SPEAKER_00: well you're talking about three very different actors there wait david david behind you is

SPEAKER_03: your security cameras are on do you want to turn those off yeah i don't know hold on a second

SPEAKER_05: you sit there and watch those all day security apparatus what is this guy the batman

Chamath Palihapitiya: he sits in that couch all day and watches hey did you see that behind him it was so dystopian oh my gosh you must have caught some crazy on those security cameras what do you do with

SPEAKER_17: that footage okay everybody welcome to episode 150 of the all in podcast yes we've made it to 150

SPEAKER_24: episodes somehow talking about technology business and of course politics and this week we will continue our discussion tragically about the situation in israel and the war with hamas and a lot of the down stream effects of what's going on here and try to make sense of the world as we do we gave a disclaimer last week we're not experts and i suspect many of you are not experts on this but we're going to try to talk about the heart topic here and do it in good faith and then we will move on to topics that don't have to do with the war in gaza that could by the time you read this again another disclaimer by the time you listen to this podcast a ground invasion may or may not

SPEAKER_25: have started we tape these on thursdays and you listen to them generally speaking on saturdays and

SPEAKER_24: sundays with me again this week jamaf polyhapitiya david sachs and of course david friedberg and uh gentlemen i'm just going around the horn here quick before i tee up the first topic

SPEAKER_29: how's everybody feeling about the events uh and in the 10 days since 10 7 and the terrorist attack

SPEAKER_31: that occurred in israel i skipped last week i was too emotional to do the show just so folks know

SPEAKER_33: it was uh difficult to see what i saw on the internet and the reporting i think i was really moved because i thought a lot about the like how lucky we are and the my i thought about my children and seeing what i saw and being a parent um it's really different i remember 9 11 it was really shocking i was really upset from 9 11 as well but when i saw the events last week it immediately projected onto my kids and the care i try and take for my kids and thinking about the experience of other people in this situation i was also i'll be honest really moved and saddened because of the bombing of children in gaza and i was really saddened that there were innocent children suffering there as well and the whole thing just felt so horrific to me i don't think about the justification or the morality of one side over another i was just more moved because i felt really sad about the experience of a lot of families and a lot of children caught in the middle caught in this in this environment so i was i was pretty hurt last week i was in a really bad state and i couldn't do the show i think you know time has allowed me to kind of become a bit rational about things and try and understand where things are headed and it's a really complicated confusing situation and it's really sad i i worry a lot about where things are headed not just in the middle east but also domestically coming out of this conflict so that's where i'm at yeah and thank you

SPEAKER_43: for sharing i wasn't sure if you would share um your absence last week and i think it's fair i too have been thinking about my own children and it's uh n911 and it's it's very dark yeah and so it's hard to talk about but we're making progress here i think and uh today we'll talk about a lot of the issues chamath uh or sax any uh opening thoughts before we get started uh delving into what's actually happening and then more importantly i think where this is heading and

SPEAKER_24: what the possible outcome or resolution could be if there is a resolution here

SPEAKER_45: i think things are getting better actually i think okay from where if you had to graph your

SPEAKER_47: expectations of how bad things could get i think what most people would probably say is somewhere last week there was a scepter of some potential world war three like contagion and i think in general it hasn't stopped some of the bloodshed but the extent to which we expected this thing to escalate it actually hasn't happened and so if you take a step back and you kind of calmly and coldly look at the facts i think that there are a lot of people on all sides trying to maintain their composure in a moment where there's a lot of brush fires so i actually think that this has been much much better

SPEAKER_53: than it could have been and so i'm generally optimistic that we're going to find our way out of

SPEAKER_56: this so uh sax any thoughts as well to be honest i can't be as optimistic as chamath it's true that world war three hasn't started yet but i think the situation is incredibly volatile still just the last

SPEAKER_58: couple of days the headline story was an explosion or bombing of this hospital in gaza blame immediately fell on israel the claim in the new york times was that they had dropped a bomb on it from a plane social media was aflame with that i think in the last day or so the perspective seems to be changing there's video now showing that it wasn't the hospital but rather the parking lot next to the

SPEAKER_56: hospital that took the brunt of the damage i think that it's far from clear that israel did it a lot of people are blaming islamic jihad in any event it's very unclear so i'm going to continue to do what i've done which is suspend judgment until there can be some sort of proper investigation of of what happened and we find out exactly who's really responsible but it does seem that over the last day or so there's been now a backing off of the idea that israel was definitely responsible for this

SPEAKER_58: nonetheless you saw immediately in the wake of that story coming out that there were protests and riots all over the middle east the arab street was absolutely ignited and i think that the arab

SPEAKER_56: street's not going to be convinced that israel wasn't responsible for this i just think that they're convinced and i think partisans on both sides are convinced about who did it and they're

SPEAKER_58: going to be immune to whatever evidence comes out so i think that's kind of the situation we're at right now i would consider the the riots that we just saw in regards to the hospital and the eruption on social media to be a prelude or dress rehearsal of what we can expect to happen almost every day if israel proceeds with the ground invasion of gaza now they haven't done that yet and that's why the situation seems tenuous but stable but we're still waiting to find out if israel's going to go into

SPEAKER_56: gaza and if they do i think all bets are off in terms of where this is going this was my biggest concern

SPEAKER_33: last week i um i think the thing i was most anxious about was that the imagery that would come out of gaza with the action from israel would be the fodder for escalation worldwide that there's this perception already with half a billion people maybe two billion people maybe more that there's an oppressor and there's an oppressed and the oppressed is suffering under the oppressor and that there would be the creation of fodder to support that narrative and i think that the hospital bombing the kind of point i made to someone who reached out to me two days ago or yesterday about it was i don't know if it matters that we get the corrections from all these people that may have said something that turns out to not be true because it was almost like that media became confirmation bias for people that already felt that this is what was going on and this is simply evidence of what is going on and it justifies the next step it justifies the beliefs it justifies the morality and i don't think that if it wasn't this it's something it's going to be something else there is a tinder box ready to be lit and that tinder box is just looking for a match and whether it's this match or the next match there's going to be a match and the tinder box will be lit i think that a large number of people feel like they're on the right side if everyone thinks they're on the right side of something everyone feels like they have the right moral stance that there is a regime on the other side that has the wrong moral stance i am good you are evil and therefore anything i see is my confirmation bias for my belief and it'll it gives me permission to take the next step and in that framework it will only escalate and we are only going to a dark place and i think like the real question for me to chamath's optimism is what are the muting factors what are the factors where one side feels like they're getting something that forces them to say i'm not going to take the next step i'm not going to justify the next step and it's a it's a really hard question to answer at this stage okay let's let's take that other side and just

SPEAKER_45: explore it for a second so the question that i've been asking myself is because i agree with you it doesn't matter who was responsible for this bombing because it's already been defined yeah but in a moral

Chamath Palihapitiya: sense it does just in a moral sense it does but i'm saying practically in the theater of war and the theaters near the war it doesn't matter because it's about how is it framed and to your point people have already made up their minds the pro-israel side have made up their mind and the pro-palestinian side has made up their mind but the question that i ask myself is okay is that how much of an incremental escalation is it from what their status quo is you know one of the interesting things i learned from the jared kushner interview with lex friedman it's like a lot of this tension you can trace back to the al-aksa mosque and all of the misinformation around that right he spends a a section of that podcast talking about how that's been framed and reframed the myths and disinformation to basically get people fervently up in arms and it turns out that it isn't under the supervision of the israelis and in fact you know you can go get a visa to visit al-aksa mosque and it's under the custodianship of the king of jordan as an example so that is the fact but those facts aren't necessarily shared on the ground and that is where a lot of this original tension comes from so then i ask myself okay well if that's been lingering for decades how much more incrementally bad does it get for this specific thing and i think you see it in people's actions which is they try to use it to escalate and my honest measurement of that escalation is that outside of the actual theater of war most of these escalations died down pretty quickly now if all of these embassies were overrun and all of a sudden you saw a beirut-like situation right the u.s embassy in beirut in the early 80s i would agree with you that this is getting really bad really quickly but that's not what we saw and i think what that speaks to more is how much hatred is actually in the heart of people versus not and so i think that this was a moment for people to channel their anxiety and some of their aggression and some of their hatred towards america or israel but what it didn't was escalate you didn't see these embassies get burnt to the ground you didn't see people getting dragged out and so i'm not trying to justify that behavior i'm just trying to look at it in an absolute sense and answer the question is it escalating or is it not escalating and my assessment right now is that it is not escalating i saw on sunday something that i thought i would never see which is iran put out a press release through the united nations to israel you haven't seen that that's de-escalatory that's not an escalatory action from a country whose mission statement includes the destruction and demise of a country so i think when push comes to shove there are a lot of people in positions of power who understand the stakes here and are trying their best on both sides and i i hate this word so i can't even believe i'm about to use it to find some proportionality and try to de-escalate that's how i

