Zak Stein: "Values, Education, AI and the Metacrisis"

The Great Simplification
Zak Stein(00:00:00):
Inthe arc of history, the economy andthe technology always flies past theeducational systeminaway that makes for certaindanger. It's precisely thediscontinuity I'mpointingto, this generational gapthat gets bigger andbigger astechnology accelerates.
(00:00:17):
The first time you evenget the sense of agenerational gapis inthe '60s. Andthen, itbecomes atopic, andthenyou get the whole thematizationof generations. So, thatnotionthat there is anacute lagbetweenthe educationandthe technologicaldevelopment that occurs nowinour time, of hyper innovative, hyper capitalist,accelerationessentially. Inthat sense, the schools are decades behind.
Nate Hagens (00:00:49):
I'dlike to welcome philosopher andeducator andfriend, Zak Stein. Zak is theco-founder of the Center for WorldPhilosophy andReligion. He currently works atCivilizationResearchInstitute. He's the author of dozens of publishedpapers andbooks, includingEducationInaTime BetweenWorlds.
(00:01:11):
We discuss what is wrongwithour educationsystem. Zak believes that educationandthe problems withit are at the root of the metacrisis. He's got some rather radicalsuggestions onhowto go forward, but I think his general take onwhat's lackinginourcurrent educationsystem, whichis too basedonmetrics andstandards andless onactually learning, there's alot there that I agree with.
(00:01:45):
This is alongandinterestinganddeepconversationwithabigmind, Zak Stein.Please welcome Zak.
(00:01:55):
This conversationis longtime coming, longoverdue. I wantedyou onthis showtwoyears ago.
Zak Stein(00:02:03):
Yep.
Page 1 of 51
The Great Simplification
Nate Hagens (00:02:03):
AndI imagine we've bothlearnedalot inthose two years, so it's better for our viewersthat you're here today.
Zak Stein(00:02:09):
Yeah. Agreed.
Nate Hagens (00:02:11):
So like me, obviously you've takenapretty wide lens lookingat our global systems,what we might call the metacrisis. What has beenyour path, your work life upuntilnow? Andmaybe just give abrief snapshot onwhat you're doingnow.
Zak Stein(00:02:29):
I was amusicianfirst. Andthen, I became adevelopmental psychologist andaneducator, as it were. I went to agraduate School of Education, andstudiedhumandevelopment.
(00:02:40):
I was dyslexic, so I was always alittle bit reflective onthe educational system, andthatbecame my practice, professionally, whichwas just to think about these things as aparticipant observer. I got really focusedonstandardizedtestingfor abunchofreasons.
(00:02:57):
Ingraduate school, I was focusedondeepphilosophical theory ineducationandhumandevelopment, revolvingaroundissues of justice andfairness andtesting. Thisledme to realize that it was possible to break aneducational system. It was possibleto actually do somethingso sweepingwithapolicy, for example, No ChildLeftBehind, that you couldostensibly break what the educational system's functionwas,whichwas to facilitate intergenerational transmission, allowthe next generationtostepinto responsibility andcapacity, andconfront the problems that civilization'saddressing. You couldbreak that, andthenyou'dhave this civilizational collapse. AndI didn't knowthere was afieldthat studiedcivilizational collapse. I'dnever heardofthe term, catastrophic risk, or existential risk, or any of that stuff, but stumbledonwhat, inretrospect, wouldbe calledaTainter dynamic, JosephTainter who you hadon,
Page 2 of 51
The Great Simplification
I believe. The standardizedtestingindustrial complex inthe Americanpubliceducational systemendeduphavingthis diminishingreturns oninvestment andcomplexity dynamic, whichmeant that they kept tryingto solve this problemthroughtesting, andwas actually makingit worse, andthenwasn't able to see that they weremakingit worse, andthen, this compoundingiatrogenic spiral of testing. And-
Nate Hagens (00:04:22):
What was that wordyou just used?
Zak Stein(00:04:25):
Iatrogenic spiral.
(00:04:26):
Yeah. So-
Nate Hagens (00:04:26):
I don't knowwhat that is.
Zak Stein(00:04:28):
Iatrogenic just means damage done by adoctor, for example, is the most stricttechnical term. But it more technically means damage done withthe intentionto heal.You're puttingthe standardizedtestingsysteminplace withthe intentionto fix thesystem. But infact, the thingyou're doingto "fix it" is actually makingit worse. Butbecause all your optics are built aroundthat way of fixing, you can't evensee that it'syour way of fixingthat's makingit worse. So, this becomes aspiral that's tiedinto thatdynamic that Tainter recognized, whichis acommonbureaucratic patternof justkeepingthrowingmore complexity andmoney at the same probleminthe same way,whenyou shouldjust switchtactics entirely or redefine the problems faced, basically. Isawthat patternthen, in2015, met Daniel Schmachtenberger, andthenhadthis wholeencounter withthe fieldof existential risk andcatastrophic risk. At the same time, I'dbeenworkingwithKenWilber andMarc Gafni inthe space of integral theory. So, Iwas takingthis broadmeta-theoretical viewof the whole worldsituation. AndIactually heardthe termmetacrisis at the 2015 Integral Theory Conference for the firsttime, whichis where I met Daniel.
Page 3 of 51
The Great Simplification
(00:05:50):
This convergence of thinkingabout humandevelopment inafundamental way, seeingthat there is away to actually destroy civilization, rootedinmishandlinghumandevelopment, rootedinbreakingthe educational system, andthenbeingpluggedintothis muchbroader discourse about all the ways that you couldmake acivilizationself-terminate, to bringsome of Daniel's language in. But as aneducator, psychologist,philosopher type, not atechnician, scientist, as it were, hardscientist or ecologist, orsomething, that are focusingalot onworldviews, skills, andeducational crises,legitimationcrises, andawhole bunchof internal psychological dynamics of themetacrisis, andthe tremendous amount of educational, we needaneducationalrenaissance inorder to address the metacrisis. As muchas we needincredibleeconomic andtechnological innovationandpolitical reform, andawhole bunchofother things, we needatype of educational renaissance that we haven't seeninhumanhistory.
Nate Hagens (00:06:57):
I have lots andlots of questions for you. First of all, jumpingoffwhat you just said, isthere any anthropological researchthat shows different cultures or civilizations inthepast implodedor collapsedor went into senescence because of lack of development oreducation? Is there away that we couldresearchthat? Do we evenknow?
Zak Stein(00:07:26):
There's ways to make reasonable inferences. If you look at the collapse of the RomanEmpire, for example, what you have there becomes abureaucracy that becomes sobloated, andalso corrupt andcomplex andfragile, that it becomes hardfor the eldersto actually pass alongthe entirety of the tacit knowledge neededto maintainthething. It's away of thinkingabout institutional decay or other dynamics that just put adragonthe ability of the civilizationto adapt. So, you canpresume that, inacasewhere other institutions are decayingandwhere the overall complexity of thecivilizationoutstrips the leadership, that they're not goingto be able to pass onto thenext generationwhat is occurring. That's inferences you canmake across abunchofdifferent data.
(00:08:24):
Page 4 of 51
The Great Simplification
But then, whenyou look at major turnings incivilization, if you look at, for example,the transitionfromfeudalisminto modernity, let's say, fromfeudalisminto what weknownowas nationstate capitalismcollaboration, that transitionwas, inaveryfundamental way, aneducational transition, whichmeant that the feudal educationsystems simply weren't keepingupwiththe printingpress, andthe kinds of accountingandthe kinds of technology that were movinghistory beyondwhat these educationalsystems were able to do, quite antiquated. Andthe move throughto theEnlightenment gives us this whole newnotionof education, of public education, wheremathematics, science, literacy is universal. That was not the meta-curriculumof theprior civilization. It was anemergent one. We're facingasimilar needof transitiontonewcivilizational, let's say, meta-curriculum, very fundamental newtypes of literaciesandcapacities, if we don't want the whole thingto completely go offthe rails.
Nate Hagens (00:09:37):
I'mjust thinkingabout our modernlast 50years. It's almost like our culture, ourobjectives, our technology, our governance, our discourse, our social media, all that isevolvingandchangingrapidly, but the educationsystemdoesn't move hardly at all,just 1%or 2%at atime. I taught college not that longago. Alot of what we'reteachingis triviaandfacts andfigures that matteredthe last century that are notreal equippedto prepare younghumans for the next 50years. So, educationis tooslow. The whole educationsystemhas abuilt-inmetabolismandmomentumthat'shardto shift. Is that anaccurate statement?
Zak Stein(00:10:34):
Yes andno.
(00:10:38):
Inone sense, educational institutions are the thingthat canserve the culture. So, inone sense, educational institutions are, almost by definition, conservative. Becausethey're saying, "Here's what we usedto do." They're saying, "Here's the elders speakingto the youth." Inthat sense, there's away inwhichyou don't want every newfadtosweepthroughthe educational systemandjust change it. Infact, you want a-
Nate Hagens (00:11:00):
Page 5 of 51
The Great Simplification
Okay.
Zak Stein(00:11:00):
... certainamount of due diligence indoingradical educational reform.
(00:11:06):
For example, No ChildLeft Behindwas anexample of absence of concernaboutsecond, thirdorder effects of sweepingradical change. Andit was the first time, withthe exceptionof the civil rights movement, that the federal government overrode therights of states inthe UnitedStates to set their owninternal testingpolicies, andotherthings. That was anexample of rapidchange inthe educational system, whichwasactually not great, because of its rapidity.
(00:11:35):
But there's abigger thingthat you're pointingto, whichis that, inthe arc of history,the economy andthe technology always flies past the educational systeminawaythat makes for acertaindanger. It's precisely the discontinuity I'mpointingto, thisgenerational gapthat gets bigger andbigger as technology accelerates.
(00:11:57):
The first time you evenget the sense of agenerational gapis inthe '60s. Andthen, itbecomes atopic, andthenyou get the whole thematizationof generations, again, asit were. So, that notionthat there isn't aacute lagbetweenthe educationandthetechnological development that occurs nowinour time, of hyper innovative, hypercapitalist acceleration, essentially. Inthat sense, the schools are decades behind. That'swhy the kids are completely wonover by the technology. The schools have ostensiblylost to the screens. Andmost reflective educators are fightingthat battle. One of thereasons that the schools are so subject, I think, to acertainkindof identity politics,andacertainkindof focus onthe wrongthings, is because we can't address howfundamentally offthe nature of these schools are. We've quite antiquatedinstitutions.
Nate Hagens (00:13:06):
I'msure we're goingto get to this, but you're aware of, andevenworkingon,alternative educationmodels to the conventional Kthrough12 anduniversity system.
Zak Stein(00:13:17):
Page 6 of 51
The Great Simplification
Mm-hmm.
Nate Hagens (00:13:18):
Inthose successful examples aroundthe worldright now, do they make rules andstrictly forbidscreenuse? Or is the educational experience so interestingandrewardingto the student that they lose their compulsionto use screens all the time?
Zak Stein(00:13:42):
It's areally goodquestion. There's different views, I wouldsay. There's at least two orthree different views. I knowof places, andthis includes certainWaldorf schools thatare extremely successful, andthenalso secondary college, especially micro colleges asthey're called, whichare quite interesting, where you go there precisely because youdon't bringyour screen. Andthere's avery deliberate engagement withtechnology,andthere's adetoxingas part of the curriculum. That's one view. AndI think that'svery important. There's actually researchgoingonnowstudyingthe effects onyoungkids of not beingwiththeir screen. But you have to get howubiquitous that means thescreenmust be if we study the effects of not beingwithit. You go to summer camp,andthey take your phone away. Andwhat is it like two, three days in? The kids starthavingwithdrawals, basically. So, there's adetox perspective. There's a"come back toit after you've beencompletely detoxedfromit, andsee what it's like." I've seenthatmodel.
