Is It Finally Time To Fight Back Against Technology? (This Bestseller Says “Yes”) | Cal Newport

At some point last year, I received an advanced reader copy of a book titled Against the Machine. It was written by Paul Kingsnorth, a former environmental activist, turned novelist, turned poet, turned essayist. And the first thing that caught my attention about this was actually the cover. It's really cool. It features what looks like a primeval green forest, but as if it's being displayed through an old analog computer monitor that's starting to distort it. It also had a sort of Stranger Things style 1980s font. So it's a really cool looking cover. It's like, you know what? I'm going to read this book. And I did. And you know what? I was captivated. It was about technology, but it was also about culture. And it was also about politics and the environment. King's North talks about techno capitalism and how it's choking civilization and destroying the earth. It's not a politically careful book. It eschews jargon. It doesn't align with pre-existing tribes. It embraces its own hypocrisy. lobs its share of rhetorical bombs. It reminded me less of the sort of hand-wringing anti-technology op-eds that we see today, and more like those sort of confident, full-throated polemics of past voices like Lewis Mumford or Jacques Ellul or Neil Postman. It was, in short, exactly the type of book that someone like me was going to enjoy. But then earlier this fall, the book actually came out. And when it was finally published, it turns out that King's North hit a much bigger nerve than i would have expected he was basically everywhere the new york times ran a long profile of king's north it opened with a description of the author spending his 50th birthday in a cave in county clare ireland as a storm drove quote great nails of rain quote into the ground uh king's war kings north and the reporter tells the article tells the reporter i want to know what's real And the reporter went on to call the book a searing indictment of a society hooked on technological innovation. Soon after, King's North was profiled in my own home publication. The New Yorker, the author, who also named Cal, called the book part summa, part broadside, part testament. And then there's a recent review in The Atlantic, which called against a machine, quote, one of the most insightful works on culture, technology and the environment published in some time, end quote. So what's going on here? Why is this particular book about technology making such an impact? And what can we learn as people who are struggling to cultivate deep lives and distract the world? What can we learn or take away from this book? These are the questions that fascinated me after I saw Kings North was everywhere. These are the questions that I want to answer today. I'm going to have some help. I'm bringing on the show to help me get into who Kings North is and why his book hit. The journalist. Tyler Austin Harper, who wrote that big review of Against a Machine that I cited before from The Atlantic. Harper is a great writer. I really like his writing. And he's someone who used to actually teach Kings North when he was a professor. So he really knows what's going on here. So I'm going to bring on Tyler. He's going to help me make sense of why this book was so big. And then I will go to my virtual chalkboard and we'll figure out together the big ideas. and what you should take away from this book to make your own life better. So without much further ado, I'm Cal Newport, and this is Deep Questions. Today's episode, why is everyone talking about against the machine? All right, Tyler, thanks for joining me here to help me figure out what's going on with Paul Kingsnorth. I'll be honest, when I first saw this book, I got an early copy of it, and I read it, and I was like, whoa, this is cool. I kind of recognize the name, but I didn't really know what was going on. You've crossed paths with him. You used to assign Kings North to your students when you were a college professor. Who is he? What do we need to know about this guy? Yeah, Paul Kingsnorth is a former green radical, a former radical environmentalist who, after being very active in sort of the fringes of the environmental movement for many years, became disenchanted with it over the course of the 90s and ultimately wrote this semi-famous essay called Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, which is also the title of a very good book of essays he put out. He came to feel like, you know, at its origins, the environmental movement was this movement that was very... anti-technology that was very pro-limit, that had this sense that we need to take a kind of ascetic posture and restrain ourselves in the face of this consumer society that's always saying more, more, more. And he felt like over the course of the 80s and 90s, environmentalism shifted toward this movement that was much more centered on sustainability. And he saw sustainability as just this idea that we can keep living the way we live now, except we'll make it sustainable through technology, right? So no longer asking you to ride your bike rather than drive. we'll just, we'll make the cars green, right? And he saw this as a kind of betrayal of the environmental movement. So when I was a college professor, my PhD is in literature, but I taught in an environmental studies department. I signed King's North because I think, you know, most young people who are interested in the environment think about sustainability as like the end all be all, right? And it was very challenging for them to read this guy who was trying to call attention to the ways in which sustainability is kind of a corporatized model of environmentalism that we've been all sold over the last few decades. Oh, interesting. So he was around before that. I mean, I always think of sustainability. I mean, you were the environmental studies professor, so tell me if I'm wrong, but this emerges once you have the sort of co-option of the environmental movement by political parties. Yeah. And it's like, oh, okay, this is no longer the monkey wrench gang against the governor of, you know, whatever. It's like, yeah, we're the Al Gore, we're green. Exactly. And, but they had to make it palatable. Okay. So he was from this old school. I mean, I read somewhere, maybe it was even in your review. Like he was from the old, like chain yourself to the. Yeah. To the trees. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. So he gets disillusioned. Um, he writes these manifestos and again, tell me this was in the two thousands. Like the, yeah, I think confessions of a recovering environmentalist comes out, uh, late, um, arts or maybe around 2011. I think the book is, is around that. Oh, interesting. um and then so he makes a radical move right this is when he's like i'm I'm going to disappear. I'm going to go to a farm. I mean, he becomes a Wiccan for a while. What happens to King's North once he kind of gets fed up with the environmental movement? Yeah, you know, he seems like a guy who was kind of on a sort of spiritual quest. I think the early version of the environmental movement where he's chaining himself to trees and so on and so forth gave him a real sense of purpose is my sense, right? And that as that movement became corporatized, he went looking for meaning and purpose elsewhere. You know, at a certain point, I think he became a Wiccan. move to, you know, the countryside. Eventually, more recently, he's converted to Orthodox Christianity. But clearly, he's a guy who's been on a kind of a quest for meaning in a society that he feels like is sort of like hedonistic and overdetermined by, you know, the constant intrusion of technology into our lives. Yeah, and you've read a lot of his work. So my understanding is he's a smart guy. Like, he wrote a novel. A trilogy of novels actually. Yeah. In like an old form of English or something like this. He's a poet. Like he's written like really good essays. Like clearly he's got a mind that's going at high horsepower. Yeah. Which is probably driving, driving some of the frustration. Okay. So he sort of disappears at some point. So when does he. emerge as like a sub stack. That's kind of his thing now, right? Like that's how he reemerged in our current culture is through sub stack. Yeah. I mean, he, he did write some novels. Um, he wrote, uh, another work of nonfiction, um, at some point in the, in the teens or maybe early two thousands. Um, and he did start sub stacking in the, in the early two thousands, I believe is when he launches his sub stack, um, around the time of COVID, I think, or maybe, uh, maybe a bit before. And he started writing, um, the, the sub stacks called Abby of misrule. Uh, and he started writing about what he, he calls the machine. or machine civilization so this idea and he's indebted to a bunch of other sort of critics of technology of who've, you know, sort of referred to society as a machine. But his basic kind of insight is that, you know, our society is increasingly organized around using technology to remake not just nature, but human nature, right? And I think that's where we see the connection to some of his earlier work. Like his earlier work was really focused on the way that the environmental movement went from being a kind of degrowth Luddite movement to being a pro-tech movement, right? We're going to use sustainable green technology to solve the climate crisis and all these problems. his central insight is like, actually that move is just all across culture. Like our entire civilization has become organized against the idea of limits. And that just comes to see technology as a way to remake nature, but also human nature in service of, in the service of our, our, our whims and desires, you know? Right. So he's okay. So he's, he's kind of disillusioned from the environmental movement. He's got this view of like, why are we giving up on a sort of more aesthetic sort of anti-growth type of mindset? COVID comes, he's online. He's writing sub stacks and he's like, I'm going to take an even bigger swing here. This critique of the environmental movement is a critique of culture. And so I guess that's what he's working out on his sub stack in the pandemic, which there's some irony here because I have to imagine because it was, you know, he's on a farm during COVID that a lot of what he's reacting to is what he's probably encountering online. So it's almost like he's, he's reacting to like a digitized sort of bastardized version. um, of the world. Okay. So he's writing, he's writing these essays and then, uh, he pulls it together into this book. Is it right to think of this book as, I mean, are these actual adapted essays from the sub stack or is this inspired by, but a lot of it's from the sub stack. Yeah. There are parts of it that are definitely new. There are parts of it that are pulled from the sub stack, but it's sort of his magnum opus. It's, it's the sub stack plus some new stuff pulled into a kind of cohesive package. And his, his sub stack's popular. It looks like a nerve. Did you know, were you following this or aware of this before you did this review for The Atlantic? Yeah, I've been following his work for many years because I think he is one of the more interesting, unusual and challenging sort of environmental writers at the moment. I mean, he calls himself a recovering environmentalist, but I mean, I think it's a bit tongue in cheek. I mean, he is a guy who is deeply committed to the natural world and against the sort of constant human intrusion into the natural world. So, you know, to say he's no longer an environmentalist, I think, is to say he's abandoned a certain style of mainstream. environmentalism. But yeah, I've been following for, I mean, 10 years or more following his work because he is, I think, really interesting idiosyncratic. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but he is persistently thoughtful. I have to say, this is just a brief aside. I'm not an environmental thinker, but it feels like something right up his alley is that something that's caught my attention about 21st century environmentalism is that it somehow has negotiate itself into a position where the right way to be an environmentalist is for upper middle-class people to take on consumer debt. That's an amazing, it's an amazing transformation. It's like, yeah, take on this loan to buy this car. That's like way more than you would normally pay for a car to finance like solar panels that you have this complicated formula where with the right rebates in 17 years, I'll be making back whatever. But basically, Somehow the solution for saving the plan is upper middle-class people to pay interest to banks. Yes. Shocking. Shockingly. Yeah. It's not spend less. Right. Work out on a spread. This is upper middle-class technocratics like me. It's our favorite thing to do. We worked out on a spreadsheet that by year nine with this tax credit, we're going to make back or whatever. Exactly. Just consult this chart. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. All right. Okay. So then this book comes out. Before we get into the reaction, I have some theories about it. I want to get a little bit more into the book. You know, he uses this phrase, the machine, and you know, this is, he's drawing from a long tradition here. Doesn't Lewis Mumford actually use literally the word, the machine. Yeah. The machine, the mega machine. Exactly. So he's drawing on Mumford and a whole host of people. Absolutely. Yeah. For a little, it's technique. Kevin Kelly, the technium. Let me give you, all right, I'm going to give you my take. I'm going to give you my short summary of what I think this sort of intellectual move is. And then I want you to tell me like why this is not quite right. Or like. the way you see it. So what I see like the technical, because, you know, I love the big polemicist, 20th century tech polemicist, right? I just think it's, it's just muscular writing. It's like, let's just go for it, right? Like they don't care. They're just, they're just swinging. Lewis Mumford, I love this story. If you read like the author's notes to Technics and Civilization, he's talking about how he wrote that book. This is such a different time for the internet. He's like, well, I went to Europe for like two years so that I could, there was all of these museums of industry. in small towns like all throughout germany where they were like here is our tractor whatever and he's like so i just spent like two years going from museum to museum constructing from scratch a history of technology and then i came back and wrote my book like that's you know that's not today yeah now we're now it's like i had a a tweet that did well and i'm gonna riff on it um but anyways okay so here's my theory right is that that those those writers are in the tradition of this like a uval harari id but they're in this tradition of like look they're uh human Civilization is defined by commitment to various abstractions. This is what allows neolithic, post-neolithic civilization to exist. You have governments and God and human rights and liberalism or whatever. These are ideals that are abstract you can organize activity around. And that you get in sort of a post-Marxist world, a lot of these technological critics having this idea of like, you know what? Marx was pointing out about economic systems. you can have these abstractions that arise that are kind of ruling us or that we live by that we didn't really choose or maybe they're a little bit more emergent or it's not we don't even really have a name for it we should name it and be careful about it and maybe we need to reject some of these and this is where we got this line of critique that was all about identifying these sort of emergent abstractions around technology and culture that that hey let's recognize these maybe it's not what we want and so you have the machine or you have you know the technique or whatever it is and that this is the tradition that uh king's north is going back to like yeah that's that's the right way to talk about it i think it's different than the way we've been writing about this recently which we can get to but is that am i over from a literature perspective Professor perspective. Am I oversimplifying there? What am I missing there about like this intellectual tradition this belongs to? No, I think that's entirely correct. I think he's in the sort of Jackalole, Mumford, Martin Heidegger sort of tradition of criticisms of technology. You know, that seems spot on to me. I think that's the, it's very self-consciously, that's the intellectual lineage he situates himself within. Okay. So then you say really the right way to understand the machine and his push against the machine, you say there's really an argument about limits. Yes. What do you mean by that in your review? Yeah, I think he's really trying to say that most of human civilization now is organized around a rejection of limits. And which is another way of saying that most of the arguments we have right now are arguments about the place of nature in human life. Right. So whether that is something like gender issues. Right. That is what seems like a superficial culture war is actually an argument about like, OK, what role should nature play in human life? How much deference should we pay to nature? Is nature something to be over? or is it something to be sort of like worked within? And he, like I said, he comes at this version of thinking about the machine out of his prior sense of like the failings of the environmental movement, which went from being a pro limit to sort of like an anti-limit movement centered around how do we find a way to keep our current level of material comforts sustainable, right? And we can do that by wind farms. We can do that by nuclear power. We can do that by increasing intrusions. the natural world and one of his early books he has this great phrase where he's like you know um it used to be the case uh you know that uh clear cutting you know mountaintops was bad now we clear cut mountaintops to put solar panels up in the name of the environment you know um and his basic insight is that maneuver is all across culture now and most of the arguments we're having are about um whether we should or should not be limited by um our human nature i mean for king's north you know what a human is is a creature that is born with a sexed body and a brain capable of seeking wisdom. And then eventually it dies, right? Like that's what we are fundamentally. And he sees a lot of modern life and particularly technology as oriented around making those fundamental facts about our sexed bodies or about our intelligence seeking nature or even death negotiable, right? I mean, you only have to look at all the Silicon Valley startups centered around longevity treatments for, you know, life extension to sort of see what he's on about. So that's kind of his. central insight that he's working with is we have organized society entirely around a rejection of limits as our kind of ultimate good. All right, we're going to take a quick break from my conversation to hear briefly from some of the sponsors that makes this show possible. The holidays are in full swing, which means so are the Grinches out there who are trying to steal data about your internet activity. Fortunately, there's a simple and easy way to protect this sensitive information by using ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes 100% of your online activity through secure encrypted servers, preventing your internet service provider or other online snoopers from learning which sites and services you're using. And trust me, there are plenty of shady characters out there who want that information so they can sell it to data brokers or use it to help hack you. If you want to keep your activity away from the types of people who will end up on Santa's naughty list, then you need the VPN that is rated number one by the experts at The Verge and CNET. ExpressVPN. Now here's the great part. ExpressVPN has multiple plans available. So you can find one that fits exactly what you're looking for, including a basic plan that starts as low as just $3.49 a month. That's less than 12 cents a day. Protect your online data for cheap so you can spend your money on gifts and eggnog. So if you want to get ExpressVPN at its lowest price ever, plus four extra months of service, Go to expressvpn.com slash deep. That's a price as low as $3.49 a month plus four extra months of service by going to expressvpn.com slash deep. This episode is also sponsored by BetterHelp. The holidays are a time of traditions. Some of them are new, like sending out the find the ultimate hot chocolate recipe with your kids, and some might be old, like cooking your great aunt's sweet potato pie, but they're all important. This holiday season, consider incorporating therapy into your traditions as a way to help ensure that you take the much needed time for yourself during what can be a joyful time of the year, but also one that is hectic and sometimes lonely. And if you're considering therapy, consider BetterHelp. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is one of the world's largest online therapy platforms, having served over 5 million people globally, and it works. with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 stars for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Now, something I like about BetterHelp is that they do the initial matching work for you. You just fill out a short questionnaire based on BetterHelp's more than 12 years of experience, and they will connect you with a therapist who is a good fit. This allows you to focus on your therapy goals and not the headache of finding a practitioner. This December, start a new tradition by taking care... of you our listeners get 10 off at betterhelp.com deep questions that's better help.com deep questions all right jesse let's get back to my conversation with tyler so so even though his general intellectual uh approach is similar to some of these past books this feels what's new about his details that you know if you read like the mega machine and mumford I guess it's really more an argument about political power. It's like the way the pharaohs organize the entire culture around the production of the pyramids, right? Or a lull falls more, I guess. I mean, everyone's read that book, but it's also kind of hard to fully exist. But I mean, not as hard as Heidegger, but I guess like a lull, when we talk about technique, it's more about this obsession with process and efficiency and trying to... Yeah. But it's sort of more of... It's very French. It's like, well, this is not... this is not a culture, this is the wrong culture, whatever, but it's not really about limits, right? It's about the wrong people are in charge, the wrong people are taking advantage. So I guess this is where the environmental strain, if I understand this right, is making King's North argument more unique because he's coming at it from a degrowth perspective, which is very different than some of the other 20th century thinkers. Okay. Okay. So interesting. So he writes this book. It's yeah. And this is by the way, why like part of what's fascinating about if you read this book is that like his, his politics are incoherent in like a 21st century context. They're very coherent in terms of what you just said. But as you mentioned, if you're, if you're like, we need limits, the return to like what we are as a core as humanity, you're going to have things in there that the right. will really dislike like anti-capitalism, you know, like, look, economic growth is no good. We need to like push back on that really strong sort of aesthetic environmental messages, which you're not going to like if you're on the right. But if you're on the left, you're really not going to like him saying like a lot of gender experimentation is like, that's the same as like unlimited economic growth, right? Like transhumanism. Yeah. He's basically transhumanism. Yeah, we throw that in there. And there's sort of a nationalist strain in there. We need to sort of return to... We're part of a particular place and we're connected to that place. He's anti-mass immigration. Because if you're thinking about things through limits, just like everyone goes everywhere and it's this global cosmopolitan community, that doesn't make sense. Those politics are incoherent on a modern scale. So how is that... i mean i thought you handled it really well in your piece you're basically like yes let's not get in the weeds there like what matters is like what is the polit what is the the framework he has that like maybe leads that seeming incoherence let's stick with the main argument i think other coverage had a little bit harder time with it so so how did that affect what's going on when this thing when this book landed yeah i think you're right i think people um view the politics of the book as incoherent. I actually would make the inverse case that the politics of the book are very coherent and that the politics that dominate, particularly American society, are extraordinarily incoherent, right? I mean, the point I always make is that, and other people before me, Michael Lind has made this point, but like the Republican Party historically, like pre-Trump, is very anti-limit on the economy and very pro-limit on culture. The left has been very anti-limit on culture and very pro-limit on the economy, right? And so you have this like schizophrenic mismatching on each side of like a pro limit disposition on the economy or culture married with an anti limit disposition on the other hand. Right. And Kings North is like. just anti-limit across the board right like because the left and right are often like libertarian about culture economics but anti-libertarian about the other term you know and he's just like sort of like anti-libertarian across the board we need to draw limits we need to have limits to our economy we need to have like you know work within a national context and culture in a nation state um we need to be opposed to the constant intrusion uh into both you know human nature uh viewing our bodies in the natural world alike as things to be engineered and optimized right so i think his policy are actually remarkably coherent. And I think it's only the basically ideological disorder of American politics in particular that make him confusing. I think you see that confusion in some of the reviews, I think. People are just literally confused. Like, I'm not quite sure what to do here. Like, I like this, but this doesn't make sense. Wait, is he a bad guy? But maybe he's not. Maybe I need to condescend, you know? My home publication, The New Yorker, tends to do that. It tends to be our MO sometimes is like, oh, I'm going to have to kind of condescend to this about this person because like he, let me, I'll just point out the ways that like he is incoherent or hypocritical and then I'm the cool guy. Yeah. Yeah, it is interesting. So, but what is his, all right, so the book comes out. I want to get to a second and why it picked up so much coverage, but sticking with what he's saying, in the end, what is he pushing towards? like what is the