SPEAKER_33: measure and judge what i see over the last week a lot of people use labels to characterize the actions the tonality the behavior of the other side because every everyone believes that they're on the right side and the point of view that there is hate and anger on the other side comes from a place not out of the blue hate and anger doesn't just emerge from nothing it it typically comes from a place of deep hurt i think the biggest question for me is how do you resolve the deep hurt that is being felt and has been felt by either side over a very long period of time it's the hardest thing to answer because what do you give millions of people that have lived feeling hurt for so long feeling challenged for so long that makes them feel resolved in that sense and i get that you're speaking about the palestinian people i'm speaking about the israeli people too okay and i'm i'm speaking about the

SPEAKER_75: fact that like these actions don't they don't come out of the blue they don't come out of a place of

SPEAKER_45: like greed let's let's go to an example in our own lives let's just say that we have a friend or you know we had a girlfriend at some point where there is a deep betrayal okay and then there's just

Chamath Palihapitiya: an unrelenting anger to your point before you can talk about the hurt you have to de-escalate the anger so there has to be an active process of de-escalation before you can actually resolve this stuff i thought israel was quite clear last week we are going into gaza on sunday but then they didn't that seemed de-escalatory again i'll just say it again iran puts out a press release to israel through u.n that seemed de-escalatory there was a moment where jordan the palestinian authority and biden were supposed to meet they ended up not meeting in amman but that seemed de-escalatory biden tony blink and tony refused to leave the idf until he got some assurances about humanitarian aid into gaza that seems de-escalatory biden spending time and then reiterating those assurances from netanyahu again all of this stuff seems like both sides are in the middle of all of this chaos not trying to light the tinderbox and it doesn't mean that they're on a path to resolution but i i i just think

SPEAKER_24: that they they understand the stakes facts when we look at the hospital situation specifically and the fog of war you had the new york times getting attacked for maybe taking hamas's word for it then flipping and then now there is conspiracy theory the united states is you know carrying water for israel and then the fog of war oh my goodness we maybe the the hospital wasn't even hit it was in the it was in the parking lot and so it didn't even get hit so when we look at all of that and then shaman says hey but wait things haven't escalated i i actually i happen to be here in dubai right now on a business trip and i'll explain some of the feedback i've gotten from people who are palestinian uh ethnically or jordanian and of palestinian descent uh i should say and we'll get into that in a second the ground war hasn't happened and this seems to be one of the as chamath is pointing out it's it's fascinating that it hasn't because it was supposed to have happened already do you have any thoughts on why it hasn't happened one of the conspiracy theories and and i hate to go down these roads because in the fog of war i think people try to fill a vacuum and then of course as you were pointing out chamath and freeburg people then use it as evidence for their side the people here in dubai a number of people have pointed out this uh ground war is not going to happen that it's saber rattling but uh israel is going to back back down and get the hostages back and this has been told to me by many people i know i don't know if that's wishful thinking or some kind of conspiracy theory but but what do you take from the ground war not happening and then if you want to go back and touch on the fog of war issue here with things flipping back and forth and and what is actual reality and just broadly speaking escalating or de-escalating

SPEAKER_58: look i think that there's a few possible reasons why israel hasn't gone in yet number one is they

SPEAKER_56: may perceive it to be a very difficult military operation they're almost certainly walking into a trap there's going to be ambushes everywhere snipers ieds hamas has an elaborate tunnel network they can disappear down that tunnel network when the fighting gets too hot they can booby trap

SPEAKER_58: the access points they've got anti-tank weapons they can take out armored vehicles it's going to be a very difficult fight for the israelis and so they may be taking a pause here just to assess that situation and maybe get organized for it or maybe think better of it so they may be either stopping to organize or getting cold feet i think second they have to think through the consequences of going in there hezbollah has basically threatened to open up a northern front and invade israel if israel goes into gaza you also saw as we saw with the reaction to the hospital uh bombing that they have to be concerned about the arab street erupting and again if they go into gaza this could ignite the whole arab world it seems to me that if you're israel you don't want to become the focal point for all of this anger in the arab or larger muslim world there are important differences in that world there's differences between sunnis and shiite there's differences between arabs and persians and turks and the last thing you want is to paper over all those differences by having everybody's anger targeted at you so i think there's very big consequences that could follow geopolitically i think again the war would almost certainly not just be a single front war against gaza could turn into a multi-front war so that's i think the second reason i think the third reason is you have to believe that there's furious diplomacy going on behind the scenes and i think this is what chamath is referring to what we don't know obviously are the content of those conversations we don't know what the bind administration has told the netanyahu government we don't know if they've said to them listen we are not going to get involved in this publicly they've said that we stand with israel but you just have to wonder what they're privately telling the israelis all of that being said i think that israel has declared that it's at war with hamas there are these stories that are coming out daily of these atrocities that were perpetrated by hamas i saw once by paramedics who discovered the bodies and described the way they were tortured the population of israel demands retribution and so netanyahu is under intense domestic political pressure to deliver on that

David Sacks: so i i think that chamath is right that things haven't escalated yet but i wouldn't say they've

SPEAKER_58: de-escalated blinken did demand and biden did announce those uh relieving of some of the humanitarian issues in gaza but to my knowledge they have not been implemented yet they turned the water back on i believe yeah okay so i think this thing is still a powder keg and it could erupt and again it all comes back to this key question of does israel go into gaza or not if they don't then i think that creates room for some sort of international diplomatic effort to get the

SPEAKER_92: hostages back and maybe de-escalate the situation and i guess we'll find out over the next week or so

SPEAKER_94: and that you didn't even mention that there could be some deep diplomacy here going on in terms of

SPEAKER_24: releasing the hostages and maybe somehow they believe if they go in too early the chances of

SPEAKER_46: getting those hostages out alive could be seriously diminished yeah you know it's strange to me that

SPEAKER_58: i just don't hear that much about the hostages it it seems like the israeli population just in terms of what they're publicly saying seems to have almost written off the hostages there was some video of the families of hostages being upset that they don't feel like the government response is adequately taking the interests of their families into account that they just seem hell-bent on this invasion of gaza but you know we don't know what's happening behind the scenes and again that that would be the way to de-escalate this is you get an international effort to release the hostages in exchange for maybe it can't

SPEAKER_56: be stated but a quid pro quo where israel does not go into to gaza on the ground and maybe the bombing

SPEAKER_97: stops yeah okay so maybe we can pivot discussion here i will say one other point here delving into

