Speaker 1: Welcome to stot to Blow Your Mind production of My
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick. And
Speaker 1: uh so, Robert and I along with Seth have a
Speaker 1: week coming up. I guess it's a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: from the day we're recording here that we're going to
Speaker 1: be out. And we figured in preparation for being out
Speaker 1: for a week, we should, uh, we should catch up
Speaker 1: on some listener mail. It's actually been a long time
Speaker 1: since we reached into the mail bag, and some in
Speaker 1: the mail bought Carney. That's right. Uh, you know, Carney
Speaker 1: has been making it through this whole pandemic thing as well.
Speaker 1: We we were tempted to terminate his functions as a
Speaker 1: cost cutting measure, but we found other ways to to
Speaker 1: cut back instead. So, uh, without further ado, let's let's
Speaker 1: bring Carney out. Now. One thing we might want to
Speaker 1: make clear to the audience is that now we cannot
Speaker 1: look at Carney because if we do, we will be
Speaker 1: petrified and turned to stone. That's one of the cost
Speaker 1: cutting measures. They've had a safety feature too removed. Uh,
Speaker 1: so we have to we have to kind of keep
Speaker 1: our backs turned and use some some mirror kung fu
Speaker 1: if we want to get the messages from him. But
Speaker 1: we're all doing what we gotta do. Yeah. I don't
Speaker 1: know why he had the Gorgonian protocol installed in his systems,
Speaker 1: but it's activated now, so we're stuck with it. And
Speaker 1: it looks like this first batch of mail that Carney's
Speaker 1: handing us is in response to our episodes about the
Speaker 1: Moa of New Zealand, the Great uh, the Great Rattite
Speaker 1: Cornu Copia. That we got a lot of great listener
Speaker 1: mail about this stuff. I've noticed something People from New
Speaker 1: Zealand really like talking about being from New Zealand. Well,
Speaker 1: you know I would too if I was from New Zealand.
Speaker 1: It's pretty cool place. Yeah, a lot of it seems
Speaker 1: to be Middle Earth related. I wonder if the same
Speaker 1: kind of responses would have happened before the Peter Jackson movies.
Speaker 1: But uh, but yeah, maybe let's die right in on
Speaker 1: responses to the MOA, Robert, do you want to read
Speaker 1: this message from THEO? Sure? THEO rights in and says, hi, guys,
Speaker 1: I absolutely loved both of the MOA episodes. I'm a
Speaker 1: Canadian backpacker currently in New Zealand, and I love listening
Speaker 1: to your podcast while I'm at work picking raspberries. Essential work,
Speaker 1: even during the lockdown. I especially loved learning about the
Speaker 1: extinction and I intend to go on a research rabbit
Speaker 1: hole about mica rizal networks in New Zealand forests. I
Speaker 1: hope you do more episodes about New Zealand in the future.
Speaker 1: I would love to learn more about Maori agriculture and
Speaker 1: the plants they brought with him. I had to rush
Speaker 1: through a fascinatating exhibit in Auckland War Memorial Museum about
Speaker 1: the cabbage tree. Apparently there are many uh cultivars of
Speaker 1: and many uses of this species, and I would love
Speaker 1: to hear about them. We've been in lockdown since March,
Speaker 1: so I really appreciate your podcast. It helps keep me
Speaker 1: entertained in saying cheers THEO. Thanks for getting in touch THEO.
Speaker 1: So this next message come was from someone who has
Speaker 1: just identified as the letter S. I don't know what
Speaker 1: that stands for, but S really seemed to enjoy the
Speaker 1: MOA episodes, but wanted to add a fact that they
Speaker 1: think we didn't stress enough, which is quote. Although museum
Speaker 1: MOA skeletons were set erect. More recent science indicates that
Speaker 1: they were not so, And this is an interesting point.
