The End of Global Order: A Conversation with Peter Zeihan and Ian Bremmer (Episode

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Peter Zeihan and Ian Bremmer about Peter's new book, The End of the World is Just the Beginning. They discuss a wide range of issues related to the deglobalization and demographic collapse, the differing fates of China and America, climate change, the war in Ukraine, and other topics.
Peter Zeihan is a geopolitical strategist, speaker, and author. Peter founded his own firm, Zeihan on Geopolitics, in 2012 in order to provide a select group of clients with direct, custom analytical products. Today those clients represent a vast array of sectors including energy majors, financial institutions, business associations, agricultural interests, universities, and the U.S. military.
He is the author of The Accidental Superpower, The Absent Superpower, Disunited Nations, and most recently, The End of the World is Just the Beginning.
Website: zeihan.com/
Twitter: @PeterZeihan
Ian Bremmer is a political scientist who helps business leaders, policymakers, and the general public make sense of the world around them. He is president and founder of Eurasia Group, the world’s leading political risk research and consulting firm, and GZERO Media, a company dedicated to providing intelligent and engaging coverage of international affairs. Ian is an independent voice on critical issues around the globe, offering clearheaded insights through speeches, written commentary, and even satirical puppets (really!).
He is the host of GZERO World on US public television and is the author of eleven books including his latest, The Power of Crisis: How Three Threats-and Our Response-Will Change the World. Ian also serves as the foreign affairs columnist and editor at large for Time magazine and teaches at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.
Website: ianbremmer.bulletin.com
Twitter: @ianbremmer
Released: July 14, 2022
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe/
Subscribe to the YT channel: kzbin.info_c...
Follow Making Sense on Twitter: / makingsensehq
Follow Sam on Facebook: / samharrisorg
Follow Sam on Instagram: / samharrisorg
For more information about Sam Harris: www.samharris.org

[@REALPOSEIDON]

Conversation starts at 7:55

[@mindofmark742]

Sam's voice would knock most people out in 7 minutes, thanks for doing a good deed.

[@kingsouther]

U da mvp!

[@tscotts9699]

Thanks. Can't stand this midwit's blah blah blah...

[@johnhancock1748]

Thank you my lord and savior "I love vaccines"

[@sanjivb53]

I wish Sam would get straight to the conversation with the guest/s. I've learned for sure that the real conversation starts 4 to 7 minutes after the subscription and other announcements. So I skip straight to that point.

[@hamzamahmood9565]

32:10 Peter's prediction on Russian oil pipelines not lasting long was absolutely spot on whearas Ian's suggestion that Russia would later bring them online to enter European market could not have been far from reality today. Yes, both of them had great insights, but Peter's predictions are hitting the nail so often it really makes you terrified of what the future of the world has in store for us.

[@anypercentdeathless]

Throughout, you'll also notice Bremmer's strategic ambiguity.

[@paolomath]

Best episode in a long long time. I have listened to Zeihan in several podcasts and found it always very interesting. The idea of adding Bremmer here to spar with him and add nouance and perspective makes it an exteemely valuable conversation. Well done

[@duncanmaclennan9624]

Only yesterday I thought “I wish Zeihan and Bremmer would be on a podcast.” 👏👏

[@tahwsisiht]

If you are so good in wishing, I have a long list of wishes to share. All for future to be possible. Unfortunately I am damn terrible with my wishlist. Now I almost afraid to wish. :)

[@commentsonthetube14]

I'm a big fan of both Ian and Peter. It was really cool hearing them hash it out a little bit. Paid for a month of podcasts just to listen to this, please bring them back!

[@zhoubaidinh403]

Let's see what happens, Zeihan says China will fall apart as soon as the end of 2023...That'll happen only if Washington is successful in forcing China to pull a Putin on Taiwan.

[@FLABrowncoat]

As fascinated as I am by Zeihan's work, it was really great to hear counterpoints to his assertions that come from a position of mutual respect.

[@curiositycloset2359]

Because that doesn't exist in the media. I'll also note, it's fairly insulting, to ziehan. That or sam is so brainwashed to his modality, the reality of what he is, and what they have done, is so removed from his expectations, he needs someone to hold his hand through this trying time, he and his pals created.

[@bathhatingcat8626]

@@curiositycloset2359 that’s why I rarely try to watch these sam podcasts anymore. Sam is part of a cult driven by the media

[@Whitfield369]

I am truly curious, and this is a sincere question. You actually are really fascinated by Ziehan's work? I found the guy is a compete charlatan who really have no idea on what he is talking about. Can you provide me one example where you find he is actually enlightening? I am actually very upset that Sam Harris had him on the Making Sense podcast.

[@empoweryou1]

@@Whitfield369 I'm not trying to hijack your question but I just recently came across Peter Zeihan and am looking for some critique of his work. My 1st impression of him has been quite good other than his complete confidence in his predictions. I would be interested in your reasoning for your characterization of him. Thanks.

[@Whitfield369]

@@empoweryou1 I welcome you to the discussion. I am sincere in this topic and not trying to take side. I am truly mystified on how he got so much praise so I really want to know other people's opinions. I started with the video from Nathen Rich, but people will immediately say he is a China-apologist. Nevertheless Rich summed up the obvious false claims from Zeihan very accurately in a condensed video, despite of his dramatic manner of presentation. I looked into the source to confirm that his information is indeed factual and not taken out of context from Zeihan's original videos. You can take a quick look and let me know your thoughts, and will be happy to follow up just for my own sanity: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4eznKJ9g9aLY5o, then the next two are more specific and longer. But you can skip through some of the points. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGeTk5SQpLyhpbM, and kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJ20fJeljKiZd8k. I will post this outside as well in case some other smarter people can shoot down Nathan Rich's analysis.

[@toddm7293]

Please make the full conversation available!

[@lasermonkey599]

One of the most insightful, alarming, and clear headed podcasts I’ve heard in a long while.

[@auditoryproductions1831]

Why the hell does Peter think Biden is a "populist". He mentioned that multiple times. Trump and Bernie Sanders were populists, if Biden is now a "populist" then I need an example of someone who Peter doesn't consider a "populist".