SPEAKER_58: the internal politics of another country is not something that we typically like to do or that americans are particularly good at but when a situation like this happens that could drag us into a war we do have to kind of understand the internal dynamics of these countries israel is a country that for the last several years has been very internally divided there's been something like five elections in the last four years netanyahu got re-elected in december of 2022 by creating a new coalition with far-right elements of the israeli political system and chamath you mentioned the al-axa mosque and i and i know jared's take on on this was that he thought that this was blown out of proportion but i'll give you a different perspective on this i've just been researching this if you read al jazeera what they point to is a the emergence of a far-right figure named itamar ben gavir who has become a member of netanyahu's government as a result of this coalition that was forged in december and ben gavir has been he previously he was a fringe sort of anti-palestinian far-right provocateur when he was 19 years old he basically had somehow stolen or taken the hood ornament from yitzhak rabin the then prime minister's car and was waving it around saying that if we can get to your car we can get to you three weeks later yitzhak rabin was assassinated by a far-right religious extremist in israel because they felt that he had committed treason by signing the oslo accords now ben gavir wasn't implicated himself but it gives you a sense of kind of where he's coming from and ben gavir has led over the past year several incursions into the al-axa mosque area and the reason he's said he's done this is to show that the al-axa mosque and the dome of the rock near the haram al-sharif which is the third holiest site in islam after mecca and medina he says that that is under the sovereignty of israel that that belongs to israel there is also a faction of the israeli far right that wants to build the third temple on the temple mount you have to understand that that cannot happen while the al-axa mosque is still there so you have these i don't mind saying crazies i mean to to to destroy or even to imply that you would

David Sacks: ever destroy the al-axa mosque is such an explosive issue it would turn the entire muslim world against

SPEAKER_58: israel and basically i think it would be the end of israel but you have these figures who've now been incorporated into netanyahu's cabinet and i they are i think far to the right of netanyahu but they are protecting netanyahu they are seem to be bang for some sort of religious war so you know the domestic policies of another country is not something that we're totally familiar with but you have to

David Sacks: understand that israel does have these elements and man i hope that the biden administration

SPEAKER_58: is telling netanyahu that yeah we stand with israel but not if you're going to follow the advice

SPEAKER_43: of these far-right religious extremists this is um i think a very important point to to pause on here and maybe unpack which is uh as i said i'm here in dubai and uh had this trip planned and i'm actually

SPEAKER_102: tell us what you're what you're hearing what are you hearing what do they what do people say

SPEAKER_105: yeah it's fascinating um and it's this is going to get a little touchy and so i just want to be clear i'm

SPEAKER_43: going to tell people what the conversations are here it's not necessarily me endorsing uh any of these positions and of course i'm no expert of course and on saturday night i went to a bat mitzvah

SPEAKER_103: my friend's daughters had their bat mitzvah and uh and tuesday night i had dinner sorry where in israel

SPEAKER_24: or no in the bay area and then i flew here and this juxtaposition where i had dinner last night with

SPEAKER_43: five jordanians who are of palestinian descent uh and they universally are appalled by hamas and they're

SPEAKER_24: what happened right so just say that right out front and then they are perplexed why there is no discussion in the west in america of the conditions that could have led to this and the treatment of the palestinian people who they believe are living in apartheid and that word is used over and over again and that they have you know now a generation of people who have no hope and a generation of people who have nothing to lose and that they they have nothing to live for and this is uh the piece of the discussion that has gotten a lot of people in the west i think in trouble talking about it we had a conference producer who uh was tweeting hey listen you know very early on like on the on 10 7 israel has to abide by you know international law etc and this came up over and over again

SPEAKER_43: from muslims here in dubai that the west is not in the free world is not holding israel accountable to

SPEAKER_24: human rights standards basic standard tenets of war and i was coming into the trip a little bit more positive and now there's such a deep hurt on both sides of this that i i got to see

SPEAKER_43: you know from from both of these events and people suffering that i am my normally positive outlook has been a little bit shaken if i'm being honest this feels very intractable to me and uh yeah to even

SPEAKER_24: go near the topic of what has israel contributed to this situation and in the treatment of the palestinian people that's what the people in the region want to hear us talk about or just hear the

SPEAKER_47: world talk about any reaction to some of the protests that happened in europe and the people that took to the streets what was their perspective on that i think their perspective is a very small percentage

SPEAKER_43: of americans care about the palestinian people and you know if you look at the surveys that have gone on and i have some of the the survey data that's been done and i'm not sure americans views on this are the most important views for us to be focused on but a very small percentage of people are aligned with the palestinian people as opposed to with the state of israel so well i mean the biggest challenge

SPEAKER_33: in finding a path towards i i don't want to just be so generic and say the word peace no i think that's the word yeah but towards some form of understanding and settlement with with each other is that there's a framing right now that you have to pick a side you're not allowed to be pro-israel and also be sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of the children in gaza you're not allowed to say i'm looking out for the palestinians but i believe israel should have a state you're not allowed to point out the fact that there are multiple muslim majority countries and there's only one jewish state while also saying that what the israelis have done may also not be right you're not allowed to take a nuanced point of view and you're not allowed to address the variance in behavior over time with each of these different sides and how there is a massive complicated mess here that it has to be pick your side you're pro-israeli we need to wipe out x y or z or you're anti-israeli and as a result you're anti-semite and the fact that we conflate all of these things together and force people to jump on a side is what is also escalating that we can't actually have conversations around these topics that it all ends up being pick a side and then let's figure out how many people and what resources are on one side and what people and what resources are on the other and i think that this notion that we have almost a cancel culture behavior that's now leeched into this discourse that if you try and talk about the plight of palestinians you cannot also be pro-israel is what's keeping us from making progress in finding a path to resolution and i think that's the the biggest issue right now and we leverage the

SPEAKER_34: you're not a loyalist you're not moral you're not a good person you're evil if you don't stand on our

SPEAKER_33: side and both sides are act that way and it's that's the hardest thing to change it's i think the only way to find a path is to change that first and i think starting with empathy is the only way but man that's impossible right now impossible yeah it's hard sorry i'm sorry i'm just i'm just super like

SPEAKER_58: i'm super emotional about this because i just don't like the like you know so there are broadly speaking two factions that we're seeing out in the streets either denouncing israel or supporting the palestinians i think there is a group of people who genuinely hate jews or hate israel and do not believe in israel's right to exist and are preaching things like decolonization which is a recipe for for genocide then there are people and probably a larger group who i think are concerned with the plight of the palestinian people who recognize the conditions they have as deplorable and that the tactics that israel uses to enforce its security whether it's the occupation of the west bank or the blockade of gaza are unsustainable and create unfair conditions for the palestinians so in other words they're not saying that israel doesn't have a right to exist they are principally concerned with helping the palestinians and achieving a palestinian state it seems to me of paramount importance that israel separate these two groups by understanding the concern and i would apply this to american leadership as well by understanding the concerns of the latter and hopefully getting us on a path to resolving them totally so as to isolate the haters totally because otherwise this whole thing is headed towards a gigantic disaster where and i think it's a disaster for for israel most of all

SPEAKER_34: is that israel could be destroyed but i think the whole world is being asked to pick a side too and that's where this escalates into a much bigger broader conflict it's it's that yeah and in the

SPEAKER_126: position country and even within the us we're being asked to pick a side and now we're seeing

SPEAKER_43: civil unrest in the us the frustration as well amongst people who are of who are muslim or who

SPEAKER_24: are palestinian descent or jordanian or just in the region generally is that hamas set this process back decades and there's like a great frustration that maybe some progress was being made and that we could

SPEAKER_43: come to some normalcy in a two-state solution and that hamas did this exactly because so much progress

SPEAKER_56: has been made recently i think that is the best theory about why this happened now is that there

SPEAKER_58: was a process of normalization happening between israel and a number of these arab states and and we talked about it last week that jared kushner set this in motion there were three or four deals that were signed between israel and the gulf arab states uh bringing about normal relations and saudi arabia was on the table as being the next one there was a effort underway to negotiate a normalization of of relations between israel and saudi arabia that is now completely on ice and at

SPEAKER_24: risk of the other agreements maybe being ripped up because if israel goes in and has a massive ground invasion and there's more suffering and death that that will maybe blow all those accords up i think

SPEAKER_56: that what hamas may have been concerned about to say you want to impute strategic logic to their decisions even you know those decisions are atrocities but if they have a strategic purpose in

SPEAKER_58: mind it's to derail yeah that that process of normalization because if the entire arab world