Speaker 1: S is correct about this. Like the oldest museum reconstructions
Speaker 1: of the moa. You you might see these old pictures
Speaker 1: of how they were posed. They would have the neck
Speaker 1: vertebrae extending straight up into the air off the body. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I was reading about the centerpiece hosted by the
Speaker 1: Auckland Museum, actually the same museum that THEO mentioned, which
Speaker 1: explains that these earliest museum exhibits of MOA skeletons were
Speaker 1: based on the posture imagined by the British paleontologist Richard Owen,
Speaker 1: who we talked about in the MOA episodes. But I
Speaker 1: think it was beginning around the nineteen eighties most museum
Speaker 1: displays were corrected to show what would have been a
Speaker 1: more common posture when the moa is just, you know,
Speaker 1: not reaching up at something, but just walking around ound.
Speaker 1: And that would be not with the neck it's extended
Speaker 1: straight up from the body, but kind of curved with
Speaker 1: an S shape with respect to the body. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: remember reading about this as we prepared for those episodes,
Speaker 1: and I think we mainly just ended up focusing more
Speaker 1: on just sort of the the undeniably weird and amazing
Speaker 1: things about the MOA without really getting into this issue.
Speaker 1: But but we see this in other areas of paleontology
Speaker 1: as well. We've discussed it in the context of the
Speaker 1: rannosaurs Rex, for instance, where earlier um attempts to put
Speaker 1: together the bones of the t rex gave it a
Speaker 1: much more erect posture, and we've corrected over time for
Speaker 1: for what is also a more horizontal presentation with the
Speaker 1: tail outstretched behind it for balance. Uh. And one sees
Speaker 1: other similar things with other prehistoric creatures as well. Uh,
Speaker 1: the initial way we put them together is not necessarily
Speaker 1: where we are today in our understanding of how they
Speaker 1: probably um, you know, stood and held themselves and moved around. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a whole lot actually that we're not told explicitly
Speaker 1: by bones or bi fossil remains, and that can be
Speaker 1: a very interesting to to play with. Variations on of course,
Speaker 1: one is posture how the body would have stood and
Speaker 1: what would be the you know, normal ways of arranging
Speaker 1: the neck and the arms and all that kind of
Speaker 1: thing in the tail. But another thing, of course is
Speaker 1: soft tissue. This is actually debate with the MOA itself
Speaker 1: is like what kind of soft tissue did it have?
Speaker 1: Was it a plump bird, was it a skinnier bird? Um.
Speaker 1: This is an interesting issue that's often hotly debated in
Speaker 1: the paleo art world. How to render the sort of soft,
Speaker 1: fleshy tissues of dinosaurs and other extinct animals that we
Speaker 1: only now know by their bones. Yeah, exactly, and then
Speaker 1: also comes into play with toy dinosaurs. Yeah, you can
Speaker 1: instantly tell if if if a toy dinosaur is based
Speaker 1: on these these outdated understandings of of dinosaur posture, or
Speaker 1: they're more recent. All right, here's another one related to
Speaker 1: the MOA. This one comes to us from Nathan. Hey, Robert,
Speaker 1: and Joe. I just listened to your recent episode of
Speaker 1: Rise of the Moa, and you were talking about large
Speaker 1: birds that could kill humans. In my mind automatically went
Speaker 1: to a prehistoric rattite that roamed parts of North America
Speaker 1: around the same time as the saber tooth tiger called
Speaker 1: Titanus Wallery. Now, this is, by the way, you can
Speaker 1: look up images of this. This is a terror bird
Speaker 1: often just referred to as Titanus. Uh. And indeed, uh
Speaker 1: create the terror birds are are amazing to look at. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Nathan continues. They roamed throughout the Lower USA and possibly
Speaker 1: into South America two to five million years ago. They
Speaker 1: stood about two point five meters tall and had great speed,
Speaker 1: which people think was their main hunting strategy, along with
Speaker 1: their sharp beak. This bird has always interested me, uh
Speaker 1: and thought you all could compare other extinct species to
Speaker 1: this one. Thanks for your time, Nathan, I've always wanted
Speaker 1: to be eaten by a bird. Really Now, I think
Speaker 1: we mentioned this in the in the mo O episodes,
Speaker 1: but you actually have done episodes about the terror birds
Speaker 1: in the past, right did you do them back when
Speaker 1: with Julie years ago? Ah? That sounds right. I don't.