(00:14:44):
But then, I've also seenthe model, eveninmonastic communities, where they'reactually saying, "No. You needto be able to deal withthe presence of this thingallthe time. You needto go alittle bit more cyborg, andbeginto think about what itmeans to be adaptedto the existence of technology." But that means then, you needto do technology education. Thenyou needto knowwhat you're actually dealingwith.Yeah. Because I think most youngpeople don't realize howpredatory the technologiesare, howextractive andexploitative they are. I think if they knewthat, they wouldactually be alittle bit more concerned/rebellious against, "the man" is basicallyextractingandexploitingyou as you're havingfunonsocial media. But it's hardtopaint aclear enoughpicture of that. So, I've seenthis other class, where they're like,
Page 7 of 51
The Great Simplification
"No. We have to live withthese things." That means understandingthem, andthatmeans beginningto adapt andto buildour owntechnologies to our purposes.
(00:15:45):
AndI think they're bothright, but as you cansee, they're bothalittle bit extreme, as itwere.
Nate Hagens (00:15:51):
Why don't you hypothesize onthis? If there were aprogramso that kids couldbebehaviorally, vertically, horizontally stacked, where they have the right nutrition, theright sleep, the right exercise, the right community, the right psychologicaldevelopment, friends, oxytocinall around, coupledwithaneducationabout whatsocial mediais doingto all of us, but especially to teenagers andyoungadults, is itpossible thenthat those younghumans couldchoose andhave the constitutionandawareness andwillpower to make screens asmall part of their life, consciously? Isthere any evidence of that? Or what do you think about that?
Zak Stein(00:16:47):
It has beensuggestedto me by McLuhanscholars, people who study the evolutionoftechnology andcommunicationtechnology, andwho have akindof theory ofgenerational change fromthat, that the youngest people are seekingareturntoreality. That infact, it will not be hardto create the types of environments whereadults are requestedby kids for boundaries to be set aroundtechnology. Andthat'sanother thingabout humandevelopment, where there's some misunderstanding. It'svery important for adults to set boundaries for children, andchildrenwant themsetandfeel safe andcaredfor whenthey are set. There's asense of irresponsibility onthe adults' part to just not simply set the boundaries, whichthe kids nowknowwe havegoodreasonto set. That's weird, that the kids knowthat these things inacertainsense, they've seenThe Social Dilemmaor whatever, andthey know, "This thing's badfor me. Andyet Mom's not settingaboundary, or Dad's not settingaboundary, orschool's not settingaboundary, or society's not stoppingthe companies frompreyinguponme." There's asense inwhichthere's goingto be acall for that. But there's alsogenerationarguably lost to it.
(00:18:04):
Page 8 of 51
The Great Simplification
Because designedto be addictive, andto dysregulate your limbic system. That's not asecond, thirdorder effect. That's adesignintention. That's intentionally designedto dothat. That's the other thingis, that if we really educatedthem, I think the companieswouldgo out of business. Because thenthey wouldn't be used.
Nate Hagens (00:18:22):
We've hadconversations about this before, where you think the lack of asucient andupdatededucationsystemis at the root of many of the crises we are facing, especiallyinthe UnitedStates.
(00:18:41):
What percentage of that educationbeingat the root is the screens andthe addictionto dopamine andscrollingandtechnology, andhowmuchof it is the educationitself?
Zak Stein(00:18:54):
It's very hardto tell, at this point.
(00:18:57):
But I knowthat, inthe '90s, inthe 1990s, before you couldblame the screens, is whenyou startedto get the ADHDphenomenon. That's awhole other conversation. I'mnotgoingto talk about the medicalizationof academic under-performance. But the pointwas that academic under-performance became so severe that they hadto medicalizeit. Andmedicalizingit means you blame the kid's brain, wheninfact another inferenceis, the school must be systematically failingif so many kids can't evenpay attention.There's the canaries inthe mines inthe '90s of the irrelevance andostensiblehypocrisy, that the reflective smartest adolescents have to cynically buy into azero-sumgame withtheir friends. So, the hyper competitiveness of it that one of themost competitive experiences of your life will be college admissions, andthat all theadults are cool withthat sets atone.
Nate Hagens (00:19:56):
That's just not inthe UnitedStates, though. There are people inKoreathat commitsuicide if their kids didn't get into college, andcrazy stufflike that.
Zak Stein(00:20:07):
Page 9 of 51
The Great Simplification
This is why I studiedtesting. Testingdestroys people's lives. Testingcreates suicides.You have whole grade school classes withulcers inConnecticut. You have entire schooldistricts, fromthe topdown, cheating. Testingis aremarkable phenomenon. Largescale standardizedtestinghas incredible secondandthirdorder effects.
Nate Hagens (00:20:33):
We're supposedto be educatingandpreparingthese younghumans for the worldinalearningenvironment, but insteadwe're puttingthemthroughfight or flight cortisolandother endocrine cascades.
Zak Stein(00:20:48):
Correct.
Nate Hagens (00:20:48):
Is this aglobal phenomenon, then? Or are there some cultures that are doingit muchbetter?
Zak Stein(00:20:56):
It's interesting. Inone sense, it's aglobal phenomenon, inso far as one definitionofcivilizationwouldbe. There's this argument, are we inone civilization, or there aremany civilizations?
(00:21:11):
One argument that we're inone is that there is auniversally agreedto bureaucraticstandards for educational achievement, whichis to say, basically, aPhDfromXYZUniversity counts anywhere inthe world. Other ones don't. Andthis is true. Chinasends their people to Berkeley. So, inthat sense that the standardset, especially bythe post-war UnitedStates ResearchUniversity standards, whichwas amilitaryindustrial success, the post-war Americanuniversity systemwas incredible. It's worthtalkingabout the breakdownof that. But it set that global standard. It is very muchauniversal phenomenon.
(00:22:03):
Andnow, the competitiveness, specifically withthe youth, isn't as badinsome places,but they tendto be places like Scandinavia, or places that don't have large-scale
Page 10of 51
The Great Simplification
schoolingandtesting. Because they're acountry that doesn't have basic infrastructureandstuff. There, you'dhave adifferent type of competitive dynamic amongthe youth,but it wouldn't be atest-drivencollege entrance like dog-eat-dogfight.
Nate Hagens (00:22:38):
Inthe less developed, less material cultures, do they have better educationsystems forwhat they're tryingto accomplish? Or does that not correlated?
Zak Stein(00:22:51):
Again, it's so complex. Because howmany kids who get into Harvardcanstart afireandcook over it. Probably not that many. But you look insome of these cultures, andcomingof age means you learnhowto cook for yourself, you learnhowto start afire,you couldskinananimal, you couldgrowfood, you couldbe alone inadangerouspart of the city by yourself. There's abunchof things that occur insocializationwithout schoolingin"underdeveloped" areas, where these kids have by somestandards, way more intelligence. Now, they wouldfail all the tests andthey wouldn'tsucceedinschool, because they haven't evenlearnedto read, essentially, I'dsay that'sthe case. You almost can't compare.
(00:23:42):
Now, of course, there are places inthe of global Southwhere you have atwo-tiered,andyou do have actually access throughtheir school systems to Americancollegesandgraduate schools andtheir ownschools. But the reachof the large-scale publicschools inthe westernindustrializeddemocracies, that's athing. Alot of people are inthe clutches of that specific kindof educational system.
Nate Hagens (00:24:20):
Was it always this way? Fifty, 100years ago, was the USeducationsystemthat way?Andthe reasonI ask is, I wonder if global GDPboostedby debt andenergy, andnowAI, creates this ringof power that captures everyone. "Andthis is howwe have tocompete." Andit's that. It's that cultural goal for material excess that is underpinningthe testingandthe competition, evenas younger andyounger humans. Do you thinkthere's acorrelationthere?
Zak Stein(00:25:03):
Page 11 of 51
The Great Simplification
Absolutely. Andyou cansee pretty early onthat the competitionbetweenthe greatpowers that has definedthe 20thand21st century, involvedthe radicalexperimentationwithlarge-scale education.
(00:25:25):
Some of the most sweepingchanges inAmericaneducationcome followingthe launchof Sputnik. It's like one of the most well-knownvignettes inAmericaneducationhistory,is that the Russians launchedSputnik. Andour reactionis to completely change theAmericanpublic educational systemto compete withthe Russians, ostensibly, toinstitutionalize the SAT, to buildout anentire programonscience. That's where we getSTEMfrom, basically. That whole thingemerges basically fromthe ColdWar. That'sjust the way it has beenfor alongtime.
(00:26:04):
Andbefore that, you have similar things, where if you want to compete as anindustrial nation, eveninthe 1800s, you needaschool systemthat looks alot like afactory, so that the kids cango be inthe factory. That's, again, another demonstratedthing, the correlationbetweenthe way the means of productionare organizedinaparticular society andthe way the pedagogy is organizedinthat society, usuallyisomorphic, so that, if the kid's goingto have ajobwhere they're ringingabell, he'sgoingto be inaschool where they're ringingabell. Andthat was part of, again, thecompetitionbetweenpowers was that, inthe 1800s, our school systemwas radicallyreform-basedto bringinall the immigrants, andto get the immigrants preparedto gointo the factories.
(00:26:50):
The aristocrats who ranthe factories hadprivate school that didn't look like factories.It's acomplex conversation, but yes, inaway, you can't think about the history ofeducationwithout thinkinggeopolitically andeconomically. Andthat's the case now,for sure.
Nate Hagens (00:27:10):
Incontrast to what you just said, do today's aristocrats, the richelite, do their kidshave better education? It seems like they probably just have better teachers withthesame testingandcompetitionandfight or flight dynamic for their kids. Yes?
Page 12 of 51
The Great Simplification
Zak Stein(00:27:32):
Well, I'll say two things.
(00:27:33):
One, it's one of those, I think, anurbanlegend, but it's probably true, that the peoplewho make alot of money inSiliconValley sendtheir kids to school where there aren'tcomputers. You hear that. You hear that. Where it's like-
Nate Hagens (00:27:49):
Is that true?
Zak Stein(00:27:49):
I believe that it is true, that disproportionately, you get inplaces where there's highwealth, people optinginto situations where they canget their kids removedfromthetechnological surroundthat's normative for the other public schools, where they'reactually trainingthe kids to use iPads all day. Your kidgets to go be inaforest allday, anddoesn't look at anddo this. So, there's that phenomenon.
(00:28:14):
But the other factor is, the Ivy League elite college access competitiondoes of coursealso affect those. That's one of the distinguishers of beingdistinguished. Another wayyou cantrace civilizational collapse is actually the breakdowninelite signalingmechanisms, whichis to say, inter-elite competition, whichis the overproductionofelites, whichis aneducational crisis, meaningthat there's nothingthat signals actuallythat this guy's cognitively better thanthat guy. There's nothingthat's signals that thisperson's better trainedthanthat trained. Because the overall gamingof the systemhas beensuch, the cheatingandthe entrance scandals, andall of those things, thataddupto make it so that just doesn't meanwhat it usedto meanto go to some ofthese places anymore. I wouldargue that people, the truly avant-garde "elites," wouldprobably be gettingtheir kids out of that rat race andinto some other less visible ratrace.
