g it for decades. They're not going to stop doing it. It's within their probably within their scope. Of course they're doing it and maybe it's exactly what it looks like. They put their own people on the board and that's how they control things. Now if it went any other way I'd be amazed and a little bit disappointed because the AI stuff is dangerous. If the people who manage risk for the United States are intelligence people if they're not embedded by now they're just not doing their job honestly. So I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand I'm like oo this seems terrible getting the bad people in charge of our good things. On the other hand I think it really is an existential threat. It really is. So you need some kind of adults watching it pretty carefully.

One could also imagine that there was some dealing and I don't have any information about this but just common sense that there must be a big push for regulations on the AI companies. It could be that OpenAI negotiated so how about less regulation but we'll put one of your trusted people on the board and you know later we can talk about regulation but it's too soon. You know America needs to move fast so we don't get lapped which is a good argument by the way. The best argument for moving fast on AI instead of moving safely is that our adversaries will move fast and the only thing that will protect you from their AI is our AI. So yes move. I'm on the move fast and risk civilization versus move slow and guarantee you lose civilization. Those are your two choices.

China and India are building tons of nuclear facilities. The United States is far, far less but at least we're moving in the right direction. Why is it that China and India are building nuclear like crazy but the United States is sort of getting a late start and massive buildup? Well now we know. James Carville told us it's preachy women. And it turns out that when you look at the difference in support between male and female in the United States for nuclear power, men are very much for it, clear strong majority. Women are completely against it. Not completely but they're against it by a big majority. So women are preventing us from having a nuclear energy program that will put us at great security risk because it'll hurt our economy and without an economy you don't have a national defense.

Here again I remind you because I'm cancelled so I can say the things you can't say. You can't put women in charge of national defense collectively. You know individual women might be the best you ever had. You know Margaret Thatcher. You can name 10 women who would be great but you can't use the opinion of women collectively on a national security issue. They might be more in favor of open borders. Bad idea. They might be more in favor of solar and letting nuclear sort of rot in the background. Bad idea. Here's something that every man knows when they're born I think we're just, it's just an instinct that you can't have a military unless you have an economy. You can't have an economy unless you have energy and we don't have enough energy. Connect the dots. Our entire situation is going to fall apart unless we're massively aggressive in nuclear because there's nothing else that looks like it's going to get us to the energy state we need because AI especially will just be sucking up energy like crazy. So yes Carville is right. It's preachy women preventing us because public opinion does sway these things and that's why we have such a late start. It's women.

Now if you're new to my program and that sounded sexist to you let me balance it out by saying I'm the only person who has this opinion of abortion as far as I know. I've never met another person. My opinion is that women should take the lead on that because they have the most skin in the game and there is no right answer. Now you say but there is a right answer. You don't kill babies. And the other side says but there