or he saw the evidence for the ice ages what it says atop the university of michigan museum zoology is go forth into nature take it into your own hands and see for yourself and there it is and this this in the museum where all of these organisms have been collected and preserved and and where people come in and look at the organisms and do the reductionist thing of trying to identify who's related to whom and what it means but but right there we are told we are reminded no go go out go out and see for yourself what you think it means yeah go ahead science is the study of patterns and patterns exist from the fundamental up to the the complex the extremely emergent and it is quite possible to blame this obsession with reductionism for our failure to understand um the bigger picture but i don't want to denigrate reductionism too much because really the value of science comes from a balance between this this instinct to reduce and the competing instinct which is to synthesize and what's happened is a simple quirk of the way that we currently fund science has caused an effective coup yeah where the reductionists have won out and the synth those who are engaged in synthesis um well largely what's happened is um the reductionists get to do synthesis as a hobby at the end of their work rather than hiring people who are actually good at it and the quirk is just that because universities are funded by grant overhead and because reductionism requires expensive apparatus to run and therefore big grants university administrators prefer it over work that requires a good mind and a chalkboard so that coup has disrupted our scientific community but the right thing to do is not to go too far in the direction of synthesis but to put these things back into the natural balance where they're supposed to to function together it's indeed precisely um the the number of things between the observation that you're making in the human organism the more expensive it is to do the science and therefore the more valued it is given the current financial model of how science is done and how universities are funded yeah can i ask you one more kind of philosophy of science question and going back to this math and patterns question there's a famous article i think was 1960 a guy named eugene vigner who was a younger contemporary weinstein and niels bohr and those people high-level theoretical physicists the article was called the title was the unreasonable applicability of mathematics to the physical sciences and he's he wasn't a religious man he was a jewish background but not religious but i think it's something like eight times in an article he uses the word miracle and he calls to mine einstein who said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible but vigorous point was isn't it actually surpassing strange that this super high level mathematics corresponds to the world that we discover the physical world he doesn't draw the conclusion that i'm tempted to draw well yeah the person behind the universe is a mathematician galileo would have said that einstein seems to at least point in that direction i'm curious from you two scientists i know that's more physics than your area but how do you explain the unreasonable applicability of mathematics to the physical sciences um well it's interesting i often find um physicists and mathematicians are uh they become strange around this very question okay and i mean really there are sort of two general routes you could take you could say well the universe is very odd and improbable place and we could ascribe that odd improbableness to some force that was up to something or you could go the other direction and you could say that the math is somehow downstream of the biology right that obviously math is an inherent but the math that we do is obviously the product of human activity and so maybe there's something in the way we conceptualize it that of course builds a tool that's capable of unpacking this very odd and maybe arbitrary universe that we have but you know at the end of the day there's a question which is what are you going to do with the gaps you can't fill in are you going to obsess over them or not and for those of us who study in the realm of complexity yeah if we're not comfortable saying look that's a gap i can't fill in i hope it gets filled in someday and i get to know the answer but maybe i don't i'm going to have to become comfortable with that and not let it distract me from the part that i can unpack and this is a little bit like that right yeah i don't know i i certainly have the instinct that says this universe was not designed by somebody with intent but i also know that if i keep chasing phenomena in this direction that i reach a place where even in principle there's no way to answer the question so i can leave it as a question i can say i don't see what philosophical problem it solves to imagine that somebody designed it but if somebody had and what they had done was basically imbue the universe with laws that caused phenomena that for some reason they wanted to unfold to do so that would work too and i can study within that universe without having to resolve it doesn't strike you as odd i mean couldn't you imagine a universe that is not so highly structured in these complex mathematical patterns it's an odd that it is sure on the other hand you know again one always wonders whether or not the uh math physics community is saying something brilliant or circular when it makes arguments you know about you know the goldilocks planet effect right yeah uh and basically the point is maybe there are an infinite number of universes that have been created and almost all of them are mathematically inhospitable and this one was mathematically hospitable and it's no surprise that we would find ourselves in such a universe and so there's a you know an anthropic principle that could get us out