Speaker 1: I know I've read about them before, but I honestly
Speaker 1: can't remember if we covered them at all. Uh, certainly
Speaker 1: so the kind of topic we could return to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because they're they're they're totally fascinating, and there's the North
Speaker 1: American connection here. I mean, you'll find examples of them.
Speaker 1: You'll find fossil evidence of this creature in Florida um, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, it always it always kind of amazes
Speaker 1: me where there'll be some sort of there will be
Speaker 1: a fossil like this, and you'll think this should be
Speaker 1: this should be the fossil of Florida, right, this should
Speaker 1: be the state fossil. But if I'm not mistaken, the
Speaker 1: state fossil of Florida is um is a coral. So
Speaker 1: sometimes they're they're less exciting, Like Georgia has a pretty
Speaker 1: good one. We have a cretaceous sharp tooth that is
Speaker 1: our state fossil. Yeah, and you know, it varies from
Speaker 1: state to state. Some have really cool ones. Uh. Some
Speaker 1: have multiple ones, like uh, Kansas has both a taranodon
Speaker 1: and a tylosaurus, so they have like two awesome creatures. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Kentucky it's um a brachiopod. It's you know, it's just
Speaker 1: like little shells. And not to say these aren't you know,
Speaker 1: important fossil finds, but in terms of like the kind
Speaker 1: of thing you might plaster on the side of a
Speaker 1: U haul truck or put on a license plate, you know,
Speaker 1: I think he can jazz it up a little bit.
Speaker 1: I am at least encouraged that apparently every state acknowledges
Speaker 1: the existence of fossils. Yeah, that is a good sign.
Speaker 1: None of them. Have um have taken him back yet? Right? Um?
Speaker 1: But yeah, they're they're they're tons of great ones. Nevada,
Speaker 1: you guys have an ichtheosar. You know. New New Jersey
Speaker 1: has a duckbill dinosaur um. New York has a c scorpion.
Speaker 1: You know. It's a wonderful list, you know. I recommend
Speaker 1: checking it out. Find out what your state fossil is,
Speaker 1: and if it's disappointing, fight for it. You know, like
Speaker 1: if you're if you're if you live in for Gina
Speaker 1: and your state fossil is a scallop, you should you
Speaker 1: should be a little mad about that. You should fight
Speaker 1: for something maybe a little more robust, something with with
Speaker 1: claws and teeth, if you can. I think Tennessee state
Speaker 1: fossil is a replica of Noah's ark. Um. No, but
Speaker 1: it is. I'm looking it up now. It is a
Speaker 1: cretaceous bivalve. So maybe, well, I don't know. I feel
Speaker 1: like Tennessee might be better off if they had an
Speaker 1: exciting fossil as there uh as their state fossil. Uh
Speaker 1: you know, something that would maybe get people more excited
Speaker 1: about the prospect, you know, like South Carolina it's the
Speaker 1: Colombian mammoth for for crying out loud. I know you're joking.
Speaker 1: I know you believe that all fossils are exciting. They are,
Speaker 1: they are all exciting. But in terms of say, animating
Speaker 1: the kids, I think maybe it pays to have something
Speaker 1: a little a little you know, more action toothier. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now I will say Arizona State fossil is. Of course,
Speaker 1: the pet is petrified wood from the petrified forest, which
Speaker 1: maybe is not that exciting the children, but I think
Speaker 1: that one's pretty exciting. So Arizona, you still get credit
Speaker 1: for a non animal fossil. Al Right, maybe I'm gonna
Speaker 1: skip ahead to this uh message we got from Tabitha
Speaker 1: about the MOA episodes. I thought this was was really great,
Speaker 1: so Tabitha writes, Hi, Robert and Joe, I'm a long
Speaker 1: time Kiwi listener, and yes we love being called Kiwi's.