[@lasermonkey599]

@@auditoryproductions1831 great question. My brain flagged that as well but I didn’t think much of it

[@Btn1136]

@@lasermonkey599 on a longer timeline he’s a populist- though possibly superficial. He tries to appeal to race and class. More like trump than not.

[@lasermonkey599]

@@Btn1136 who, Sam Harris?

[@wantanamera]

I guess it’s his protectionist economic policy and isolationist foreign policy. Getting out of Afghanistan, Trump’s border policy, the trade war Trump started with China, etc. These are populist policies that Trump started and Biden continued. Maybe?

[@sidanx7887]

I would like to see a return to this after the developments over the last couple of months

[@auditoryproductions1831]

Me too

[@dfdf4874]

Enjoy good faith debates that are civil as well as substantive. I side with Peter, having just read his excellent book.

[@briano9397]

I wanted to believe it was good faith until Ian said we're not in a cold war with China. He has to be lying on purpose. He can't be that blind

[@prestongalle9158]

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Zeihander and I've always wondered how PZ would fare in a debate format like this. He seems to be a bit flame-happy towards opposing viewpoints, but I was glad to see he (as well as Ian Bremmer) kept things constructive and good-faith. Kudos to Sam Harris for putting this together and moderating it so evenly. I think that pretty much any round could have been expanded out into an 4-hour lecture, so there is a very long list of points where I wish Sam would have probed both guests more deeply. But I know that Sam Harris's forte is boiling down large & complex topics to easy-to-consume points.

[@johnnycomelately9400]

He spoke with Scott Horton a while ago, and they went back forth a decent amount if you're interested.

[@kenzothecornishTV]

Pz has to be one of the weaker guests In a while... Eg Ian correctly pointed out that cutting of gas to Germany would be result in a low percentage recession, Pz had no response, also Pz implied by cutting off Germany from gas, it would suddenly collapse as an industrial state. Guy seems more like a journalist making click bait articles than a serious mind....

[@chromelemon]

Zeihander....I like it. Greetings fellow Zeihander.

[@rogerortizgonzalez4597]

this conversation is so self-centered we " Americans" feed it up with 50 years of neo-colonialism in the US universities, which doesn't allow us and those called experts to see what's going on out there! should bring in more experts from outside, they can be something you can argue with, and be really challenged, otherwise is the same all bullshit, my belly American bottom.

[@rogerortizgonzalez4597]

listen tp Scott Ritter, knows better than this horse shit

[@jolness1]

Sam and Peter are two of my favorite thinkers. I'm looking forward to this. Especially after reading there are counterpoints. I don't accept everything Peter (or anyone) says as a matter of course but I appreciate his very data driven approach to geopolitical strategy.

[@Whitfield369]

I am truly curious, and this is a sincere question. You believe Ziehan is real-data driven? I found the data he pull is almost all wrong. What is worse is that all the data he drew from is readily available with even just Wikipedia. Let me just use use one example. Other than during wars, when commercial shipping requires military convoy? And after WW2, when the U.S. navy provide protection to shipping of all countries? Protect from whom? Do you agree with what he said?

[@seanmatthewking]

I don’t think there are literal military convoys for every commercial shipping vessel, but the power of the US Navy is known, and so nobody can f- with transportation guaranteed by the US without major conflict. I think it’s a basic tenet of international relations that a strong navy is required to maintain control over trade routes. So even if you have questions, I don’t think you’re questions uniquely apply to what Peter is saying here because I don’t think he’s saying something particular new in this case. From one layman to another, that’s the best I got.

[@Whitfield369]

@@seanmatthewking Since I had so much doubt on myself, I actually had the conversation transcribed so I don't mishear anything. Here are his exact words, which are as literal as they can be on the specifics on militarized convoy, started @10:00: "before world war II global trade in the way that we think of it today did not exist. There was no manufacturer's trade, certainly not supply chains, energy and agriculture tended to be kept in house. You, if you wanted something, you went out and you took it, colonized it, you expanded into empire. And those empires clashed, those clashes brought us the destruction of the world wars and the end of the Imperial era. At the end of that conflict, the Americans proposed a new way of functioning. Instead of everyone having to have their own sequestered, protected, militarized convoy systems, the us would use its Navy, which was the only one side to survive the war and would protect everyone's commerce everywhere at any time, no matter who you wanted to partner with, where you wanted to go, where you wanted to sell." First most of these sounded just word salad. But the last statement, which is more specific, simply has nothing to do with reality. With or without the US navy, at peace time, any government sponsored attack on any commercial ships would start a war between the nations involved. Since when the U.S. navy has to take on that responsibilities as he described? Is there ONE incident can be cited? FYI, incidentally here is an article from my research, if this guy bothered to google: defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-assuming-trade-depends-on-the-navy/ I would appreciate your response on this discussion.

[@auditoryproductions1831]

Why the hell does Peter think Biden is a "populist". He mentioned that multiple times. If Joe Biden is a "populist" then I don't what the word Populist means or how it is supposed to be used. Trump and Bernie Sanders were populists, I don't know anybody of any political spectrum or personality type that considers Biden a "populist".

[@mathualuisy1604]

Well said I completely agree! Love listening to Peter but he's definitely has an alarmist point of view. Lol

[@pimbu936]

Yesssss! You finally had the Z man on! He’s a must have!

[@moarschtuff9233]

Very pleased that this conversation took place. Sam and Peter have both had a major impact on my worldview.

[@jmc5335]

You excuse colonialism and racist bigotrry as well?

[@jonlevert]

same- i needed this!

[@bighands69]

@@jmc5335 Do you see racism in everything?

[@bighands69]

@moar schtuff I would suggest for people to read Milton Friedman as well.

