Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of crisis. 

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future generations.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it happening?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.

Aengus Anderson: So I am here in beau­ti­ful Wyoming, and it is emp­ty and des­o­late, and I was just camp­ing at the side of the road because there’s no one out here and it does­n’t matter. 

Micah Saul: I absolute­ly love that state. It is just…it is so pretty.

Anderson: It’s hard to beat. And between that the epic scenery and the epic emptiness…yesterday I was dri­ving along and I saw this motor­cy­cle pulled over at the side of the road. There’s no one there. It’s like oh, this looks ter­ri­ble. Drove down the road a lit­tle fur­ther and there’s this sort of disgruntled-looking guy with his leather jack­et on and he flagged me down. Turns out he’s an Olympic fenc­ing coach out of New York and his GPS had told him there was a gas sta­tion out in the mid­dle of nowhere in Wyoming and he’d fol­lowed it out there. And of course, man, there’s noth­ing out there. 

Saul: I actu­al­ly nev­er believed that Wyoming exist­ed until I got there, because I’d nev­er heard of any­body going to Wyoming. I’d nev­er met any­body from Wyoming. I was pret­ty sure it was just this big emp­ty space in the mid­dle of the coun­try that car­tog­ra­phers were like, Well shit, how did this hap­pen? I’ll just call it Wyoming that’ll do.” So I was real­ly embar­rassed. But, Wyoming does in fact exist, and you’re going to be talk­ing to a state rep­re­sen­ta­tive in Wyoming, David Miller.

Anderson: Yeah. He’s in Riverton, which is up in the mid­dle of the state, and that’s where I’m about to dri­ve to. We heard about David Miller through House Bill 85, which has been chris­tened by the press as The Doomsday Bill.” And of course when it comes to dif­fer­ent visions of the future, we’ve had a lot of peo­ple talk­ing about col­lapse. We just led into this from Joseph Tainter, who gave us a pret­ty scary vision of col­lapse. And this is what Wyoming does when the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment collapses.

Saul: Right

Anderson: To the best of my knowl­edge, there aren’t a lot of states look­ing at that scenario.

Saul: And that’s real­ly what attract­ed us to David Miller. This seems like a real­ly inter­est­ing new idea. 

Anderson: Interesting and provocative. 

Saul: Oh, absolute­ly provoca­tive. Actually, I think that’s one of the things I’m hop­ing to get from Miller is, what was his intent? Is he actu­al­ly con­cerned about this, or is this a media event?

Anderson: And if he is real­ly con­cerned about it, I want to know what he thinks the col­lapse is. You know, where that con­nects with our last con­ver­sa­tion. And what we do in the eventuality.

Saul: Right. I’m also inter­est­ed in why is this nec­es­sary now? I mean, it sounds to me like he believes we live in in one of those moments that we talk about, oth­er­wise why would you be intro­duc­ing this right now?

Anderson: So let’s see what he says. I’m going to point the car towards Riverton, and here’s David Miller.

David Miller: I’m a geol­o­gist. That’s what I grad­u­at­ed in. Got my first job at a ura­ni­um mine oper­at­ing in Grant, New Mexico, and then was offered a job up here in Riverton, Wyoming at a build­ing about a hun­dred meters from here. So I moved up here in 1977. It’s explo­ration, ura­ni­um explo­ration and ura­ni­um min­ing. All three min­ing meth­ods, open pit and [sit to?], and also under­ground min­ing. I’ve worked in all three of those envi­ron­ments. Mostly expi­ra­tion is where my love is, it’s final­ly min­er­al resources and explor­ing them and mak­ing high­er val­ues out of them. 

Aengus Anderson: So you’ve got this long back­ground in mate­ri­als and geol­o­gy. But you’re also in the Wyoming state leg­is­la­ture. And what brought me here is House Bill 85. Can you tell me about that?

Miller: You know, it got coined by the press as the Doomsday Bill, so it was head­line news for the whole entire time it was going through the process. And all the Bill did was put togeth­er a task force to study Wyoming’s response to pos­si­ble crises that could occur with our fed­er­al gov­ern­ment con­tin­u­ing on the track that they’re on, which is gross­ly over­spend­ing and bor­row­ing gross amounts of mon­ey. It’s not clear­ly sus­tain­able in our mind here in Wyoming, where we man­age our resource as well and we bal­ance our bud­get every year. Do we have to sit back and ride this train off the track with every­one else, or can we think a lit­tle bit ahead and try to plan for a lit­tle bit and have some con­tin­gen­cies in place?

What hap­pens if the dol­lar los­es its val­ue rapid­ly? Even a nat­ur­al dis­as­ter sit­u­a­tion. Maybe Yellowstone starts smok­ing, or maybe we have a big flood or some­thing like that. Do we rely on gov­ern­ment all the time, or do we try to set up this Wyoming-based infra­struc­ture to respond to these things?