Speaker 1: Who wouldn't want to be named after a furry football
Speaker 1: with the largest egg body ratio of any animal? I
Speaker 1: did not know that. Oh yeah, I had kind of
Speaker 1: forgotten about this, but yeah, if you know, there's some
Speaker 1: some wonderful illustrations of just how much space inside the
Speaker 1: Kiwi's body, like a mature egg takes up before it
Speaker 1: is before it leaves the body cavity. Oh, this is
Speaker 1: kind of like the epic pooping of the sloth that
Speaker 1: we talked about in the in the Star Wars episode recently,
Speaker 1: right where it's like its body way is poop it sometimes.
Speaker 1: But anyway, sorry, tab Tabitha goes on. She says, love
Speaker 1: your moa episode, And I thought i'd write and share
Speaker 1: moa facts and some insight on the history and ecology
Speaker 1: of and oh, I'm sorry. This is the word I
Speaker 1: believe for for New Zealand, and I don't know how
Speaker 1: to pronounce it. I believe it's a o t a roa.
Speaker 1: That's my best try. A reason for the rapidity of
Speaker 1: the extinction of large bird species in New Zealand, the
Speaker 1: moa and other birds like adds a, bill, swans and
Speaker 1: geese is that New Zealand is lacking in plant species
Speaker 1: that are edible to humans. There are some fruit producing
Speaker 1: plants we have native BlackBerry with even worse thorns, but
Speaker 1: few plants that produce a lot of starch without tremendous effort,
Speaker 1: and obviously none that have been domesticated to enhance yields.
Speaker 1: The Maori came to New Zealand with advanced farming skills,
Speaker 1: but the crops they brought with them from Polynesia are tropical.
Speaker 1: Tarot is a staple crop across the Pacific, but can
Speaker 1: only be grown in the very northern tip of New Zealand.
Speaker 1: Some lily kumara or sweet potato, is a hugely important
Speaker 1: traditional Maori staple, but can only be grown in the
Speaker 1: top half of the North Island. In the few hundred
Speaker 1: years it took to learn how to process and exploit
Speaker 1: the few plant species that do provide food, the ancestral
Speaker 1: Maori had little choice but to rely on hunting and
Speaker 1: fishing to survive. In midden pits in the coastal South Island.
Speaker 1: There's a distinct change in food remains over time from
Speaker 1: mostly bird bones to fish and seal bones, which tracks
Speaker 1: the extinction of moa and other large birds. I thought
Speaker 1: this was so interesting um she goes on as the
Speaker 1: major large herbivore in New Zealand. The moa was incredibly
Speaker 1: important to the ecology of the islands. Moa and other
Speaker 1: large birds distributed seeds which cannot pass through the guts
Speaker 1: of mammals. In fact, I read an article the other day,
Speaker 1: saying they ate and distributed fungi, which is essential to
Speaker 1: the health of southern beech forest. I think we talked
Speaker 1: about this in the second part of our MOA episode
Speaker 1: this I believe this came in after the first part.
Speaker 1: But she goes on the fungi which isn't retained in
Speaker 1: the guts of deer and pigs which browsed the forest. Today,
Speaker 1: many niches left open by extinction have been filled by
Speaker 1: introduced mammals in this country, but MOA's role in keeping
Speaker 1: forests healthy is irreplaceable because they were one of the
Speaker 1: only browsing mega fauna that is a bird. The native
Speaker 1: forests evolved with bird morphology, and introduced ungulates just can't
Speaker 1: do the same things with their guts. I'll finish on
Speaker 1: my favorite moa ecological fact. Many native trees have two
Speaker 1: phases of growth, a juvenile stage and an adult stage.