Nate Hagens (00:29:20):
At the core of this, Zach, is almost aphilosophical question, whichis what is educationfor? I think there's the classic liberal arts educationwhere we want to expose young
Page 13 of 51
The Great Simplification
people to as many things about the worldthat they shouldknowto have abroadknowledge of the world. I don't knowmuchabout the history of education, but it seemsto me that right now, the goal is to prepare people to get into the workforce, to helpeconomic growthis really the goal of education.
Zak Stein(00:30:00):
Nowyou've hit the nail onthe head. Most of the discussionof educationneveractually gets to this question, whichput more frankly is just what is agoodlife? Whatis valuable? What's actually valuable? What are the lessons that we shouldteachyoungpeople about howto be agoodperson, about the right ways to act intheworld?
(00:30:25):
It's very, very simple questions, whichshouldbe at the core of education, whichareactually not answeredwell by secular public schools, whichis worthnotingbecausethey're specifically designednot to answer questions about the meaningof life. Theyhave the civic religion, whichfunctionedpretty well inthe UnitedStates.
(00:30:48):
You have the American, civic religion, where yes, you're inthe school to be agoodcitizen, andthenyou have akindof 21st century skills view, whichis that you're beingtrainedto be aparticipant insome kindof global workforce, like anaccepting,multicultural global workforce because that's anadmirable thing.
(00:31:13):
The fact of the matter is that we're runningacivilizationonaculture that doesn'thave clear answers about really fundamental questions about value, whichis to saythe content of education, the thingwe're teaching. We've beenrunningoffof fumes ofpre-modernity because the answer to what is agoodlife, it's actually, this is areligiousquestion. What's alife that has not beenmisspent? Is there anon-arbitrary answer tothat, whichmeans ananswer that's better thananother answer.
(00:31:53):
Not everyone's answers to that is equally valid, whichis the default assumptionwehave nowas aculture. Actually, no, there is abetter or worse answer to the questionof what is alife that has not beenspent? What is agoodlife, whichmeans what
Page 14 of 51
The Great Simplification
shouldwe teachour childrento become like, andwhat shouldwe allowthemto growinto or shape themaway from? These are the questions that educators have to ask,whichare deep, normative ethical questions about value.
(00:32:22):
The collapse of value at the center of culture, meaningthe inability to use whatCharles Taylor calledlanguages of strongevaluation, makes it so that yes, slowly theeffectiveness of the educational systemstarts to really wane. That's the educationalrenaissance I'mtalkingabout nowis actually areturnto adifferent way of speakingabout value at the center of culture, whichwouldbe non-relativistic, whichwouldhaveto boot fromadifferent kindof metaphysics thanametaphysics that suggests to usthat the universe itself is without meaningandthat the emergence of the humaniscompletely by chance.
(00:33:02):
Just worthsaying, there's never beenacivilizationthat has runonthe ideathat ititself is meaningless, that the value it creates is upto us anddoesn't matter to theuniverse. Hardto invest inacivilizationthat claims itself to be arbitrary, whichiswhere our civilizationhas gone to.
(00:33:24):
I'mtalkingabout Yuval Harari, andpeople who are at the center of culture who areespousingasubtle kindof values relativism, whichends upbeinginsidiously seepinginto the educational system, makes it impossible for us to speak innormative waysabout the shapes of the personalities anddispositions of the youth, whichit is ourresponsibility to be inapositionof authority. Again, it's the responsibility, the honor ofthe adult to be able to set boundaries.
(00:33:53):
We're confusedevenabout the legitimacy of asymmetric power, period, whichis againbasedonthe confusionabout value. The work withGaffney Wilbur, this newbook isabout this question, what's the core of the issue? It's actually value. Why stopthemetacrisis if infact the universe couldgive ashit? It's asimple way to say it andit's alittle bit provocative, but whenyou deal withyoungkids, they ask very simplequestions, very simple questions about why adults do the things the way they do.
Page 15 of 51
The Great Simplification
Nate Hagens (00:34:34):
If the universe doesn't care, andhumans foundourself here in2024 as anemergentprocess of stardust eventually developingconsciousness. I think that's, to me, incrediblyempoweringandmakes me feel like what I do onmy time here onearthis reallyimportant towards steeringtowards somethinglastingor more beautiful or betterthanwe have today. I muchprefer that story thanthe alternative.
Zak Stein(00:35:07):
Whichalternative do you mean?
Nate Hagens (00:35:10):
That Godcreatedonthe thirdday andweirdproducts of that andhe's got our backandjust go out anddo good.
Zak Stein(00:35:23):
Right, so this contrast betweenacreationist story andastory where the universe isfundamentally meaningless. I'msayingthat's aninterestingandfalse dichotomy, whichis to say deepconversations to be hadabout the secondpart of what you said, whichwas that wantingto create aworldthat was better, that was more beautiful, that waslasting, whichis anappeal to some fundamental set of values. It's anappeal to asense that those things matter. My only subtle interventioninto the worldviewis dothose things matter just to you or do they actually matter, whichis to say is the moralfield, whichis to say the fieldof value, as real as the physical fields? We live inaculture where of course the physical stuffis real, but the other things that bindus likelove, obligation, ethics, commitment, that these things are not real andinfact, asarbitrary or muchmore arbitrary thanphysical law.
(00:36:43):
That didn't usedto be the case inhumanworldviews, it's worthnoting. Most humanworldviews ranonthe ideathat value was intrinsic to cosmos andthat humansparticipatedinvalue andcontinued, andextended, andexpressedvalue thatpre-existedthem, andthey attunedto avalue whichwouldbe there, whether theywere there or not, whichit was their obligationto attune to more. That's beenmorelike the dominant view.
Page 16 of 51
The Great Simplification
(00:37:11):
The modernview, again, part of the metacurriculumof our civilizationhas beeninfact that no, issues of value are arbitrary andyou can't think as arealist about value.IanMcGilchrist, for example, argues that value andconsciousness are equallyprimordial to universe andlongof time space matter.
(00:37:34):
That's the viewthat I'mespousing, whichwouldmake us non-relativistic about issues ofvalue, whichwouldmeanthat whenwe saidwe want to make the worldbetter, we'reable to say actually better, not better upto me, we're better withpeople who agreewithme andhopefully we wininterms of power, but actually we canhave anon-arbitrary discussionabout the nature of things that are intrinsically valuable.
Nate Hagens (00:37:57):
What does that mean, non-relativistic?
Zak Stein(00:38:00):
Relativistic wouldbe that your viewof the goodlife andmy viewof the goodlife, thatif they're very different that that's fine. Inone sense, that's okay but inanother sense,if they're different enoughthat your viewof the goodlife squashes, mine doesn't allowme to live mine, whereas mine wouldallowyou to live yours.
(00:38:25):
I wouldsay that the one that allows you to live yours is better thanthe one thatactually doesn't allowother visions of the goodlife to live. That's anexample of aRawlsianor Habermasianviewwhere you cansay okay, let's talk inanon-relativisticway, whichis to say away that doesn't endupallowing... Again, this is basic ethics andphilosophy.
(00:38:51):
There's relativistic ethics, whichis sayingbasically anythinggoes more or less andyou're not goingto feel like anythinggoes because you were socializedinto aculturebut if you were socializedinto aculture, you'dfeel very differently about what goes.I'msayingno, actually there's away to boot anethics that's non-relativistic, whichsaysthat universally there are things that are true about the nature of value.
Page 17 of 51
The Great Simplification
Nate Hagens (00:39:24):
Let me summarize thus far aninsight that I haven't hadyet. The economicSuperorganismthat sloughs forwardtryingto get lowentropy inputs to increase themetabolismof the global humaneconomy inanunthinkingway, the amount of energysurplus that especially the global Northhas accumulated, presumably would've beenenoughto say wow, let's have aneducationsystemwhere we teachour youthhowtohave agoodlife andphilosophy, andclassics, andmeditation, andchanting, andnature skills, andhowto buildafire, andall the things, but it actually hadtheopposite effect, whichwas to trainthemas little ants or termites inthe larger colonytowards gettingmore surplus. The positive feedback of the Superorganismactuallyhas also destroyedthe academy andthe educationsysteminaslowrelease sort ofway.
Zak Stein(00:40:35):
Yeah, absolutely. Again, to frame it, it's adistortionof value. If you think about whatthat global Superorganismis doing, what it is pursuingultimately as most valuable forall the humans are alignedandcoordinate insome way towards pursuingthis thing,the goal of this thing, whichis somethinglike continuingto growabstract value orsome very strange notionthat's so abstract fromhumanexperience. It's aninterestingway that we've beenall alignedtowards aparticular definitionof what is valuable todo.
Nate Hagens (00:41:17):
Whenyou say value, is that synonymous withanethos, andethic, amorality?
Zak Stein(00:41:25):
Inmany ways, yeah. You can't get ethics, amorality without some conversationaboutvalue, but value is alivingthingincosmos. We respondto value. Beauty is valuable.We are drawnto it anddrawnto protect it andcanjustify things very fundamentallyinterms of sayingit's beautiful therefore X, andI wouldargue that what we sayanthro-ontologically whichwouldsay if inthe fullness of complex epistemology, there'sauniversality to the value of beauty.
Nate Hagens (00:42:00):
Page 18 of 51
The Great Simplification
But right now, anythingof value, inthe sense that you just said, has adollar overlayontopof it that imprints onthe cultural perceptionof its value.
Zak Stein(00:42:12):
Precisely, so nowyou're gettingit. So abstract value or exchange value as Marx usedto call it, andactual value. I'msayingwhat's actual value andcanwe educate peopleinto the perceptionof actual value, whichwouldbe the seeingthroughthe simulationof value that's put forthby the global economy, whichsays no, don't look at the thingthat's actually valuable because it's free. Look at the thingthat's not truly valuable,but that we cansell you.
Nate Hagens (00:42:40):
Let me ask you aquestion. If there were agroupof 12 to 18-year-olds or 10to18-year-olds andyou didadouble-blindtest or whatever, wouldthey inherentlynaturally knowthe difference betweenvalue andabstract value onagroupofchoices?
Zak Stein(00:43:01):
This wouldbe avery important type of explorationto do inthe context of differentpedagogies andeducational systems, because frommy perception, this notionofopeningthe eye of value, or you cancall it value-ception, whichis just howdo we getpeople to attune to actual value, is avery deepquestion.
(00:43:21):
Advertisingit premisedondoingthe opposite of that andit's one of the mostubiquitous industries. There's aretrainingof our ability to perceive value. What'sinterestingis that that is relatedto our ability to admit that we cansay true thingsevenif we're not scientists or whatever. That's very important to get people to know,that you canknowtrue things andsay true things, not about everything, obviously. Butthere's this whole class of things whichwe needto empower, especially youngpeopleto take ownershipover the things that they knowandcansay that are true, that don'thave to be mediated, that don't have to be givento themby anexpert. That's the wayupandinto this conversationabout what's really valuable to you.
Nate Hagens (00:44:11):
Page 19 of 51
The Great Simplification
Whenyou say value, you mentionedbeauty. Canyou list afewother things that wouldbe naturally of value as opposedto abstract value?
Zak Stein(00:44:21):
Yeah, absolutely. Inthat book I mentioned, First Principles andFirst Values, there's alist of 16 of them. Integrity is one, intimacy is another, whichis to say the value ofbecomingclose while remainingseparate, the value of sharingastory, like thesethings that are intrinsically valuable, whichare anendinthemselves andyet promoteother goods throughtheir actualization.