program beyond a descriptive program i think what is provocative about against the machine in particular and you see this going back in his other work but in particular really acutely and against machine is that there is no program he is saying really clearly um he's a bit of a fatalist i think in a certain way i think this is partly probably informed by his christianity where it's sort of like a leave to caesar what is caesar's kind of thing but he really does think probably not a whole lot we can do to sort of like at a macro level, resist the pace of technology. If you just like look at the course of human history, it is just like a relentless, you know, march forward of this, this machine. And so the task at hand is to figure out like where to draw your limits. And that's kind of where he sort of ends is like, you know, you're you might not agree with everything i say here about transgenderism or about transhumanism or about like x y or z but like the question you need to ask yourself is like where are my personal limits where am i going to say no like this intrusion of technology into my life is too much maybe it's i'm going to get rid of my smartphone or i'm not going to let my kids have screens uh maybe if you live in a city and this is where i think he's like a really um there's a way in which he has this romantic streak but at the same time he's he's kind of pragmatic he's like look the limits you can draw if you are a prep you know professional class guy with a laptop job uh in a city the limits you're going to be able to draw are are different than maybe what i can draw on my subsistence farm maybe you need your smartphone to work maybe that's not the limit to draw but he is really trying to say like we probably can't stop the progress of this thing, but we can create these pockets of resistance in our own personal lives where we are trying to carve out some space for fundamentally human modes of living that aren't just drenched with the march of technology. So I think it's a really anti-program book. And his life is supposed to be, let's just give an example of that to an extreme. Yeah, yeah, exactly. If you're going to get fitness advice, you kind of want... the the guy who's in incredible shape even though you're like look i can't right i'm not going to look like the peloton instructor because they do this professionally but i really want someone who looks like the peloton instructor you know giving me the advice and that maybe i'm going to exercise more yeah if not so let's make sure i have all of his limits right so he lives in uh ireland galway county somewhere he's on a farm they grow their own food Kids are homeschooled. Homeschool kids, no smartphones. He secretly makes his living, not secretly, but sub stack. Ironically. Yeah. Yeah. But he kind of leans into that a little bit or like, he doesn't avoid it. He's like, yeah, I'm on here. I don't know. It's all terrible. I mean, he's not like running from it. He's not trying to justify it. Then they, and he's Orthodox grad used to be Wiccan. He likes to be outside. So nature is really important. He spends a lot of time outside. and is now he's orthodox christian so he's sort of which is a more you know that along with catholicism are the two real sort of ritualistic christian denominations so it's really like heavy on ritual denomination where so he's trying to connect to whatever the transcendent and and find these like deeper more mystical spiritual meanings in his life that's basically okay yeah and that's the pig that's a life of limits yeah yeah and he's like pro ireland and anti it's curmudgeonly in some ways and like anarchic in another it's an anarchic curmudgeon is sort of like an interesting type in the world of ideas like on the one hand it's like it's very anarchic on the other hand he's like you know kids these days and with their like pronouns and open borders and like it's like he's all over it's interesting totally yeah yeah yeah the thing i think is important though is he is um and the reason i think i find him especially compelling is that even when he talks about a fraught cultural issue like gender reassignment surgery he is and perhaps it's that his thinking has taken a kind of uh sort of more religious bent but he is kind of kind of compassion forward where he's like look i'm not interested in scapegoating people who have questions about their gender identity they are not causing the problems in you know in western society regardless whatever the conservatives say but like i want us to think about like what does it mean to actually think of sex as something open to technological negotiation right that's a huge shift in how we think about what a human being is born with the sex body right and so his approach on a lot of even these issues where he is curmudgeonly is very much like you know, this is actually a huge shift in how we've historically done things. And like, what is the price of that? And what comes along with it? You know, I mean, I do think part of what makes it harder to dismiss him. And I think why he's got more of a, particularly with this last book, more of a mainstream reception is that he does kind of, even as he has some conservative positions, I think he really eschews a kind of like politics of cruelty, you know? Yeah. And that's part of what makes him, I think, compelling, you know? Right. He's not, he's not a political polemicist. So what, why did this book? I mean, am I correct? My impression was it was everywhere in a way that like any author would dream. Yeah. All the mainstream publications and not just reviews, like the times is not just a review, but like a long profile, a long profile in the magazine, you know, in the New Yorker, you wrote a big splashy review for the Atlantic. He's on stage with, you know, big names, et cetera. I'm seeing him pop up. He's on Ross Duhut's podcast. He's, uh, uh, everywhere. Right. Okay. So. Assuming I'm correct, this book was everywhere. Why was it everywhere? You know, I think something I've been really... find compelling, fascinating lately. I'm not an especially religious person. I was raised Presbyterian, but I don't go to church every week or anything like that. As was I, sir. As was I. I know Presbyterianism, we connect on that destination, but they don't talk about it. Exactly. So, I mean, I think one of the reasons it's landed so much is to me, I've been really frustrated with a lot of the critiques, particularly of AI. And I think it's worth noting so much of this book is about like the coming of ai and the way that's just another turn of the screw in this sort of like anti-humanist halt of technology i think one of the reasons it's landed so well in the mainstream is that um you know he really has an account of ai as a kind of and tech as as a crisis of human meaning right it i think when the left um in particular tends to focus on an issue like ai or big tech right they're like this is bad for the environment this exploits laborers you know etc etc etc And all of the owners are bad. The people in the companies are bad. And for what it's worth, all of those critiques I agree with. But I think it still doesn't attend to the fact that like. this stuff isn't just bad because it exploits the environment and exploits labor and it's their oligarchic companies run by billionaires it's also bad because this technology is like a real threat to like human purpose human relationships you know human meaning and i think it's it's not a coincidence that some of the better critiques of ai that are that are attendant to that that element of human meaning right um have been from some sort of like religiously infected of inflected thinkers and i think that's why this has uh hit so hard is that that's what kings north is focused on yes he he abhors you know um he is a kind of you know an interesting sort of conservative he totally abhors sort of the the you know corporations and the oligarchy class and so on and so forth but like for him the the fundamental fact of the matter is that this is The world we live in is increasingly nihilistic, and it's nihilistic because of the way we've allowed technology to shape it. And I think that speaks to something that people feel very deeply, but that hasn't been as articulated as well by some other folks. That's fascinating. All right, so let me run with that for a second, because I think you're on to explain something that makes a lot of sense to me, and it's helping with some confusions. I mean, so obviously I know the world of tech criticism, tech writing well, because it's the world in which I've also existed for many years. And, you know, it seems like in the sort of post-smartphone age, we just think about like the last 10 years of tech criticism, there's really two major lenses that it falls into. I think there's like a political lens, which is basically I'm aligned with a particular type of like political or tribal identity, and I'm sort of seeing the technology through that lens. So the things that we already pre-care about, how does it fall against those things? And this is where you get like the critiques you're talking about. It's like, well, I'm going to see AI through the lens of environmental issues, which I care about. um i'll think about it through like you know capitalism anti-capitalism issues i'll think about the people involved like who are these leaders are they like you know this is are they sufficiently on our team or not that team are they are they friends of the wrong side etc like that the other lens that is very popular is a psychological lens right i think this is the The direction that really Nicholas Carr kicked off at the beginning of the 21st century where you're jumping from a world of Neil Postman, which is very much like cultural critique, to a world of like, let's look at what the brain science says about the internet. And that kicked off a new engagement. And John Hite would be probably the leader of this movement right now. But really thinking about, we're looking at the data about what this does to your brain. So it's a very sort of professionalized, medicalized look at the technology. Those seem to be the two... the two major frames and i kind of agree with you they both they're both really lacking for people right they're kind of they're kind of messy the political frame is no good because it's just confused because um you know both sides have their issues with technology both sides really use the technology you get a lot of incoherence i think especially with things like social media where the political frame makes you if you're a tech journalist you're kind of already addicted to these tools. You use them all the time. It's a critique of yourself to say, let's not use this. You really want the focus to be like Elon Musk is bad and not also, why are we using a global conversation platform? Maybe that's a bad way for humans to interact. It's about the people involved. It's about what's on the platforms. This has always been my fight, even since my book, Digital Minimalism, which is the people writing about technology think the real problem is what's on the... platforms where the people who are upset by technology think the real problem is the platform's existence and like how much they're using it um and then psychological is fine but it's like it's sterile and i think it could be very successful but at the same time it is kind of like dry and sterile and it's sort of everything is just reduced to we want these lines on graphs to of mental health to be better or something like that so so kings north is coming in and saying well what about like the humanist approach like just what it means to be a thriving human being that we want them to be in there That feels pretty novel. I mean, I'm thinking this through. I mean, that feels pretty novel, even in like the classic big, I mean, I guess the big polemical tech, anti-tech books of the 20th century were like, this is bad for humanity to be like obsessed with technique. But it's not like their goal was necessarily this like richer vision of flourishing as a human. It was just like, this is not a reasonable way to live or it's serving like the capitalist, but no one else. Yeah. All right. That's interesting. So you think the AI, now do you think it's true that the AI moment Here's my theory then on the fly. The AI moment is more open to this type of humanist turn because the last big moment, which was the social media moment, was too confused culturally. The problem was this technology was also supposed to be for a while the savior of culture and the tool for overturning dictatorships and new activism and expression. It was coated with all these other things and it was really confusing. Then Mark Zuckerberg... was it mean enough to trump and now like well maybe these technologies are bad but but our but or maybe they're just doing them wrong we need our own versions like i think social media really should have been that moment but it was too it was too confusing culturally but ai like who's really on i mean some reporters are excited about it but like it's not no one is looking at this and saying i don't know it's coded differently it feels like it's coming out of nowhere the use cases are murky and everyone is like like not but like like a little bit uneasy, kind of shrugging their shoulders. So I don't know. It's just okay. Let me throw this back to you. I'm just, I'm just rambling here. AI, this is this turn. We're ready for a mirror humanist approach. Like what's going on? Yeah. I mean, so I think it's important to think about, because I think this relates to the return of the humanistic