[@jmc5335]

@@bighands69 Nah of course not. But I call it as I see it

[@dereksloan9585]

Fun talk! I love that Peter is willing to consider any outcome that the data leads to- the other guys are a fun counterpoint but they don’t have a competing argument- just a reluctance to see how much things might change

[@briano9397]

Yeah Ian lost me when he said we're not in a cold war with China 😂 that's either stupid on purpose or stupid on purpose. He must have an agenda to be that blind

[@nHautamaki]

@@briano9397 Nah just a different definition of 'cold war' than yours probably. In the cold war with the USSR, the US was absolutely doing everything it could to undermine and collapse the USSR as a functional state and existential threat to the US short of triggering an actual world ending nuclear war. If the US had taken or ever takes that attitude towards China, China will be collapsed and destroyed in a matter of months. That is why it's perfectly reasonable to say that the US is not in a cold war with China; at least, not the same kind of cold war that it was with the USSR. The US doing everything it could short of direct military attacks to harass, contain, undermine, and ultimately destroy the USSR needed 40 odd years to succeed because the USSR was internally resource self-sufficient, so they had the capacity to maintain themselves for a couple generations even with the US working against them. Because China is extremely externally resource dependent and has no capacity to control and protect its sources of resource imports without US cooperation, China would not last 40 years or even 40 months. The reason that China still exists is entirely because the US wants China to still exist. The US doesn't approve of many of the things China does and tries to stop it from doing those things, but not to the point of destroying China, because China poses no serious existential threat to the US, or its allies, and it never will, so condemning a billion people to starvation, political dissolution, anarchy, refugee status, and ultimately an early grave for hundreds of millions of them would be absolutely psychopathic overkill. Rather, what the US is trying to do is guide China down a path away from threatening and harming US allies without utterly destroying China, and hopefully there are enough sane people left in China's leadership trying to do the same thing. Because there are only two realistic outcomes here: either China finds a way to back down from threatening any American allies and interests without annoying its own nationalist maniacs too much and settles for several decades of a major economic depression which would be terrible, but that's the best case; or the nationalist maniacs seize enough power and go too far and force America's hand into toppling the first domino that ends inevitably with China's complete destruction as a modern state, and hundreds of millions of people die young in a hemmed in geography where over a billion live but which only has enough arable land and energy to feed a few hundred million without massive energy and agricultural imports that only the American led global order can reliably provide it with.

[@ericstromquist9458]

This episode alone -- a civil and enlightening debate between two of the three best geopolitical analysts (the other being George Friedman) -- is worth a year's subscription to the podcast, which I signed up for to hear the second half.

[@AlbertCloete]

Yup. Just signed up because of this one.

[@55cook]

How much does it cost to subscribe?

[@libertyprime9307]

It's $100/year. There are some links you can go through to sign up for free, but it sounds like Sam's team will "contact you" and interview you or something. I guess to probe how much you make?

[@ericstromquist9458]

@@55cook The website says $100 a year or $15 a month. I picked the year because looking over Harris' podcast list today and the wikipedia article on him I have a lot of commonality of interest and have already read or heard many of his guests.

[@Albatross125]

I literally said and felt the same thing in my head while listening to this. THIS is how a conversation should go. Absolutely amazing insight

[@joela.4058]

Such a good podcast, one of the best. Thank you for bringing Ian on to challenge some of those ideas instead of just interviewing Peter. Made for a much much more insightful podcast

[@CorePathway]

GET TO THE SHOW. I’m 5+ minutes in and Sam is just…talking and talking and talking

[@NAUM1]

Agreed, don't always agree with Ian but he questioned Peter in a way that I've been waiting for.

[@dougg1075]

Zeihan is a stud. I watched a bunch of his lectures. He knows what’s up.

[@shawnd5746]

Starts at 7:54

[@swaggitypigfig8413]

Thanks

[@mcryan3890]

Real MVP

[@Nylonnerves]

Thanks goodness I found this comment before I Sam put me to sleep.

[@Maynard0504]

"we dont run ads" yeah but you advertise yourself for 8 minutes jesus christ what a joke

[@joela.4058]

My two favorite people to listen to, Peter and Sam!! So cool

[@jameskonzek8892]

I'll dig with that! 👍

[@perihelion7798]

I listen to as much from Zeihan as I can, but I'm not obligated to agree with everything he says. However, his data is excellent, and deserves close attention.

[@MrBearcatjew]

his books are fantastic

[@JXY2019]

He’s very entertaining and has a tremendous amount of facts. I am more convinced by his demographic analysis and thoughts about the end of growth than I am on his prediction that America is going to withdraw and pirates will take over

[@perihelion7798]

@@JXY2019 Understanding history is vital, but being bound by it is foolish. Zeihan has written a book, which he is promoting seriously. OK. However, he can't detour from his book's conclusions, even if subsequent facts prove those conclusions to be wrong, in part, or totally.

[@licurgoalmeida]

I take PZ predictions as some sort of worst case scenario (especially for China) because I feel they always discard any sort of mitigation efforts that will inevitably happen. With that said, I really appreciate his approach and the reasoning for his conclusions. They are great food for thought. Besides that, I really appreciate his positive perspective about the future of the US. It is quite refreshing nowadays. I know we have a lot of problems here, but as an immigrant that moved to the US as an adult, I’m always impressed by the negativity and lack of perspective of many Americans. They have no idea of how much of a shit show the rest of the world is and how dire are the challenges other nations face.

[@kenzothecornishTV]

@@perihelion7798 he could if he were intellectually honest :)

[@bobwoodward3237]

Best Guest (along with Ricky Gervais) you've had in 288 episodes !!

[@jmc5335]

That mantle belongs to Ezra Klien imo

[@u2baccount67]

Didn’t expect you people doing a podcast together, that’s awesome!

[@JD..........]

Basically chocolate covered $ex of a podcast

[@mr.makeit4037]

Great interview. Keep them coming.

[@reeveetalk1907]

I’m so excited that more and more people are coming to know Peter’s work. He is maybe the one one person who can predict what will go on in geopolitics this century.

[@randallnorthwood8128]

B

[@cc-dtv]

I'm exited that despite not being a boomer, I'll still be dead or dying before climate change gets __super__ gnarly. Except the american southwest has/is about to demonstrat(ed) level of irresponsibility towards limited water resources far surpassing anything I would've predicted. If this is just the first example of how humans will handle climate change, shit's gonna be way worse than I thought

[@Ballistichydrant]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@inappropriatern8060]

I mean he's kinda fuckin hard to avoid. He puts out a video every ten minutes, ffs. I still think his prediction of China collapsing sounds a little bonkers.