Anderson: As you know, with this series the idea of cri­sis comes up a lot. Let’s put some more flesh on this. What’s kind of the worst-case sce­nario, where a Bill like this, what’s it real­ly respond­ing to? What the real fear?

Miller: Well, I told you about the book I’m read­ing. It looks at Weimar Germany. The pub­lic sec­tor retirees are dev­as­tat­ed, gov­ern­ment work­ers are dev­as­tat­ed, because gov­ern­ment wages don’t go up fast enough to keep up with the infla­tion that’s occur­ring. And it gets you to think­ing you know, what’s the solu­tion to our debt cri­sis? Sixteen tril­lion dol­lars or so is appar­ent­ly the offi­cial debt. Are we ever going to pay that many off? And I think the answer’s no, because of the way the fed­er­al reserve and the bank­ing sys­tem is set up, that you always want to have infla­tion. And frankly most peo­ple don’t take the time to fig­ure out that infla­tion is the way for those peo­ple who set up the sys­tem to basi­cal­ly game the system.

More and more peo­ple are real­iz­ing that it’s a rigged game. And right now it looks like we’re in the begin­ning of the rigged game kin­da com­ing to its end point. As we see what’s hap­pen­ing in Greece, Spain, the whole Euro area, are we going to see the same thing here? I don’t see why not.

Anderson: So on the ground, for a per­son in Wyoming, what does the world look like if if the game’s up?

Miller: I think Wyoming’s a great place to be. We’re pret­ty much self-sufficient. We can sur­vive here in Wyoming. We have agri­cul­ture base, we have a min­er­al base, we have nat­ur­al gas all over the place, coal. But again, there needs to be some sort of gov­ern­men­tal unit help­ing orga­nize these iso­lat­ed areas if there was­n’t a con­nec­tion with the fed­er­al government. 

You know, I actu­al­ly don’t even think this’ll hap­pen. These were all what-if sce­nar­ios. But we have real things going on at the same time. And it’s just not this admin­is­tra­tion that caused these prob­lems. This has been going on since the Federal Reserve was cre­at­ed. So, every­one’s kind of been in the game. You can look at his­to­ry, the Greeks and the Romans, and every­one. This is what gov­ern­ments always did. They debase their cur­rent­ly to keep the social pro­grams going longer and longer. At some point every­thing has to come to a head. Either you denounce your debt, or you hyper­in­flate. Those are the two endgames. Which will it be in this coun­try? I don’t know the answer to that.

Anderson: It’s inter­est­ing that you men­tion that. The last guy I spoke to was a his­to­ri­an, and he’s writ­ten exten­sive­ly on the col­lapse of civilizations.

Miller: Okay.

Anderson: And we talked for a long time about the Western Roman Empire. And when it sort of hits the bound­aries and there’s no one else to gob­ble up, it no longer has the ener­gy to sup­port this incred­i­bly com­plex infra­struc­ture. In the short term, it solves that by devalu­ing the Roman cur­ren­cy. In the longer term, it solves that by…falling apart.

Miller: Right, right.

Anderson: What what do you think of the ideas of com­plex­i­ty and collapse?

Miller: You know, you look at the the Roman Empire, and how long did it real­ly last? Five hun­dred, six hun­dred, sev­en hun­dred years? It’s actu­al­ly an amaz­ing suc­cess sto­ry. And you look at our coun­try, you know, we’ve only been around two hun­dred years. And maybe for a hun­dred years as as the pow­er that we are. So has it tak­en one hun­dred years exact­ly for us to squan­der that incred­i­ble wealth that we built up? I don’t want to say that, but you know the pic­ture is start­ing to become clear­er. That’s the image I have right now.

Anderson: A lot of peo­ple I’ve spo­ken to real­ly wor­ry that we’re at a point where we may col­lapse, we have finite resources, an econ­o­my based on lim­it­less growth, grow­ing pop­u­la­tion. Things are so inter­con­nect­ed, if one thing goes it all goes. You know, I was telling you about Jan Lundberg, who’s think­ing about ener­gy, and for him the wor­ry isn’t so much that we’re going to run out of resources, it’s that we’ll have a crimp in the sup­ply chain that’s long enough to cause social chaos, and then the sys­tem falls apart because it’s inter­re­lat­ed. So there are a lot of peo­ple who’ve put real­ly scary ideas of the future for­ward. Do you think there’s any mer­it to those? Are those things we should be con­sid­er­ing at all?

