Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

we can't solve it is that we don't have project managers. That's the thing that's missing. Here's what I mean. Do we have enough billionaires and/or government funding to test some different solutions for the so-called homeless problem that really is a people problem? And the answer is we do. We do have. We have billionaires who are literally saying I've got billions of dollars. If you can give me…

← Previous segment →

'm running something. Let me tell you about it. You know I already have the money from a couple of billionaires. So that's what you can see with the so-called homeless problem that's not a homeless problem. You can see people stepping up and saying I will be your project manager. You know and I've got this experience. Who can fund me? And then the funding will happen. I can almost guarantee the funding. Even people that I know personally, I probably personally know enough people to fund some studies on fixing the homeless problem that's not really a homeless problem.

Let's talk about nuclear. As I said before I think that we've made tremendous progress. We meaning all of you watching and the internet, Mark Schneider especially, Michael Shellenberger also especially, the people who were sort of our experts helping us spread the word that nuclear technology is not the old nuclear technology that was relatively unsafe compared to what anything that we have today. And that the even newer generations, the generation four, will eat nuclear waste and they're far safer and could be less expensive and all that.

So I would like to see that. Here's the goal for 2020. For 2020 I want it to be embarrassing for any public person to say that nuclear is not part of the solution. It should be something that they know not to say out loud anymore. We're almost there because I think something like half of the Democrats that are running for president are pro-nuclear or at least open to the conversation which is the same as being pro if you're a Democrat and you're saying in public well I'm open to listening about nuclear energy. That says yes. That means you've looked into it and you know it's part of the solution. Because some people aren't gonna want to go strong on that because of their party affiliation.

But I think 2020 will be the year that when you talk about climate change you have to talk about nuclear power. Let's agree on that. 2020 is the year that any public conversation about climate change and its risks has to include that the solutions include nuclear. It'll also include solar and other green energies but I think this 2020 will be the year that everybody just understands that that's part of it. And that's a big, big, big deal.

Let's talk about North Korea. North Korea is a funny little situation because we're having, well here's the problem. We're taking what I would call a military filter and putting it on North Korea and that's the problem. There was a time in our history when North Korea was a military problem and the right filter to put on it was a military filter. Hey they look dangerous. We have to put our military forces on there to counter them. Military, military.

But much has happened. You know decades. The past, President Trump has come into office. There's a whole different understanding with North Korea in terms of what we want out of them, what they want out of us. Today our reasons to have a military filter with North Korea are largely gone because it's turned into a psychology problem that we're using a military filter on. You can't solve a psychology problem, well sometimes you can solve a psychology problem with the military but not this time.

You can definitely change people's thinking by attacking them but in this case you have a psychology problem. And the psychology problem is we don't trust the other. And that's a hard place to fix, right? If you don't trust the other then who can go first? And that's been the problem you've observed, right? So North Korea is saying we don't trust you United States but if you go first. And of course we say we don't trust you North Korea but if you went first. So and that apparently has no chance of working because there's not enough trust. You have a psychology problem.

So how do you deal with something that's a psychology problem that we're dealing with with a defense filter? Well the first thing you have to do is get out of that filter. You can't get rid of your military but you can certainly talk about it differently. You frame it differently, approach it differently. And here's the way I would do it now. This is just brainstorming.

I would say to Nor

Context —

th Korea directly or indirectly, privately or not privately, you know the reasons that the United States and North Korea were ever military adversaries just doesn't exist anymore. That's the high ground. You just say to North Korea we are a military, you know let's say military flooding with each other and it used to make sense but would you agree Kim Jong-un that it doesn't anymore? The base reas…

Next segment → →