[@wgreiter]

@@inappropriatern8060 Yes... so bonkers it could be veiled as an agenda. Be it wishful thinking or nudging opinion and influence to align with it. He's bright and insightful but I don't buy what he's cooking. A patriot's prophetic visions are typically tinted rosy. But if you throw enough excrement at a wall, some of it will stick.

[@carlatteniese2]

This was great Sam. Thanks. It’s also something that has to be listen to again and again. As usual-spreading it far and wide.

[@christopherbennett1173]

Yassss! Peter Zeihan and Sam! Amazing

[@mathualuisy1604]

Awesome two of my favorite people to listen to....Sam and Peter this should be super interesting!

[@caveman4659]

Do more of this stuff Sam.

[@KphexTwin00]

Podcast of the year.

[@TheStringBreaker]

*Didn’t know Peter was on the Making Sense pod recently! This is going to be exciting!*

[@jasonroku4219]

Wow my three favorite brains all in one podcast!!

[@ToriZealot]

I pity you

[@jamiewolf4601]

Making Sense is the opposite of Waking Up.

[@swordarmstudios6052]

Three of my favorite people on the same pod.

[@grahamelliott9506]

love peter's work, bought two of his books and its refreshing - even though the picture is grim - to have politics backed by rather objective and uncontroversial information

[@sshender3773]

Finally, a podcast worth listening to. I was frankly surprised with the latest selection of topics, which seemed a bit out of touch with current affairs.

[@jmc5335]

Sam Harris is perpetually out of touch

[@Realist968]

Wow Harris picked up Zeihan. Impressive.

[@Humanaut.]

The problem is, if I start listening to this I will have to pay for the second half so I'll rather skip this, even though I would like to listen to it as i just don't have the financial means at the moment.

[@D97Music]

I'm pretty sure subscriptions are free for those who can't afford it

[@billlyons7024]

Cool story bro.

[@vodkacannon]

The opening music alone sets a somber mood.

[@JD..........]

Yes!! No one like Zeihan. Can we get him on Rogan next??

[@superdonyoungy7743]

It would be awesome to get him on Rogan. Have you ever tried DMT

[@spiriscibridgingspiritscie3431]

What you probably don’t like is that Peter Z is so confident he’s right and that what he’s confident about is THE END OF THE WORLD’s prosperity through globalization, the primacy and dominance of the USA & North America (which many insightful people oppose), and the downfall of the fragile totalitarian states like China, Russia, and their abhorrent little brother and sister states…

[@johnc2802]

@Aloha He's a bit overconfident in his opinions and predictions.

[@towboattrash]

@@johnc2802 If I had his record of being right, I’d be confident too. Not that he’s always right, but his records better than most.

[@MakerInMotion]

That could blacklist him professionally. The current administration has called for Rogan to be censored off the internet (through Jen Psaki). That's a bad platform to go on if you serve as a military advisor.

[@dabrupro]

"Humans are funny. They are like caterpillars who have become conscious of their condition and believe that their purpose is to extend caterpillar life and improve caterpillar living conditions. " -- some guy I met on the street

[@WTorrie4]

Thats a smart guy. Did you give them Spare change?

[@dabrupro]

@@WTorrie4 Damn. I thought they made change illegal.

[@kylepatrickmurphy4058]

Great stuff!

[@marshallscot]

I've read all of Zeihan's books and I've been listening to a lot of podcasts with him over the last few months but this is probably the best one so far.

[@gaberoo9099]

Does Bremmer make you change any of your ideas regarding Peter Zeihan's forecast? Thanks.

[@jackhubert]

“The end of the world is just the beginning.” The beginning of WHAT?

[@marshallscot]

@@gaberoo9099 I don't think Bremmer swayed me one way or the other, but it was very nice having someone who is also very knowledgable on the subject and is willing to push Zeihan to go more in depth into his arguments. In a lot of the interviews of Zeihan I've listened to recently he ends up just saying the same things because the hosts always ask the same questions and they don't seem knowledgable enough or willing to make Zeihan elaborate any further.

[@gaberoo9099]

@@marshallscot Thanks. Just wanted to hear your opinion. I did not get to hear the entire podcast though.

[@gaberoo9099]

@@marshallscot I would imagine that folks who pay for his opinion would ask pointed questions and challenge his viewpoints, but maybe they don't (in which case that would be a shame).

[@RoadRunner217]

17:55 That line from Peter was so snarky and out of left field, that really could have been a Sam Harris line. :,D Jokes aside, I've really went down the rabbit hole in the last months and Peter Zeihan was one of my most viewed people on the topics of geopolitics. I searched a bit on the internet and didn't see any Sam Harris and Peter Zeihan conversation, so the fact that this episode with Zeihan's name popped up two days ago, is really exciting!

[@josephsmith3908]

Ziehan is a amazing geopolitical thinker

[@jamesdonop445]

Sam and Peter are my top two favorite thinkers.

[@billscannell93]

Accurately predicting the future seems like an almost impossible task, even for smart and knowledgeable people. There are so many different factors, and the functioning of the world is so complex. Maybe the caldera under Wyoming will blow tomorrow, and the whole show will be over.

[@bighands69]

Every fertile women in China today could go out and get pregnant and have 8 kids and China is still going to have a demographic collapse. For somebody that studies growth and populations it is obvious what is going happen. Once a population starts to decline it means their economy starts to become turbulent which puts more economic pressure on the very women that are need to have children.

[@sudazima]

now that was interesting and certainly needs a #2 in the future.

[@tbone5816]

Incredible stuff

[@randygault4564]

Thanks

[@stevendaniel8126]

Peter is a geopolitical God !!!!!!