David Sacks: basically normalizes relations with israel before the palestinian question is resolved it takes a

SPEAKER_58: major carrot off the table in their negotiations or whatever they want to achieve so i think that to thwart that process was a big part of the goal here but i do think that what this has shown is that getting to a larger middle east peace without resolving the palestinian question is likely to be a failed strategy i just don't it's impossible it's impossible and so it's impossible again this does not justify anything hamas did but i think that what these events have now created is a dynamic where the palestinian question is now front and center and and everything else is basically paused until this gets resolved now i just want to say something about the two-state process you know again i was doing some some research there really hasn't been any work on the two-state solution for roughly a decade obama was the last president who tried he explicitly said that israel should try to make peace based on the 1967 lines but with land swaps to accommodate for the changes that have happened on the map since then netanyahu was very irate at that formulation by the way he never had a good relationship with with obama because of that and then john kerry who's secretary under state under obama made a major effort to try and bring about a two-state solution and frankly it went nowhere and a big part of the reason why is that netanyahu said that listen the only situation that's acceptable to israel from a security standpoint is that we must control all security west of the jordan river so in other words we must control security in the west bank and his argument was that look adjacent land is very important if you create a palestinian state there where they have total sovereignty over their own security they could

David Sacks: be digging tunnels under the wall he basically said it could turn into 20 gazas and he's got his point of view and and when people challenged him on this he said listen you don't live here you know we live here we understand the security situation that's what he said to john kerry so the whole process fell apart and since then the idea has been for israel to move forward again on this larger normalization project with the rest of the middle east putting the palestinian question to one side the idea has basically been listen if you won't make peace with us and this goes back to arafat at camp david

SPEAKER_58: turning down the deal that was on the table that clinton brokered with a hood barack if you won't make a deal with us we'll just go around you you're two rejections you're too difficult you're too hard to make a deal with so we're just gonna put that to one side and that really has been the process for

David Sacks: the last decade i would say since john kerry's initiative fell apart the process has been

SPEAKER_58: starting with cushion under trump and then i think biden tried to extend it by brokering the saudi arabia deal the idea was let's put the palestinian question to one side we'll work on these other

David Sacks: deals i think now that that process has fallen apart so the two-state solution that process died back in 2014. this idea of going around has basically fallen apart now and so i think this is why people are pretty pessimistic about where things go from here is what is the process and meanwhile you have this hard shift inside israeli domestic politics to the right you've got these religious

SPEAKER_58: factions who believe that the entirety of the west bank what they call judea and samaria is their god

David Sacks: given right and if you go back to the netanyahu's government forming in december of 2022 the first plank was to say that judea and samaria belong to us we have sovereignty over them we're not giving them

SPEAKER_140: up so what room is there for compromise and since then they've been expanding the settlements in the

Chamath Palihapitiya: west bank let me ask you a question just to shift the question for a second the thing that surprised me the most over this past week were the extent of the protests some violent in the united states and in western europe and i'm curious to hear from you guys was that overwhelmingly about pro palestine and making sure that there wasn't a human rights atrocity in gaza or was that a emergence of like a simmering anti-semitism that we hadn't seen well both that's kind of my point is

SPEAKER_142: there's type one and type two like one is the true yeah it's definitely it's the denial of the israeli

David Sacks: right to exist however there's a type two which is legitimate concern over the condition of the palestinians and the desire to resolve that by creating a palestinian state and until you separate

SPEAKER_34: those two things you're never gonna make progress your type two can breed a type one is the real scary reality the simmering anti-semitism that you can have a legitimate concern about the

SPEAKER_33: people of palestine because you always are going to be concerned about the oppressed being oppressed by the oppressor and that then translates into an anti-semitism because you say that it's the jewish people that are perpetrating this upon those people therefore the jewish people need to go and i've heard friends of mine in the last week who have said awful things like all muslims need to go well-known well-respected public people have said this to me in private i can see where the hatred can come from a place of hurt i can see that when people feel sympathetic towards the palestinian plight they can then turn into anti-semitism and so i i i do think that there are two distinct groups today but my concern is that just like what happened in the past that that can then breed into a more generalized more fiery and more scary situation where it really is anti something genocidal on both sides by the way

SPEAKER_58: i think what we're describing here is a classic vicious cycle where you start with there's conditions of occupation that breeds resistance that breeds extremism extremism breeds fear on the part of israelis because they get attacked and then that breeds harsher security conditions the next level of occupation or blockade and then the cycle continues yeah and so the the question is how you break that cycle because the israelis right now and i'm sure netanyahu would make this point if we open things up if we gave you a palestinian state what's to stop 30 000 hamas fighters if we opened up the walls

SPEAKER_150: around gaza what's to stop 30 000 hamas fighters from mastering us in our homes and if you do a ground

SPEAKER_105: invasion are you inspiring more radicalization of course of course and so for every person you kill

SPEAKER_145: they've got brothers they've got brothers they've got sisters they've got parents they've got kids

SPEAKER_100: they've got aunts and uncles and they become the next generation of extremists how does the cycle

SPEAKER_43: break i think is the frustrating part here and just looking at the reaction us we saw a lot of discussion over young students writing arguments that israel had brought this on themselves and were solely responsible for the hamas attack and this has led to uh massive outrage amongst donors to ivy league schools like penn and harvard and obviously those have very large endowments and this is now leading to many of them pulling out of commitments they've made um the wexner foundation founded by victoria secrets billionaire said it's breaking off ties with harvard didan offer quit the executive board of harvard's kennedy school citadel's ken griffin who's donated more than a half a billion dollars to harvard placed a call week last week to the head of harvard and asked the university to come out in support of israel and then more than a dozen anonymous donors told the new york times they felt they had a right and an obligation to to weigh in here and before this all happened at penn donors had started pulling out because of a palestinian rights festival that happened two weeks before the events of 10 7. from september 22nd to 24th

SPEAKER_25: upenn hosted the palestine rights literature festival the festival was billed as a gathering to explore the richness and diversity of palestinian culture but according to multiple sources it mostly focused on jews israel and zionism one speaker called for ethnic cleansing of jews another said violence was a necessity any thoughts chamath we were talking last week about these woke madrasas and then

SPEAKER_46: i guess this is the second order and third order effects coming into play if you said it more generically

SPEAKER_47: this would be a perfect opportunity for these leading universities to actually provide nuance and teach people the history of both sides and to show the perspective of both sides that would take

SPEAKER_97: leadership yeah that would take courageous leadership on the part of the people who run the university

Chamath Palihapitiya: let's just be honest i think these elite universities are essentially asset management businesses that have

SPEAKER_47: an education the fig leaf of education wrapped around them so they're more like black rock than they are like

Chamath Palihapitiya: a school and so they behave like any for-profit asset manager would which is that i think that as they didn't try to intervene in one way or the other over the last 15 or 20 years in actually making sure that they were graduating the best kids so instead what happened is they get hijacked by professors and people who wanted one very specific strain of thinking and i don't think it matters which strain it is but it betrays what the point of a leading university is supposed to be and then as a result the people that graduate from these places are closed-minded and what that does is that that screws america because you have all of these other places graduating kids with a different mindset who then go and build the things that matter and america just keeps falling back and we are just slower and we are not intellectually capable of thinking in a way that allows us to see more than just what's right in front of us so i don't know what you want me to say it's it's just like these

SPEAKER_24: no i'm just it's a follow-up to what we talked about last week and so i i thought it was pertinent sax uh looking at the free speech issue there was some pushback online again not my position i'm just

SPEAKER_43: putting it out here for you to comment on sax which is blacklisting young college students who

SPEAKER_24: had an opinion about palestine is wrong and you're trying to cancel people what's your response to

SPEAKER_25: holding people accountable or canceling these students uh for their positions on the israeli

SPEAKER_56: palestinian conflict well what's happening now is that these campuses that took outrageous positions on this whole issue are now trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of academic freedom as if that's a value they've been respecting free speech is not a value they've been respecting