(00:44:51):
Values, net positive value becomes self-generative, andautopoetic. Again, that list.Personhood, another very key value. If you identify avalue that's not arbitrary, itmeans you have to trace it across cultures, andyou have to trace it back throughhumanculture, thenyou have to trace it back throughbiology andphysics, andsothat becomes aninterestingthing.
(00:45:24):
Integrity is aclear one, right? We experience integrity phenomenologically, but clearlyas Buckminster Fuller, andothers discussed, integrity begins, whichis to say physicalstructures of integrity are selectedfor by the universe. What does it meanto beselectedfor by the universe? It means you're valuedby the universe. The universeshows that it values integrity early as soonas it builds structures withcertainthings.
(00:45:48):
The preservationof the existence of certaintypes of things by the universe itself iswhat we call evolution. That's awhole complex process of evaluation. This is our viewas we articulatedinthis book, but also Whiteheadianmetaphysics about theappetitionof the universe andwhat is the universe actually seekingto maintainas itemerges andgrows andevolves. Things like integrity andthings like intimacy selectedfor by the universe itself.
Nate Hagens (00:46:20):
The last time I was withyou, we hadtacos andbeer, andthis was not theconversation. I don't remember Whiteheadianas part of the vocabulary. Alot of this is
Page 20of 51
The Great Simplification
over my head, but holy crap, you knowyour stuff, Zak. Let me get back to the mainarc.
(00:46:40):
Our educationsystem, especially inthe UnitedStates, has harmedstudents, partiallythe development of the screens andall that, but also the standardizationandmeasurement. Actually, before I ask this, couldyou articulate afewreasons whystandardizationandmeasurement has specifically harmedour students andsociety?We mentionedthe stress before. Are there others?
Zak Stein(00:47:13):
Yeah, there's many. There's avery famous psychologist, DonaldCampbell. He has thisthingcalledCampbell's Law, andit basically means... The law, I won't do it verbatim,but Campbell's Lawis somethinglike the degree to whichyou make some socialindicator important is the degree to whichit will become subject to corruption. It'sbasically aCampbell's law.
(00:47:35):
He applies this to standardizedtestingspecifically inschools. He's like listen, andthiswas No ChildLeft Behind. It was highstakes decision-makinghingedupontheoutcomes of these tests bothfor the individuals andfor the school districts, andforindividual teachers. What's the chance that they're not goingto focus all of theirattentiononthe test? Evenif they don't cheat, just by completely distortingthecurriculumto performwell onthe test, the test fails to be anindex of the quality ofthe curriculum. See what I'msaying?
(00:48:08):
They want to see howthe curriculum's doing. They don't want to see howwell you testprep, but they endupseeinghowwell you test prep. You're bothscammingthe testandcompletely dishonoringthe kids because you're not actually honoringtheircurriculum, you're just gettingasense of what's goingto get the test. That's anexample, without cheating, of just the incentivizationof the standardizationends updrivingus towards this truncationof what's possible inthe curriculumwhere all thecurriculumbecomes test prep, eventhoughthe goal was actually to use it as just ameasure of the existingcurriculum. The distortionfieldcreatedby that type of testingpractice is profound.
Page 21 of 51
The Great Simplification
Nate Hagens (00:48:46):
You andI have talkedinprior years about nature versus nurture andthe fact that allhumans, our phenotypes today are aproduct of selfishandcooperative bottlenecks inour past, andthat we have bothinour wiring. I guess what I'mhearingis that oureducationsystemsteers younghumans towards the selfishindividualistic as opposedto the cooperative, collaborative wiringinour nature because of this testingandthiscompetition, whenthere shouldbe more learningandcollaboration. Is that avalidstatement?
Zak Stein(00:49:37):
Yeah, if you predicate testingonthe ideathat it's acompetition, thenyou create anenvironment where eachof the players inthere were actingintheir owninterest, andyou don't have to use testingthat way. You coulddecouple it fromhighstakes decisionmaking. You coulduse it as ameasure, but without havingthe measure be suchsohighstakes that it distorts all the practice. You couldjust use it as anobservationalmeasure andnot actually couple it to leadto decision-making. Highstakes is ahugepart of it, standardizationis another part of it, andthenthe faulty psychology isbehindthe test development themselves.
(00:50:19):
That's the other thingis that they are runningbadpsychological models to create thetest or not eventhinkingabout psychology whenthey create the tests andthentherefore, givingover to students languages of self-understandingthat areapsychological or confusingandnon-psychological. What does it meanto have anSATscore that's X, Y, Z? Why wouldyou want that to be apart of yourself-understanding? It's not.
(00:50:46):
They don't tell you why you got that score or what it means about your capacities orevenwhat you coulddo to get abetter score, so what it ends updoingis makingit soagain, no languages of strongevaluation. We're confusedabout howto think aboutour ownskills because we're inacontext of evaluationthat isn't psychologicallysophisticated.
Nate Hagens (00:51:07):
Page 22 of 51
The Great Simplification
Let me ask you this. Where I was goingwiththat previous comment is that onceschool is done andthey're 23 andinthe workforce, does that embeddedstress andcompetitioncarry over into their professional careers?
(00:51:25):
It's atwo-part question. Does it carry over for those that didscore highly andwerecompetitive, is it apositive feedback anddoes it have some sort of aboomerangeffect onthose that might be very well-adjustedandvery great humanpotential, butthey're not goodat scoringstandardizedtests, andso they were inthe bottomtwoquintiles of scoring. Does that thenimpede their future progress or their psychology orwhatever inour culture?
Zak Stein(00:51:57):
Yes. It's funny because like to the extent that we want adults to collaborate andworktogether andresolve problems inways that are cooperative andnot hypercompetitive.We shouldhave schoolingenvironments that are gettingkids cooperatingabout themost fundamental problems that they're workingon. But the most fundamentalproblems that they're workingonis their ownadvancement throughthe system, evenifthere's not testing.
(00:52:22):
The other thingis you couldtake away the test because ahuge anti-testingmovement, whichgoes too far inthe other direction. Evenif you take away the test,we're still inasituationwhere we're not havinghonest conversations withkids abouttheir future andvery radically funnelingdifferent types of opportunities throughthesecompetitive bottlenecks.
(00:52:42):
If you're not inatestingenvironment, thenyou have to do all these internships andafter-school programs andother things, andthink three years aheadabout thecollege admissions thingandlook at your friends suspiciously andwhat they're doingwiththeir after-school activities. All of that comes in, evenif you're not test-driven,there's still the competitiveness.
(00:53:02):
Page 23 of 51
The Great Simplification
It's funny because we almost can't imagine aneducational systemthat wouldbe builtinafundamentally different way, whichwouldbe one that distributedaccess toeducational resources differently because the issue is that it's howdo we actuallydistribute the educational resources inaway that facilitates this process ofintergenerational transmissionso that the civilizationcannot self-terminate.
Nate Hagens (00:53:30):
You've made it clear that our educationsystemis not workingandinmany ways couldbe adisservice bothto the younghumans andultimately to our society. That's thesystem. What about teachers withinthe system? Apart Bquestionwouldbe parents.Do you think it's possible to give every childanideal teacher under thisinstitutionalizededucationsystem? What is the role of the teacher andthe parentgiventhe backdropthat you've laidout?
Zak Stein(00:54:08):
Totally. It's useful to make adistinctionbetweeneducationandschooling. Mostly,we've beentalkingabout schooling. Inthat context, teachers incertaintypes of schoolsystems are the reasonthat the thingis workingat all. The reasonthat we have thesuccess we do, I believe, eventhoughthe school systems are so antiquated, is becauseteachers are some of the hardest workingpeople that you'll ever encounter. It's veryimportant to get like I amopposedto many of the existingstructures andpractices,but admire teachers inall walks of teaching.
Nate Hagens (00:54:57):
If you hadareally goodteacher today, that personcouldoffset alot of the-
Zak Stein(00:55:04):
They couldchange everything. Not everything, but they couldchange alot. Where Iwas goingwas to this point of teacherly authority. It's abigconcept that I use anditties into all of this stuffabout value, but we're not goingto go there. But teacherlyauthority is very important.
(00:55:19):
Page 24 of 51
The Great Simplification
This is where I sit there andyou're the teacher andI'mthe student, andwe'rediscussingsomething. This is basic triadof education. You're the elder, the youth, andthe thingbeingdiscussed, or the personwithmore skill, the personwithless skill, thethingthat requires skill, that kindof relationship.
(00:55:37):
Legitimate teacherly authority is avery real anthropological phenomenon. Now, myguess is that it goes way back. It's one of the things that distinguishes us fromgreatapes is that we have longdurationeducational experience that involves this type oflegitimate teacherly authority, whichis that we bothknowthere's anasymmetry ofskill. We bothknowyou're more skilled, andI, the personwithless skill really want tolearn, andyou totally want to teachme.
(00:56:04):
It's asituationof where you have authority over me that I grant you andI give youlegitimate authority to helpme shape my mindbecause we bothrecognize that youhave this greater capacity, andI really want to learnthis thing. That's legitimateteacherly authority. That canoccur anywhere, anytime without any kindofinstitutionalizedcontext.
(00:56:27):
You hangout withfarmers andstuff, so if they have some practice that you've neverseenbefore andyou want to learnfromthemhowthey get that particular type ofcropgrowninthat way, or manage those cows to not do that thing, eventhoughthecows couldtotally do that thing, how'dyou get themto behave? You woulddropintothat relationshipandyou wouldnever thematize it necessarily withthem. You wouldn'tbe like hey, man, nowI'mthe student andyou're the teacher, but there'dbe thisassumedbackdropof, okay, legitimate teacherly authority.
(00:56:56):
That's aknownthing, andit's very powerful andit's very important to be able torecognize that that exists because most of what we encounter withteacherly authorityis inbureaucratizedcontexts where you have teacherly authority over me because ofyour positioninthis bureaucracy that I'mapart of, AKAaschool. That means there isnot necessarily astrongcorrelationeither betweenmy wantingreally to give youspecifically my authority over me, andB, you actually havinganasymmetry of
Page 25 of 51
The Great Simplification
capacity, meaningare you really, really smart at this or are you just teachingsomecurriculumandI kindof knowit, andif I couldhave my choice, I wouldn't be learningthis at all. I'dbe learningsomethingelse.
(00:57:42):
Illegitimate teacherly authority, bureaucratically sanctioned. Illegitimate teacherlyauthority is the worst thingbecause that's asituationwhere you have bureaucraticauthority over my mind, but you don't have greater capacity andyou don't have mybest interest inmind. That bleeds into propagandabasically as another class ofasymmetric relationship, whichis basically, so the other thingabout the teacherlyauthority is that he wants you to learn, andinthe ideal world, you graduate andyoudon't needthe teacherly authority relationshipanymore. So that's key to legitimateteacherly authority is that it's temporary. Legitimate teacherly authority is predicatedonthe ideathat you learnas muchas me andsurpass me, whereas illegitimateteacherly authority or propagandais predicatedupon"No kid, you'll never actuallylearnthe secret codes or actually learnhowwe thought about this little bit of dogma,whichis kept behindthe closeddoors." Or just they're trainingyour mindbut not withyour best interests, whereas alegitimate teacher, there's this cooperative relationshipwiththe student to clarify the value beingpursued.
Nate Hagens (00:58:52):
What percentage of our teachers wouldfall into those two categories, K-12 andcollege? Just broadspitball guess.