Miller: You know, of course you can envi­sion what he was think­ing about. Our elec­tri­cal grid in this coun­try is get­ting some­what anti­quat­ed. It’s not keep­ing up with the times. The ideas from frankly the green side, the renew­able ener­gy side of hav­ing more local sources of ener­gy so you don’t have to have these huge infra­struc­ture projects of pow­er lines. Things like that. That makes a lot of sense from a sta­bil­i­ty point of view. I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly agree that it need to be solar pan­els and wind tur­bines. I frankly think nuclear is the clean­est, green, sus­tain­able, dis­patch­able and scal­able ener­gy out there. But that’s a dif­fer­ent part of the conversation. 

It’s a pen­du­lum mov­ing back and forth, and we’re on this side now were the sky’s falling again. I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly think the sky has to fall. I think we can come back from the cliff. But how do we do that? I kind of go back to Frederick Baptiste who wrote a book called The Law. It was writ­ten I believe in the 1840s; a French guy. And there’s lots of pro­found things in there that he says, that basi­cal­ly any­time we pass a new statute, a new law, you’re tak­ing from some­one and help­ing some­one else. Whether it’s right or wrong, that’s exact­ly what you’re doing. So be very very care­ful when you’re writ­ing new laws all the time. And I frankly think we have way too many laws. That it ham­pers society. 

Even here in Riverton, Wyoming. Our local farm­ers mar­ket folks are get­ting ham­mered. There’s noth­ing worse than going to a leg­isla­tive meet­ing and you have a church group there where the state agri­cul­ture depart­ment Has passed some rules and regs that don’t allow them to do bake sales any­more. The leg­is­la­ture prob­a­bly passed some leg­is­la­tion requir­ing safe food. The rules and regs are made up by a bureau­cra­cy. And they have peo­ple out there enforc­ing it. And so you’re empow­er­ing these gov­ern­ment work­ers to go out there and impact the pri­vate sec­tor. In bake sales, lemon­ade stands. We’re impact­ing all those peo­ple. That’s not my intent as a legislator.

Can we go back to what made America suc­cess­ful? Private enter­prise, not gov­ern­ment deter­min­ing what works and what does­n’t work. Let indi­vid­u­als have a free reign to be able to do things and decide what soci­ety’s demand­ing, and let them go pro­duce it. I think we can go back to that. It’s not gonna be easy, because there’s a class of peo­ple that depend on that Social Security check, farm­ers depend on their PILT pay­ments. They give them mon­ey not to grow things.

I don’t think that’s what our found­ing fathers meant for the vision of America. You know, we need some safe­guards for peo­ple that real­ly can’t sur­vive in soci­ety, peo­ple that may have phys­i­cal lim­its in their mind or their body. We need to take care of those peo­ple. But the num­ber of peo­ple we’re tak­ing care of now that are ful­ly intact is just out­ra­geous. Society will col­lapse in that scenario.

Anderson: So that’s kind of the worst-case sce­nario for you.

Miller: That’s the worst case. Well, to me that’s, uh…you want to car­ry it to the absolute extreme, you’re look­ing at Stalinist Russia. 

Anderson: Why now? We’ve had a lot of dif­fer­ent moments where soci­ety has had a real­ly large gov­ern­ment. I mean, World War II comes to mind for me. Why is this par­tic­u­lar moment a moment where we need to be think­ing about that, or where we need to be think­ing about some­thing like the Doomsday Bill?

Miller: I think we’ve reached a point where the rules and regs are such that pri­vate sec­tor com­pa­nies can’t func­tion in this envi­ron­ment any­more. If you live by every rule on the books, you’re break­ing some law almost on a con­tin­u­ous basis. That’s not cor­rect. And they’re all the best-intentioned laws. They’re all for the chil­dren. I just…when peo­ple say it’s for the chil­dren, that’ll get me going. Because there’s noth­ing bet­ter for chil­dren than a healthy home and good jobs for the parents.

Anderson: Right. So, why now? Is this the moment of like, there’s so much that it will implode if we don’t deal with this? Or is the whole Doomsday Bill thing just…drama?

Miller: It end­ed up being just dra­ma, at this point. It was a seri­ous note, and I don’t know if it real­ly would have done any good. But do the bil­lions of dol­lars Wyoming has in reserve, do they need to remain in US trea­suries, or should they be invest­ed in real assets? Gold, sil­ver, or farm­land, or coal deposits, or some­thing like that, that aren’t going to decrease in val­ue. You know, humans don’t live long enough to under­stand the span of his­to­ry. So we repeat the same mis­takes over and over again.

Anderson: And that seems like a wor­ri­some thing.

Miller: Yeah.