Speaker 1: Juvenile stages tend to have small or spiky and tough
Speaker 1: leaves and grow in spind lee unappetizing bush shapes. Once
Speaker 1: they reach a certain height that moa can't reach, and
Speaker 1: this would be three to four meters, they spread out
Speaker 1: and the leaves change shape, becoming broader to catch more
Speaker 1: sunlight with out being munched on. The most dramatic example
Speaker 1: of this is the lance would or the horo aca
Speaker 1: um and Uh. Here she she attaches an image for
Speaker 1: us to look at of a juvenile versus an adult
Speaker 1: lance would and and it as it is, as Tabitha says, like,
Speaker 1: the juvenile looks basically inedible. It looks like this kind
Speaker 1: of spiky, nasty bush thing. But then once it gets
Speaker 1: tall enough to leave, spread out and become something that
Speaker 1: looks more like a traditional tree. Yeah, that's fascinating because really,
Speaker 1: in in terms of evolutionary time, the moa is barely gone. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, all these plants that would have uh you know,
Speaker 1: thrived alongside it still have their defenses in place. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's wonderful. It's like the so so many of the
Speaker 1: other species of New Zealand are still adapted as if
Speaker 1: the moa should be there, they're just not. So it's
Speaker 1: like this link in the chain is missing. Uh. And
Speaker 1: this is reflected in the rest of Tabitha's email. She says, sorry,
Speaker 1: this gots along. I'm sure you've got emails from every
Speaker 1: KeyWe listener you have, because we're desk it for attention
Speaker 1: and extraordinarily bored at the moment um. The gist is
Speaker 1: bring moa back if we can. I think there's still
Speaker 1: a place for them here. Native biomes still cover twenty
Speaker 1: three of New Zealand, and a lot of us are
Speaker 1: trying hard to increase that and decrease introduced pests. If
Speaker 1: I could see a moa in my lifetime, I would
Speaker 1: die happy. I'd also like to bring back the hostas eagle,
Speaker 1: but that's a harder sell, especially to all the sheep farmers.
Speaker 1: Thanks for doing what you do, Keep safe, keep well,
Speaker 1: and keep learning. Much love from aote aroa Tabitha. All right, well,
Speaker 1: speaking of bringing the moa back. Uh. This next email
Speaker 1: gets into this a little bit as well. This comes
Speaker 1: to us from James. Dear, Robert and Joe. I'm a
Speaker 1: longtime listener, first time writer. I just finished your two
Speaker 1: part series on the moa, which was totally awesome and
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it immensely. However, is a kiwi. I want
Speaker 1: to give you two pieces of information you might enjoy.
Speaker 1: Number One, we don't mind being called kiwi's at all.
Speaker 1: We describe ourselves thusly on the Red the National Rugby
Speaker 1: League team is called the Kiwi's Number two. We may
Speaker 1: not need to bring back the MOA at all. There
Speaker 1: are rumors that they may still survive in the unexplored
Speaker 1: reaches of New Zealand, South Island's Alps and Fiordland. That's
Speaker 1: how it's spelled. UH. It's spelled f I O R
Speaker 1: D l A n d in. Patty Freeney, republican of
Speaker 1: the Bailey Hotel near author's past, reported sighting Amoa while
Speaker 1: tramping in the Alps. He supplied a blurry photo of
Speaker 1: what is almost certainly a flightless large flightless birds he attached.
Speaker 1: The story made national headlines, with believers launching further search
Speaker 1: parties and two cries arguing it must have been an
Speaker 1: emu escaped from a zoo. The closest zoo is in
Speaker 1: christ Church, some three hours drive away. UH. Patty Freeney
Speaker 1: passed in two thousand twelve, so we may never know
Speaker 1: if he was being genuine or looking to advertise his
Speaker 1: hotel or what. UH includes a link to the web
Speaker 1: story with more details, and then James finishes up. Keep
Speaker 1: up the great work. I listen to your podcast every week.