of that um that always seems so strange and special pleading to me like you almost have to invent multiple universes for which there really is no evidence to get around the press of this question it seems to me you know yeah it's possible i suppose there's an infinite number of universes and they're all crazy and chaotic except this one but even there i don't know it seems to be hard to explain that even if you got this one's got such massive intelligibility all through it seems odd that that just happened you know yeah although you know we're not in a good position to address this one at the level of the math or the underlying physics on the other hand we've got our miracles too right yeah every time i see a hummingbird yeah my mind thinks they're over my backyard the only thing that makes that a non-miracle is that we have a pretty good idea where the explanations are for how it got that way and what it does and the point is in terms of how impressive it is oh it's it's miracle level um yeah in terms of whether it's made of comprehensible stuff seems to be right through and so um you know what does one does it need to be true that uh that a a hummingbird is a miracle-level machine that functions on the basis of principles that could all be chased down um you know it depends if you're a hummingbird specialist it probably does matter if you're a hummingbird appreciator it might not and which is cool that's a different question because that gets back to like paley versus darwin so you know darwin in many ways is his great foil is paley you know who says look it nature's like the this wat this watch that i find this beautifully designed watch and how could that be unless there was a designer to it and darwin says well no i think you know random genetic mutation and natural selection and time sufficiently explains it but see my perspective as a theologian is a plague on both your houses i'm not really interested in that question of of the mechanical design i think it's the theological question this is different we're opening up but is why is there something rather nothing why is there anything at all why should why should a finite contingent universe exist at all and that's the question of creation so i mean as a catholic i have zero problem with with random genetic mutation time and natural selection explaining how things come to be quote unquote designed the way they are i have no quarrel with that because the creation issue is a much much deeper more fundamental issue of why is there something at all why is there nature at all in the first place why is there matter at all so anyway that's that's another level question you know but i have no problem with saying paley no that's who darwin's more correct about that well he is although at the risk of opening no go ahead quite the pandora's box open it up um i think the comfort that you have with genetic mutation producing the world that we see is too much okay go ahead um and i would point out that darwin didn't say that genetic mutation plus selection would produce this because he didn't understand the underlying genetic architecture right so he predates mendel right yeah right it's funny he predates him intellectually although they were contemporary in terms of when they worked but um but but the point is what darwin described was actually a very elegant phenomenon of selection and he didn't say what was being selected because he couldn't know and what we have done in the aftermath of darwin after discovering dna is we have said aha here's darwin's mechanism and it is certainly a mechanism of darwinism but it's not the only one and so what i would argue is that the hummingbird isn't the process of random mutation altering genes that alter proteins that are favored when they make something more hummingbird-like because that process isn't powerful enough but that there are other things where you have the reproduction the variation and the differential success that result in darwinian selection being actually a much more powerful phenomenon that even than even us darwinism so um so anyway you know i still take your point what does it matter well it depends if if um if you have certain purposes it matters a lot but for our purposes we can say well the fact that a hummingbird is is programmed effectively to do things that result in hummingbird genes being lodged into the future right that's a good enough proxy for the intent of somebody who might have created a hummingbird um yeah that you know we can have the conversation about the hummingbird and it's its meaning can never come up and maybe maybe you will say that this is all all spending time in the part of the question that you're less interested in rather than the origin but i think i think the job of an evolutionary biologist at some level is to become comfortable with identifying where the black boxes are in our understanding and saying there has to be an explanation there because something goes in and something comes out and um i don't know and um sometimes it's i don't know and sometimes it's we don't know um but uh there is an explanation because it happened uh because you know we see that a went in and b came out and the number of places you know the more emergent the questions you're interested in are which you know thinking about parrots and monkeys is pretty emergent uh the more places where you have to say okay behavior was selected for but that also means that the physiology was selected for the anatomy the molecular biology of the cell biology you know and all of these other steps and at almost every one of those steps there are a lot of black boxes okay this is like a really stupid question but i always tell my students this i love the stupid questions um and it's the kind of philosophical thing why should things want to live why should things want to pass their genes on you know so that's a axiom behind so