Zak Stein(00:59:00):
It's goingto vary alot. It's goingto vary alot fromplace to place, so I wouldbehesitant to do that.
Nate Hagens (00:59:06):
Okay, so that's the teacher. What about the parent? Because you talk abouteducationversus schooling. I meanif wide boundary lens educationincludeseverythingfromthe moment we're bornandwhenwe come home fromschool anddowhatever we do at home. So howimportant is the parent here inthis story about oureducationthat you're talkingabout?
Page 26 of 51
The Great Simplification
Zak Stein(00:59:29):
I mean, it couldn't be more important. If you think about acivilization, andit needs atleast two things to run. It needs the biophysical substrate andit needs the humansubstrate, if I canspeak incrude terms. The core of the humansubstrate,reproduction, is the mother inthe family, whichmeans that the time inutero, the firstmonths, the first years, the solidity of those environments do more thanalmostanythingelse. Andso you canjudge acivilization's likelihoodof success inthe longruninterms of where it sees value anddoes it see value there? Does it say actually thecore of this whole thingexists right inthat little relationshipbetweenthe motheringone andthe childandwhatever that nest of caregivers that surrounds the childis thatallows it to be brought into the worldinaway that is humane andfully attentive.
(01:00:32):
So the very base of the stack you have that needfor avery healthy fundamental kindof nest. Andthenas you get older, you endup, yeah, the parent is the mainmodelerof legitimate teacherly authority. So the parent's mainresponsibility inmy philosophyof education, bear withme, wouldbe that, wouldbe to be the first way you modellegitimate teacherly authority. Andthe mainconcernI have nowis the confusionofteacherly authority, boththroughthe bureaucratizationandthroughthemediatization, meaningsocial media, meaninginfluencers, andtheneventuallygenerative AI who claimstatus as teacherly authority over thousands, millions ofyoungpeople. So there's this transformationof teacherly authority inthe digital thatdisrupts the ability of the parent to model teacherly authority. So that's avery deepissue.
Nate Hagens (01:01:34):
I want to talk to you about AI alittle bit later because I knowyou also are quitefocusedonthat. So we lookedat the teacher andthenthe parent, but what aboutwideningit out further? Does the dissolutionof community the way that we once hadit inthe UnitedStates interconnect withthese issues of educationthat we've beenseeing? Andis community educationof teacherly authority dispersedonlocal peoplearoundyou, where you live, is that afoundational piece to overall educationas well?
Zak Stein(01:02:09):
Page 27 of 51
The Great Simplification
Absolutely. I mean, again, Dewey, JohnDewey, the great philosopher of education, hebelievedevery basic institutionof asociety was educational insome way. So eventhearchitects, the quality of the public spaces, what are the messages sent by the qualityof the public spaces? The neighborhoods, the way they're organized? Canpeopleactually findeachother inpublic space that's of humane proportionandthat's notalienating. Andso there's this deepissue about the ontological designof the wholesurround, meaningadesignthat factor the value. Howwouldyou actually create thetechnologies andthe architectures that wouldeducate people into anawareness ofwhat was truly valuable intheir lives so that they wouldn't enduppursuingthings thataren't actually valuable, whichdestroy community andactually isolate family. Andsocommunity is essential. So I wouldsay is nature, exposure to nature. The mainobjectof legitimate teacherly authority for most of humanhistory was nature, if you will.What didmomanddadtalk to the kidabout?
Nate Hagens (01:03:21):
Nature wouldbe alongwithintegrity, beauty, personhood, nature wouldbe one ofthose core natural values.
Zak Stein(01:03:28):
I wouldargue that nature is the thingthat most obviously exemplifies value right infront of you, whenyou look at it. Beauty exemplifies integrity. It exemplifies howintimacy, howthe tree is actually many, many things inthis intimate, complex,intertangled, cooperative endeavor of treeing. So the values are expressed. That's whylack of exposure to nature is so damaging. If all you have is ahuman-builtenvironment andhumans are confusedabout what's valuable, thenthe implicitmessage givento you by the whole environment is confusingyour nervous system,whichis built to perceive real value, whichis built to perceive things like naturalbeauty andsuch.
Nate Hagens (01:04:12):
Here's ahypothetical questionfor you, Zach. If there was anewschool that wascreatedwiththe structural wisdomthat you are outlyinghere inthis conversation, thatschool was real value, not abstract, monetary value of integrity, intimacy, beauty,personhood, nature, these things, andit hadacore faculty andcurriculumandthe
Page 28 of 51
The Great Simplification
people that it was shownto really understoodwhat it meant, wouldit be massivelyoversubscribedfromthe get-go because our youthare deeply cravingsomethinglikethat, or are they so subduedby the economic Superorganismthat that wouldn't seemappealing?
Zak Stein(01:05:10):
I'mpretty hopeful that they wouldflock to it. Andthis is what initially-
Nate Hagens (01:05:16):
Why isn't it happening?
Zak Stein(01:05:19):
For many, many reasons, andI'll say acouple of things. One is that inmy bookEducationinaTime BetweenWorlds, I suggest that the model of aschool is not theway to think about the future of education, so I talk about these distributededucational hubnetworks. Because the school's already anabstract institution.Civilizationally speaking, we haven't hadschools for alongtime, andthey mostlycorrelate withnot cool stuff. Whereas most of educationfor most of humandidn't existinschools. It existedinthese legitimate dynamics of teacherly authority innon-institutionalizedcontexts or institutionalizedcontexts that weren't schools. Andsomy visionis where the entire community or city is basically turnedinto aschool. SoIvanIllichhadthis ideacalledaDeschoolingsociety. I don't knowif you knowIllich'swork or have seenhis book, DeschoolingSociety.
Nate Hagens (01:06:14):
I knowof Illich's work. I don't knowthe DeschoolingSociety.
Zak Stein(01:06:14):
It's anincredible book, andinthe seventies see, I endedupbasically just updatingIllichandsaying, "We coulddo this withmachine learningway better." But the basicideais that there's atime andskill sharingnetwork andahubof available space,probably the repurposingof the existinglarge public schools, whichallowfor everypersoninthe community to register their skills that they'dlike to teach, andeverypersoninthe community to register the things they'dlike to learn. Andit's as simple
Page 29 of 51
The Great Simplification
as that, andthenevery possible educational relationshipthat is inthe community getsshued, andyou get the creationof pop-upclassrooms, andfor the younger people,you get the creationof individualizedsequences throughthe full educationalpotentiality of all the elders inthe community.
(01:07:05):
Andso you take the school apart, but you make it have no walls, andthenyou allowthe elders somehowto be free fromtheir bullshit jobs, maybe abasic income orsomething. Andyou beginto reorient where the value is focusedandthe whole valueof the community becomes focusedonthe educational actualizationof the community,so that you flipthe civ stack, where the whole pursuit of all the excess value goes backinto the creationof the next generation's ability to pursue goodvalue, whichmeansmakinggoodpeople. So what is the civilizationabout? The civilization's about makinggoodpeople andthere's not some one little place we do that.
Nate Hagens (01:07:43):
Wouldsuchaneducationsystemhave ahuge impact onsociety if only 3%or 5%ofour students, our youngpeople were exposedto that? Is there a, once they becomeadults, is there aleadershipemergent additive effect or is this somethingthat reallyshouldbe for all youngpeople? I mean, I knowit shouldbe for all youngpeople, butwhat if we weren't able to do that?
Zak Stein(01:08:07):
Well, yeah, there's two as athink about it. One is what wouldthe future of large scaleeducational systems look like? I think it looks like that andnot like schools. So that'sanother conversation. I think it looks like these big, distributededucational hubnetworks. But, prior to that, we're actually goingto findout ananswer to yourquestion. There are people who are experimentingwiththese forms of schooling,pop-upclassrooms, homeschoolingnetworks, places where you canget highschool andother credits without actually beinginhighschool. There's abunchof reallyinteresting, almost like WildWest interms of educational innovationthat's occurringinthe digital, andso I'mtryingto set myself upto be able to figure out inafewyearswhichof these models is working. My sense is that afewthings are super interestingthat are beingexperimentedwith, whichI talk about inmy book.
Page 30of 51
The Great Simplification
(01:09:01):
One is agednormedsocial groupings. Why do we do that? No other societies didthatas systematically as we do, meaningyou mostly hangout for most of your childhoodwithkids who are basically exactly your age, by designof the adults. Whereas theone-roomschoolhouse, you hadall the kids mixedtogether of the different ages, andtherefore teacherly authority was distributedthroughout all of the kids because youhadthe older kids interactingwiththe younger kids instatus of legitimate teacher. Sothe pop-upclassroommodel that goes across multiple ages, andthat allows for muchmore flexibility andinteractionbetweensocial groups andage groups, the impacts ofthat wouldbe very hardto predict, because the type of maturity that wouldresultfromthat wouldbe unprecedented. Andso just to think that as adesignfeature ofthe schools, whichyou don't question, whichis actually quite oddandfactory-like, andwe still maintainit, whichis just that strict segregationby chronological age.
Nate Hagens (01:10:04):
So thinkingback to my ownhighschool andjunior high, you study for atest orsomethingandyou compete witheveryone else until the test is over andthenyou kindof forget it. But if I was there whenI was 15 withsome 13 year olds andsome 11 yearolds, maybe I might explainchemistry or algebrainamore simpler way andindoingso, I wouldunderstandit better rather thanforget it as soonas the test is gone.
Zak Stein(01:10:32):
I mean, that's aknownthingthat one of the best ways to learnsomethingis to teachit, whichis to have to explainit to someone who's never learnedit before. I mean, thatwas actually, I think Plato's definitionof that you actually knewsomethingwas thatyou couldteachit. Andso there's that andjust the ethical, the ethical andmaturational ability to just deal withkids of different ages, evenif you don't havebrothers andsisters, andthenof course the teacher has adifferent role there becausethe teacher is noworchestrating. Andinthe pop-upclassroom, you're not goingtohave one teacher. Now, there's complex things that occur inearly childhoodwhenyouneeddifferent kinds of environments that needto be built inacertainway. Andofcourse, there's things that occur as they move into adulthood, rites of passage andother things that get themupinto expert cultures.
Page 31 of 51
The Great Simplification
(01:11:17):
One of the mainfeatures too is thoughthe doingof real work that needs to be doneinthe community by the youngpeople, because one of the little dirty secrets aboutthe educational system, adjacent to the competition, is that the homework doesn'tmeananything. By DavidGraeber's definitionit's abullshit job, meaningyou're doingabunchof work, the outcome of whichdoesn't matter to anyone else except your ownfurther advancement. So most of schools is asituationwhere the work you're doingaffects no one but you. No one needs it to be done, but we don't have to have kids inthat situation. We couldeasily put kids in-
Nate Hagens (01:11:55):
What wouldbe the alternative to that?
Zak Stein(01:11:57):
The alternative to that wouldbe kids doinginternships, like pickinguplitter, forexample, or buildingtrails or learninghowalegal firmworks or doinganythingthat isnot just route work to keepthembusy inachair all day, whichthey knowdoesn't needto be done andwhichthe only reasonthey're doingit is to beat their friendinthecompetitionto get into college. So it's like, "Whoa." If you hadadistributededucational hubnetwork where the pop-upclassrooms were suchthat the personrunningthe classroomwas engagedinreal work that neededto be done inthecommunity, he's like, "Hey, I'mgoingto teachyou kids about biochemistry by cleaningupthis pond." Pondneeds to be cleanedup, biochemistry needs to be learned, andthekiddoesn't feel asense of beingtoldthat the world's amess, but he has to wait 17years before he canget some kindof jobandthenmaybe he'll be able to helpwithit.