Speaker 1: My favorite is probably the Mind Flavor episode I have
Speaker 1: one tattooed on my shoulder, but the moa is a
Speaker 1: close second. You're the best, James. Oh thanks James. Now
Speaker 1: I looked up this picture. I don't know where this
Speaker 1: ranks on the Patterson Gimblin scale. I'm gonna say I'm
Speaker 1: not convinced. I am not convinced that there is a
Speaker 1: living moa. It seems highly doubtful to me. But there
Speaker 1: is a blurry, vaguely S shaped blob in the middle
Speaker 1: of this photo. Well, you know, I have to um,
Speaker 1: I have to say. This is kind of a staple
Speaker 1: of of seeing some sort of crypted or some sort
Speaker 1: of uh, you know, animal that's largely believed to be
Speaker 1: extinct in the wild. And it's easy to say, oh,
Speaker 1: well that's barely anything. That's such a horrible photo. But
Speaker 1: if you look around that there are some Facebook groups
Speaker 1: now that are that that exists solely to sell librate
Speaker 1: bad nature photography, and you quickly realize that no, this
Speaker 1: is this seems likely. You know, you see something really
Speaker 1: cool uh and unexpected uh, and it's fleeting, and then
Speaker 1: you rush to take a picture of it, and chances
Speaker 1: are you're an amateur or even if you know a
Speaker 1: little bit of what you're doing. You're you're you're rushed,
Speaker 1: and you have to get a picture of the thing
Speaker 1: as it is leaving your site. You may end up
Speaker 1: taking a terrible photo of it that does not reflect, um,
Speaker 1: the degree of detail that you yourself actually saw. Uh.
Speaker 1: For instance, I was recently walking in a cemetery uh
Speaker 1: in the Atlanta area and got to see some wild
Speaker 1: turkeys roman about which you know, wild turkeys. They're they're
Speaker 1: not MOA's by any stretch, but they're still really cool.
Speaker 1: And there are rare enough sighting uh you know, in
Speaker 1: in um in the Atlanta area. So I was excited
Speaker 1: about it. UH, watched them in and then I realized, oh,
Speaker 1: I should try and get a picture. So I busted
Speaker 1: out my phone and took just a terrible picture. Maybe
Speaker 1: not quite as vague as the US, but still um.
Speaker 1: You know, if I was trying to make a case
Speaker 1: for having seen a you know, a prehistoric turkey, I
Speaker 1: would have really had an uphill battle. Now that being said,
Speaker 1: based on what we were reading in researching our MOA episodes,
Speaker 1: it seems like the experts are very doubtful that there
Speaker 1: are any moa at large in the world. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: was my impression as well. And and to be fair,
Speaker 1: I think James is sort of joking in and bringing
Speaker 1: up this example. I'm not saying like he's trying to
Speaker 1: pass off something that seems very unlikely as as being real.
Speaker 1: But uh, yeah, I don't think there's any serious expert
Speaker 1: opinion from you know, local zoologists or whatever that would
Speaker 1: think that MOA's are still out there roaming around New Zealand. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but still, I mean, obviously I wish it were the case.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of the curious nature of alleged cryptid sightings.
Speaker 1: And you know, much like conspiracy theory really is that
Speaker 1: by expressing the idea that it might be, you make
Speaker 1: it a little more believable, you know, you give it
Speaker 1: provides something for for us to latch onto, sometimes in
Speaker 1: a way that is maybe hopeful, but also sometimes in
Speaker 1: a way that is maybe counterproductive. Sure, I mean, there
Speaker 1: are other ways that you could imagine actually seeing a
Speaker 1: moa in New Zealand, and that would be the extinction.