Anderson: So, for you it seems like the social good is a freer mar­ket. Is that a fair…

Miller: We’re going to get more cre­ative peo­ple doing more cre­ative things advanc­ing soci­ety faster. One of your last inter­views was the gal about the space explo­ration, and you had one before that on min­ing oth­er plan­ets. And I just remem­ber think­ing when I was six­teen years old in 1969 when we land­ed on the moon that wow, that’s real­ly some­thing sig­nif­i­cant. In my life­time, that to me has to be the most sig­nif­i­cant thing. Why don’t we have colonies on some of these oth­er plan­ets? To me, that’s the way mankind sur­vives if we want to sur­vive into per­pe­tu­ity. That’s the only way, is to get out there and explore, and get big­ger and use our resources we have here to get out there and and col­o­nize the universe.

Anderson: So there’s a sense of of growth, I think, [crosstalk] that we’re get­ting into

Miller: I mean, that’s a huge, expan­sive thought. But that’s in my mind what humankind is capa­ble of doing. Maybe not in the next hun­dred years, but we have to keep advanc­ing all the time. We can’t go back. I like this thought of hol­ing up some­where in a small lit­tle house with the wood stove and hav­ing a for­est out my back door and being able to sur­vive off the grid and all that. That’s appeal­ing to me, too. But is that real­is­tic for eight bil­lion peo­ple? It’s not.

All those peo­ple in China, all those peo­ple in Laos, all those peo­ple in India, they’re all striv­ing to become middle-class peo­ple, too. And they have that right. And I think they can achieve it by tech­nol­o­gy and by allow­ing more free mar­ket enterprise.

Anderson: So we don’t live in that now, I guess.

Miller: In some areas, we do. The the Apple mod­el, with all their apps and things like that, I think that’s bril­liant. And I want to see more of that. But I don’t want to just see it in that sec­tor. I want to see it in all sec­tors. I want to see it in food. Right now, food pro­duc­tion in this coun­try is gross­ly con­cen­trat­ed in very few large multi­na­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions. I don’t think that’s a good thing. Mining is the same way. The US com­pa­nies Anaconda and Kennecott used to be the pow­ers of the world back in the 1950s. What hap­pened to all that? Well, it was rules and reg­u­la­tions and law­suits. We don’t con­sume less of those things.

People think we’re in this post-industrial age right now. But every one of us in America right now still con­sumes over a hun­dred pounds of mate­ri­als per per­son per day. The coun­try of Chad I think con­sumes four pounds. Who’s bet­ter for the envi­ron­ment, the per­son in Chad, or the per­son in America that con­sumes twen­ty five times the amount of resources of the per­son in Chad? Well, if you take a look at the coun­try­side in both of those coun­tries, our coun­tryside’s a lot better-looking and more envi­ron­men­tal­ly friend­ly than Chad. What came first? The wealth came first, to help us main­tain. We have more for­est now in this coun­try than we did a hun­dred years ago. A rich soci­ety is a good soci­ety, and a clean soci­ety. It’s poor soci­eties where resources get dev­as­tat­ed, nat­ur­al resources like the environment.

Anderson: Even though they’re being used by the rich societies?

Miller: Well, I don’t know what we’re get­ting from Chad that we’re using here in the US. I don’t think a lot. Again that’s another—

Anderson: Maybe for China or something. 

Miller: Well, that’s anoth­er anoth­er mis­con­cep­tion, is that we’re out there rap­ing and pil­lag­ing the world to sus­tain this lifestyle, and that we’re run­ning out of this and we’re run­ning out of that. And we’re not run­ning out of anything.

Anderson: So is there actu­al­ly enough? Like, we know there’s a finite plan­et that we’re on and unless we some­how do get into space to find more resources, we know there’s finite stuff. Finite clean water, finite nat­ur­al resources be they’ll oil or coal or what­ev­er. Can we bring the whole world up—and this is set­ting aside the social and eco­nom­ic aspects of distribution—could we phys­i­cal­ly bring the whole world up to say, an American stan­dard of living?

Miller: Once we cre­ate val­ue some­where so high that we can go to the moon or go to Mars and recov­er that val­ue from that deposit there, to pro­vide soci­ety the nec­es­sary ele­ments that they need. I don’t know what what that is, but again I view min­er­al resources as unlim­it­ed. And it’s those—

Anderson: Because you’re think­ing uni­verse, not planet?

Miller: No I’m actu­al­ly most­ly just think­ing on Earth. The Earth is so big, and has so much mass to it, that we’re real­ly nev­er going to run out of any­thing. Did we run out of whale oil?

Anderson: If we’d pushed that sys­tem, do you think we would have?

Miller: No, it was­n’t sus­tain­able. It was replaced. It was­n’t replaced overnight. Oil won’t be replaced overnight. Nuclear pow­er won’t be replaced overnight. Fusion nuclear pow­er is the end game, almost, to basi­cal­ly have unlim­it­ed ener­gy. I think the con­sump­tion will still peak, many times where we’re at right now. But the Earth can sus­tain that. You know, I don’t know what the pop­u­la­tion’s going to peak at. Is it going to be ten bil­lion or twelve bil­lion? But I think over the long term it would come down from that point and reach some sus­tain­able number.