[@CunningOfReason]

Blasphemy

[@ready1fire1aim1]

As Leibniz put it: “If an ontological theory implies the existence of two scenarios that are empirically indistinguishable in principle but ontologically distinct ... then the ontological theory should be rejected and replaced with one relative to which the two scenarios are ontologically identical.” In other words, if a theory describes two situations as being distinct, and yet also implies that there is no conceivable way, empirically, to tell them apart, then that theory contains some superfluous and arbitrary elements that ought to be removed. Leibniz’s prescription is, of course, widely accepted by most physicists today. The idea exerted a powerful influence over later thinkers, including Poincaré and Einstein, and helped lead to the theories of special and general relativity. And this idea, Spekkens suggests, may still hold further value for questions at the frontiers of today’s physics. Leibniz’s correspondent Clarke objected to his view, suggesting an exception. A man riding inside a boat, he argued, may not detect its motion, yet that motion is obviously real enough. Leibniz countered that such motion is real because it can be detected by someone, even if it isn’t actually detected in some particular case. “Motion does not indeed depend upon being observed,” he wrote, “but it does depend upon being possible to be observed ... when there is no change that can be observed, there is no change at all.” In this, Leibniz was arguing against prevailing ideas of the time, and against Newton, who conceived of space and time in absolute terms. “I have said more than once,” Leibniz wrote, “that I hold space to be something merely relative.” Einstein, of course, followed Leibniz’s principle when he noticed that the equations of electricity and magnetism make no reference to any absolute sense of motion, but only to relative motion. A conducting wire moving through the field of a magnet seems like a distinct situation from a magnet moving past a stationary wire. Yet the two situations are in fact empirically identical, and should, Einstein concluded, be considered as such. Demanding as much leads to the Lorentz transformation as the proper way to link descriptions in reference frames in relative motion. From this, one finds a host of highly counter-intuitive effects, including time dilation. Einstein again followed Leibniz on his way to general relativity. In this case, the indistinguishability of two distinct situations - a body at rest in the absence of a gravitational field, or in free fall within a field - implied the impossibility of referring to any concept of absolute acceleration. In a 1922 lecture, Einstein recalled the moment of his discovery: “The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.”

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Leibniz now mostly inhabits scientific history books, his ideas receiving scant attention in actual research. And yet, Spekkens argues, Leibniz’s principle concerning indistinguishability may be as useful as ever, especially when confronting foundational issues in physics. Consider the interpretation of quantum theory, where theorists remain separated into two opposing groups, loosely associated with the terms realism and empiricism. Although Leibniz’s principle can’t offer any way to unify the two groups, Spekkens argues, it might help them focus their attention on the most important issues dividing them, where progress might be made. For example, one particular interpretation comes in the form of so-called pilot-wave theories, in which electrons and other particles follow precise but highly non-classical trajectories under the influence of a quantum potential, which produces the wave-like nature of quantum dynamics. These theories demonstrate by explicit example that nothing in quantum physics prohibits thinking about particles moving along well-defined trajectories. But the theory does require the existence of some absolute rest frame, while also implying that this frame can never be detected. Many other aspects of such theories also remain unconstrained by empirical data. Hence, one might take Leibniz’s principle as coming down against such theories. On the other hand, Spekkens points out, Leibniz’s principle demands that distinct states be, in Leibniz’s own words, “empirically indistinguishable in principle,” and achieving such certainty is not easy. If several states appear indistinguishable now, future experiments might turn up measurable differences between them. So a proponent of the pilot-wave approach might agree with Leibniz’s principle, but still reject its application just yet. The aim of research, from this point of view, ought to be to seek out such evidence, or at least envision the conditions under which it might be obtained. And in this sense, Spekkens notes, Leibniz’s principle also offers some criticism of theorists from the empirical school, who object to pilot-wave or other realist interpretations of quantum theory for containing unmeasurable quantities. It implies, as he puts it, that the empiricists’ “set of mental tools is too impoverished.” After all, progress in physics often requires imagination, and creative exploration of possible distinguishing features that have not yet been measured, or even thought to exist. Progress requires scientists to “entertain ontological hypotheses, expressed with concepts that are not defined purely in terms of empirical phenomena.” Science thrives on the essential tension existing at the boundary between empirical observation and unconstrained imagination. Incredibly, Leibniz perceived that more than 300 years ago.

[@PeterParker-ot8pl]

Dude... Where is the video feed? What year is this? 1994?

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

If Peter Zeihan is correct, at the very least for Gen Z and Alpha, they will have an interesting time, so they at the very least won't ever be bored

[@radiack123]

love listening to Peter very good guests

[@adidascuc]

for a current perspective: I am a Mexican who is currently had a career boom because of instability in China, Peter's data driven perspective with Geographic knowledge has been pretty spot on. Take a bigger look at where (US, European and Japanese) Companies have been investing in love

[@marcusowen7944]

Nice to see Sam's podcast growing a bit. Wish the intro music would change - it's like the X-files! Creepy. But whatever. :-) Always appreciate the conversations.

[@WiredNow]

I absolutely LOVE this podcast. I practically worship Peter. I feel like he is a real ORACLE. You made a brilliant move having these two guests being on at the same time. I mean, all of us want to know the future and I think Peter gets me closer to know that more than any other individual. Companies using him for consultation are immensely intelligent in their choice. Thank you forever!

[@ericboyd74]

Never deify man

[@brianthompson1045]

Peter’s confidence realized in his soft spoken manner strengthens his positions. He has nothing to prove, rather his reasoning is simply solid and intelligent. Clearly Peter’s positions are superior. The winner of the debate.

[@travisjohn4630]

Yeah, the other guy clearly had to keep his corporate sponsorship happy, which means not straying too far from the old "everything is fine" line we're constantly being fed before disaster strikes.

[@frenchonion4595]

The reason i like peter is because he's an economist that's based on mostly facts. The overwhelming majority of intellectuals are more theoretically based. Peter's reasons are based on population, Food imports, export's, military capabilities etc. Almost no one brings this stuff to the table. Obviously, he's not right on everything no one is but he has a hell of a lot stronger foundation to base his opinions than most

[@seriouslyyoujest1771]

Great interview. Sam Harris, we’re thinking about anything but Bad Trump? It’s great to see you talking about something else. Especially with Peter Zeihan! Thank you, what great interview, and discussion.

[@tombombadyl4535]

Refreshing. Civil discourse.

[@joela.4058]

Sam as a moderator works extremely well

[@David71294GR]

29:00 I guess that plan to use Nordstream 1 as a leverage just went off the table.... Any changes in your forecasts?

[@21972012145525]

Videos available? Or audio only?

[@bobdpa]

Wow what a great charity campaign 🤯💯

[@ghostinthemachine8243]

This sounds like the glass half-full vs half-empty argument. Either way, we end up with half a glass. It will depend on your own personal outlook as to which argument you give more weight to.