SPEAKER_58: free speech is a value they've been imposing and this was uh revealed by a survey that was just done the fire survey that surveyed students on 248 campuses on a range of free speech issues

SPEAKER_56: so it asked them about how comfortable do you feel expressing your views on controversial topics

SPEAKER_58: what is the tolerance on campus for liberal speakers or conservative speakers how acceptable is it to engage in disruptive conduct against the speaker on campus such as shouting them down to prevent them from speaking what sort of administrative support do different views get on campus and how open is the campus to hearing about different issues and what they found was that the most elite schools ranked the worst the only elite private school to score above average on free speech was university of chicago which got a score of about 65 out of 100 which made them rank number 13 overall the rest of the top schools the ivy's were abysmal brown ranked number 69 duke ranked 124 princeton ranked 187 stanford ranked 207 this is again out of a total number of uh 248 and penn which is where the donors are up in arm ranked second to last number two uh 247 they scored uh 11 points on the survey and then harvard finished 248 out of 248 schools ranked also known as also known

David Sacks: as dead last and get this the rating in the survey was 0.0 they scored a blue tar ski

SPEAKER_169: uh blue tar ski in animal house he scored 0.0 harvard 0.0 point zero yes so so look i think it would be

SPEAKER_58: it would be one thing if these schools said to the alumni we agree with you that some of these speakers were over the top but this is what academic freedom is all about but they have no standing to say anything

SPEAKER_176: like that because they have been suppressing views on campus there's no consistency allowing speakers to be shouted down they have been stifling the presentation of alternative views so this is

David Sacks: clearly these types of speakers these types of views that i think absolutely cross the line from

SPEAKER_58: again what we talked about which is type two support for legitimate support for a palestinian state into

David Sacks: hatred of israel and jews and denying the right to exist it absolutely crossed over in many of these

SPEAKER_58: cases is a outrageous talk given by i think a cornell professor who was outright praising this massacre

SPEAKER_179: god that was disturbing so look it is he was excited about the case yes he was excited so look i i think

SPEAKER_58: that these alumni have a point in saying that you these elite campuses have been clearly putting your thumb on the scale in favor of certain views you've been suppressing certain views so this must be a view that you either share or endorse or permit given that the rest of your speech regime is so

SPEAKER_56: restrictive and oppressive so even though i would in a different circumstance support academic freedom i don't think these colleges have a leg to stand on all right we're going to talk about some other

SPEAKER_23: topics today because that's what we do on the all in podcast and so tangentially related to the speech issues in the eu officials held a meeting to discuss enforcement of the dsa or digital services act for some

SPEAKER_24: background here the eu's digital service act updated the eu's electronic commerce directive of 2000 which was inspired by section 230 here in the us common carrier laws where the common carriers be those aol yahoo google facebook are not responsible for what individuals post on their platforms and so that protection has been critically important not making social media sites or wordpress into editors or having them have to censor

SPEAKER_23: content on their platform so the dsa officially went into effect in august of this year the main goal was to quote unquote foster safer online environments the dsa aims to do that via tighter rules around disinformation illegal content and transparent advertising those

SPEAKER_24: last two not controversial that first one disinformation is obviously the one that's going to be

SPEAKER_23: pretty uh challenging the dsa has been called a new constitution of the internet in an effort to shape the future of the online world some things the dsa covers it forces vlops a new term very large online platforms disclose how their algorithms work they must give users the right to opt out of recommendation

SPEAKER_24: systems and profiling they must share key data with researchers and authorities they must cooperate with crisis response requirements and they must perform external and internal audits they want to force transparency on how content moderation decisions are made that seems uh logical they want to force transparency uh on the ways advertising is targeted that also seems reasonable

SPEAKER_43: and then they want ways to flag illegal content obviously obligations around protecting minors i don't

SPEAKER_23: think anybody will debate those but it forces them to cooperate with specialized trusted flaggers to identify and remove this illegal content i don't know who those people would be freeberg you had some

SPEAKER_33: thoughts my thoughts are that the era of the open internet as a decentralized technology platform for the benefit of individuals and not to be overseen and run by governments is over the digital services act i think is one of the most overreaching threats to any sort of open transparent democratic opportunity on the internet the idea of the open internet the idea of creating a network of computers that could share information and make services available to individuals around the world freely uncensored and in an easy to access way was the reason that the internet has transformed society improved productivity and provided extraordinary benefits the digital services act is an example of a government seeing that a decentralized technology the internet itself is meant to be a decentralized technology there's no central servers they are all part of a network of computers that anyone on the network can access anything else on the network blockchain obviously is the more modern kind of exciting you know decentralized technology concept that is meant to avoid the scrutiny the oversight and the control by central governments or or central authorities of any sort and the language in the digital services act i think got squeezed through in a way that most of the people that i'm guessing passed this digital services act don't fully comprehend the implications of some of the decisions that they're making it can be easily framed as this is good for people you cannot sell illegal content online you cannot sell illegal goods and services we're trying to safeguard young people but the protection of minors means that you can no longer do personalized web experiences for anyone under 18 which means you need to know the age of everyone and now your web experience if you're a kid is not going to be personalized the overreach gets even worse when they say we can now go in and run evaluations of the algorithms and allow open access to your data to third-party researchers to get into your systems and look at how you guys are running the services that you're offering on the internet so not only are you no longer allowed to have an open internet where people can provide whatever services they want to provide but if you're on the internet you now have to make your service in the inside part of your service available for scrutiny by governments and so you have and researchers who are these researchers it sounds like a stasi

SPEAKER_192: type wing well the way it's written it gives this commission as the primary regulator effectively a lot of leeway in deciding who what where and how they can go into companies go into individual servers individual computers i could run an individual company on my computer at home and it gives this government the legal right in the eu to go into my computer and pull information out of my computer and

SPEAKER_33: scrutinize it and make decisions about what i'm doing and whether or not i'm compliant with whatever the commission's enforcement standards are of that day i mean this is about as 1984 as you can get and it's a real serious threat i don't think people are recognizing the second and third order effects of what this is going to do over time to internet services to the quality of experience we get on the internet and to the role that government is now going to play in policing scrutinizing and

SPEAKER_192: providing restricted access to content and services for each individual that wants to use the internet

SPEAKER_01: but it's important to say if you're a european it'll just make europe even more of a place you

Chamath Palihapitiya: go to vacation and never to live yeah right i mean it's not this we're not talking about america right

SPEAKER_33: we're talking about europe this is all the changes that are going to happen inside of google which is going to affect more than just the eu users because of the requests and the demands of the eu and so you know the the services that you are going to get around the world are going to be affected by this eu compliance regime and it's going to be dynamic it's a commission basically a bunch of individuals that get to decide who what where and how and that's going to that's going to create a

SPEAKER_192: really scary scary situation where a bunch of people who are going to have their own motivations their own political leanings their own objectives they're going to be able to leverage their particular

SPEAKER_195: role in applying their particular biases to internet services we saw canada do something similar and

Chamath Palihapitiya: facebook's reaction yeah and facebook's reaction was we're not going to syndicate links so i don't know i would go back to another argument you make a lot which is which i agree with which is the free market will act rationally here and if google deprecates a bunch of features and or completely pulls out of europe that'll be the death knell for these kinds of decisions because then other governments and other people will see the cost of trying to get this kind of control i think the bigger issue in a moment like this is europe has such a checkered past on these things which is that they somehow try to find this moral high ground and there is just this overreach and this quasi central planning that just never works and so if this is another example of it i would encourage all for-profit companies to make the practical decision oh can you imagine google's decision making here

SPEAKER_33: they've got thousands of employees in europe they make billions of dollars in revenue in the market

Chamath Palihapitiya: it's such a difficult situation to be in not if what you're saying is true not if what you're saying is this is the threat of the internet i think it'll be very easy for larry and sergey to say cut it move