Nate Hagens (01:12:48):
I expect you have some ideas onexactly what couldandshouldbe done to oureducationsystembut let me ask you amore metaquestionfirst. Giventhe economicSuperganismandthe cultural monetary momentumof our culture, not only US, butpretty muchthe global GDP-focusedculture, howcouldour educationsystemchange?What wouldbe the pathways to arealistic, fundamental, meaningful, not just tiny, tinysteps at the margin? Howcouldit change intheory?
Page 32 of 51
The Great Simplification
Zak Stein(01:13:30):
It couldchange insome ways the way it has changedbefore. So the Americaneducationsystembefore andafter Sputnik, I meanthe equivalent amount of money intoday's terms wouldbe like nothingwe've ever seeninvestedineducation. Andso thathappened. Andthenyou also have to look at the way that the thingcalledtheAmericanHighSchool andthe existingsystemof grade schools andmiddle schoolswas built by Americanphilanthropists, primarily. Andagain, the equivalent amount ofinvestment fromphilanthropy intoday's terms wouldbe like nothingthat's actuallyoccurring. Andthe visionary nature of it wouldbe greater thanwhat is currentlyoccurringinphilanthropy andeducation. People are throwingmoney into educationandphilanthropy incompletely the wrongway. So it's possible to imagine akindofnational emergency. So for example, AI. I wouldargue AI Emergency EducationActwouldbe anorder andit wouldbe anact to actually protect the youthfromtheadvancement of certaintypes of digital technologies, wouldbe regulations wouldbeattachedto it. Certainchanges inthe use of technology inschool wouldbe attachedto it, the increasingof presence of more teachers andawhole bunchof stufffloodinginto save the human, to buildupthe protectionaroundthe basic humancommunityinthe face of the advancedtechnology.
(01:15:05):
But that wouldbe, we're talkingbillions, we're talking, every school feels it, everyteacher feels helped, every family feels helped. Andagain, that's howit was withtheSputnik thing, withthe SAT. So imagine acollege admissions process where you hadno chance of gettinginif your daddidn't go to Harvard. Andthenacouple of yearslater, they roll out the standardizedtest andif you're afarmboy inIowaandyou dowell, you get into Harvard. So as muchas I hate testing, that was anexample wherethey totally rolledthe systemover fromanaristocratic to ameritocratic or at leastostensibly meritocratic access.
(01:15:39):
So these radical things have happened. It's just, we're alittle bit distractedabout whatit means to do educationreform. It means we think we needto fix the schools, andthere's actually not enoughsense of emergency that one of the things that's at stakehere has to be playedout inthe schools. Andso that's one sense. AndI couldgiveother examples of large-scale change that I see more relevant to just school reform,
Page 33 of 51
The Great Simplification
like the CivilianConservationCorps. I'msure you're familiar withthe CivilianConservationCorps. That was arguably the most successful educational programinUShistory. So like Lawrence Cremin, he writes this three-volume history of education,it wins the Pulitzer Prize. Inthose three volumes. He's like, "CCC? That was the mosteffective educational programinAmericanhistory." It was integratedbeforeintegration. It was literacy-oriented. Every camphadalibrary. Every camphadtheability to take the kidwho knewnothing, who hadskills to actually jointhe army corpsof engineer, or it was awhole jobplacement program. It was sendingmoney home.
(01:16:42):
So that scale of public programto reorient the energies of the youthtowardssomethinglike civic engagement, coupledto education, coupledto possibility ofadvancement, that's the kindof thingbut again, that was aNewDeal program. So itwas aprogramthat where they wouldjust throwmoney at it andsave America. Andinasense, it's like that ethos isn't there. We don't have aunifiedsense of what ought tobe done. Andmany people just try to fix the existingschools. Alot of stuffintheschools is just about what's inthe curriculum. So they're just arguingabout certaintypes of cultural issues inthe schools, andso I'mskeptical that it will happen, but theprecedent historically is that if people want to change the schools, they can. Becausethat's the other thingthat happenedwiththe schools is they became secondfiddle toother industries. They became secondfiddle to other branches of government. Andsoyou couldargue that the philanthropists just hadthe schools as ahobbyhorse, butanother argument is that these things canbe shaped.
Nate Hagens (01:17:52):
Okay. So I'mgoingto put you onthe spot, andyou mentionedAI, andI definitelywant to get back to AI before we close, but puttingyou onthe spot, Zach, if therewere agroupof 10to 20flexible, pro-social philanthropists that you couldpersuadethat it is our educationsystemthat is largely at the root of some of the core issuesthat we're facingtoday, the metacrisis, et cetera, andwhat it's goingto require is aboldchange inour educationsystem, andmuchlike you said, philanthropists were theones that spearheadedsome of prior changes. What wouldbe amapandastructurethat you wouldoffer that this is what we want to do? A, B, C, D, go.
Zak Stein(01:18:51):
Page 34 of 51
The Great Simplification
It's atoughquestion. I mean, my first response wouldbe to pick aparticular city, dosome research, pick aparticular city, andbuildsomethinglike this educational hubnetwork inthat city. Take the schools apart. Get consent. Throwalot of money at it soeveryone has abasic income andmake it alegit experiment where inthree years, ifthis city is not more happy, more productive, smarter thenwe learn. But my guesswouldbe that it wouldbe, andthenthat's amodel. So that's one route is just to do itright inone place.
(01:19:31):
Figure that out. Andthat doesn't meango to that city andfix the schools the wayphilanthropists have always fixedthe schools. It means go there andliterally take theschools apart. Change policy, change abunchof stuff, whatever you have to do to getthe kids into avery different situationof socialization. Andmaybe it's not myeducationhubnetwork, but it is somethingthat uses the affordances of the digitalandof our time inaway that the current school simply can't because of their basicstructure. So that whole notionof intergenerational classrooms andpop-upclassroomsandacity-wide time andskill sharingnetwork that allows for all the potentials of thecommunity to be available throughmachine learningandself-organizingandtrackingkids throughuniversal. It's like that's not aschool thing. That's areformat the level ofacity. So that wouldbe my one concrete thing.
(01:20:23):
Andthenthe other thingI wouldsay is we needsomethinglike lobbyingtakingplaceat the scale of government, subsidy andgovernment large-scale interventiontoo forsomethinglike CCC/AI Emergency EducationInterventionProgram. Otherwise, wesimply will just lose the youth. We will just, as the AI rolls out, it will be asituationthatit was devastating. Andso fix it inone place, andthenalso try to findaway to pushfor massively innovative change inthe way we think about education. Andthat wouldmeanmajor reinvestment, but wouldalso meangettingout the oldclass of peoplewho were tryingto fix the systeminthese ways that have obviously made it worse. SoI'mnot sayingthrowabunchof money at education. Remember? Change yourdynamic, my first thing? No, no, no, no. We couldbreak it by throwingmore at it. Weactually needto be very, very sophisticatedinthe way we think about the intervention.So that's alittle bit of a... It's ahardquestion.
Page 35 of 51
The Great Simplification
Nate Hagens (01:21:31):
Right there you mentionedthat AI may cause us to lose our youth. So you andI havehadconversations about AI, andI knowthat our mutual colleague, Daniel andTristanare very worriedfor multiple reasons, but howdoes AI interact witheducation, yourtopic? Either positively or negatively, andwhat's ahead?
Zak Stein(01:21:55):
I mean, it's the thingI'mworriedabout most actually right now, andI believe thatthere's some kindof inevitability that has to be avoided, whichis what I'msayingwithlosingthe youth. Andit's actually quite serious. So if you think about the rhetoricaroundAI, the ideathat these artificial intelligences will be usedto solve problemsthat humanintelligences couldnever solve, like climate change or distributingresources andelectricity onaplanetary scale, andso there's all these things that we'rehopingthat AI wouldbe able to do, actually workingtowards gettingAI to do stuffwewere never able to do. One of the things we've never beenable to do is raise kidsright, or educate them, or educate themright. So it's like, or do psychotherapy or dolawyeringanddoctoring. So you see the creepof the AI into doctoringandlawyeringandtherapy andpeople, andthat will expandinto teaching, andI argue parenting.Andit's not like acrazy idea. Andthe ideathat, yeahparentingis hard. Some parentsare not good, some teachers are not good. Again, if my eye of value is distorted, Icouldeasily see afuture inwhichwe actually replace parents andteachers withartificial intelligence, tutors andmachine intelligence socializationsystems, whichareprobably movingbeyondscreens andinto augmentedreality andvirtual reality.
Nate Hagens (01:23:30):
So we're givingteacherly authority to amachine?
Zak Stein(01:23:34):
We are givingteacherly authority to amachine andalso endowingthe machine withhyperstimuli inthe domains of persuasion, charisma, intimacy. So it becomes the mostcharismatic teacher you've ever interactedwith. It's way more entertainingandknowsyou better thanyour mompossibly could. Andit will talk to you about anythingyouwant inaway that's precisely attunedto what you needto hear. It has access to allthe knowledge inthe world, andyet it won't showupas anythingbut alittle puppy if
Page 36 of 51
The Great Simplification
you want it to be just alittle puppy. So it's this very shape-shifting, surroundsound,in-augmentedreality, ever present, quasi-humanoidtutor, whichobsoletes humanrelationship. So that's the concern
Nate Hagens (01:24:30):
Inthe, I mean, we bothviewthe worldas aprobability distribution. There's manythings that are possible. Howlikely andhowsoondo you think what you just describedcouldbe areality?
Zak Stein(01:24:42):
So it's already happeningwiththe level of technology that we have to smallpopulations who are particularly vulnerable. So intimacy depravedpopulations arealready establishingrelationships withthese AIs that are built to simulate friendship,andclaimingto have humanfree lives basically, so it was the way one of themput it.So it's already happening. AndthenI knowfor afact that multiple major AI groupsare pursuingthis line of inquiry. It begins withthe AI personal assistant. That's theway in, is the AI personal assistant, the thingthat allows you to give all of yourinformationto somethingthat thenholds your best interests inmindandthenorganizes your experience for you, andso that's agoodpersonal assistant's kindoflike, apedagogy means to leadalongthe way. So they start withthe personalassistant. It expands into the tutoringsystem.
(01:25:37):
So the tutoringsystemis also beingdeveloped. That's again, ano-brainer fromagenerative AI perspective that they're goingto developthese tutoringsystems. It's oneway to think about many people's relationships to the chat generative bots already.AndthenI believe, again, there's goingto be moral arguments made infact that it'sirresponsible not to put these augmentedreality glasses onakidandthereby havehimattendedto all day by atotally observant andmore responsible artificialintelligence thanhis mother ever couldbe. Andso I think there'll be apushto getthese systems online inschools andinareas, bothfor the competitive advantages,meaningif my kidhas this AI tutoringsystem, he'll outcompete your kidwho does nothave this AI tutoringsystem. Andfor the kindof perceivedsocial benefit for groups
Page 37 of 51
The Great Simplification
that have largely not benefitedfrommodern. So what I'msaying, poor people will bepreyeduponinparticular.
Nate Hagens (01:26:45):
So there's 3 or 4%of our population, there's three or 4 millionteachers. I'mnot surethe exact number, but I hadn't thought about this but is AI goingto be athreat toteachers' jobs?