Anderson: So, if we have enough resources to say we can actu­al­ly car­ry a sus­tain­able pop­u­la­tion at a high qual­i­ty of liv­ing, some­thing a lot of peo­ple bring up, and this has been a huge divide the project between peo­ple who are anthro­pocen­tric, they’re inter­est­ed in a world in which it’s essen­tial­ly about us, and peo­ple who are bio­cen­tric. And the bio­cen­tric peo­ple will point out (and actu­al­ly some of the anthro­pocen­tric peo­ple, too) that by explor­ing exploit­ing all of these resources, there are casu­al­ties in the nat­ur­al world. And those are things that have rights of them­selves. The anthro­pocen­tric peo­ple may see those casu­al­ties and say, Well, maybe those things don’t have rights in and of them­selves, but they feed back to us.” So there are two dif­fer­ent sort of argu­ments, both of which end up say­ing, Well, if we keep explor­ing and exploit­ing at our cur­rent rate, we’re going to kill a lot of oth­er stuff and that’ll be bad.”

Miller: Before humans were even on this Earth, things were being killed off right and left, already. I don’t under­stand where that argu­men­t’s com­ing from oth­er than to just try to scare peo­ple. Okay, and it’s a great argu­ment to scare peo­ple that things are dying off. We don’t see monarch but­ter­flies any­more, we don’t see frogs any­more. But I still see monarch but­ter­flies, and I still see frogs. Again, it’s the Chicken Little syn­drome. The sky’s falling. We have to do something.

Anderson: But we know there are cer­tain species that we’ve lost.

Miller: Oh yeah, we’ve lost prob­a­bly 99.99% of every­thing that’s ever lived. 99.98% were not caused by humans.

Anderson: But it’s dif­fer­ent when we do it, right?

Miller: No, I don’t see how it’s any dif­fer­ent. We’re a prod­uct of this plan­et. Did oth­er things make oth­er things go extinct in the past? Absolutely. Will some­thing pos­si­bly make us go extinct in the future? Possibly. I think it’s pret­ty bold of us to think that we’re hav­ing that big of an impact. Global warm­ing, glob­al cool­ing, I put all this stuff in the same boat. 

You know, from yes­ter­day to today I think it’s actu­al­ly cool­er, so are we in glob­al cool­ing for this one day right now? Well how about this one week? How about this one cen­tu­ry? How about this one mil­len­ni­um? We’re either doing one or the oth­er, all the time. There’s change, that’s the fact. We’re not going to stay at the sta­tus quo. 

Are we gonna lose some species due to human activ­i­ty? I don’t see why we would­n’t. I would say yes. Have we lost some already? Carrier pigeons I guess is an exam­ple. Yeah, we do impact, just like polar bears impact the seals. Just like…I don’t know what hap­pened to the wool­ly mam­moths? Did the Indians kill them all off when they came acro— I don’t know. What’s the answer to that? Everything has an impact on every­thing else. So does that have a val­ue? I don’t know? I can’t real­ly answer that question.

Anderson: In a project that asks the big ques­tions about the good, what if you had a short­er, bet­ter life? And this is sort of the argu­ment that John Zerzan brings up. For him, he’s into the idea of you know, real­ly small local com­mu­ni­ties, no tech­nol­o­gy. And for him, what do you get? Well, you get a much clos­er rela­tion­ship with your neigh­bors. You get much more qual­i­ty time. You get a rela­tion­ship with nature itself, with the land, which he feels, ara­tional­ly, that that has val­ue, right. And he was will­ing to say, You know what? I guess that’s a spir­i­tu­al feel­ing.” And I won­der if you can’t say exact­ly the same about the idea of mate­r­i­al progress. 

So on the oth­er end, the sec­ond guy I inter­viewed was a futur­ist. And he’s into deep tech­no­log­i­cal change. He’s into us genet­i­cal­ly engi­neer­ing our­selves and becom­ing greater organ­isms. Living for­ev­er, try­ing to extend life. He so anthro­pocen­tric that for him the only thing that cre­ates val­ue is him­self, right. And every­one can do that. And he’s very lib­er­tar­i­an in a sense. He real­ly believes every­one should have their place to kind of find their own thing. He does­n’t want to impose on any­one else. But he believes that part of that free­dom is for him to evolve beyond that. 

And so it’s like, there are these real­ly weird poles of thought and val­ue. One is find­ing it all in him­self. One is find­ing it in some abstract notion of spir­i­tu­al­i­ty that says nature is good. Where are we find­ing val­ue in this conversation?