SPEAKER_56: on no europe is too big a market for google or any other major tech company to exit there's just no way what they're going to do is comply there won't be a market well hold on a second what this new dsa rule does is apply penalties to social networks for not censoring what they call illegal speech which is whatever speech they say it is so freeberg's right there's gonna be some sort of committee in brussels that basically sends out takedown requests now to all these social networks yeah it's the dsa

David Sacks: commission yeah the dsa commission so yeah europe again is just too big an area not to serve and then what could happen is that because it's easier for companies just to have one approach where they can there is a risk that these same policies get applied in the us that is what happened with privacy remember europe went first with gdpr and then a lot of those regulations came to america now the first amendment may stand in the way here but there is some risk that tech companies of their own accord decide that it's cheaper and easier to comply with the european regime everywhere than trying to parse their service in different markets i'm just saying that's a risk but look let me frame it

Chamath Palihapitiya: in a different way in an economic argument okay so europe is about 25 cents of every dollar of revenue that google generates okay so well if you think about that that's call it 60 odd billion dollars a year plus or minus okay so the question is at what point is the cost of trying to get 60 billion so great that you say it's not worth the 60 billion and my point is that there there is an economic rational argument here for it if it costs for example 10 or 20 billion dollars to implement this stuff that's probably the efficient frontier where when you factor in multiple compression and you factor in behavior change in europe which may actually degrade the 60 billion to 50 or 40 where you just throw your hands up and say it's just not economically worth it you've seen these actors make this trade-off in canada it's not totally unreasonable that they run a model to figure out the

SPEAKER_58: cost maybe they just take the perspective that whenever this dsa commission sends us a takedown request we're just going to do it instantly why wouldn't that just become the norm in fact i'm pretty sure that's what they'll do the management of most these companies really at all of them except for elon they don't really care they they have the same they're not owners yeah they're they don't

David Sacks: care about really they're not founders they don't care about that about free speech moreover they have a lot of the same political biases that these i'm not supporting the dsa all i'm saying is i think

SPEAKER_52: that economic rational actors will do the right thing i think the most likely outcome is that tech

SPEAKER_58: companies will be craven and they'll fold those do whatever these eu commissioners want which then

SPEAKER_151: could be an opportunity for you know distributed blockchain you know serverless yeah i mean it's hard

David Friedberg: to scale them but the devil's in the details yeah or and you guys feel this every day like jason you

Chamath Palihapitiya: know you're right now in the uae you can communicate in certain ways through whatsapp you can't communicate in other ways through imessage there are just rules of usability on products and they exist all around the world if you go to india there are certain apps that are blocked and certain apps that are not and so maybe that's just what happens where there is just a gradient of user experiences around the world for people and we all deal with it yeah and we don't know exactly how heavy-handed they're going

SPEAKER_218: to be here this is by definition heavy-handed i don't agree with it but hold on we don't know what

SPEAKER_24: this is the problem with how they've done this this is all being done in a star chamber we don't have any insight into what kind of content they want to take down if it's obviously abusive content fine but if it's you know covet information or misinformation obviously there's going to be a problem that we saw here in the united states just so people know can i respond to that yeah in one

SPEAKER_226: second okay look you're giving way too much credit jcal i'm not giving them any credit i i do not want

SPEAKER_24: to see this happen i'm not giving them any credit i'm just saying we'll see how heavy-handed they'll be you're assuming they're going to be super heavy-handed we'll see and we'll see what their what their own

David Sacks: citizens respond i think the fact that a room full of commissioners in the u can send takedown requests

SPEAKER_58: to social media companies is by definition happy-handed let me back up what the twitter file showed okay is that we had 80 fbi agents being the conduit for takedown requests to twitter

SPEAKER_150: and presumably other social networks well no no but that was all on the deal on the deal exactly yes

SPEAKER_58: that was not and yes moreover when they did that in their takedown requests they would always point to well this tweet violates your terms of service okay what the eu is doing is different they're actually

David Sacks: defining the terms of service they're saying that your terms of service need to do x y and z they're doing it explicitly this is not on the deal they're not doing it explicitly they're not saying

SPEAKER_230: your moderation policy needs to be what we say it is and when we tell you to take something down

SPEAKER_232: you're going to do it they haven't defined what that is that's i think the issue is where where is the actual definition of what's going to happen here and that's why it's hard for us to have a discussion about this is because we don't know what they're talking about with this content that's it's just

David Sacks: problematic whatever they say in the future is disinformation needs to be taken down that's the

SPEAKER_24: framework the fine is going to be up to six percent of global revenue for companies that do not comply so the eu has also figured out that speeding tickets don't work and they're looking to give pretty

SPEAKER_42: heavy panel please so we'll see uh this is uh um a moving target here we don't have complete

David Sacks: information but yeah it's it's not a moving target we do have complete information this is a censorship

SPEAKER_24: regime jason we just don't know what their term for illegal or problematic content is here and i and

SPEAKER_232: again yes i don't want i don't want to be pitted as your adversary here i i am not in favor of this so

SPEAKER_24: we're clear but and i don't think there should be a star chamber where people get to pick what goes up and what goes down there i think the private companies can do a good enough job there and there should be freedom of speech and yeah you're going to see some things you don't like

SPEAKER_122: yeah grow up turn change the time if you don't like it it basically as they say sets a horizontal rule

SPEAKER_188: covering all services and all types of illegal content and disinformation illegal content could

SPEAKER_232: be fine right freeberg like illegal content putting on doxing somebody child pornography illegal content i

SPEAKER_122: think we would all be okay with it's the disinformation part right i'm not trying to be okay or not okay

SPEAKER_33: i'm just saying that like you're basically saying that whatever the rules are that they come up with that may be different than somewhere else on the internet they get to then regulate other businesses

SPEAKER_34: on the internet i think the internet should be open well and there aren't i don't want to have a commission approve what i write in my blog post i don't want the commission telling me that what i put on twitter or put on my website is up to them to decide whether or not it's okay to put up because they

SPEAKER_192: think it's illegal because it has what they deem to be misinformation right there are already laws

SPEAKER_23: that exist so disinformation illegal content two different things but those laws provide some

SPEAKER_33: authority to a commissioner i mean that's the problem right it's it's right look the problem is in the

SPEAKER_58: vagueness of this the law says that social media companies have to take down illegal content but it doesn't say what illegal content is it delegates the power to define it to this group of eurocrats led by theory breton and they're meeting this week to hammer it out so yeah look in practice illegal content is

David Sacks: going to be whatever they say it is that is yeah explicit censorship okay let's move on to our final

SPEAKER_43: topic second largest hype cycle of 2023 perhaps glp ones uh chamath you uh brought this up in our group

Chamath Palihapitiya: chat so maybe you could tee it up well i was just interested in understanding everything that's been happening around glps mostly because it just seems like people think it's a panacea we have a lot of

SPEAKER_47: our friends jason you were the one that said this in our poker group like four of the 12 or 13 regulars

SPEAKER_80: are on it is that right i think it was four of like yeah four of 12 people were on it yeah it was a

Chamath Palihapitiya: third yeah and then and then i got this really interesting chart nick you may want to put this up it basically showed how the glp one market was tracking very similar to the ai market in terms of the hype which is if you separated companies as a basket of people who were positively affected by glp ones like lily and novo nordisk and you had a basket of companies that were disrupted by glp ones those would be like dexcom or devita or folks like that it eerily mimics the same hype cycle around ai which is there's those businesses that seem to be feeding the hype train around ai and then all of these companies that theoretically will be disrupted and it just brought up to me that there's this incredible market movement here where i think people think that these glp ones are a solution to everything and i thought it was just an important thing to discuss because scientifically the mechanism of action is still a little questionable and murky on top of that i think we don't know physiologically what the real long-term ramifications of taking these things are there's still a lot of mixed evidence around the total amount of weight loss you can lose the percentage of muscle versus fat that you lose

SPEAKER_47: and so yeah i just thought it was important for us to talk about it and see what this would be a

SPEAKER_110: a a a basket spread trade here are the companies that win here are the companies that loses and look at