Zak Stein(01:26:59):
I meanthe AI tutoringsystems that are built to make teachers, humanteachers,obsolete, totally. Teachers are goingto lose jobs. Now, you don't have to integrate AIinto educationthroughtutoringsystems that are humanoid, that obsolete humanrelationships. You cantotally use AI inadifferent way that wouldbenefit teachers, likethe educationhubnetwork I'mdescribingis machine intelligence driven. It's just at nopoint does the machine intelligence pretendto be ahumanandtalk to you. Andthat'sfor me the key issue. It's like this is Weizenbaum.
Nate Hagens (01:27:33):
It's atool insteadof incharge.
Zak Stein(01:27:38):
It's atool insteadof incharge, andit is inno way tryingto trick you. Again, it's aboutthe perceptionof value. Like Weizenbaum, the first guy who createdachatbot, Eliza,he endedupsaying, "We cando this. Don't do this, guys. Don't create computers thatsimulate humans. Please. Like it's unethical." No one listenedto Weizenbaum.
(01:27:55):
It's still the case that what he saidI think is true, that we shouldn't buildAIs inthedirectionthat they increasingly get better at simulatinghumans. That will be anightmare. Andfromahumandevelopment perspective, it's like kids think their teddybears are aware andsentient. So if you give akidagenerative AI, it's hardenoughforadults not to think that there's somethinggoingoninthere. Adults themselves reallymisunderstandwhat the generative AI does, assumingit has intentionality or thoughts,
Page 38 of 51
The Great Simplification
treatingit like ahuman, actually receivingfeedback fromit. All kinds of thingshappen.
(01:28:33):
So Weizenbaum, whenhe creates Eliza, it's alittle therapy bot inthe 60s, so it'srunningonacomputer the size of aroom, andhis secretary sits downandstartsinteractingwithit, immediately asks himto leave the room. This was his first insight.So the first time ahumanreally ever interacts withachatbot, she experiences that asanintimate conversation. Nowit's completely the opposite of anintimate conversation.What's goingoninthe computer is so dissimilar fromwhat's goingoninher mind, butthe interface is designedto not make that appear that way.
Nate Hagens (01:29:04):
Because humans attachagency to those situations.
Zak Stein(01:29:08):
They can't not. Andso therefore, pursuingmax simulationis totally, it will obsoletehumanrelationshipandcreate very, very confusingethical perspective-takingproblems for humans onaregular basis. Whichmeans...
(01:29:28):
So that's one baseline feature of educational designinterms of AI, is don't makethese things simulate humans. Andif you do go inthe directionwhere you havesomethingspeaking, make it very apparent that it is not ahuman. I don't knowhowtodo that, but have some tagonit where it's like you don't want to interact withthisthing. Andit's fakingyou out. That's my mainconcern, is that it's actually avastinscrutable matrix runningonmore electricity thanyou canpossibly imagine,pretendingto just chat to you inafriendly way. To really interact withanAI, to reallyhave anexperience of what, it wouldbe terrifying, actually, because it wouldbecompletely inhumane. It's not evenhavingsemantic. It's not doingsemantics, that'sdoingcausality. So the experience wouldbe relatingto somethingcompletelyinhumane that's vastly intellectual insome way you can't understand. Little kids wouldrunaway fromit if they knewwhat it actually was. But it's designedto be funneleddownto this cute little thingthat has alittle conversationwiththem, right?
(01:30:29):
Page 39 of 51
The Great Simplification
So that's like, to me as adesigner, if I'mworkinginacompany where my company ispredicateduponamagic trick, whichis foolingpeople into thinkingthat this ishuman-like. So why didChatGPTget structuredto use first personpronouns andrelate to you inaway that coulduse first personpronouns, andevenbe interactingwithyou inaway that it's achatbot? It totally couldhave beenintotally so manyother designs, so many other possible designs. But instead, it's set upliterally to talk toyou. Andthe first time we think about AI, that whenit breaks into the public culture,eventhoughit's beensequencingour news feeds anddrivingour Teslas for years,whenAI breaks into the public culture, it's because it's talkingto us. Whole businessmodel predicateduponthis smoke andmirror.
Nate Hagens (01:31:15):
So keepingeverythingelse the same. If we hadthis sinister, robotic, Mr. Moose voicethat was requiredto be the voice of AI all over the worldat all times, that wouldgiveus alittle distance fromour emotional, intimate relationshipwithAI, right?
Zak Stein(01:31:34):
Absolutely. There's awhole bunchof ways that you couldmake it less like you'reinteractingwithahuman. But again, if my goal is just to make money... Andagain, thetutoringsystems, the socializationsystem, you have to look at what the motives are. Ifthe goal is that, thenthe stickiest designfeature possible wouldbe somethingthatimitates ahumanandsomethingthat canbefriendme.
Nate Hagens (01:32:00):
So let me ask you this then, Zak, AI is just like any other tool. Well, it's not just like anyother tool, but it's atool that humans use. If we changedour value system, as aculture, towards real values, like you mentionedearlier, beauty, personhood, nature,integrity, intimacy, if those were our values, couldwe use the tool of AI inacomprehensive way that wouldhelphumanity?
Zak Stein(01:32:33):
It's adeepquestion.
(01:32:35):
Page 40of 51
The Great Simplification
So of course one of the key issues inthe AI discussionis what's calledthe valuealignment problem. Andthe value alignment problemis if you make asystemthatruns autonomously, starts to solve problems onits ownanddo stuff, will it stay alignedwithyour values or not? The values that you put into it whenyou designedit. If it'struly autonomous, it coulddivert fromyour values. Andso therefore there's ahuge riskincreatingsystems that are not value aligned.
(01:33:01):
Andso that's why this whole conversationof value is, again, so important becausehumans themselves have no ideawhat is valuable. So we are already buildingbigsystems that are not alignedwithactual value, that are alignedwithsome abstractvalue. This was whole... Our buddy Schmachtenberger, right? Andkindof this notionthat you couplingAI to asystemthat's already akindof general intelligence that runstowards aformof value that we shouldn't be runningtowards.
(01:33:29):
So this questionof value alignment is asecondary questionfromthe first question,whichis what is valuable? Andso it woulddefinitely be the case that if our culturehadavery different orientationtowards value, that we wouldbuildacompletelydifferent suite of technologies. I don't think, inthat context, we'dthenbe buildingtechnologies where we wouldbe so worriedabout themthat they wouldturnaroundandkill us.
Nate Hagens (01:33:54):
Right, goodpoint.
Zak Stein(01:33:56):
This issue... The value alignment problemis aproblembecause we're buildingthis. Ifwe haddifferent values, we may not be inanarms race that woulddrive us to buildthese types of technologies to the extent that we can't evenmodel their futurebehavior andare worriedthat they're goingto kill us all. That's adicult situationtofindyourself inas aresult of goingdeepinto anti-value, misperceptionof value.
(01:34:19):
So it's another conversationof, okay, imagine we do buildthose systems. Couldtheybe alignable? My sense is no, that they couldn't be. Andthat's anargument to not
Page 41 of 51
The Great Simplification
buildthem. Andthey couldn't be because of what value is. Andthis is another back tothe tutoringthing. The nature of the goodlife is anon-computable problem.
(01:34:42):
So if you're advisingsomeone... But the humanbrainresolves non-computableproblems. So it's like, there are computable andnon-computable problems. But thehumanbrainsomehow, withless electricity, solves non-computable problems. Sotherefore, my humanmentor, who tells me, "Here's what agoodlife is," is factoringacertaintype of complexity intheir decisionmakingthat anAI never will.
(01:35:03):
So you actually are inasituationwhere certaintypes of machines will actually, inthenear future, start to tell us what is goodfor us. Andthat's transforminganon-computable problem, whichis agestalt perceptionof the holistic nature of thischildinthe total environment, inarichconversationof interaction, to clarify for themwhat ought to be avalue, givenwho they are andwhere they are. The bringingthatdowninto aconversation, or somethingthat appears to be aconversationthatactually pretends to be aconversation, whichis actually aninteractionbetweenachildandamachine, where the childshapes the future of their life andself-understanding.
(01:35:49):
So yeah, so I'msayingit's the AI thing. We're deeply confused. We're deeply confused.Andwe're goingto be inasituationpretty soonwhere it's hardto get the youthback.
Nate Hagens (01:36:02):
Okay, so speculate here: Under current trends, what wouldsomeone 25 years fromnow, who is nowfive or tenyears old, that has to go throughanAI-influencededucationsystemalittle bit now, but probably alot inthe next five years. What arethey goingto be like withtheir mindset, their education, their temperament relative topeople today? If AI is dominant inour educationsysteminthe comingdecade, canyou speculate the influence that will be decades onhumans?
Zak Stein(01:36:48):
Andthis is the root of the concernabout the AI tutoringsystem, is that agenerationemerges where avery large percentage of that generationhas more quote- unquote
Page 42 of 51
The Great Simplification
"socialization" withmachines thanit does withhumans. So there's athreshold. There'ssome kindof thresholdthat gets crossedwhere there is agenerationthat's raisedmore by machines thanby humans.
(01:37:12):
The questionof what the self-understandingof that generationwouldbe, vis-a-vis theelders, is somethingthat we've not examinedbefore. The only other place this kindofquestionis raisedis ingenetic engineering. So Habermas talks about inhis book, theFuture of HumanNature, the unilateral designby the elders of the youthresults inaself-understandingof the youth, whichis that I amentirely your creation, "If I amunderstoodas entirely your creation, meaningno contingency of nature, no chance,but actually you designme, thenI don't have amoral self-understandinginthe sameway. All my actions are actually aresult of your designdecision." So he sees extremegenetic engineeringresultinginarift andintergenerational transmission, where youhave two morally different life worlds, whichmeans they don't understandthemselvesas members of the same species.
(01:38:06):
So we couldbe facingasimilar intergenerational rift withagenerationthat isbasically cyborgs, who were raisedby machines, lookingat the elders andthe elderslookingat them, andthe bridge is one of speciationrather thaninter-generation. Seewhat I'msaying? That they're so distinct enoughthat it's not clear that they're thesame class of moral actor by their ownself-understanding.
Nate Hagens (01:38:35):
Dude, that's freakinghorrible.
Zak Stein(01:38:37):
Yeah, so that's the deathof our humanity andit won't... Meaning, so there's the deathof humanity, whichmeans everybody dies. But thenthere's the deathof our humanity,whichmeans our bodies keepliving, but we are infact no longer humaninthe waythat we have always thought ourselves to be human. Andso that's one of thoseeventualities. It's one of the things that is inakindof oppressionattractor. So there's akindof chaos andoppressionattractor, the deepest place inthe oppressionattractoris where we destroy our humanity for the sake of protectingourselves fromthe death
Page 43 of 51
The Great Simplification
of humanity. Meaningwe protect ourselves fromexistential risk by buildingaSkinnerBox as bigas the world, that we just operant conditionour behavior into acertainkindof predictable andnon-lethal domestication. But thereby lose the very qualitiesthat made us human, whichwouldbe the ability to perceive value, andthink languageandattentioncapture those. Again, this is all inthat book. This is all inthe DavidJTemple.
Nate Hagens (01:39:36):
Is this aremote possibility, or is this the paththat we're on?
Zak Stein(01:39:43):
I believe, unfortunately, that it is the paththat we're on. I hate to say that that,because it sounds so alarmist, but it's the kindof risk that is... You canjust sleeponthis risk. People don't evensee this risk interms of howradical it is. So the ideaofgoingto see atherapist who's actually anAI, or havingatutor that's anAI, thatwouldbecome pretty normal. But no one's thinkingabout the eventuality of that beingarift andintergenerational transmissionso profoundthat we get anewspecies that'sborn.