much of evolutionary thinking and we say oh yeah of course they do well i don't know why territory dan asked that question you know he was a paleontologist but a priest in the early 20th century he was trying to bring science and especially evolutionary science into line with religion and then he he thought darwin was right but didn't say enough because he's missing something what is it why do things want to live um unfortunately this this leads to a uh a philosophical abyss for the following reason okay um it's really a version of the same question why are you going to take your next breath yeah what is it about being alive that's better than that that's better than not being awake but that's a fair question oh in fact it's a question there is nothing better about being alive than being not alive however as the descendants of a three and a half billion year old lineage of things that preferred living to dying right it's not surprising that we at this table would be agreed that taking your next breath is the obvious move right we are deluded by that selection by having been favored by an unbroken line of three and a half billion years of survivors right survivors and reproducers that those are good things to do but the point is that's not inherent to the universe that's inherent to where how we got here and so why do creatures want to get their genes into the future they want to get their genes into the future because in the word creature is the implication that they are the descendants of creatures that have done a spectacular job of getting their genes into the present yeah and that goal which is the goal of evolution is completely banal and uninteresting and when you see the goal what do you mean the goal of of getting your genes to the future why is it uninteresting what do you mean to the to the organism you know to us because it's exactly the same goal as that of a slime mold yeah or cedar tree or salamander you know we we are in that way no different from all of the rest of of evolved creation right um but we but we can find more meaning yeah we can we can find more interesting goals it's but we're talking about final causality again here i mean very clearly it's all about goals and purposes and i i want something it's like tayar taking it from barracks one of those people talked about the elan vital there's some kind of vital energy or some kind of impetus you know it's more than just a chance of a series of events but there's something in us even at the most fundamental level of life that wants to continue living and i think that's mysterious i think it's odd well it is odd and it's also very easy not to look at the dark side of it yeah go ahead um the fact is we for reasons i just described act as if we want to get our genes into the future and whether that's getting your genes into the future directly as people with children do or as somebody who is a community facilitator getting your lineages genes into the future it's all very easily explained in this way on the other hand and this is where i get into trouble um with colleagues who at the very least believe this is a topic we shouldn't discuss but there are lots of ways to get your genes into the future that are completely morally unacceptable yeah yeah and so what that does is it hands us with um the obvious proof of the iso problem right if i'm a creature that has my biases because i want my genes in the future even if i can't defend that as an ultimate goal mm-hmm well then what do i do when some of the things that will put my genes into the future better right like you know one group putting another group into gas chambers right right and so our point and we say so very directly in our book is that we have an obligation having recognized that we are effectively in some ways very sophisticated robots that have been sent on a mission that mission has elements that we as conscious beings esteem and it has elements that we as conscious beings must abhor and the point is this is the moment evolution has awarded us a a mind that is capable of deciding what fraction of these things we actually want right and we actually uh on that discovery become morally obligated to reject the genetic program well so where did that come from though it's a must and moral obligation i would say they come from the intuition of objective moral value which are a bit like objective epistemic values so truth we talk about early on there's something like objective moral values that are there and it's not simply a matter of of the survival of my body or it's not just programmed into me by evolution but they're discoverable as values i mean otherwise wouldn't moral language collapse into some kind of indirect form of egotism well i find intimations of it among some of the other species with whom we should plan what we call the usual suspects the other organisms um either whom we are closely related to or in some cases not who are long-lived and who have long childhoods during which they're learning how to be themselves and that live in groups with generational overlap so they are learning from other members of their families um at other gender at other times in their lives and are social and are exchanging information with one another so we have parrots and crows and monkeys and wolves and whale and toothed whales like dolphins and elephants and baboons for instance have theory of mind right they can actually understand that uh i know something and you know something and it's different from what i know even though we're both looking at the same object about which we're thinking this um that those those intimations of sense of right and wrong and um you are a different organism from me even though the only experience i will ever have is in this body i won't have it in your body it suggests to us as evolutionary biologists that that the moral sense also evolves right that it that it it