[@briansimerl4014]

Stunned by German diversification. I'm shocked they relied on Russia for anything to begin with.

[@Egilhelmson]

They always have. Before each World War, Germany’s biggest trade partner was France followed by Russia and/or Poland.

[@Stego1819]

Not every country is blessed with having a lot of natural ressources like the US is. And Russia reliable delivered gas even during the cold war.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@Egilhelmson Russia didn't become a net oil exporter until about the middle of the Cold War. They relied on foreign petroleum engineers to set up their drilling operations as well, and never invested in the critical technologies or skill sets to maintain it. Same for their large construction projects, which were overseen by Swedes, Finns, and Yugoslavians. (Source: Moscow University of Economics study of Soviet Economic History)

[@Maynard0504]

they actually believed in the end of history

[@wilee.coyote5298]

Blame Merkel.

[@huntersorensen5000]

When two of your favorite thinkers/smart people are on the same show.

[@jayrob5270]

History tells us unless there is a major war things don't just change overnight they tend to peter out over years and though I agree with a few of Peters points I just don't see the (relatively) instant catastrophe he predicts. The good thing is it won't take long to see who is right.

[@chompnormski]

Hopefully they take out the elites first

[@ricknash3055]

The concensus seems to be that a population which isn't constantly getting larger is a problem. Instead of allowing it to burn out by excessive unsustainable growth, an intelligent race would self moderate its population growth to maintain sustainable limits.

[@matboi5746]

In the present system it is. It's capitalist realism. There is no way out. You decide degrowth is what is best for your population...your nation will be bankrupt in a decade at most. You cannot degrow if everyone else keep competing, you will start to fall behind. The fiscal model you had, that paid for social spending, will become totally unsustainable because growth is needed to sustain the debt burden. (A nation like Norway could attempt it but in the long run it would catch up). So we have no options as individual nations, the geopolitical/economical blocs will never stop competing because it's a civilizational fight. So yes humanity will follow the path its on towards absolute catastrophe...unless some powerful people have a plan to address this but not the democratic kind.

[@jeffreysmith236]

Since the World Economic Forum has taken very progressive action in causing a worldwide famine that will starve probably a billion people in the next year, you should feel very smug and satisfied sentencing them to such a death.

[@doubtshadow1]

@@jeffreysmith236 yeah it seems to make certain types who won't be affected sort of giddy. But, in their defense, it's been about forty years of incessant anti-human propaganda washing over is all, calling us cancers and viruses, insinuating that a gang of us should just fizzle and shuffle off the coil. The advocates of such ideas....never seem game to be the shufflers... 😉

[@Michael-ro7uo]

listening to this 6 months later more and more of peters insights are coming true

[@schmetterling4477]

These are not "his insights". The demographic collapse has been known for at least 40 years and the "deglobalization" is obvious to anybody who has a supply chain that involves China. If you didn't know these things, then only because you weren't paying attention.

[@Whitfield369]

This is a sincere question. Can you provide a concrete example?

[@averagegamermoves1798]

I second that, I'm trying to figure out this guy

[@schmetterling4477]

@@averagegamermoves1798 Why are you telling us that you are not good with facts? ;-)

[@anypercentdeathless]

Does Bremmer saying we won't go into a cold war with China count...yet?

[@thepianoroommusic]

Sam, this is easily the best podcast you’ve done. These are the two guys I follow for geopolitical info. Much better than say Mersheimer

[@vondoromal7016]

This is one of the thinking I look at Universal Basic income as a solution to both get the best of globalization and the middle class...

[@bensheklesteinmcgoldberg6668]

I think zeihan is probably closer to where the world ultimately ends up. The timing and specifics of his predictions are probably not as accurate.

[@stevenhake7500]

Zeihan can't predict what will happen if certain fundamental things change. China and Russia having new forms of government would be that change.

[@travisjohn4630]

@@stevenhake7500 Yeah, the age democraphic distribution that he said was going to doom China would also change completely if say... A virus happen to emerge that decimated the old population while being a minor inconvinience to young people. I wonder if certain goverments were working on developing and perfecting perfecting something that did that???

[@stevenhake7500]

@@travisjohn4630 I also think the pulling apart of the China and USA (very possible) is really required for the worst case scenario. Zeihan argues it will be bad regardless, but I think even with a collapsing demographic their manufacturing as it switches to automation could still be top tier imo. This would require thawing relations with the west though.

[@travisjohn4630]

@@stevenhake7500 Yeah, I was being a little tongue and cheek with the virus thing, but there are many things that could change the outcome, and I think he's projecting the presumed westernish concept of old people living to be 80 while consuming huge amounts of social entitlments will hold true there and be an exostential drain on the whold system. But ultimately China could replace the workforce with robots, or they could just hang old people out to dry, in which case having a population of 400k young people, along with 500k old people that recieve zero benifits and would die off fast can still be easily substainable. China's done a lot worse in the not so distant past...

[@prof.higgins3154]

I wish I was as certain about anything as Zeihan is about everything. Many of his “predictions” seem more like conjecture, or extrapolation at best. I prefer Prof. Bremmer’s more nuanced & studied analysis and rational optimism any time.

[@KJ-yk4nq]

With the sheer number of variables it’s always conjecture or educated guesswork at best in this type of discussion. Hence different experts with wildly different predictions. As interesting and important as it is to contemplate all of this no one really knows the future, ultimately shit just happens, and people just react and the world moves on.

[@prof.higgins3154]

@@KJ-yk4nq I agree with your comment. As a (retired) academic my experience with publishing is limited to peer-reviewed scientific journals, where you are expected to be very meticulous in your analysis and highly mindful with your conclusions. Peter Zeihan needs to qualify & calibrate his assertions more carefully in my view. His expectation that the entire German industrial base will collapse if & when Russia turns off the Nord Stream1 gas pipeline is a good example of Zeihan’s typical overstatements. Ian Bremmer’s push-back on this issue was, therefore, spot on.