Speaker 1: I'm interested that we you know, one of the things
Speaker 1: we talked about in the episode was I'm not sure
Speaker 1: exactly what the what the best argument would be for
Speaker 1: bringing back an extinct animal like the moa, but I
Speaker 1: don't know. Tabitha kind of made the case like it's
Speaker 1: an important part of New Zealand ecology and a lot
Speaker 1: of the other organisms that are you know, had their
Speaker 1: evolutions shaped around the presence of the moa are still there.
Speaker 1: So bringing back the moa in a way would would
Speaker 1: sort of breathe life back into the native New Zealand ecosystem. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we discussed in those episodes. They're what scientists think their
Speaker 1: role probably was in a spreading spores for instance, And
Speaker 1: so you know, you take out a keystone species like
Speaker 1: the moa, and you know that there they are missed.
Speaker 1: They are missed by the uh the various plants, animals
Speaker 1: and uh fun guy that depended on them. So I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's probably the avenue where you can make the best
Speaker 1: argument for them rather than just it would be cool
Speaker 1: if they were here. Now, can we also get the
Speaker 1: terror birds back? Well? I hope, so, I hope. So
Speaker 1: all right, on that note, we're going to take a
Speaker 1: quick break, but when we come back, we'll jump into
Speaker 1: some more listener mail and we'll talk about soap than
Speaker 1: All right, we're back, all right. This next message comes
Speaker 1: to us from our listener Carl. It was in reference
Speaker 1: to the episode about soap, which was the last episode
Speaker 1: of our other podcast, Invention. Uh. Carl says, Dear Robert
Speaker 1: and Joe, just to let you know, an avid fan
Speaker 1: of your podcasts, but regrettably don't let you know much
Speaker 1: because I'm usually gardening, lawnmowing, debt cleaning, or just walking.
Speaker 1: But you make those other mindless tasks fly by and
Speaker 1: I get work done, exercise, edification, and amusement as painlessly
Speaker 1: as possible. So thank you. First point, I think the
Speaker 1: soap episode is appropriately the last episode of Invention, because
Speaker 1: I'm convinced that soap was more of a discovery than
Speaker 1: an invention. It's not hard to imagine that roasting meat
Speaker 1: over a wood fire with rain afterwards often produced soap
Speaker 1: like substances that the ancients found would clean fats off
Speaker 1: of implements, clothes, skin, et cetera. By the way, I'm
Speaker 1: bummed about discontinuing Invention as such, but I understand that
Speaker 1: could happen, and it's good to hear. You'll keep the
Speaker 1: invention spirit and stuff to blow your mind. Uh. And
Speaker 1: then a little bit later in his message, He says,
Speaker 1: I thought the the fist bump versus handshake thing was
Speaker 1: funny with regard to passing the piece. Remember we talked
Speaker 1: about how uh in churches, Uh, there there's this. Many
Speaker 1: churches have a tradition of shaking hands. The people shake
Speaker 1: hands with each other and they you know, they say
Speaker 1: peace or the peace of the Lord be with you
Speaker 1: or something. Um. And we were discussing a study that
Speaker 1: found that a fist bump actually transmits many fewer infectious
Speaker 1: agents than a handshake does. Uh. And so Carl says,
Speaker 1: here in my church, which is Eastern Orthodox, we have
Speaker 1: a ritual called the Right of Forgiveness, where we hug
Speaker 1: and kiss each other while forgiving them and asking for
Speaker 1: their forgiveness in turn. To start off, Lent, I guess
Speaker 1: you could say we take full advantage of our immune systems.