emerges in these organisms that have a long enough time on the planet with long enough childhoods during which they're looking and learning and watching from their kin from their families from their friends how to be and and what it is to be right right but so press that though to be right and how to be meaning what like how to survive more effectively how to get our genes in the future more effectively or to live well to live morally well in a morally upright way you know what what's the the goal what's what's motivating the process the problem is there are two goals and we have to choose between them right namely well let's let's start from uh where heather set this in motion you have millions of different species from our perspective every single species on this planet and presumably every single species that has evolved anywhere has the same purpose it's to get its genes or whatever stands in for genes as deeply into the future as possible right having the same purpose as you know uh malaria salamanders right it's not an honorable purpose right it's just an autopilot yeah um that process though has created millions of different ways of accomplishing that goal in the case of humans we have been given by that process a subjective experience of the world consciousness and ability to pool our consciousness in a very unique way and to make decisions to decide to actually have values rather than just automatic programming and basically we can now look back at our purpose and say not good enough we have to have a purpose that is higher than that one and the reason that we have to have a purpose that is higher than that one is if we allow that purpose to govern then we will end up committing genocide and and rape and others but why is genocide ban on that well that's the thing is it's not bad if you want to start from the fundamentals of the universe um it's not bad it's not bad if you want to say actually how do i feel as a conscious being thinking about it it's it's as bad as it gets so how why though that's i just want to press that but you obviously think it's a terrible thing it's a morally absolutely and here's here's what you're getting at is i am perfectly comfortable with not having an answer to that question it's bad we shouldn't want it and anybody who doesn't understand that it's bad is suffering from some kind of a misunderstanding and it's not a misunderstanding of their purpose it's a misunderstanding of something else and if you flip that around the question is well what will we do instead the what will we do instead is important too right if we all agree that having a conversation like this is a cool experience right it's interesting to be part of a species that can even have a conversation across the table you could know what i'm thinking it's a remarkable capacity right so if that is a remarkable capacity and it's good to have such capacities and it allows for us to choose better things over worse things which at least might be a real distinction then we should want to give as many people that opportunity as possible right and how do you do that well you have to understand what we're doing that jeopardizes the future right we have to we have to stabilize our way of being on this planet where it won't last and that means fewer people will get that marvelous experience right and i i won't go too much further but it seems like you've intuited a moral value that's how i put it you've intuited but that's very interesting thing is where what is that where does that come from where what are moral values why should they suddenly emerge in such a compelling way ah you know to me they're like the intelligibilities that we that the physics discovers they're like that they're they're they're somehow in the structure of being and we notice them they're a pattern if you want but now of a different nature there's a moral type of intelligibility anyway yeah well i think we we can and have and in fact brett has written about the evolution of morality right moral systems yeah um how it is that we understand you know effectively who's whose team we're on and and how to enlarge that sense of teamness um but that is separate from saying i believe um that the understanding of what is right and what is wrong is part of what has evolved and um you know maybe so but i i guess i i think the distinction i think the distinction where we are all going to be in agreement on this is um that as you had said earlier bishop um there are some questions which don't warrant scientific approaches yeah and the answer to but why is genocide bad yeah um you know we i could we could provide a list but we're not i don't think we're going to emerge with an answer that sounds scientific yeah it's interesting okay i would say that's right it's right exactly and so um if you find us yeah no that's okay appearing to sort of you know try to move around it's like well actually i don't think either of us has ever tried to provide yeah a scientific answer to exactly you know why is that good and why is that bad yeah precisely because part of what part of what humans have we would argue evolved to be is um acting on some planes that are beyond that which the particular scientific questions uh can address yeah it seems to me um i think that i now understand your question then yeah go ahead i do think it's answerable the problem is that the moral sense did evolve and as heather points out i wrote a paper on why and the problem is that the why has a troubling it implies a troubling question the why is that if we accept that morality is effectively synonymous or nearly synonymous with the willingness to sacrifice an opportunity right to bypass something in the interest of something else and the point is well why why in evolutionary terms shouldn't you want everything right that you want you wouldn't want them if you didn't so the reason is because you have