question that you're, you're breaking up. Right. I think it's important to think about like, what is the basic financial model of social media versus like, what is the basic financial model instead of presuppositions that underline AI? The basic model of social media is that we're going to convince you that you need an algorithmic layer to mediate your human relationships. Facebook, you need this algorithm in between you and your friends. It's going to help optimize your friendships, keep you in touch. I think you see this even more acutely with Tinder and dating websites, which have totally remade human courtship such that people don't even feel like they can date outside of the apps. We need this algorithmic intermediary that is going to help me make human connections. That's the whole... business model and so much of social media and so much of like tech in general in the you know 2000s 2010s is about like okay where are some places where we can insert like what are some industries what are some um dynamics where we can insert an algorithmic intermediary between people right i mean uber it's the same thing you don't hail your own cab anymore you have this algorithmic intermediary what is novel about ai right the chain for social media if you think about it like a chain is human uh algorithm human right um what ai is aspiring to do very clearly right like what it's actually aspiring to do as opposed to what the companies say right like sam altman will say we're gonna get this digital paradise of milk and honey and it's gonna remake our economy and we're all gonna have universal basic income and the robots are gonna do all the work and blah blah blah but if you actually look at like the use cases that are taking off right now they are all predicated on uh creating algorithmic substitutes for human relationships. So no longer human algorithm, human, just you and the algorithm and no human on the other side. You see this with the rise of AI therapists, right? Therapy is very expensive. But if you don't have good insurance, why don't you try a chatbot therapist, right? The rise of AI companions, AI sexbots, AI romantic companions. It's the same thing, right? Why go through the process of Tinder and trying to find another human being when you can just have this relationship? directly with the algorithm. I mean, same thing with even senior citizen care, right? There are now these companies that are trying to like do senior care with, oh, seniors are lonely. Maybe their family lives across the country. Actually talking with a chat bot can really help alleviate some of that loneliness. So I think one of the reasons there's been such a humanistic backlash to AI is I think Under the social media model, there was still this sense that like, oh, they're trying to foster human connection and this algorithm is helping optimize that. And now that pretense, and that was always a lie, but that pretense is now totally gone. And I think a lot of people can see what the game is now where they're like, oh. okay, so there are all these people who have AI boyfriends now? I see what's going on here. And so I think that's part of it. I just think AI is touching these fundamental parts of human life in a way that social media did, but in a more oblique way, and that was harder to interpret and read, and where it was possible to at least initially read more charitably. And that's just not possible here, I think, for a lot of people at least. right because you're interacting directly with the algorithm it's not it's not a hidden substrate it's i'm just talking and the thing i'm talking to is using fluent language so it's just directly uh attempting to be human-like yeah okay i mean i i buy i do buy that right um but it's it's kind of a ai is an interesting case because i mean i buy that that it has these flashy flashily worrisome use cases like the ai boyfriends like the companions for old people I also don't think these use cases are going to end up being major economic sectors because like ultimately like what it's really selling for most people right now. And there's a problem for the AI companies is distraction, right? Like this is interesting, right? But the problem is the short form video algorithmic curation companies have really, really gotten good at distraction. Like, I mean, a conversation is interesting even with like a, you know, a sex bot is surely interesting, but man, TikTok has really refined that art of like, capturing your attention in a way that the predictions keep paying off with values and your short-term motivation system is like, this is what we want to do. I mean, it's just so much more pure. But do you think the humanistic impulse, whether AI in that form survives like a major thing, the humanistic impulse that AI creates, can that carry over to these other technologies, which to my mind are right now, have been doing so much more high impact damage to culture? Does it carry over? like a king's northian type of program or is that like humanist response is like no just i don't want something to don't uncanny valley me i don't i just don't want the thing that talks like a human or looks like a human and and maybe we need to like reject chat bots that we like our friends with but everything else like that's just here or can the humanistic impulse spread I think there's a real gap or lag time right now between where the American public is at in terms of their patience for Silicon Valley and tech and where the political class is at. You know, obviously, this is all anecdotal, but I write a lot about tech. I talk to a lot of people about tech. everyday people are so furious at the constant intrusion of screens into their lives and especially people with kids into their kids lives um and there are so many people around the country who are white hot mad at this just constant creep of more and more and more technology right i mean you can see in the takeoff of anti-tech k-12 schools all all around the country right um and so you know um i you know in the recent election i i voted uh of course and um at the polling station there were all these people outside with like you know, booths or whatever. And by far the line, the longest line at any of these booths was this woman who worked for an anti-tech, anti-screen K through 12 organization, just handing out information packets. And people were like a long line, just waiting to get information from this woman, you know? So I think there's a real gap between where the public is and where the political class is. I think, you know, I don't like to subscribe to the great man theory of history, but in a certain way, I do think we were waiting for a major American political candidate whether it's a presidential candidate or someone with a large political platform, taking a strong anti-tech stance. I think, you know, the voter base is absolutely is absolutely there for that. I think a lot of people are sick and tired of it. People don't believe the lies coming out of Silicon Valley anymore about, you know, like, you know, improving the human, you know, our lives. No one believes that. And so I think that's the big problem I see. It's not that I actually think people are pretty impatient with all of it. That doesn't mean they've given up the technology. They feel addicted. Right. They they they're. are not very successful at putting our phones down or getting off Twitter or whatever it is, but they want someone to come along and say, I'm going to regulate those people so it's not going to be so easy for us all to be addicted anymore. What does that political program look like? Yeah, I think it's a really good question. You know, I mean, I think in particular they have to regulate the availability of these apps for kids. Right. I think they should 100 percent be focused on getting technology out of the classroom, which is, you know, destroying learning for all parties involved in making the jobs of teachers harder. Right. I think they should ban, you know, dark patterns and algorithms like these these features of platforms that are designed to be habit forming or addictive. I mean, one of the least discussed but most crucial. crucial part of this to me is like the video game industry, which is literally just run like the gambling industry. And they have all of these tricks. Oh, if you don't log in every 24 hours, you're going to lose half your cows. That should be illegal, right? Like these ways of just trapping people in these dark patterns in the attention economy, like those are all problems susceptible to regulation. I mean, to take it back to King's North, this is one place where I actually do, I think he's too fatalistic because Some of these problems are actually problems that politicians could solve if they weren't so interested in getting money from from Silicon Valley. Right. Like there are some issues here that can be fixed with legislation. And so, yeah, I just think we haven't we haven't gotten a political class yet who's who's willing to mobilize. But I think the grassroots support for that's there. What do you feel about Section 230 reform done in such a way that it basically becomes like economically unfeasible to have a company that. makes its revenue off of millions of users contributing free content that it algorithmically curates. I've become fascinated by this. I think there's, I'm going to have on an expert to help me understand why this is hard. And maybe this is from a market perspective, not the right thing to do to basically just turn off an industry because, but I don't know, have you heard these type of options where you basically say, look, like you're liable. I would hit AI too. Like you're liable for the things that are produced from your apps, the content that you produce. I don't care where it comes from. Like you're just liable. So you can be a newspaper, no problem, but you can't make a living off of a hundred million users and we'll just sort of sort their content and show it to people. Yeah. I mean, I think that's totally reasonable. I mean, I tend to be very heavy handed with this kind of thing. I think, you know. There's a way in which I think one of the things that the state should do is save people from themselves, you know? I think there is a libertarian ethos that even non-libertarians often apply to technology, where they're like, well, if an adult wants to be on Twitter or if an adult wants to play video games, that's their free will that they're exercising. It's like, okay, but like, what if the thing in question is designed to curb your free will and make you keep returning again and again and again and again? Or what if it is designed to take the political views you start with and then... radicalize them and ratchet it up and ratchet up and ratchet up and ratchet up right then we're out of a territory where it's just a question of like free will and you're freely choosing to engage something so yeah i really think we need to be much more heavy-handed about technology and i think we need to think about um i think we need to recognize look if you whether or not you want to see um you think addiction is the right um terminology for our relationship to technology it's the one that gets thrown around a lot i know some people who specialize in addiction who think well it's not quite right Because you don't die from a smartphone withdrawal in the way that you die from heroin withdrawal. The blood-brain barrier and whatever. I've gone down this road. But if you call it a moderate behavioral addiction, then the psychologists are okay with it. yeah yeah so like whatever you want to call it i'm totally agnostic on that but like i think um you know we need to we need to be more heavy-handed about saving people from these these dark patterns these sort of addiction economies centered around so we need a king's northian mindset to do that because it requires this idea to say human flourishing matters yes yes and i think i think something related here is that um a huge frustration i have is that when you take an anti-tech attitude in that way the rejoinder often is but look at the last hundred years of human development there are less people starving than any time in history um the the gdp is up around the world there's less poverty than any time in history etc etc etc all of which is true i mean you can quibble with the details on the margins but that picture is basically true that has nothing to do with facebook that has nothing to do you know what i mean but there is this constant bundling of like all technology into that story of the alleviation of suffering over the 20th and 21st century, such that anytime you critique something that has nothing to do with that project of human improvement, it's like, well, you're taking this anti-tech stance, but look at all these other good things technology has given us. There's a logical fallacy there I get all the time. It could go either way, but one way I often get it is we can often find for past technologies overreaction that we later thought, But it's a huge logical fallacy to go from the existence of those cases to the universal. Yes. All negative reaction to technologies is an overreaction. Like, well, that's just like a clear philosophical blunder. I mean, you put that reducto ad absurdum, no technology could ever be bad. Like clearly there has to be some technologies that are bad. You can't leap from, I got this, this was on, God, I remember doing digital minimalists. I wrote about this and he wrote me about it. It was on Brian Koppelman's podcast, which I like. But he was, not really feeling my book at the time and he was like isn't