Miller: Well, nature is good. I enjoy clean air and clean water as much as the most rabid envi­ron­men­tal per­son. I just think we can have the prod­ucts of soci­ety, as well as hav­ing these things. Progress is a good thing. I’m just sim­ply a real­ist. And I’m just try­ing to enjoy life, enjoy fam­i­ly, enjoy friends, and con­tribute to soci­ety as best I can. And I think pro­vid­ing ener­gy, I think pro­vid­ing the met­als that soci­ety con­sumes, that peo­ple have in their their iPads, in their iPods, in their iPhones… I think that’s an hon­or­able thing to do. What else would you do? You know, why fight that?

Anderson: Right, and that’s what I’m real­ly push­ing towards here. We just men­tioned a few things. Family is good, and time you spend with your fam­i­ly is good. So there’s a sense there that human rela­tions are good. There’s a sense that a cer­tain lev­el of mate­r­i­al wealth is good. Does that lead to the world of this futur­ist? Is it kind of…a slip­pery slope down there? Like, well when stuff is good…

Miller: I don’t know. I try not to get into those almost reli­gious issues. I try not to mix gov­ern­ment and religion.

Anderson: Right.

Miller: Or my pro­fes­sion­al life with reli­gion. To me that’s anoth­er sub­ject. You know, like, to me the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment is essen­tial­ly a reli­gious move­ment. You have to believe that this is going to hap­pen. You have to believe that man caused glob­al warm­ing, is caus­ing all these problems.

Anderson: You know, when you were say­ing keep­ing the reli­gious ques­tion sep­a­rate from cor­po­rate or gov­ern­ment ques­tions, for me this project is all about how do those things inform one anoth­er. when I talked to the futur­ist and I said, Why do you want to live for­ev­er? Why do you want to genet­i­cal­ly engi­neer your­self into becom­ing a dif­fer­ent sort of thing? Those are val­ue things, right? Where do you get that?” And he said it’s arational.

Miller: I think that’s almost human nature, though, again. I think were always ped­dling to go for­ward. We’re try­ing to climb that hill because the hill’s there. And that’s where I come from, is just find­ing anoth­er min­er­al deposit. That’s an accom­plish­ment. Provide the min­er­als that soci­ety cov­ets. They want it. They’re pay­ing dol­lars for it. That’s what moti­vates me.

Anderson: So is the good, then, per­son­al wealth?

Miller: No, no. It’s the jour­ney, is the good. An hon­est jour­ney. Doing things that don’t harm oth­er peo­ple but con­tribute to soci­ety as you’re going down this journey. 

Anderson: So we’ve got this idea of the good which is sort of peo­ple in a way who have free­dom to do things with their life, to chal­lenge them­selves, to find their own sort of ful­fill­ment. There’s sort of a coun­ter­weight in that we have to think also of col­lec­tive needs. And it seems like that’s the role of the gov­ern­ment in this ide­al sce­nario? Because we can’t always just be alone, right?

Miller: I don’t want to take it that far. We real­ly clear­ly need some gov­ern­ment at some lev­els. You know, you want to say it’s for nation­al defense. Well, I’m not even sure if we did­n’t have gov­ern­ments we would have a lot of war prob­lems. It’s almost a con­ser­v­a­tive anar­chist point of view.

Anderson: So there’s a real sense of opti­mism there. Which is some­thing I think is real­ly intrigu­ing, right. That peo­ple are capable…one, of actu­al­ly cre­at­ing a lev­el play­ing field and not of gam­ing it. That that world is pos­si­ble and that peo­ple are good enough to actu­al­ly live in a world that looks like that.

Miller: You know, I think most peo­ple oper­ate in that man­ner, more or less. But there’s always that per­cent­age that’s out there gam­ing the sys­tem. I don’t know if the course of our human his­to­ry who is going to change that much. Because I think we we just look at what’s hap­pened in the past, and is it going to be any dif­fer­ent. I’m scared for that, that we repeat, we repeat, we repeat.

Anderson: Is this a par­tic­u­lar moment where we need to be talk­ing about the future? And I’m ask­ing that think­ing of the Doomsday Bill, but also think­ing of all the oth­er con­ver­sa­tions and the many peo­ple I’ve spo­ken to who’ve said this is a real­ly impor­tant moment, whether it’s for social rea­sons or eco­nom­ic rea­sons or envi­ron­men­tal rea­sons. And there are oth­er peo­ple I’ve talked who’ve said, You know, the whole premise of this is wrong. This is not a par­tic­u­lar­ly crit­i­cal moment in history.”