different levels of success in tension with each other and so a society has moral rules and we treat each other uh we self-sacrifice for each other why because we get into the future better by doing so but here's the bitter pill the bitter pill is we get into the future better by self-sacrificing for each other's benefit in order to compete with other populations and they do the same thing and the problem is that ultimately this leaves moral goodness downstream of our attempt to defeat other creatures which have every right to get their genes into the future too yeah and so the basic point is okay we have a moral architecture why because it's a mechanism for getting genes into the future but we can now take that moral architecture and we can say can we do something better with it right having done something better with it we end up somewhere in the direction of buddhism right where we say well how do we include everybody in the we so that right but again why is that a good i'm going around the round maybe you're intuiting that as a good that we all get in this as as one you know why is that of something worth pursuing well but you know i think we started this conversation by saying that for some of us we do not believe that you can ground the question of what is good ultimately in a mathematical or scientific reality that we can we might be able to explain every every phenomenon in the universe scientifically but then we're going to have to decide which of those things we want more of and which we want less of and that's not a scientific question we will use scientific tools to inform it but it's basically a preference and preferring for more people to have the opportunity to do what we're doing rather than fewer people seems like a defensible position but is it grounded in the fact that the universe needs it to be no let me make sure because i want to get to your book i could talk to you all day about these these grand issues which i love you know and uh but let me see a couple there's a book i loved and there was so much in it that was thought provoking and and terrific um first of all chesterton's fence which plays a huge role you know chesterton for my word on fire family and team is a major player we've done a lot of work with chesterton and talk about that a little bit so the importance of chesterton's fence and that image that you use a lot in the book tell me more about that um well the idea is basically pesterton's example is that two individuals are walking down a road and they encounter a fence across the road that appears to be serving no purpose and one of them says let's remove it and the other one says you can't remove it until you've explained why it was put there because of course until you've done that you don't know whether it has outlived its purpose or you're just not seeing it and so we encounter this now all the time right because our uh our way of existing on this planet is changing so rapidly we are constantly faced with the question of is this or that feature of our lives an anachronism to be eliminated that we could be more efficient without are we going to discover what role it's playing after we've gotten rid of it um i mean to take an extreme example this fervor about defunding the police yeah right well you'll find out what the police are doing what effect they're having at a net level when you've gotten rid of them and it's not going to be positive but it's easy to imagine that it might be because the level of crime in a world in which the police uh chase people who commit them right is comparatively low right if you've traveled to some place where policing has failed you know that that's that the effect is big but if you only live in an environment where the police are mostly doing their jobs you have no idea so we can do that at every level from physiological to social and it's it's a crucial crucial point so we talk about um for instance some of the some of the hubris of medical science in the 20th century um in which at the beginning of the 20th century there are a lot of doctors who said well clearly the appendix is not worth keeping which we now know to be an error as well but not only that the entire colon the entire large intestine is probably just taking up space we don't need and so there's just this spate of surgeries to get rid of people's colons um because uh because chesterton's fence wasn't alive in people's minds right um and similarly we we invoke so chesterton's organs like the appendix and the large intestine chesterton's breast milk really you're just going to replace that with formula because you think it's just food well it turns out it's got immunological information it's got communication it's got the mother child bond you know there's just a lot that is there and just because you figured out one of the functions of the thing doesn't mean that you've figured out all the functions of the thing and of course chesterton's religion chesterton's gods in windvault as well you know too many moderns overthrow all that has worked in the past in favor of the new yeah and often there is no new worth standing in for well we just appreciated the focus on chesterton do you know chesterton's wall that's one i use a lot is he imagines a group of children at the edge of a cliff like a precipice and there's no wall around it so they're just they cower in fear but someone constructs a huge high thick wall around the edge of the precipice now they have a ball they play and they run they bounce the ball off of the wall and his point being of course you know that in the name of freedom must tear down all restrictions tear down all moral law well that leaves us cowering but have these things in place now we can actually play and enjoy life so actually the funny thing though is if you extrapolate from the wall yeah you actually learn something about modernity and wokism yeah right because