this like phone social media stuff this is just like kids in the 50s and their parents being like rock and roll music is bad for them moral panic yeah yeah moral panic yeah but the problem about moral panics is the the very fact that you have to add that modifier to it indicates there's other types of panics that aren't yes right because they're there so there must exist then if we have to differentiate out some types of panics yeah then they're Uh, there's plenty of issues. Like people will be like, Hey, we have these same complaints about TV and to which the answer was like, yeah. And it was like all those complaints were true. Like it was a big deal. Have you considered things are getting worse? They're like, you know, they're always like this. We had a panic about this thing in the eighties. It's like, that was bad. And it's worse now. Like the fact that this other panic, like what if it was right and things are just on the decline, you know? Yeah. TikTok is just worse TV. No one was ever happy about, yeah, okay, I like it. Okay, so we're kind of on the same, now I'm really sort of, I'm grooving with Kings North. I mean, I grooved with that when I read it, and I like that major publications are covering him. And I've talked about my past with this before. This is a change, but there was a time where major publications were openly antagonistic of me. Because of stances that today you would consider to be like, oh, that's like a fair, like just being saying social media is a problem. Yeah. That was a real problem as recently as like 2016. Yeah. You know, like the, I got really scolded by the New York times. That's crazy. Or writing an op-ed about that. Be like social media is not as important as you think for kids. And they, they, they commissioned the response op-ed two weeks later that just went through my op-ed quote by quote to say why it was wrong. Like there was such a blowback back then. Like this is not. are sort of like liberal technocratic, like whatever requires us to, this is on our good list or whatever. And then it just like flipped like that, you know, there's like this interesting change because, you know, um, so I think it's really good news then that like the Atlantic writes a big review, the New York times writes a big profile, the New Yorker writes a big profile that people are more open to this sort of humanistic critique. Um, and I, I think the key thing you're saying is for Kings North impact to be, uh, pronounced the key is stripping away the fatalism. Yeah. Bringing his core of humanism, stripping away the fatalism. Are we really consigned to having to look at short form video or chat with a companion? Do we have to? I mean, that was in your piece. I don't remember if that was you quoting King's North or if that was you saying it. But you gave all these examples, right? Will you watch television shows written by language models? Will you let machines craft your emails and college essays or obituaries for your loved ones? Will you get an AI-enabled girlfriend? Will you let AI into your life know that data centers are metastasizing and parched deserts are drying to cool them? I guess, was this King's North you're quoting here? No, no, no, no. That's you. Okay. Yeah. So these are like the key questions. But you can actually answer no. Yes. 100%. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's why I find his... um fatalism frustrating because you know there's actually things we can do about a lot of these problems maybe not all of them right i mean certainly not overnight um but it's not as though they're totally intractable you know and i think he is somebody who's motivated by like the sweep of human history is like militates in favor of the inertia of what he would call the machine that this yeah this human intrusion into technology into human life is just going to grow and grow and grow and grow and that's a perfectly reasonable point of view but i do think it undersells the the degree to which some of these problems are actually things we could get a handle on. And we're seeing this right now with schools banning smartphones. It's working. It's actually working. It's improving social cohesion. It's improving face-to-face contact. It's making kids more curious. Kids are going to the libraries when they weren't previously using the libraries. We have examples of this working. And so, yeah, I don't think we should be so fatalistic. Right. So there's a difference here between like the industrial revolution. Like, I mean, it seems like when it comes to these sort of like technological transformations and whether we can push back or not, there are certain transformational, which are like these, I guess the term would be general technologies or general use technologies. The industrial revolution was a new substrate on which the economy ran. And it was a substrate that could produce a hundred X more, whatever. I'm making up that number, but you know what I mean? Like a hundred X more economic activity than before. And it spreads out. But what's happening with technologies that we're worried about? is not really a general use technology. The internet's a general use technology. If you turn off the internet, that could be a problem. But really like TikTok and Facebook and Sora and even ChatGPT, none of these are right now general use technologies. They're actually very siloed. Something I wrote, which I quote a lot because I was like, this is the most important thing I've written about technology that no one's read, was I did a New Yorker piece a few years ago where I said, this is a really big deal in 2023. that the other social media companies are following TikTok's model because in the short term, they're worried about user migration. And they're switching away from things that are connected to sociality and connecting the people you know or the people that you chose to follow. And they're switching to purely algorithmically curated video as being their main thing they offer, which now they have done, right? We now know Derek Thompson talked about recently that from the FTC filings with meta from the summer, they now say like 7% of Instagram activity involves people who you know who they are, right? So like they made this transition. yeah and my thing i wrote back then when this was first starting to happen is like this is really the beginning of the end for those massive monopoly platforms because once you really have become just a pure distraction source you're playing the game of just pure distraction you're precarious like there's nothing fundamental about you interesting you can be swapped in for something else someone else can come along that's more interesting you can be regulated out of existence like you're no longer trying to make a case that you offer something really important. And you no longer have a lock-in advantage like Facebook used to have, where your friends were on this platform and nowhere else, so no one could ever build a competitive Facebook. But if Facebook is just showing you stuff that algorithms are selected, well, it doesn't matter what platform I'm on. I mean, there is no user moat. And so a lot of these companies we're worried about, they're very precarious right now, both culturally and economically. They're not a substrate on which growth is built. They're not core to how the culture functions. uh it's it's you know television just in a more portable form that's more useful and that that's something that we're we're willing to do without or to really change our relationship to it's also bad like a lot like it like in terms of quality not just like it's bad for us but it's often just slop you know and i think that's part of the thing here too is like you know a lot of this is just garbage you know and i think people um don't have a sense like i think there was a time when people believed that facebook had a use case right where it's like oh it's improving my life in a way and it's keeping me in contact with xyz or like instagram i get to see photos of my friends kids and i think that like um since that there's some like inbuilt purpose to these things and my needs are being served that is totally gone and like people just know that like oh i'm returning this thing because i'm addicted to it not because it's like giving me anything back you know and i think even recently there was this so i agree that makes them more precarious right because like i think people know they're not getting anything back out of this you know and and i think people care about quality right like i think we've seen this you know again and again like as soon as like cable television and premium television made the golden age of television possible it did really really well even though we were coming out of a period where like early cable television uh greatly increased the number of options and greatly increased the slop that was available. We began to get just really low-end reality shows and just a lot of following people with cameras that just did whatever, that fixed fish tanks or whatever. But as soon as premium television model became a thing, it was just huge. People were like, I would rather watch better shows. Movies have survived all of these things. I was just reading a book about the history of 20th Century Fox, for example. Oh, interesting. movies were struggling in the 50s because television was gaining a foothold and you know okay hey this is this people are saying this is getting better and maybe we don't need to go to the movies as much how did they regain their economic footing is it like they switched to cinemascope they switched to a 70 millimeter prince they switched to much higher quality uh film stock more spectacular type of movies they just made the product better where it used to you know It was in a smaller frame and it was more just like, where else are you going to see visual entertainment? They just made it better and people were like, oh, I want to see better things. And the industry became really successful after that as people were saying, I'm happy to see really good things even though the television's at home. So yeah, people care about quality. All right. So that makes me optimistic. All right. So then what would you recommend then if someone is thinking about reading this book? How should they approach it? Like someone in my audience who's like, yeah, I'm also kind of about technology right now, but I don't know who Jaco Lola is and Red Mumford and I don't know, this political stuff sounds weird. How should they approach Paul Kingsnorth to get the most out of it? Yeah, so I would say the first thing I would do is I would read that short essay. You can find it online, I think, on Orion Magazine, Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, because I think that gives you like a and I think that's something where it's less contentious. And I think people there's like that's a good way into sort of like his basic disposition, his way of thinking about sort of problems around modernity. It's very thought provoking. So I would start there. It's short. And then in terms of approaching against the machine, you know, I mean, I would. I think the main point he's trying to get at, and it's a beautifully written book, and I actually don't think it's, you know, he cites, you know, Charles Taylor and, you know, all sorts of, you know, academics and so on and so forth and Heidegger and so on. But it's certainly not impenetrable by any means. I mean, I think that's why his substex popular. He's a very good writer and it's very readable. But, you know, I think. the takeaway is that what he's really trying to say is that what we think of as culture wars are wars about nature, right? Like all of these debates we're having over social media and algorithmic polarization or gender or immigration are actually debates about like what does it mean to be a person? What does it mean to be a person rooted in a place, right? And so I think if you go in with that disposition and that, like, I don't need to agree with his, like, particular take on every one of these issues, but that he's trying to push me to think about, like, okay, what are my personal limits? And have I really thought about, actually, the stakes that come along with changing our conception of what it is to be a human in this way, right? And I think, you know, reading him as a provocateur, and I don't mean that to intellectually cheapen what he's doing. I think he's very sophisticated. think he's really trying to there's a way in which i hate the self-help genre but there's a way in which like deeply buried in against the machine is a kind of self-help book that is asking like what are your personal limits what do you care about where are you willing to draw the lines where are you able to draw the lines in your own personal life right um and so you know you're going to disagree with things as as you as you get through the book but i think i'm going in with that frame of mind that this book is about you know forcing me to look more squarely at like What areas of my life have I accepted the intrusion of technology? Am I comfortable with that intrusion? And if I want to put up some limits, what limits look realistic for me? And I think that's the central question he's asking. It's an important one I think we can all relate to. He's shaking things up and saying, hey, if you don't have strong limits about stuff, forget what they are, but if you don't have strong limits that are intended for your life to be flourishing the way you think, then you're really not living life all out. and i think there's another message in there too around um i