Miller: I don’t know if this is a crit­i­cal point or not. I think in my life­time this is the most inter­est­ing time I’ve lived in. Is that crit­i­cal? It’s crit­i­cal in my life­time. Of course I wor­ry for my chil­dren and grand­chil­dren, what does the future hold for you? I think we can fix it. I think we have the resilien­cy to do that. We might be in for some rough times. But we’ve got to find solu­tions for that and get back to this engine that cre­ates the wealth that America had in the past. And we need to res­ur­rect that thought process. And to me the con­ver­sa­tion is in a small way part of that.

Aengus Anderson: So that’s a very dif­fer­ent voice in the project.

Micah Saul: I was hop­ing that we were going to get that sort of voice from him in this project. It’s a voice that we just haven’t seen yet before.

Anderson: And there were a lot of sur­pris­es there. I think the first thing I would like to men­tion is just some­thing that he said off record which isn’t in the cut at all. But David is one of the only inter­vie­wees that actu­al­ly went back and lis­tened to a lot of the oth­er con­ver­sa­tions. Which is some­thing that I think is just great and I hope we get more of that in the future, because it allowed him to real­ly talk with a much greater depth and knowl­edge about the oth­er peo­ple we’ve already spo­ken to. Like, he was right on the same page.

And he men­tioned some­thing that I thought was real­ly inter­est­ing, and was a good reminder for us. He thought that a lot of the inter­vie­wees we’ve spo­ken to, espe­cial­ly about envi­ron­men­tal issues, are tread­ing water in the sta­tus quo. And of course we’ve cho­sen all these thinkers because we con­sid­er them to be push­ing the lim­its of com­mon sense, and a lot of times to real­ly be ques­tion­ing ideas of nor­mal­i­ty. But for him, he sees their ideas as being rep­re­sen­ta­tive of most peo­ple. It’s a good reminder for us that of course every­one’s idea of the sta­tus quo is different.

Saul: Right. What it sort of points out is that the idea’s that you are buck­ing against are always going to seem like the norm.

Anderson: I mean, it’s a good point to bring in our own sub­jec­tiv­i­ty, which is one of the nice things that we get to do with this project because we’re not jour­nal­ists. That alone is just a great reminder to have.

Saul: Yeah. So I think the best place to jump in here is with what orig­i­nal­ly attract­ed us to him, the Doomsday Bill. I don’t know, I thought that was a pret­ty big sur­prise, that the Doomsday Bill is not real­ly as rad­i­cal of an idea as I thought it might have been.

Anderson: I had sort of the feel­ing of meet­ing the Wizard of Oz, you know. I’d come in expect­ing this giant mon­ster of the Doomsday Bill, and then when David start­ed explain­ing it more and explain­ing his atti­tudes about the future, it seemed like the bill was far more extreme than his actu­al beliefs about the future. I mean, he says it him­self. It’s a dra­mat­ic note of warn­ing that’s meant to spark conversation.

Saul: There’s no real idea that I got from him that he thinks we’re at a moment of crisis. 

Anderson: Clearly he thinks there’s a lot wrong, but he also empha­sized that he thinks we’re resilient and we’ll make it through this. Which makes me think well, a bill that is legit­i­mate­ly respond­ing to a fear of gov­ern­ment col­lapse, that would be the Conversation to me. But if it’s some­thing that’s sort of doing that in more a rhetor­i­cal sense, to kind of cap­ture peo­ple’s atten­tion and go, Hey, we real­ly dis­ap­prove of how things are being run now,” that seems more like it’s part of our cur­rent polit­i­cal back and forth, and less part of The Conversation, with a big upper­case T.

Saul: Right. So, it seemed like if you had to boil it down to sort of one real goal, there was this desire to go back to this gold­en era of cap­i­tal­ism, right. He’s real­ly look­ing at the past as the mod­el here.

Anderson: Definitely.

Saul: I found that inter­est­ing because he does use argu­ments from his­to­ry quite a bit, in much the same way Joseph Tainter does. That said, I was a lit­tle con­cerned that much of his evi­dence was influ­enced by per­son­al expe­ri­ence of the past as opposed to a more empirical—

Anderson: Are you think­ing— There are two points the jump to mind for me. Actually, they’re both cli­mate change-related, species-related. The anec­dote about peo­ple say we’re los­ing but­ter­flies and frogs, but he’s seen them. And also with cli­mate change, on a day-to-day basis some days it’s warmer, some days it’s cooler…

Saul: Right.

Anderson: That’s anec­do­tal evi­dence for some­thing in both cas­es that’s well-studied.

Saul: That actu­al­ly gives us an excel­lent excuse to talk about some­thing which we talked about before going into the project, but haven’t real­ly talked about on-air yet. We’re not real­ly inter­est­ed in going after that sort of thing. Like, when peo­ple are are using anec­do­tal evi­dence as opposed to empir­i­cal evi­dence, we’re not going to say, call them out on that. Because that takes us down a path that real­ly pre­vents us from going at the deep­er ideas, which is what we want to be doing.