what we've effectively done is we've protected as we say in the book we've protected children far too much and because they live in a world that has been purged of risk for them at the point that they face risk they don't have the tools to manage it and so they demand safety they demand someone deliver them an adult analog of the world they grew up in and it's impossible it's not good for them and yet we're tearing apart civilization over the demand you know what's actually helpful is it's helping me think it through because chesterton insists it's it's kids he's talking about you know so let's say little kids learning how to play with the right restrictions but then to reach the point life where you say okay i can now on my own without all the you know parental controls in place i can actually learn how to play myself etc well this is one of one of the big errors of moderns i think is saying okay i want the rule tell me the rule what's the right yeah and maybe the rule is um children should be protected really all children one-year-olds five-year-olds 10 year olds 15 year olds protected in the same way to the same degree obviously not right right um you know you protect a one month old completely a one month old can do nothing on their own but a 15 year old and a five-year-old in you know in america versus in say madagascar where we have experience has very different exposures uh and the five-year-old frankly is a more competent person than a five-year-old than almost any five-year-old american but we know like if you just think about it a little bit you know that something magical doesn't happen on your 18th birthday right and you're suddenly an adult right it is a series of it is developmental it is evolutionary and it requires the experience otherwise we have as we have too many of now um adults by in body um but not in mind right allowed no experience you two talk about this and and jordan peterson does too the the play between like order and chaos and the hero's journey of going out from order into chaos and you know bringing something back or bringing order into it etc and it's the willingness to be exposed to chaos and to be exposed to danger and so on that is key to that journey and that one of the marks of the locust thing is look and just keep me safe at all times and i i'm not going to venture forth we were saying before we sat down for the formal interview that look at this cross i'm wearing here we place christianity at the center of our attention someone who's dying on a cross i mean someone who's exposed to every possible danger and how weird and interesting really that we hold that up for the contemplation of the world it's not someone who's in a safe place but someone who's very exposed in a very dangerous place but the ultimate hero going into that you know and i would say bringing into it the grace of god and the love of god but anyway i i appreciate that your book very much of how the wokest thing is affecting the psychology of our kids well the problem is we we descended from people whose cultural traditions were a perfect match for their environment or nearly so and the lessons the proper lessons would automatically be acquired and it was a dangerous world but it was a world in which you could bootstrap your way to high levels of adult competence just by doing what seemed like you should do by being cautious when you felt fear you know that sort of thing right and we have removed the logic and we haven't actually then noticed what that obligates us to do and so as parents we actually have rules for our kids that i think would sound strange to most people right so our kids know that we are not being ironic we're not joking with them we say look you are not allowed to damage your head you can't damage your eyes you can't damage your neck you're going to damage your back you are allowed to break your arm yeah right it's not that we want you to break your arm and they've taken us up on this they've done that and it's not that we won't take care of you if you damage your eyes but the point is when you are doing things that put these things in jeopardy you're taking on a whole other level of responsibility and they also know that we believe the only way you're going to mature into an adult who can manage these things is if you have close calls and you process them properly you don't think well yeah right it came out okay i did the right thing you think it through right you have to say well if the only reason that i you know if i stepped into the street and a car almost hit me but it didn't touch me the answer isn't i must have done something right the answer is the only thing that protected me from death was luck it was dumb luck anytime that happens i've got a lot of thinking to do about where my error was and you know it does produce people who can navigate the world but the problem is it's not built into our schools it's not built into what we say to parents and so we have just this level of um of learned helplessness at adulthood that couldn't it couldn't avoid being a disaster at the point these people start voting and you know pushing institutions around well it introduces risk i mean risk is the point at some level and so parents or schools uh that parent or educate this way will experience some tragedies occasionally and those i don't know how you recover from that yeah um we have been lucky and yet we argue excuse me that the societal level tragedy of raising whole generations of children who have not been exposed to risk who don't have the capacity to navigate any of these things is far greater and it doesn't leave the same kind of obvious death count it doesn't leave the obvious bodies but it is a bigger tragedy it's a bigger average and so i mean again maybe this is a problem of reductionism you can easily point to a tragically dead child and it's harder to point to generations of people who