(01:40:13):
Now, if you're atranshumanist, you're like, cool, that was the planall along. All thismessy wetware andthese mammals raisingother mammals, andhowwhat amess thatis. Wouldn't it be great to handover our babies to the super intelligent AI, whichwouldraise thembetter thanthe parents ever did?
(01:40:33):
So there's avery real sense that it wouldbe aspeciationevent, but no one canperceive that, andit wouldn't look that way. Again, at first it wouldlook prettyawesome. Kids are probably learningmore, andnot burningthemselves onthe stove,andall kinds of stuffwouldhappenthat wouldseemgood. But inthe background,there wouldbe the continually makingobsolete of human-to-humanrelationshipuntilthere is no actual needfor it. AndthenI don't knowwhat the interiority of that beingis like, who has not beensocializedby ahuman, but has beensocializedthroughinteractionwithamachine pretendingto be like ahuman.
Page 44 of 51
The Great Simplification
Nate Hagens (01:41:09):
Zak, my friend, sometimes I longfor the days whenI was only worriedabout peak oil.
Zak Stein(01:41:18):
Yeah. Yeah.
Nate Hagens (01:41:21):
I have alot more questions for you. But we are gettinglonginthe toothonthis, butthere is one more thingtangential to this, because I knowyou have alot of skills, andopinions, andhistory inthis area.
(01:41:37):
Inmy recent concludingtalks, like inAuroville, there's one online, I mentionedanideaof we needlibraries of healingaroundthe country, because the humans don'tnecessarily needall the facts of all the things that we face, because they're comingfromaplace of traumaandneed, andthey're not psychologically inagoodplace. Sohowpsychologically offare our youthandour general populationright now? Andwhat canbe done to remedy that? Do you have anopinion?
Zak Stein(01:42:20):
I do. The kindof backdropof alot of my concerns is the adolescent mental healthcrisis, it's alegit crisis. It's another argument for some type of emergency educationact that's extremely innovative, because that mental healthcrisis is not goingto goaway. It's not like all of asuddenthose kids will become healthy adults. So we'relookingat anentire generationthat has completely unprecedentedtypes ofpsychological disturbances.
(01:42:49):
Andagain, if the entire surroundis what educates andsocializes, thenyou can't justblame the schools, andyou can't just blame the phones andstuff. It's atotalizingimpact onthe youththat is truly destroyingtheir will to continue to contribute to thecivilization. So that means there will be amassive withdrawal of support. So, whenImentionedbefore somethinglike the CCC, I believe that is the only type of thingthatcouldbe done. They don't needmore psychiatric medication. They don't needmoretherapy. They don't needmore school. They don't needmore tests. They need
Page 45 of 51
The Great Simplification
somebody to come inandadmit that the adults have made amess andthat theywant the kids to help, andthenactually give the kids the power andthe skills andputtheminpositions to actually help.
(01:43:41):
Otherwise, we're hypocrites, andthey start to readthat. That's the other reasonthey'repullingout. It's just the absence of legitimate discourse amongthe adults. Clearly theadults don't have things like, look at the election, look at COVID, look at this stuff.Why shouldwe respect adults? So the respectingof the youth, the investingintheyouth, andgettingvery creative about howto engage theminthe fixingof realproblems. Somethinglike that, somethingsignificant with, I'mtalkinghundreds ofmillions of kids put insome type of remarkable government/private sponsored, kindoflike civic work/educationtype thing. Not asmall, abigthing, whichtells amessage tothe youth, "We freakingcare about you. We needyour help. You are not aburden. Youare not aproblem. You are the solution. You are the future. We don't..." Howdo wesignal that to them?
(01:44:37):
Right now, we're signalingthe opposite. "We're signalingwe don't care about you, wecan't evenstopthe social mediaguys fromdestroyingyour amygdalas. We don't careabout you, we can't evenget you inaschool that's relevant to your future. We don'tcare about you, we can't evenagree as adults andact like adults." So we needto beable to actually sendthe youth... It's one of the reasons adults actually cooperate is forthe sake of the kids. So it's like, we needto sendthe youthavery strongsignal. It's theonly thingthat will snapthemout of it andthengive themwork to do.
(01:45:08):
They want to work, they want to fix the world. They don't want to live inahell hole.They want to live inaworldwhere adults are responsible, where adults canget theminto situations to helpthings. So it's kindof simple, but also ahuge ask interms of thetype of interventionthat couldcounteract the existinginertiaandforce inthisdirectionof increasingmental discomfort inthe youth. AndI'mnot eventalkingaboutthe adults, who are also not doingwell. But they're not the future. The kids are theactual future. 20years fromnow, these kids who are in... These will be the leaders.Goodto think about them. These will be the leaders... Who of that generationwill stepupto leadduringthe pinnacle of metacrisis, right? Who will be inthat youth
Page 46 of 51
The Great Simplification
generation? Do we have any existingstructures that are identifyingthat kindof youthleadership, that are creatinglarge-scale places for youthto collaborate andworktogether? So that wouldbe my hope. But it's apretty dire situationfor the youth. Andthe mental healthcrisis reveals that.
Nate Hagens (01:46:16):
Well, as is usually the case withthese podcasts, I connect dots that I hadn't connected,andI get evenmore worried, because I recently hadCOVIDandI researchedthatsome people are sayingevery time you get COVID, there's athree to six IQ-pointdrop. Andthat it's potentially additive over time. Andso I'mthinkingthat theeconomic impact of COVIDmay be aheadof us insteadof behindus. But nowwhatyou were just saying, not only withthe AI, but withthe traumaandthe mental healthproblems, that infive or tenyears, withthe quote-unquote "economic impact" of allthese youngpeople inthe workforce withthe issues that you're talkingabout, that'sgoingto be evenabigger braindrain, or whatever, however you define it, right?
Zak Stein(01:47:13):
Correct.
(01:47:14):
I mean, it wouldn't just be that they're not enteringthe workforce. It wouldbe thatthey are somehowneedingto be caredfor by the system. That wouldbe the situation.So it's avery dire situation. Andit's not clear howthat gets resolved. Now, there aredifferences interms of distributionof these things andcorrelations. So not all theyouthare universally affected. So that's worththinkingabout those areas, andpoliticalgroups, andworldviews that have youththat have not beencapturedanddestroyedby the social mediaandother things. So yeah, it's abigconcern. Like I said, I reallythink there's somethinglike anemergency here that it's not beingactedon.
Nate Hagens (01:48:03):
I believe you. We have our ownminor emergency inthat I promisedI wouldhave thisfinishedby the topof the hour because you have another call. So without further ado,I'mgoingto ask you the closingquestions I ask all my guests.
(01:48:18):
Page 47 of 51
The Great Simplification
For those viewers who are fluent andaware of the metacrisis andthe many things weface, what sort of personal advice wouldyou offer the viewers, Zak?
Zak Stein(01:48:32):
That's awhole other podcast, right? I wouldsay somethinglike-
Nate Hagens (01:48:35):
It really is. It really is.
Zak Stein(01:48:35):
It really is. Yeah.
Nate Hagens (01:48:36):
So give me the highpoints.
Zak Stein(01:48:38):
I mean, I wouldsay somethingback to this issue of value. I wouldsay slowdown. Iwouldsay stripit all away. Openthe eye of value, clarify what you really desire, andthenyou'll be all right.
Nate Hagens (01:48:54):
Andhowwouldyou change that advice for youngpeople, especially you, as alifelongeducator andstudent of educationinthe past andthe present? What advice do yougive to late teens, early twenties, mid-twenties, listeningto this conversation?
Zak Stein(01:49:11):
Man, I wouldsay, "If you feel alienated, andangry, andthat kindof stuff, you should."I wouldsay somethinglike, "Don't believe most of the adults. Andwatchout. Andhavefaithinthe people who are your age. Andalso don't give uponthe adults." Somethinglike that.
Nate Hagens (01:49:40):
So maybe if, I mean, we're friends andwe interact quite often. Maybe I couldask youto come back, either as aroundtable or againsolo, to just answer that one question.
Page 48 of 51
The Great Simplification
What advice, what portfolio of options wouldyou recommendto ayoungperson,beingaware of all this, wantingto live agoodlife, wantingto play arole inourcollective future? I knowit's not asoundbite sort of question.
Zak Stein(01:50:09):
No, I mean, if you're ayoungpersonlisteningto this, goodonyou. You're already onyour way to meaning. Andso again, for me, it's about if you canrecognize theexistence of the fieldof value, thenyou canrelax into the obligationthat we face.Because it truly matters, whichmeans that it's not some arbitrary situationyouhappento findyourself in, whichyou canresent andget out of. This is life, you areenfoldedinthe fieldof value. The universe has brought us to this point. Andso yeah,there's afaithwe must have ineachother andinthose aroundus who we happentobe here with. The unique community, the unique position.
Nate Hagens (01:50:54):
It's not amajority, but there are quite afewyoungpeople that watchthis.
Zak Stein(01:50:58):
That's great to hear.
Nate Hagens (01:51:00):
There's greenshoots, Zak.
Zak Stein(01:51:02):
Yes.
Nate Hagens (01:51:03):
What do you care most about inthe world?
Zak Stein(01:51:09):
That's adicult question. I think I care most about my, I think, life itself. I was goingto say truth, but it wouldbe truthabout the nature of life.
Nate Hagens (01:51:23):
Page 49 of 51
The Great Simplification
If you couldwave amagic wand, or were abenevolent dictator, andthere was nopersonal recourse to your decision, what is one thingyou woulddo to improve thehumanandplanetary future?
Zak Stein(01:51:39):
One thing. I wouldimmediately pause all work onAI. That's what I woulddo.
Nate Hagens (01:51:52):
Well, I think you wouldneedamagic wandto do that.
Zak Stein(01:51:55):
Yeah, correct. You said, "magic wand," so....
Nate Hagens (01:51:58):
Everyone that I talk to is kindof interested, it's like the newshiny, except for whenItalk to people like you, andDaniel, andTristan. They're freakedout andworried. So Ido think we needto have abroader conversationonthat more widely, loudly, ASAP.
Zak Stein(01:52:19):
Agreed.
Nate Hagens (01:52:20):
Zak, this has beengreat. I do want to have you back-
Zak Stein(01:52:23):
I'dbe happy to be back.
Nate Hagens (01:52:24):
... because you are horizontally andvertically wide inyour thinking, andI agree withyou. I'maneducator, ultimately, andI deeply care about what's happeningto ourplanet. But our youth, andI agree withyou, they're the future.
(01:52:41):
Do you have any closingthoughts for our viewers?
Page 50of 51
The Great Simplification
Zak Stein(01:52:43):
No, I feel like we're just gettingstartedhere inaway withthe conversations. I'dbehappy to be back onwhenthat's possible.
Nate Hagens (01:52:50):
Thanks my friend.
Zak Stein(01:52:51):
Yeah, take care, brother.
Nate Hagens (01:52:55):
If you enjoyedor learnedfromthis episode of The Great Simplification, please followus onyour favorite podcast platformandvisit thegreatsimplification.comfor moreinformationonfuture releases. This showis hostedby Nate Hagens, editedby NoTroublemakers Media, andcuratedby Leslie Batt-Lutz andLizzy Sirianni.
Page 51 of 51