[@DukeLitoAurelius]

I have been following Zeihan since his days at Stratfor and read all of his books. His track record speaks for itself. That said, if I was the King, i would want both of these guys advising me.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@prof.higgins3154 Normally when people counter Zeihan's forecasts, they do it on the basis of hope, optimism, with marginal and anecdotal data to support their yearning for an ideal future or some pretext. Then they find out Zeihan has done very detailed analyses that cover the macro down to the micro with a unique blend of depth and breadth in aspects of the metrics that are very comprehensive. George Friedman's approach at STRATFOR was to put aside ideology and foreign policy, and start with what nations can't do, then look at what they can do, what their interests are in the short, intermediate, and long-term, then study interlocking effects of regional and trade partners/rivals, then make forecasts. They had to change one of their books from "Russia will invade Georgia" to "Russia has invaded Georgia" in 2008. Zeihan has been on the record for a long time that 2022 is the last year when Russia could invade Ukraine with a high probability of success, due to population decline in Russia and the fact they won't have enough soldiers ever again. So far, his assessment of the degrading global order has been accelerated faster than he expected.

[@bighands69]

@@prof.higgins3154 So as an academic then you must have good analytical skills and be able to understand the concept of China failing demographics.

[@redrodlrowon]

Oh yes. Thank You.

[@krizzleize]

Follower and fan of all 3. Loved this. But Peter needs to upgrade his mic game now that he’s an internet rockstar

[@chrism.1131]

Three of my favorite people on the planet doing one podcast. How great is that? To Peters point… Apple is moving out of China and into Vietnam.

[@synewparadigm]

The nets are cheaper in Vietnam?

[@jmc5335]

@@synewparadigm 🤣🤣👏👏👏

[@chrism.1131]

@@synewparadigm Sad, and yet I still use Apple products.

[@SlushboxH8R]

India as well

[@tomaszzieba315]

Ian Bremmer is optimistic about common interests with China like climate change. It's a WEF bubble, China doesn't care about that at all. They do business with Russia as never before.

[@carbonstar9091]

These are the same people who sold out the developed world so they could take advantage of slave labor and zero environmental regulation to make more money and buy another megayacht . They are now optimistic that an increasingly totalitarian nation with clear imperial ambitions will care about their social and climate agenda. They live in an alternate reality.

[@redrave404]

Agreed, it's the exact same logic the Germans used when rationalizing their dependence on Russian gas. I don't understand the level of trust (faith?) these people seem to have with external oppositional forces, but simultaneously extremely hostile and uncharitable to local opposition (populists).

[@synthesizerneil]

Yeah Sam I wildly unfit for these discussions. He's extremely naive with domestic politics and even worse with foreign. He thinks no differently than any empty suit career politician, with few exceptions.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

They do business with Russia, but very carefully, and they've never been BFFs. Russia's economy is about the same size as Italy's. They just can't afford to do business at scale. Bremmer was largely right. Now that it's a manufacturing giant China NEEDS the West . We're the only ones who can afford to buy their stuff...

[@bighands69]

Neither Russia nor China are market economies. They are top down structures and will not work well together.

[@OfZeitgeist]

I’ll subscribe Sam when you admit you suffered TDS. And that intellect didn’t make you immune from propaganda.

[@sitrep123able]

This is gold

[@stavross1698]

Less consumption is exactly what we need to have any chance of not totally ruining the planet. I don’t see how it will be bad to have less people. Chasing infinite growth with finite resources is always going to fail. The system is the problem.

[@laynem3242]

That is a problem, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism are all base on there being more for more population. We don't know what the new system is going to be to deal with de-population.

[@toby9999]

@@laynem3242 We still will at a minimum need to be able to feed clothe and shelter a global population. Even that aim hadn't been fully realised. So, going backward only going to make the situation worse e.g. more poverty.

[@stavross1698]

@@toby9999 there’s been enough to feed and clothe everyone but the capitalists keep everything to themselves in the west and exploit the rest of the world.

[@bighands69]

Stavross 169 That is your belief but do not expect other people to agree with you and go along with it. You are free to lead by example to teach people that they do not need the modern world but do not get angry when people do not follow you as they love their modern conveniences and standard of living.

[@sampotter4455]

Ian is way too sanguine and way too verbose. It's nice to hear a counter argument to Peter - good questions Sam - but Ian's points of disagreement would be cleared and stronger if he could state them in a sentence rather in paragraphs.

[@Apjooz]

He brings explanations and nuance into analysis that Zeihan cannot.

[@wrdennig]

A friend recently visited from Shanghai . . . she said that there is an influx of brides from other Asian countries. Is this on a scale that will alter the gloomy forecast for China's population curve?

[@zibtihaj3213]

Can someone give me a summary of this ?

[@WilkinsMichael]

No

[@michael7v6]

Ian was absolutely wrong about Germany.

[@antoncarmoducchi6057]

Peter was right.

[@jonathanryals9934]

The end of order? Perhaps the end of an order, or a period of relative order... forget not the constant struggle between the apollonian and dionysian tendencies of human and humankind. One extreme in ascendancy inevitably pushes us in the opposite direction.

[@lylemacdonald6672]

"The times they are a'changing..."

[@russellj2987]

I love it when my worlds collide (Sam and Peter)! Haven’t felt that way since Dan Carlin was on Sam’s podcast way back when. I note Peter’s view of the world is in stark contrast to Ray Dalio’s. Be interesting to see which of these brilliant thinkers has it right.

[@jameskresl]

I've thought the same thing about the conflict between the views of Zeihan and Dalio. It will definitely be interesting to see how it plays out.

[@cooldudecs]

@Aloha dalio lived in a very short golden era .His bucks depend on china which is woozy at the moment . Demographics catch up to you eventuslly

[@Talk378]

Which one is financially incentivized to say what they are saying?

[@renaissance17]

@@Talk378 this

[@ldobbs2384]

@@cooldudecs The Thinking Man doesn't think much of proper grammar, I see...

[@coreyworthingtonii9230]

The past 3 years have made me question Western hegemony like never before. I know Sam is very logical and clear in his thinking, but I think one of his blindsides is his belief that science and reason can’t be corrupted by human nature and incentives to advance a person’s own agenda. Perhaps that was once the case in the West, but we’ve become like other banana republics and I can’t trust anything these days.

[@coreyworthingtonii9230]

@@brian5001 yeah, good question. Prob always was like this to some degree, but I hadn’t noticed or acknowledged it.