don't know how to navigate their own moods or bodies or decisions yeah right let me raise a couple things here that as i was reading your book i'm thinking uh-huh yeah church agrees with that yeah that's the church's point of view i'll name a couple um the issues of sex and gender i mean so making a certain distinction between them but then saying look you can't talk about gender apart from sex and that that attempt has just been disastrous we would certainly agree with that um i highlighted we should not interfere with children's development by trying to block pause or radically alter their development amen to that i would say um also the the role of of um pornography in our society i mean it's just so apparent you know my generation thank god we didn't have the internet and so people didn't get addicted the same way but the i know from dealing with you know young people for years the vast majority of them frankly are addicted to pornography and the hugely deleterious effect that's had on their lives and of course the church again says yes it seems to me that you know you would be making your own case for these things but we'd be agreeing very much with the conclusion so say a little bit about that like why are you standing against uh these things well um let's start with with porn yeah first of all we have to draw a distinction right it's not that we are saying that erotic content is inherently bad right erotic content obviously has a very long history in fact our museums are filled with it yeah right what puts pornography in a separate category is the market influence over its content and if you think for a second about what it is that people who produce pornography are doing in the market they're competing with each other for attention and in order to get attention when in fact what they're selling is just access to erotic content they have to push the boundaries of what's acceptable in order to stand out in that saturated market now the problem is if you look at how ancient people came to understand what sex was there was a lot that was by observation right if you're sleeping in the same hut with your parents and you're pretending to be asleep and they're engaged in something you learn about how people actually sexually interact as uncomfortable as that question may be but if you then take a creature that is trying to figure out what the sexual world is and what you give them in as far as sexual content is pornography in which the pornographers have been in an arms race with each other dipping into every taboo in order to get attention and then people come to believe that this behavior is normal and then they enact it on each other and that could hardly be more destructive of the kinds of relations i mean sex is an important part of uh permanent romantic relationships and for people to have been misinformed about what the nature of that interaction is supposed to be means that they are now not on a solid footing to build those relationships and to to sustain them yeah so it's about dehumanizing and reductionist again right um but it also pretends that um that only the person who is observing the porn has any agency in in a sexual act and i and i believe that and i can't point to any data here but i i i believe that people who come into their sexual understanding by watching porn it's all about me it's my it's all about me and no matter what the person watching does cannot change the the thing that is happening and so of course they are going to be when they come to find what might be their life partner um that they have no idea actually what to do to actually come into relationship isn't it true that statistically like young people are having much less sex than they ever did before and they're having much more difficulty with sexual relations because of porn many argue it's not making them happy it's not making them happy yeah the liberation isn't making them happy and the pornography isn't making them happy and and the fact is we've now been involved in this conversation for a long time because of course we had all sorts of students who were trying to navigate romantic relationships and we heard about these things um more and more the recognition that whatever it is that people have been told they should want is not making them happy when they get it that's dawning on people yeah what they don't have is any idea of what they're supposed to do about it and and it seems that it is increasingly the norm uh that is um we have two teenage boys and um we hear from our teenage boys who do not watch porn uh that it is um they are not believed in their friend group is it right when they say they don't watch porn they're not believed they're not believed it is so normalized right that they um that it can't come up um that you know some a girl that they might be interested in should want to know this right this should be something that any young woman would want to know about a a potential partner yeah but it is so normalized that even you know that you can't even bring it up because bringing it up no actually i don't do that that's not part of my life isn't uh isn't part of a normal conversation that itself would be strange so that tells us that we are really far afield aren't they starting to like they're saying 11 12 years old like these very young kids start watching pornography yeah and their brains must be just wired then from that point well we you know we set them up because we have a culture that is obsessed with sex in part um because you know even in movies where that's not exactly what they're selling it's still a mechanism to get people in in seats so we have a sex-obsessed culture which means that kids are very understandably very curious about what this phenomenon is that seems so powerful right and then the answer they are given is completely misleading and that what they don't have are good models right