think our fetishization of of happiness you know i saw the other day um taylor lorenza some of her the journalist some of the things i like some some less so but she was complaining about um uh an article i believe about uh work from home and she's like well if you look at data like studies suggest people who work from home are happier than people who don't right and i work from home so i'm not going to get up on some soapbox about working from home right but because i work from home i definitely have less friends and i you know that i would if i was in an office and i definitely have less social interactions on a day-to-day basis um but the argument was like well people who work from home are happier and like setting aside how good people are are at judging their own personal happiness right i think one of the things that kings are trying to say is like are we just happiness maximizing flesh bags like is a human just like a happiness maximizing suffering minimizing device or is there more to human life right i mean the people in the brave new world eating soma by the fistful would certainly score very high on their happiness surveys right but part of out his huxley's point was that there's more to life than just like the the endless and infinite pursuit of happiness you know um and so i think that's another thing he's trying to get us to think about is like if you put up some of these limits um they might be uncomfortable and unpleasant and maybe they won't increase your happiness, whatever exactly that means. But I think they, you know, they might put you more fully in touch with what it is to be a person, you know, and that seems, um, you know, happiness isn't the same thing as wellbeing. And I think that's one of the core messages of the, of the book in a way, you know? Well, then I think it's fitting, like the, the way to the end of this conversation is that we were talking about it before the camera, we turned on the cameras, but you know, one of the key limits in King's North's life is that he's sort of, um, he's, Out of the sort of economic growth cycle, he's living on a simple farm. They kind of survive off of his sub stack. He spends a lot of time outside. And because of this book, he had to sort of enter like the highly online jet traveling sort of come to America, do a tour, be everywhere. The thing that we sort of fetishize is like the machine would say, this is what you should be doing. And it literally broke down his body and he gave up on the tour and said, I'm going back to Ireland and you're not going to hear from me again until January. and so like there we go that's paul king's north being paul king's art that's the example in action like yeah yeah yeah totally there's not a sacrifice it's not a limit he's like i'm not going to do the second half of my book tour yeah that's a sacrifice i'm going to make less money but like that's the i don't want to live this way yeah where like proverbially we all have just been living this way whatever that means um okay i love it all right well tyler this was really helpful uh thanks for helping us make more sense of the book yeah we're recommending them people definitely check it out it's going to shake things up And it definitely fits with the way we talk about things here, working backwards from human flourishing in the depth in your life and not working forwards towards whatever. So great. Tyler, thank you. Great conversation. All right. So that was my discussion with Tyler Austin Harper. I thought that was really useful. I think we really got to some answers about why exactly this book was making such a big impact and what ideas were most important. So what I want to move on to next is my takeaway segment where I'm going to go through and isolate the big ideas and conclusions from this investigation. But before we get to that, I need to briefly take another break to hear from our sponsors. I want to talk about our friends at My Body Tutor. I've known Adam Gilbert, My Body Tutor's founder, for many years from all the way back when he was the fitness guru in the early days of my Study Hacks blog. Anyways, his current company, My Body Tutor, is a 100% online coaching program that solves the biggest problem in health and fitness, the lack of consistency. Here's how it works. When you sign up for My Body Tutor, you're assigned an online coach. Now, the coach helps you come up with a nutrition and exercise plan that meets your needs and your constraints. Now, here's the cool part. There's an app you use to check in with the coach every day and talk about what you ate and what activity you did. This gives you accountability and the accountability creates consistency. The consistency creates actual change. Now to make matters even better, take the holidays that are coming up right now. If you need to change something like, oh, I'm traveling for Christmas or something like this and I don't have a gym or I'm worried about what I'm going to do with food, your coach can help customize your plan for whatever it is you're actually facing. So if this holiday season you're finally serious about getting fit, you need to try My Body Tutor. Now here's the good news. Adam is giving Deep Question listeners $50 off their first month. All you have to do is mention this podcast when you join. So go to mybodytutor.com. That's mybodytutor.com. Tell them that Deep Question sent you and they'll give you $50 off. Now is the time to sign up for a healthier new year. We also want to talk about our friends at Shopify. If you run a small business, you know there's nothing small about it. Every day there's a new decision to make, and even the smallest decisions feel massive. So when you find the decision that's a no-brainer, you need to take it. And when it comes to selling things, using Shopify is exactly one of those no-brainers. Shopify's point-of-sale system is a unified command center for your retail business. It brings together in-store and online operations across up to 1,000 locations. It has very impressive features like endless aisles, ship to customer, and to buy online, pick up in-store. And with Shopify POS, you can get personalized experiences to help shoppers come back, and they will. Based on a report from EY, businesses on Shopify POS see real results like 22% better total cost of ownership and benefits equivalent to an 8.9% uplift in sales on average relative to the market set surveyed. So get all the big stuff for your small business right with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com slash deep. Go to shopify.com slash deep. That's shopify.com slash deep. All right. And with that, let's get back to our takeaways. All right. So what I want to do here is summarize my takeaways from our investigation to the question of why Paul King's Norse book is having such an impact and what lessons we should learn from it. Here's some of the big ideas I picked up. uh first of all there used to be back in the early 20th century as i talked about tyler there used to be uh a way i'm going to draw this on the screen here for people who are watching instead of just listening i'll bring up my chalkboard here looks right it looks nice right jesse it does professorial all right so there used to be this way that we would talk about uh technology's impact where we would have you know some notion of a machine so some sort of like abstraction some sort of uh techno cultural economic abstraction that we didn't create but sort of exist and it's dictating the way our lives unfold so there's sort of like particular paths i'm drawing here that come out of the machine and uh we don't realize it but like our lives are kind of being dictated by this amorphous abstraction type of thing like this is the way we used to commentators used to think about technology and so here we would have people um like jacques alol or Lewis Mumford. They would talk about these big abstractions that we didn't realize existed, but controlled the way our lives were unfolding, our societies were functioning. Then this transitioned at some point, right? And this was one of the ideas that came with this conversation that really caught my attention, is at some point in the 2000s, maybe I'll just label this like the 2000s over here. We went away from this way of thinking about technology as being part of these like big hidden systems that dictated our lives. And we kind of fragmented these impacts. This is what we talked about in the conversation. We kind of fragmented these, these impacts into like a lot of little things. You know, so maybe we have like mental health as like a separate thing. Oh, we're going to measure. the mental health impact of a you know a smartphone with a particular group and be like oh there's like a negative impact there or we're going to look at what's the environmental impact of like an ai data center oh you know there it uses a lot of power a lot of water um and maybe that's going to be a problem or maybe there's a sort of um civics issue a sort of misinformation on social media is going to create problems with cohesion around certain topics like in public health or something like that so in the 2000s we sort of fragmented our understand technology's impact into like all these other little impacts and this was not it kind of lacked uh a big kind of oomph right now we were sort of oh there's this and that and this and this affects me but this one doesn't um it's an environment where no one's like super happy with technology but it's also not an environment that's necessarily going to inspire a lot of major changes because there's too many different little things some of which affect you some of which don't now it's kind of the state of affairs i sort of put that the turning point from this more fragmented uh very narrow understanding of techno issues i put that turning point maybe right around nicholas carr in the early 2000s where he was right in the shallows which which took uh the internet technology and said let's look at its impact on the brain And like, oh, there's like a specific neurological or cognitive issue here. We're using this technology study show makes it harder to do this type of thinking. And now we were off to the races where now we were seeing technology through these relatively narrow frames. Then we have King's North come along. And I think the way to imagine King's North is he's going back. He's like, no, no, no. I want to understand technology again as part of one of these like big systems that he calls the machine. one of these big systems like we used to talk about with the big uh tech polemicists from the early 20th century that like really affects how our lives lead so we're sort of uh back we're back to that that view again and i think this is partially why we discovered you know he's beginning to catch our attention because like this is a a bigger vision right this is like there's this big uh system That's controlling so much about our lives. But here's where he gets different than what we saw back in this treatment of it from the early, the earlier in the 20th century, his complaints about the machine. They're much more about their impact on us as humans, the kind of humanistic impact. If you read a sort of like Lewis Mumford talking about the mega machine, it's about like how we. implicitly organized labor and machines so that the pharaohs could build the pyramids. There are often arguments about power and control. A lull is more about the colonization of a arts-type approach to the world with a scientific worldview kind of sucking the... inspiration out of like the way we approach things and and letting like economic forces have much more power and he's really kind of influenced by marxian type of of impacts but kings north is more saying like no no here's the thing about the machine that he's talking about um it makes your life impoverished it makes your life as a human worse it's it's a fiction about like what we should be doing as humans that leads you to have a worse life And because of that, he says, I have a response. If the machine is removing your humanity, you can fight back from the machine against the machine to make your individual life better. And you do this, like Harper talked about, by setting limits. You do this by, like he, of course, did this to an extreme, right? But he has some cabin somewhere, a little farmhouse in County Galloway. uh in uh ireland somewhere and he he plants crops and you know he's an orthodox christian and he used to be uh he used to be a wiccan and he's there's trees and you know this is expertly drawn as everyone can see and like he's really happy he said a bunch of he doesn't use smartphones he homeschools his kids right and he's kind of built his own life out of this by setting a lot of limits he said by resetting limits i'm able to like create a more human life This is why I think this caught on. It was this twofold thing. We used to be, you know, we had these big think guys, and they're all guys at the time, like writing these big think books that were like really cool theory. But like in the end, it was like capitalism, you know, is bad or like there wasn't much you could do about it. And then we fragmented into this world of let's think about anti-tech as just like all these little narrow things. And you would care about some and not others. It's not something that's like motivating a lot of action, right? You're like, oh, maybe I should use my phone less or whatever. Then we get, King's north, and he gives a different approach here. No, no, let's go back to the idea of these big abstract techno-cultural economic systems that are controlling our