Anderson: Absolutely, and that’s a con­cern I have in every con­ver­sa­tion I record. Flow is real­ly impor­tant. Those sta­tis­tics don’t ulti­mate­ly ham­per our goal of try­ing to por­tray how peo­ple are think­ing about the future. And I think that’s the same in this con­ver­sa­tion with David Miller. His thoughts on cli­mate and cli­mate change are very dif­fer­ent than I think the gen­er­al sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus that we have right now. That’s not some­thing I want to get into in a con­ver­sa­tion, because that ends the conversation.

Saul: Exactly. On that note, some­thing I did appre­ci­ate was he was hon­est that he did­n’t know. It’s always refresh­ing when peo­ple say they don’t know things.

Anderson: It seems to be rather rare, does­n’t it?

Saul: It real­ly, real­ly is. Speaking of refresh­ing, there was anoth­er area that I thought he dif­fers from many of the oth­er peo­ple we’ve talked to. He has a very Lockean view of humanity.

Anderson: That was cool, was­n’t it?

Saul: It was great, yeah. There’s only so much Hobbesian awful­ness you can take before you just want some­body to say, Hey, peo­ple are pret­ty alright sometimes.”

Anderson: There’s an opti­mism there, and I don’t know if I share it per­son­al­ly, and he would prob­a­bly say that’s because I’m from a big city. But again, I think it’s inter­est­ing to look back to the past and then espouse a sys­tem like that, because I don’t think we see any­thing in the past (and he men­tions this as well on the con­ver­sa­tion at one point), he seems to be of two minds about it. We do sort of repeat our­selves and his­to­ry is sort of a mess. And yet, he still holds out faith in a way that peo­ple are good enough that this sort of real­ly min­i­mal­ist gov­ern­ment sys­tem can work.

Saul: Right. 

Anderson: Man, I’d be lying if I did­n’t kin­da wish that I felt that opti­mism about human nature myself.

Saul: So, let’s talk about how he relates to oth­er peo­ple we’ve talked to. 

Anderson: Optimism is actu­al­ly a real­ly good con­nec­tion here, because he men­tions Ariel Waldman and her idea of progress, which he agrees with. And I think here we see a sci­en­tif­ic opti­mist. The very char­ac­ter that I think Joseph Tainter is so skep­ti­cal of, the belief that tech­nol­o­gy will make every­one’s stan­dards of liv­ing bet­ter. And there’s a real sense that things are going some­where. There’s a strong tie with Max More, too.

Saul: I think the real ques­tion here is if sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal progress is always mov­ing us for­ward, does Miller end up being on a slope towards transhumanism?

Anderson: Which is inter­est­ing, because I know he finds the ideas of tran­shu­man­ism absurd.

Saul: But is that real­ly the… I mean, in some ways that seems like the log­i­cal end­point from this idea that tech­no­log­i­cal progress is always mov­ing us forward.

Anderson: And actu­al­ly, the way that David men­tioned he tries to keep reli­gion and pol­i­tics, and reli­gion and busi­ness as sep­a­rate things… And I think if you do that, then you actu­al­ly kind of give tran­shu­man­ism carte blanche. If you believe in sci­en­tif­ic progress as a good, then I don’t think you have a leg to stand on when you crit­i­cize tran­shu­man­ism. And actu­al­ly I think this’ll be some­thing that’ll be inter­est­ing to talk to our next con­ver­sa­tion par­tic­i­pant about.

Saul: You’ll be talk­ing to Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society down in Denver.

Anderson: Yeah. I think a lot of ideas that David brought up here in terms of sci­en­tif­ic pos­i­tivism, Robert is going to expand upon. He’s writ­ten about the case for Mars, which is heav­i­ly root­ed in a tra­di­tion of sci­en­tif­ic opti­mism. More recent­ly, he’s writ­ten a book about envi­ron­men­tal­ism as an anti-humanistic endeav­or. There’s a lot going on there, and I think David’s going to be a real­ly good bridge between Joseph Tainter and Robert Zubrin.

Saul: We’ll be mov­ing from talk­ing about the past with Tainter, and hon­est­ly, talk­ing a lot about the past with David Miller, into real­ly just talk­ing about the future again. Talking about Mars, talk­ing about ener­gy, prob­a­bly the future of our world and how we relate to it.

Anderson: As long as we get fly­ing cars, you know, I’m okay with the future. So I think we should head into the future right about now.

That was Representative David Miller, record­ed July 11, 2012 at his office in Riverton, Wyoming. 

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This inter­view at the Conversation web site, with project notes, com­ments, and tax­o­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion spe­cif­ic to The Conversation.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.