In this episode, we talk about family YouTube channels and very briefly, the ethics of abandoning children before diving into the main topic: psychological and philosophical drivers of antinatalism. We discuss the relationship between climate change and fertility, between mental health and a suffering-focused worldview and finally, the downsides of using shame to promote pronatalism.

In this episode of Moral Mayhem, we dive into two unrelated topics: statutory rape laws in the western world and the state of Kerala in India. We explore the complexities of age-based consent laws, discussing agency, cultural norms, and the unintended consequences of well-intentioned legislation. Then we shift gears to examine Kerala's unique position in India - a state with high human development indices but a bleak economic future. We touch on its history, including the caste system, Christian influence, and current political landscape.

In this episode, we chat about the presidential debate and Biden's cognitive decline, respond to Mary Harrington's tirade against embryo selection and talk in depth about the objective function of universities, admission criteria, affirmative action, DEI and more.

In this episode, we welcome our first repeat guest back on the show, GMU economist Garett Jones. We discuss Garett's first book, the Hive Mind, comparing social versus individual returns to IQ. We spend a bulk of the episode talking about the mechanics of cooperation at the micro and macro scales - why smarter people are more cooperative, the 3Ps of repeated prisoner's dilemmas, principal agent problems in politics and business and Garett's advise to corporations and managers.

In this episode, we sit down with Richard Hanania, prolific blogger, political commentator and author of the book "The Origins of Woke". We explore how civil rights law has shaped modern culture, debating the unintended consequences of anti-discrimination policies. We also discuss declining fertility rates, examining cultural versus economic factors. The conversation concludes with a discussion on Israel, and why it might be the most illuminating political debate of our time.

In this episode, we sit down with Bryan Caplan, economics professor at George Mason University and author of several popular books including Open Borders, The Myth of the Rational Voter, and most recently Build Baby Build. We dive into Bryan's case for radical deregulation in housing, exploring how both the left and right could find common ground on the issue. In the next segment, we discuss Bryan's advocacy for open borders, seeking his response to concerns raised by others like Garett Jones around cultural persistence and assimilation. Finally, we examine policy proposals aimed at reversing declining fertility rates and debate which baby is the most "marginal" when it comes to incentivizing parenthood.

In this episode, we chat about the increased normalization and diagnosis of mental health conditions like ADHD, autism and depression, exploring the balance between the benefits of increased awareness and the potential risks of over-diagnosis and false positives. We also flirt with the relationship between psychological dysfunction, personal identity and free will.

In this episode, we talk about the difference between accepting and pathologizing sex differences, parsing the bell curve of the opposite sex, dynamics of the dating market, what pick up artists get right and more. In the last segment, we also talk about how the anti-woke crowd, that we usually agree with, are reading Andrew Huberman totally wrong.

Links to mentions:

Regan's appearance on Alex Kaschuta's podcast

Peter Attia interviews Andrew Huberman on his "life story"

Andrew Huberman interviewing James Hollis

Links and Resources:

Tickets to Regan's Salon: End of Faith by Sam Harris

Wikipedia: Karl Popper - Paradox of Intolerance

You can email us your thoughts, feedback or ideas for episodes to [email protected]

In this episode, we respond to Freddie DeBoer's case for socialism, in which he concedes that capitalism has driven massive welfare improvements, yet contends that it's rational to replace this process with a much more redistributive one now that society has made "sufficient" progress. We lay out all the reasons why we disagree and also hash out our mutual disagreements on the moral need for redistribution.