lives, and we never signed up for it, and we never even really chose them, but they are. It's all focused on growth and the breaking down of barriers and the denial of our corpality and humanity. And he said, but once you recognize that and it's making our lives worse, you can fight back by setting limits again. That limits actually allow your humanity to be expressed. What technology do I want to use? How do I want to live? Maybe I don't want to use AI at all. Why do I have a smartphone? It gets rid of this sort of fatalistic, like everyone has to use every tool. What else are you going to do? And it said, no, no, no. Human flourishing is about setting these limits. Acknowledging, as Harper summarized King's North view, that humans are sort of like biological sex beings who grow up, seek wisdom, appreciate creativity, and eventually die. and that is like the reality of the human experience and so we don't want to deny that i feel like we can live forever or get rid of biology uh we can actually embrace constraints and try to actually flourish and you know be in nature and touch grass and not be about growth at all limits anyways there's a lot of points captured but i think this gets to the core of why this particular book was big it gave us a much more sweeping ambitious view of technology like we used to have but then connected it to what individuals could do. This idea that human flourishing could be returned if you're willing to set limits, at least take a stand, the fight back against the machine. And in that way, I think it fixed flaws of both of the prior models. It's also just different than we've been seeing. So that's why it caught attention. Not all the coverage is positive. We talked about it in the show. There's all sorts of like issues or this or that or hypocrisies or politics that people don't like. But man, it got people thinking because that's a big swing. This picture right here of going from, you know, you have this like really big, you have this like really big philosophical theoretical idea and you have these like really exciting like solutions based on limits. I think this caught people's attention and it should catch yours as well. So as you remember, Harper ended our conversation by saying like, yeah, read the book. It's going to shake things up. He's not giving you a prescription, but he's giving you a vision. One where you take control of your life and through limits, you allow your humanity to be expressed in a world where no limit growth technology is trying to take that all away from you. Take it or leave it. At least it's an exciting book. So I can see why it is so popular. Interesting point, Jesse. I don't know if you, we talked about this. I guess I talked about it briefly in the interview, but he left his book tour, Paul King's North. He was like, enough of this. I don't want to like travel all over the place and like be, this is really exhausting. And I want to go back to my farm. And he just stopped this book tour and went back home. That's incredible. Yeah. So there you go. Living the talk. Walking the talk. What's the expression? Walking the talk. Walking the talk. All right. There we go. All right. So that's our, we answer our deep question for today. Now let's hear what you have to say. We'll move on to our second segment of the show in which we answer your questions. Who do we got first, Jesse? First question is Father Brian. Is it still considered context switching if my phone vibrates in my pocket during a deep work session, even if I don't check the message? No, it's not the same as if you checked a message or looked at an email inbox or a chat channel. And that's because the real cognitive harm that comes from context switching is when you actually expose your mind to new information that triggers it to switch its state. So when I see the unread messages in an inbox, I'm being exposed to a particular context, a particular semantic context. Now my brain has to start firing up circuits that are relevant to those people and those requests that I'm seeing in my inbox. And is that firing up of new circuits? that creates the cognitive confusion and leads to the reduced cognitive capacity so just feeling the phone vibrate won't have nearly that big of an impact because you're not being exposed to specific other contexts your brain doesn't know what to load up now it's distracting it's not optimal it's still a little distracting because you're like i'm a little there's something someone might need me there's a psychological cost like oh what if someone needs me i'm ignoring them like it does distract you but it doesn't create that cognitive catastrophe you get from actually looking at a specific different context and what your current work is uh so i would turn off my phone so it doesn't buzz but i want to think of as like oh i forgot to do that and my phone just vibrated you haven't just destroyed your capacity to concentrate there in a moment all right who's next next up is ben how should we think about the quality of information intake across formats physical books online articles audiobooks podcasts interviews and videos well i have a hierarchy i think about it but i'm gonna preface all this by saying, don't have too complicated of a formula where you're trying to optimize information. Just read and watch stuff that's interesting to you and be exposed. Got my pencil there. Be exposed to interesting things. I don't want you thinking I need 30% of my time has to be books versus 50% of my time versus this. Just have a good mix. That being said, if you want a hierarchy, I would say books from a quality and perspective are going to be top, right? Because Typically, it's an idea that the author has thought about or knows about for years and years. And then they spend a year or two just doing nothing but trying to get their thoughts down for this particular book as clearly as possible. Writing, editing, copy editing, having things be fact-checked, right? So it's like the most long-term sustained application of cognitive effort towards the delivery of an idea for you. The most sustained effort you're going to see is in the book form. So it's just going to be the highest quality format of ideas that you're going to encounter. The difference between physical and audio, it depends. I like both physical and audio books. Physical tends to be better if it's more of like an intellectual or idea book. We underestimate the degree to which we will slow down, speed up, go back, let me read that idea again. Wait, now that we got this new point, I want to go back to the top of the page to make sure that makes sense with what I read before. It's not just a linear scan when we're reading idea books. And so in audio, you're stymied. because it is linear. But if it's an interesting nonfiction book, like a historical nonfiction book, or a book that's about the history of a company or something like this, or maybe a simpler self-help book, that's okay. You're not going to lose too much going linear, and you're getting really good information that's been well-curated either way. But if it's complicated ideas, physical will be a little bit better there. The next thing I would move down to would be long form edited articles. Like you might see like a New Yorker piece. Trust me, I'm speaking from experience. A lot of effort goes into that. Thinking about it, crafting it, editing it, getting the idea just right, crafting the language to deliver it with like perfect accuracy. So a well edited long form article, it's kind of like a single chapter from a book. It's going to be really information that's been really thought through and then carefully presented. After that, I would go to longer form podcast. This is not as polished, but because it allows someone to talk for a while, about something they know about. You can come away having learned quite a bit and you can get quite a bit of nuance because the conversation is so long focused on something. At the very bottom would be things like social media or short videos or other types of takes. Typically, this is very much focused on just the distraction, like what's going to make the algorithm perform well. And because of that, the information quality becomes a little bit more suspect. So think about that more like watching a fun TV show. Not really where you want to be gathering a lot of information. Did I cover all the media? Yeah. Phonograph records. I don't know. Talkies versus silent films. All right. What do we got next? Next up is Amanda. I keep trying to implement your shutdown routine, but repeatedly fail. I just want to get through my inbox or finish up various tasks. And so I end up staying at work probably an hour or two longer. The positive side of this is that I start the morning with a pretty clean state. The negative side is that I miss hanging out with my kids in the evenings. All right. Well, Amanda, that's a common issue. So I'm glad you bring it up. Just so people remember my shutdown routine, I argue that the end of your workday, you should have a routine you do to close any open loops so that your brain trusts you're not forgetting something. So it really can move on from work in the evening without you having to ruminate or be like, what about this? Or what if I'm missing something? So it's about getting mental relief. That's why my time block planner has an actual checkbox that says shutdown complete that you check after you've done your shutdown routine at the end of your workday. Now, what Amanda's talking about, and this is a common problem, is that she's not just doing a shutdown routine. She's just doing another work block. She's basically just added another 90-minute block to the end of her day for a clean out my inbox. Yay, there's advantages to clean out your inbox at the end of the day because you start the next day with fewer emails in there. But it's a work block like any other. It takes the time it takes, whether you write it down or not. And there's a difference. That's what I want to differentiate. There's a difference between cleaning out your inbox and a shutdown routine. And this is what a lot of people get wrong. A shutdown routine is not about, let me clear, deal with everything that's still open. It's let me deal with open loops. And what an open loop means is like, here's an obligation that is not captured in some sort of trusted system. It's an obligation that I need to kind of keep up in just my head. I don't want to forget it. It's hanging in limbo. That's what you're trying to take care of. And so if you have a bunch of emails in your inbox, those aren't open loops. they're in your inbox. They're not going to be forgetting. Next time you check your email, they're going to be there. Like that's not a problem. You don't have to answer those emails to be able to enjoy your evening. But if there was an email in there that says, I need to know today what's going on. Well, that's like an open loop. That's something that needs to be resolved. It has it like that needs to be dealt with. If there's something that you remembered, but you haven't written down anywhere. that needs to be resolved or it's going to stick around your head or it's going to distract you. So there's a difference between making sure there's nothing that's just in your head. Do you have a plan for the next day that makes sense? There's nothing you've forgotten. That's different than let me just keep doing work. And so you can leave those emails as fine as long as you have a reasonable plan for the next day that involves plenty of time to check your emails and to catch up on them. Or if you like finishing your day with your emails empty, you got a time block starting before your day ends. and you got to acknowledge the reality that might take 90 minutes and that if you want to end work at five then at 3 30 you have to start cleaning that inbox but don't mix up doing work with shutting down your work shutting down your work is just convincing yourself that nothing bad will happen if you stop now and start again in the next morning man people are going to look back at this period this like two decade period and just this like idea that we just sat there like wrangling messages all day they're like wait so is everyone like a like a switchboard operator. Like why are people spending hours moving messages around? It's just the way this hyperactive hive mind way we work. And we just like, yeah, I guess this is what work is. Like I'm constantly just trying to keep up with an avalanche of stressful messages. It's such a stupid way to use human brains to create value, but I don't know. It's hard to change, hard to change human nature and the way we work, even though I've been trying. All right. Who do we got next? Next up is Natalia. I use social media for my marketing job. It's still perceived as the must-have area of focus for most clients. Do you have any advice on how to reconcile this tension? Well, I think there's a couple things going on here. So you do social media for your work, but you don't like social media yourself. That's okay. That's like saying, look, I work for Anheuser-Busch, but I don't drink myself. It's okay. There's plenty of people there who don't drink, right? So you can be around the technology you don't use without that having to be a real problem, unless you have a real moral qualm about it. In fact, the way that social media is used professionally is instructive. I often tell people about this. There's a whole chapter in digital minimalism about this concept, where I say, if you have to use social media for your business, use it like professional social media people