because to the extent that there are good models they're more or less invisible and they don't yeah leave a lot of evidence and they don't have any way of inferring what role sex is supposed to be playing because it's something that humans are not very straightforward about discussing so you know we've given them effectively an unsolvable puzzle and it's no surprise that they're not solving it yeah yeah you know let me close with a question because this struck me too very much one of our principles uh as i articulate kind of a word on fire spirituality is your life is not about you it's a bait and you have the line about this the world is not about you right as a basic insight tell me about that as an important kind of moral insight well i mean the first thing to recognize is that evolution is in some ways practical to an absurd degree and what it has done is it has built us to be focused on exactly that range of phenomena that we can have some productive influence over but it isn't scheduled to being a modern person that that realm is set based on what an ancestor had power over so there was no purpose in an ancestor worrying about whether or not that ancestor would have descendants 20 generations later because there was no influence that that ancestor had on what happened 20 generations into the future so they're focused on now and they're focused on here and now of course we have the power to to alter whether or not there are people on this planet a thousand years from now and so we should be focused in this but we're not we we uh our sense of what is important is built in a world we no longer live in and what that means if you correct for that distortion that evolution has made us focus on the here and now because that was what was productive in the past if you correct it and you say well what am i really yeah right i am a very temporary custodian of something really important and ancient and it is my job to do what i can to make sure that thing is still happening a thousand years from now and 5 000 years from now well it changes everything yeah it changes everything about what you are and it also changes your um it eliminates your solipsism right once you realize that you're a temporary custodian of something that if all goes well will be here long after anyone remembers who you were right well then the point is that's a that's a lot of responsibility b it puts in context what we call the cosmic joke right you are in a very odd position as a creature with sort of limited deductive skills in a very complex confusing universe trying to make your way you know simultaneously not starving to death you know trying to figure out how to put your kids uh into a good position to thrive right it's a very odd thing to find yourself a person yeah um but it it's you can do better with it and you can do worse with it and that's kind of the question are you going to take what you've got and make the most of it without getting obsessed with the fact that you're not going to be here after a point mm-hmm go ahead i mean i concur um i think maybe the first time i remember thinking explicitly um the world is not about you was in response to our students uh we ran a study abroad trip in ecuador for 30 students and we took our children with us those are great parts of the book by the way when you guys describe those trips they're really very compelling thank you and it really is extreme talk about risk and embracing serendipity and exploration and figuring out what all is possible in the world right um but one of the things that some of our students we started to hear them saying was oh you know another bad thing happened you know we had a lot of close calls on this yeah one of the things when i said through the mantras that some people started saying was oh nature's out to get us ecuador is going to kill us so it doesn't care except it doesn't care about us exactly but in the spiritual masters that's a very important move in a lot of the initiation rituals which because we've lost totally and to our detriment but that's a major part of it is to convince people nature doesn't care about you that's why by the way worshiping nature it never has a big high priority for me i mean nature mother nature whatever she is doesn't care about me she'd knock me over in a second you know and this is it's a hard lesson it's a hard lesson but a very important lesson it's absolutely critical and you know and i would i would say this like i got bad news for you it's far worse than he she at whatever is out to kill you doesn't care at all right which means you're on your own but you're not because we are here right so we are here we have created a community and it's bigger you make your community as big as you can and know that self-reliance and reliance on those with whom you have come into community are what you've got yeah and and that's i mean i think that's the origin of yeah the world is not about you yeah that's a good note maybe to end we come to the end of our time but uh i could talk to the two of you all day about all these questions great and small because i love how the small questions move to big questions pretty fast and vice versa so enjoy the conversation immensely thank you both for being here thanks for having me this is great fun [Applause] [Music]

Channel: Bishop Robert Barron

Views: 219,458

Keywords: bishop barron presents, bishop barron, bret weinstein evergreen, bret weinstein, heather heying, dr heather heying, dr bret weinstein, bret weinstein podcast, heather heying book, bret weinstein book, wokeism, bret weinstein heather heying, heather heying interview, bret weinstein wokeism, bret weinstein evolution, heather heying evergreen, catholic interview, bishop barron interview, word on fire interview, intellectual dark web, darkhorse, darkhorse podcast

Id: DbwXe5LhNNA

Length: 77min 2sec (4622 seconds)

Published: Fri May 13 2022