SPEAKER_24: that gap between the two and it's exactly mimics people who would benefit from ai and people would lose from ai

Chamath Palihapitiya: yeah the glp one hype the summary is the glp one hype cycle is as overextended as the ai hype cycle so we should probably separate the wheat from the chaff and start by

SPEAKER_47: understanding what glp ones are because i'm sure there's a lot of people in our listening community

SPEAKER_257: who are on this stuff they should really probably understand if that's where you think we should go

SPEAKER_259: next we should then throw it to the sultan of science himself david freeberg explained to us uh while we prepare our uranus jokes glp ones these drugs have been around for a while they're small

SPEAKER_33: peptides little proteins that bind to this glp receptor in your gut that causes insulin to be released from your pancreas and triggers a couple of other hormones that reduce your hunger and appetite so basically gets you to eat less and your brain and your brain and it's effectively a way to make you feel not hungry and you're not you're you can then run a calorie deficit and when you run a calorie deficit your body starts starving and it starts burning other parts of your body besides the the glucose it can get out of the stomach where you would otherwise have food and ends up in your blood and it starts generating energy from your stored body fat and your stored and your muscle mass so these have been around for a while novo nordisk is the developer of two of the the main drugs and here's a a chart of novo nordisk stock price you can see that in the last five years their stock has 5x they've basically gone from you know call it a 60 billion dollar company to a 350 billion dollar company in five years uh largely on the the back of the promise of this drug so these drugs have been around for a while and there's actually one that's been on the market for a long time but it only causes five percent body mass loss so five percent weight loss so people are like oh it's not that great it didn't really get widely adopted then this new class they added a little side chain they added another little molecule to the peptide and as a result it didn't get degraded as fast and it was far more bioactive in the body and caused a much greater benefit and so suddenly people on these drugs started to see massive weight loss massive improvement diabetes and metabolic health all moves together so as you burn body fat as you have less glucose in your blood your your your metabolic condition improves the problem is when you're starving normally if you were to just stop eating you would typically see that your body starts burning first of all the glucose and then it burns off the glycogen in your muscles which is the next energy store once that's gone your body starts burning fat and as it's burning more fat it also says hey i need to get these other molecules which i'm not getting just from the fat i need muscle and your body actually starts burning muscle

SPEAKER_192: and that's how your brain gets energy that it needs when you're starving is actually primarily from the degradation of muscle tissue so normally if you're just starving yourself you'll see a ratio

SPEAKER_33: of weight loss where it's about 20 coming from lean muscle mass in some of the studies that have been done on these glp1 agonists we're seeing up to 40 of the weight loss coming from lean muscle mass being burnt off so jason i don't know if you've done a dexa scan because i think you've you've said publicly that you've tried it right i mean yeah you should check you should check out what your lean muscle mass is versus um uh your fat composition and your body i don't know if you have it from before but i have yeah and this has been one of the concerns obviously if you're not working out and you're not you know doing what you need to to eat protein and build muscle you're going to be burning through a lot of that muscle mass and so that's problem number one that's arisen that people are concerned about the other one that's that's really i don't know if it's concerning or not but when people go off these drugs they gain the weight back in a very quick way and there's two reasons for this one is if you haven't actually changed your behavior you haven't changed your exercise patterns and and you suddenly have the appetite suppressing drug taken out of your system you start eating more food again and when you've been in a state of starvation your meta your metabolism your baseline metabolism goes down so instead of burning on average 2 000 calories a day your body's only burning at 1200 calories a day so suddenly if you go back to eating 2 000 calories a day because you're not you're you know you no longer have the appetite suppressor you're going to re-inflate you're going to re-inflate um and so so your metabolism goes down the appetite suppressant goes away and you gain all the weight back if you haven't changed your behavior otherwise and so i don't know if you guys saw this clip i sent out of arnold schwarzenegger talking with howard stern but he was talking about how like i can't do a howard accent jcal you could probably do it

SPEAKER_269: really well but you know yeah it's one thing you what do you think of the ozampic but you know how

SPEAKER_270: the ozampic is you know americans used to be very interested in working hard and i don't know why that's so bad but you get up at 5 a.m and you work hard and you do it and you make yourself strong right that's what it's about you don't need to do a little baby girl ozampic in your side oh look i'm

SPEAKER_271: going to eat less food thank you wait did you listen to the clip is that is that what he said

SPEAKER_274: that's what he said oh that's exactly what he said that's exactly what he said he's exactly

SPEAKER_282: really man i don't know what do you mean this was happening uh hard work

SPEAKER_283: that's why i say in in in my book you know work work your off and because it's there's no shortcut what built this country is it people that slept in is it people that were wimping out this is america's great no this was bossy women and men that went out there five in the morning and got up and they struggled and they fought and they worked their butts off that's what made this country

SPEAKER_192: great yeah he actually he said that in response to i think howard turn's questions about ozampic yeah but that is the problem like like we're basically creating a new multi-billion dollar

SPEAKER_33: pharmaceutical drug system that people are going to have to stay on in order to stay healthy do we

Chamath Palihapitiya: know what the long-term effects of taking semaglutide are and can be and will be

SPEAKER_34: these drugs have been around for quite a long time so you know the there are various side effects but

SPEAKER_33: in terms of like are we debilitating our health over the long run you know it seems to be a reasonably safe drug and it seems to be a drug that that folks are are kind of recognizing as being well worth the cost and whatever the risks may be well what are the implications for the benefit

SPEAKER_253: you lose 40 well it's about 16 of your weight loss you typically lose right i mean yeah they'll

SPEAKER_64: say up to 20 if you lose weight you'll usually see up to 20 of lean muscle mass of of the of the

SPEAKER_33: weight you lost coming from lean muscle mass loss and you know 80 or 85 as you say come off coming from from body fat loss but with the ozampic drugs they're seeing as high as 40 coming from lean

SPEAKER_97: muscle mass which is obviously concerning i just made an adjustment i everybody knows i lost like 40 pounds or so or talk to me for more than five minutes you know i have uh because i'll tell you and

SPEAKER_24: the first 20 was just fasting and doing keto and then when this drug came out i tried it i tried osampic and then i did wagovi and i lost the next 20 pounds i'm gonna give you but i didn't gain it

SPEAKER_293: back i i gained back about four or five pounds and i also increased protein in the morning and i do a

SPEAKER_24: lot of walking okay so so let me give you this map and tell me if it maps to what you have felt or not

Chamath Palihapitiya: so at 250 pounds let's just say you lose 16 of your body weight that's 40 pounds okay so you get to 190 i'm sorry to 210 and of that you lose 16 pounds of muscle is that what you saw or did you see

SPEAKER_103: something less than that no much less muscle because i use weights and i do a lot of walking and i eat a

SPEAKER_110: ton of protein right so you're doing the exercise you're doing the exercise i'm not doing hardcore

SPEAKER_126: exercise but i do exercise you have to do exercise and the challenge jacal is that the vast majority of

SPEAKER_33: people that go on the drugs by the way i'm not saying the drugs shouldn't be adopted i think that there's extraordinary benefit health benefit to the majority of people that are on these drugs but the downside is that if you're not exercising you are going to lose muscle mass and then obviously there is the fact that you're now hooked on this thing if you're not going to figure out ways to change

SPEAKER_24: behavior i cycled off of it two or three times and had very minor weight gain back three four or five pounds but i deliberately changed my relationship with food portion size and i work out now and what i found was as i lost weight my interest and the joy i got out of working out dramatically increased so running walking skiing everything got easier and i just got more into it so i like working out again now that i'm 40 hot pounds 42 pounds off my peak weight so i i think it's an amazing wonder

SPEAKER_33: drug on this like a take on this like you think that these things are overhyped right now and we're just in the middle of a hype cycle or what's your key takeaway my key takeaway is that for many people

Chamath Palihapitiya: from a health perspective i think that it it could be a really great solution i think that these triple agonists that are coming out are going to be probably even more effective than these double agonists that