[@bobedgar6647]

@@coreyworthingtonii9230 @Brian I think answer to the question is extremely important. If it’s always been thus (+- 1SD) then it’s just business as usual, nothing to see here. This is my own position and would change my mind for data proving otherwise. If we’re truly into a new regime then we’ve all got time for hand wringing, these changes take decades. I’m worried about Xi living and governing long enough to build a truly functional military. He’s got the money to do it, the Chinese are hard working and clever, and they are also, sadly, quite racist. The racism manifests itself in strong nationalism. Nationalism plus a strong leader plus the power of crowds believing that they’re rightfully the leader of the world, and we’re into very dangerous fascist waters. It’s my very strongly held hope that something and or someone stops this development. Before someone jumps in to complain that „who am I to tell the Chinese what to do?“, I’d like to clarify that I don’t wish to limit China’s rise as a world power and welcome to the club when they feel they are ready. I’m simply warning that there is a line between nationalism and fascism that we dare not cross.

[@redstarling5171]

Very true, science and statistics have fallen to political correctness and controlled speech. Perhaps worse is the definitions of words and our language is constantly being changed and redefined so it's utterly unrelated to its original meaning.

[@matiassella4935]

Everything or almost everything (if there is, prob) can become corrupted. Religion, Music, Schools, Politics/Goverments, Sports, Health Organizations, Pharma, Corporate Media (TV), Internet, everything or almost everything. So, yeah, Science too, for obvious reasons, humans practice it, so, how much proof is really needed lol.

[@matiassella4935]

It doesn't mean consecuences won't come our way tho. Be aware. That's why REAL MEN are necessary, to call out the tyrants psychopaths. But hey, "We" (more likely "They") are demoralizing and destroying manhood, family, and everything with their deranged agenda. I really hope when this feminist shit, lefties shit, vaccine shit, false rape accusations shit, and ALL THE SHIT they are doing on porpouse ends, we jail everyone that participed on it. Starting from WEF, WHO, biden administration, Justard TrueRetard future genocider and all his cute friends, everyone should be held accountable. All the corporate media fools from producers till "journalists", like CNN, MSNBC, and the Canadian one. And all the pharma lunatics profiting from injuring people. You are going to pay, all of you. KZbin AI algorithm that shadowbans or deletes your comments to, thanks to the same evil puppets, twitter deranged CEO's, facebook traitor. Everyone.

[@frankdelahue9761]

Do not argue with anyone in private, (you will not convince them) argue in public to convince others.

[@Anthropic312]

Fast forward to 8:00

[@Kaneisback2]

I feel like some of the important info people need to hear, shouldn't be hidden behind a paywall... I get you need to earn a living, but you're already a millionaire, so... maybe prioritise humanity. This said because I 100% agree with nearly everything Sam Harris says, but the fact we're charging people to hear common sense that benefits humanity... sounds counter-productive. Good ideas and help to gain self-actualization should never cost. Anyone trying to make a market out of that, I would question their morality.

[@kylebowles9820]

I lived in China a few years before covid, they're great and everything but ill prepared for the information age and there are a few things about the culture that hold them back. It's almost depressing how no cultures have figured it out, but the thought of cherry picking the best aspects of cultures worldwide makes me feel better.

[@bighands69]

There is nothing in Chinese culture that is greater than Western Liberal philosophy. There are lots of interesting things about Chinese historical culture but they are not better.

[@joooood233]

Great?

[@user-pl1cv6gb4s]

@Bruhh Which kingdom and king? Interested to know. Ming, Song, Han, and Tang kings are not Chinese?

[@user-pl1cv6gb4s]

@Bruhh You mix up Han ethnicity and Chinese.

[@user-pl1cv6gb4s]

@Bruhh Chinese has 56 ethnic groups. Han is the largest ethic group (around 90% of total population). Mongolian is one of the Chinese ethic groups. All dynasties except Yuan and Qing were ruled by Han but it does not mean that Yuan and Qing are not Chinese Dynasty. Kublai Khan named his empire Yuan which is a Chinese word. He was also given his temple name Shizu (also Chinese words) after he died. He considered himself a Chinese emperor. Same for Qing dynasty, every Qing emperors have Chinese names and learnt Chinese.

[@ShadyRonin]

I would love to see Peter debate Ray Dalio!

[@opcom64]

Am surprised… wef not even part for conversation… I forgotten it’s safe and effective..

[@aroemaliuged4776]

Why is the normal always classed as middle class?? Working class cleaners , drivers, manual workers that aren’t middle class? the biggest percentage of the population are working class and don’t have a voice I am British

[@joshuajames2425]

I think we are at the end of that pendulum especially in America .. The labor shortage is structural world wide Also in America the wealth gap is so bad and things are so expensive now if things don't change quickly we will have revolution, I don't think people realize how close we are to the abyss especially folks that doing pretty well are mostly clueless they just think it's all politics but it's much deeper It might already be too late turn it around..we have atleast 50 million ppl that feel like they have been totally left behind this last decade or 2 Things could get ugly imo

[@bighands69]

If you live outside the US a manual worker is not middle class. If you live in the US then that manual worker is middle class. A plumber in America on the average income will live a life that no European can even dream about.

[@ralphjesperson]

What needs to be considered is who pays the bills for Ian and Peter. Peter gets his income from business people. Ian gets his from politicians. That is a big difference. Hence, Ian has to praise the folks paying the bills, and Peter does not. So Ian is promoting the political b.s. talking points because he is paid to. I go with Peter. Likely that German politicians are talking through their asses while downplaying things no one, and least of all them, can fix.

[@travisjohn4630]

Yeah, Ian is a MSM/establishment guy only. He probably reads all the MSM articles and reads all the goverment supplied "figures" and takes them all in as facts. All of his responses are pretty typical of what I would expect to come out of corpoarte approved Time Magazine. If the last 6 years has taught us anything, is that brand of journalism is dead and none of that ilk are really interested in investigating uncomftorable truths. That's not to say all Peter's predictions will be right or any for that matter, but he's definatley not affraid to go there and he doesn't have to worry about some corporate shill giving him spankin tommorow if he pitches the wrong narative in a public space...