do. which is not, I look at and scroll things all the time. They're usually on like computer interfaces and they're scheduling things in advance. And it's like, it's all pretty like automated and boring. We got these mini posts. They go out at set times. We have them all set up in time. Do we have like statistics going on on the comments? It's not about distraction at all. It's just sort of like a boring marketing activity. So you doing those types of boring marketing activities is not really a problem. And it's how other people who need to use social media, maybe for like their small business or whatever should think about it as well. don't let your need for like once a day at four, I have to, I'm going to post like a quote carousel to Instagram. Don't let that somehow justify that at noon, you're just scrolling through Instagram, looking at sort of short form videos that are being algorithmically curated. Like, yeah, but I have to, because I need Instagram for my work. If we go back to our drinking analogy, it would be like, if you were completely drunk at lunch hour at your Anheuser-Busch job, you'd be like, It's okay because we work. It's a beer company. It's all right, everybody. It's a beer company. It's all right that I've had five beers at lunch. It's the same type of thing. Don't let the fact that your company deals in this technology mean that you have to be drunk on it. Professional social media is professional social media. It's your job. Do your job. Personal social media is personal social media. There you need to be responsible. There you need to do what's actually right for you. All right, we got a case study this week. This is where people write in to talk about their experience using the type of advice you talk about the show in their own life. This one actually is a case study with a question on the end, so we'll get a stealth question. But the main reason we do case studies is so that we can hear the case study theme music. All right, today's case study comes from Eric. Eric says, heeding the principles of your show, I reframed my approach to my career in two major ways. First, I formulated a more clear vision of what I would like to accomplish with my career and what ends it should serve. Second, with that vision in mind, I leveraged career capital I have accumulated during the last decade to move from a consultant role to a quite qualified position in a government research institution. While this on paper can look just like a standard career step, the key lesson here is intentionality. Earlier in my career, I worked mostly with a frantic Fuhrer. to provide for my young family and develop professional skills. While this achieved my material goals, I ended up with an unsustainable and partly dissatisfying lifestyle. This is when the principles of vision and career capital became key, and here's how I applied them. I had listed my professional strengths and rated them by one. I rated them by, number one, what people actually pay me for, number two, what I feel particularly drawn to and subject in methods, and number three, I then searched for organizations and roles which could provide opportunity to focus harder on my preferred strengths while minimizing the parts I do not enjoy as much in my current position. This set me up to have both my radar calibrated towards certain opportunities as well as being well prepared to be a top candidate for a competitive position. There's also an unplanned side effect. I became even better at my current job since focusing on my strengths further increased my career capital. The process of searching for a new job made me better. at my last now there's a question but before we get to the question let's just briefly reflect on what's cool about eric's case study here most people do what he did early in his life which is i don't know i have this job and i want to just like hustle and move up the ladder like i want to get more responsibility maybe i'll use my salary as a scoreboard i want that those points to rack up but what made eric happy that was unsustainable he didn't like his lifestyle was he did lifestyle centric planning wait wait what do i actually want my day-to-day job to be like What are the things I'm good at that I like to do within this general sort of professional context? What am I trying to avoid? All right, great. How do I move towards doing more of the former and less of the latter? And then by getting better at the former, that will give me career capital, give me more leverage and allow me to have even more control over my job and that sort of virtuous cycle of career capital autonomy. That's the type of way we like to think about. creating a deep career in a distracted world and it's different than the like i followed my passion or i crushed it types of culture so i think it's a great case study but here is eric's question how would you investigate the appropriate metrics for productivity value in a new context i'm coming in with a niche expertise to both help in ongoing projects and develop new capabilities for the organization so any ideas on how i could approach the task of finding out what really matters in a new context would be much appreciated So in other words, when you're in a new job, how do you figure out what things are really valuable in this job so that you can get good at those things and, again, get more career capital and get more leverage? There I always say talk to people. Talk to people who are actually there. Talk to people who are doing better or in a position that you admire within your organization. Take them out for coffee and ask, what is it that you do that gave you this option? What is it that you do that is actually valued by the company? And in doing this, you'll get the answer to the real question, the real answer. to what's really valuable in this world. If you don't do this type of investigation, you'll just write your own story about what you want to be popular. Like, hey, I got really good at prompt engineering for chat GPT and the future's AI. So like, do I get to work from home now? And we have no interest in that. Who told you that was valuable? But when you talk to actual people about what's valuable, you realize like, oh. I didn't recognize that understanding statistical analysis is a super skill here. And if I could do that, then I'm going to have my say. You pick up this information by talking to real people and getting evidence. I call it evidence-based planning, getting evidence of what really matters. All right, Eric, that was a cool case study. Do we have a call this week, Jesse? We do. All right, let's hear what we got. Hey, Cal, living a life of digital minimalism is a core value for me currently. However, it's not for my partner. so i was wondering if you had any advice about how we can um reach an agreement point about digital usage because just because i believe in digital minimalism doesn't mean i get to force it onto him so i want to respect his values but i also would love for him to be a little less distracted thank you well you know it's a tough one we get these calls uh quite a bit where you have a mismatch on something like this well you're right you can't force your values onto him. And in fact, even pushing it too much, you might get that type of resistance. Well, just because you're pushing this now, I really don't want this to be the right answer. So you might think, let me just give him a copy of my book or put him towards some of my podcast episodes, but that could backfire. I don't want this being forced upon me. I don't want to admit that I have a problem. Usually what works here is partially being the change you want to see in the world. You'd be a really good digital minimalist. Be very intentional about what technology do or don't use. Take advantage of that reality to live a deep, flourishing, intentional life where you're deeply connected with people and causes and stuff that happens in the real world. And when you're watching something, you're watching something. When you're reading, you're reading. And make your life very admirable. And you can be clear about what your influences are there, how your philosophy works, but not really pushing it on him. That's kind of the best you can do. You don't want in the meantime to let resentment... begin to to bubble up it's it's easy like once you realize the gospel of digital minimalism you start practicing it like why would anyone not do this you can start to become resentful when you see a guy's just on his phone all the time like that's so like uh doesn't he realize that all the value that he's losing there all the time he could be doing more things don't let that resentment grow that's how most people live their life you are the outlier here for now you've got to have some sort of empathy and compassion so build the best digitally minimalist life you can find digitally minimalist people to hang out with and see how much of that begins to wear off but that really is kind of the best you can do that or i do offer a service where for a fee i will come to your apartment and berate them so that's that that works pretty well um that works pretty well i guess we come jesse and i come and we just we put the pressure on we we let you know We use cool phrases like, I see you got the TikTok monkey on your back there, don't you, Junior? We talk a lot like old Italian boxing coaches. It's boxing. You got that old TikTok monkey on your back. You're riding the Instagram highway right down the Twitter lane. There's stuff like that. We say kind of like really convincing things like this. And we can convince them like, wow, that. that elderly Italian boxing coach really seems to know what he's talking about. I think I'm going to stop using, stop using my phone. All right. Anyways, that's all the time we have for today. Thank you to Tyler for joining us to help us answer our question. We'll be back next week with another episode. Wow. We're getting close to the holidays, Jesse. Maybe we'll have to have break out the, the holiday outfits. Yeah. We got the blinking lights. Maybe we'll have a holiday episode coming up at some point over the break. So stay tuned, keep listening, keep watching. And until next time. Stay deep. Hey, if you liked today's discussion about Paul King's North book about the machine, you might also like episode 380, which was called a chat GPT is not alive. We go deep on one of the particular technologies that's worrying people like King's North today. Check it out. I think you'll like it today. I want to help set the record straight about what AI can and can't do.

Cal Newport explains why everyone is talking about "Against the Machine" in episode 383 of the Deep Questions podcast.

Buy Cal Newport's latest book, “Slow Productivity” at www.calnewport.com/slow 

Earlier this fall, the activist, novelist, and essayist Paul Kingsnorth published an anti-technology polemic called “Against the Machine.” To say it hit a nerve is an understatement. In the months that followed, Kingsnorth has been everywhere; profiled, among places, in the New York Times, the New Yorker, and The Atlantic. In today’s episode, I want to find out why Kingsnorth’s take on technology is resonating so strongly. To help me answer this question, I’m joined by the journalist and scholar Tyler Austin Harper, who wrote a great review of Kingsnorth’s book for The Atlantic. We dive deep into Kingsnorth’s ideas and explore what they teach us about our current moment more generally.

Download my FREE Deep Life Guide HERE: https://bit.ly/3QBIcug

Listen to Episode Here:  https://www.thedeeplife.com/listen/

Get your questions answered by Cal! Here’s the link: https://bit.ly/3U3sTvo

0:00 Cal explains Against the Machine
3:47 Why Is Everyone Talking About “Against the Machine”? (w/ Tyler Austin Harper) 
1:15:50 Is the simple awareness of a notification as harmful as full context switching?
1:17:14 Is there an “ideal ratio” for consuming information across different mediums?
1:20:24 How can I effectively implement your shutdown routine and not keep checking emails?
1:23:56 How can I manage my social media obligations with my marketing job?
1:26:10 Reframing a career to utilize career capital
1:30:31 Dealing with conflicting views about digital minimalism in a relationship 

Connect with Cal Newport:

🔴Visit Cal's BLOG and website:             https://calnewport.com/blog/
🔴Check out Cal's books:                         https://calnewport.com/writing/
🔴Check out The Deep Life:                     https://thedeeplife.com

About Cal Newport:
Cal Newport is a computer science professor at Georgetown University. In addition to his academic research, he writes about the intersection of digital technology and culture. Cal's particularly interested in our struggle to deploy these tools in ways that support instead of subvert the things we care about in both our personal and professional lives.

Cal is a New York Times bestselling author of seven books, including, most recently, A World Without Email, Digital Minimalism, and Deep Work. He's also the creator of The Time-Block Planner.

The videos are considered to be used under the "Fair Use Doctrine" of United States Copyright Law, Title 17 U.S. Code Sections 107-118. Videos are used for editorial and educational purposes only and I do not claim ownership of any original video content. I don't use said video clips in advertisements, marketing or for direct financial gain. All video content in each clip is considered owned by the individual broadcast companies.

#CalNewport #DeepWork #DeepLife #DeepQuestions #TimeblockPlanner
#WorldWithoutEmail #DeepQuestionsPodcast