SPEAKER_253: we have right now yeah i don't understand the triple when jaros the triple agonist yeah people who

SPEAKER_43: told me it is unbelievable how not hungry you are yeah it's super fast too super i just want to see

Chamath Palihapitiya: you know like for example when you know when you get older in your 60s and 70s one of the biggest risks you take on and in your 80s is actually like you know musculoskeletal and falls and things like that and one of the best preventative measures for that is muscle mass and so you get into this weird catch 22 of you replace one issue with another so longitudinally if you use it for a long time i'm concerned about that i do think that these glp ones if when we look back on it will probably be like statins and in as much as when statins first came on the market it was a wonder drug right and you know we were all teetering towards you know heart disease and heart attacks and all of this stuff and then once people got on these statins i think there was a very meaningful impact to the percentage of people that that suffered heart disease and cardiac issues but heart disease still continues to grow and you would say to yourself well how is this possible because statins are effectively free they're generic they're widely available um and today right now because of the lack of supply the emergency fda order around these semiglutides allows you to make generics right now right so the cost of those are not really a thousand bucks a month but can be as cheap as a few hundred so you're getting this widespread adoption and usage i think the open question for me is if human history is a guide we're going to replace this issue with a different kind of issue

SPEAKER_52: because unfortunately you know maybe people take it and then they physiologically adapt and then they just continue to eat the same or more because they think wow this is a get out of jail free card for me and maybe they overpower that satiety that that sent that glp one is supposed to

Chamath Palihapitiya: give you i don't know i find it from a sort of public societal health perspective really interesting from an economic market perspective i think that these things are priced to perfection it's kind of like nvidia which is like right if people are assuming everything people are assuming everything is going to work it's a tough point in the cycle to be a buyer i think as as an economic actor but i know if you're

SPEAKER_97: making a trade that seems like a hard trade to make and just to give even some more color to it

SPEAKER_24: novo nordisk announced that it was halting it's a zempic kidney disease trial early well nick show this because it was so conclusive yeah i mean if you look at that sparked a 3.6 billion dollar

SPEAKER_23: sell-off in shares of dialysis providers i mean remember over 40 percent of americans are clinically

SPEAKER_33: obese it's a sorry almost 60 percent now it's an extraordinary health epidemic in the united states and you know if this drug can have this sort of an effect it can reduce costs across the health care system so you know there is still uh i mean chamov's point out that is the right because

SPEAKER_151: this affects cardiovascular disease diabetes kidney disease liver disease

Chamath Palihapitiya: does an average 16 weight loss reduction actually get people from obesity to unobesity or are they still

SPEAKER_33: obese the obesity trial seemed to i mean remember you have to get fda approval for

SPEAKER_290: a particular so this is this is what jason was mentioning so this is this is a basket that morgan

SPEAKER_52: stanley created which was essentially starting at the beginning of the year when the hype was really

Chamath Palihapitiya: starting to get out of control morgan stanley created a basket of the glp1 winners and a basket of the gglp1 potentially disrupted healthcare stocks so you could trade them off against each other and this just shows how it's performed which is just a blockbuster trade in the last 10 months so if you if you went long the glp1 winners and short these potential potentially disrupted it's i mean

SPEAKER_253: i've never seen a spread trade pay off like this in such a short period of time 80 80 percent a year

SPEAKER_122: unless it's unbelievable and the nature of creating would you take the other side of this trade right

SPEAKER_52: now or like how do you i would i would and the reason and the reason is because of two two two practical factors one is that when when a market gets this exaggerated what you're pricing in is essentially like a panacea solution that and those tend to not really be realistic and again i would point to statins as a good example of that and so there's a part of it which is just like these trades are so overextended that you can probably pretty be pretty safe on the other side and then the second part is that i don't think we really understand yet the other half of the coin which is you know for every one of us that's generally positively inclined around glp1s who isn't getting enough

Chamath Palihapitiya: attention right now are the doctors who's spending a lot of time researching this stuff who may actually have a perspective on the other side you know probably the most prominent one like bob lustig so you have to give that a little bit of time for it to play out because nobody wants to hear the bear

SPEAKER_52: case on glp ones as a drug that people take so i would just say that it's it's probably again when you see it an economic trade like this it's it's it's probably okay to be on the other side of it and then just from a public health perspective you know take a wait and see but for a lot of people who are

Chamath Palihapitiya: clinically obese it doesn't seem like the math is such that if you're at a bmi of 30 reducing your

SPEAKER_01: weight 16 i think gets you to like a 26 it doesn't get you under i think it's meaningful i think it's

David Friedberg: meaningful no no i'm not saying it's not meaningful i'm saying it does it you're still obese yeah i think

SPEAKER_97: the the key thing and i don't want to give medical advice but i think you need to do this holistically so

SPEAKER_25: you got to keep your diet and you got to keep working out in mind when you do it and that should be fairly obvious and those are always good things to do is to make sure you plan to take it your

SPEAKER_338: whole life in sports jacal or how do you how do you view it no i'm five pounds from my lowest weight

SPEAKER_25: as an adult and my the weight i used to be when i ran marathons and so my plan is to come off of it

SPEAKER_43: like by the end of this year and then and i had taken like six months off twice uh doing this so i did it

SPEAKER_24: like in little intentional in sprints in spurts friends yeah just to to get where i want it to be

David Friedberg: and this last five uh this last five pounds what is your do you have a sense of if your behavior

SPEAKER_24: changes when you're on and you're off like do you uh yeah i i do feel more hungry but then i remember how bad i felt when i was overweight and then i just weigh myself every day and if i see myself get above a certain number i consider that like a red alert and i just you know either start fasting working out or just eating super healthy so it's just the discipline of weighing myself every day that i've gotten into and just understanding hey you know if i make two or three bad decisions you're not going to make two or three bad decisions when you're on these drugs in my experience because you feel so bloated and so painful when you overeat that you don't want to do it it's really it's really like it hurts you feel distended and you know there are reports and it did happen to me twice over two or three years of doing this that if you take it and you eat too much you you could get sick and actually vomit so it some people just don't have the stomach for it i think a lot of people just tap out it makes their stomachs feel too distended or uh gnarly and that and that's why the dosage actually really matters they have dosages that are like a very wide range maybe 10x

SPEAKER_43: uh and so the dosage getting that right working with your doctor is key but yeah i'm just i'm excited to get off of it because i want to really start sincerely weightlifting so i'm getting a personal trainer to do like weightlifting twice a week and get really into that next because you can't do hardcore intense working out with us because you're you know just lower calorie but i think it's a miracle drug um and i'm excited about it the one question i have for you on the

SPEAKER_24: spread trade uh before we end chamath does the nature of making those indexes and giving people the ability to put the trade on exacerbate the trade because then i saw everybody was tweeting about this you know over the last week does the nature of an index being made impact the the the the action

Chamath Palihapitiya: in this box you know morgan stanley is particularly good at these basket creations and they tend to make it for their biggest hedge fund clients and their richest families so it tends to be pretty isolated they they they give an edge to a few folks so these things are not broadly published and so i i doubt it

David Friedberg: in the end but so they come up with this idea how many in how many names are in each index it all

Chamath Palihapitiya: just depends like and and they're very smart about you know being able to create these on the fly based on what themes they're seeing and then like i said they share them with their best hedge fund clients and their and their and their biggest families they don't they don't trade you know they

SPEAKER_313: don't share them with us i i got it jason one that i told you like at the end of all of that at the end of that crap yeah after everybody put the trade on and got the win then they're like oh let's get

SPEAKER_80: your mom yeah but uh so they they didn't actually share it with me in january i wish they did all

SPEAKER_43: right listen we got to wrap up great show boys uh and we're praying for peace and uh the return of the hostages for the sultan of science the dictator and the rain man yeah david sacks i am the world's

SPEAKER_235: greatest mom and we'll see you at episode 151 enjoy the 150 fan meetups this weekend anybody who's going

SPEAKER_364: to level those baby never does explain rain man david sacks