Speaker 1: Thanks for one of the best podcasts going, Carl. Oh, well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Carl. That's that's very kind. But yeah, this
Speaker 1: does raise the uh, you know the reality that when
Speaker 1: it comes to various greetings, uh and and so forth.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're gonna be cultural variations. You know, some
Speaker 1: in some cultures hugging or or kissing is is more
Speaker 1: of the standard mode of greeting, and so perhaps it's
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's more more challenging to make those
Speaker 1: changes in those cultures. And I'll just add one other
Speaker 1: message we got from a listener named Chris who also
Speaker 1: talked about a guest preacher at his church one time
Speaker 1: who had a sense of humor. And Chris says that
Speaker 1: the guest preacher encouraged the people in the church to
Speaker 1: greet each other with what the preacher called holy knuckles,
Speaker 1: and that was the fist bump instead of the handshake.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this was for a reason of
Speaker 1: of sanitation or whatever, or of you know, hygiene, but maybe,
Speaker 1: well that's perfect, right, because you can take a sharpie
Speaker 1: and you can write h O L Y on your
Speaker 1: knuckles before you go in there for the bump, right,
Speaker 1: like Robert Mitchum in the Night of the Hunter. Night
Speaker 1: of the Hunter is a fantastic movie. By the way,
Speaker 1: Robert Mitchum is a force of nature in it. Oh wow, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's one that I've remarkably never seen. I've never seen that.
Speaker 1: I've never seen cape fear, So I should I should really,
Speaker 1: uh what fill in those holes as they say, oh
Speaker 1: on movie crush. Uh. Yeah, they're always talking about whole filling.
Speaker 1: I guess I have less than opinion about Cape Fear.
Speaker 1: Night of the Hunter is a horrifying movie. It feels
Speaker 1: like dangerous and scary ahead of its time. Robert Mitchum
Speaker 1: plays this, Uh, this psychotic, murderous traveling preacher. It's yeah,
Speaker 1: he's he's powerful. All right. Here's another one. This comes
Speaker 1: to us from Steve. Dear Robert and Joe. Happy belated
Speaker 1: tenth anniversary. I hope this that boy that seems like
Speaker 1: it was a long time ago, that was in a
Speaker 1: different time and as no meaning anymore. Yeah, I hope
Speaker 1: this finds you both in good spirits and good health.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for years of entertainment, education and
Speaker 1: mind blowing content. You've managed to make my hour commute
Speaker 1: one of the highlights of my day for the past
Speaker 1: seven years, and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful nuance and
Speaker 1: insightful treatments of fascinating and often overlooked topics. I'm a
Speaker 1: general surgeon in Los Angeles, and in the operating room
Speaker 1: we take turns on choosing we listened to during surgery.
Speaker 1: Categories range from classical our scrub text pick to Death
Speaker 1: Metal by a seventy year old enthusiologist, and I usually
Speaker 1: put on an episode of stuff to blow your mind
Speaker 1: or invention. I find that the mental engagement actually helps
Speaker 1: me stay relaxed and focused on the task at hand,
Speaker 1: rather than distract me. At first, the staff roll their
Speaker 1: eyes at me, but most have come around and themselves
Speaker 1: became big fans of your show. It always sparks interesting
Speaker 1: discussions and debates, and I also like that it never
Speaker 1: gets too loud to hear important communication, unlike Dr Death
Speaker 1: Metals music. Things are definitely becoming crazy with the COVID
Speaker 1: patients flooding the hospitals, but we are managing just find
Speaker 1: so far, most m Angelino's seem to be taking social
Speaker 1: distancing very seriously, and our much maligned sprawl is finally
Speaker 1: working to our advantage. Thank you for helping disseminate accurate
Speaker 1: and helpful information regarding this challenging disease. It goes an
Speaker 1: incredibly long way to helping us minimize or at least
Speaker 1: slow the spread. Although it's not the kind of content
Speaker 1: you would usually cover, it is a true public service
Speaker 1: that you have done one small thing in the COVID episode,
Speaker 1: though Joe refers to the mortality rate of the flu
Speaker 1: as point zero one percent. Probably just a slip of
Speaker 1: the tongue, but it is important to realize it is
Speaker 1: zero point one percent, still much lower than COVID. Well,
Speaker 1: I didn't realize I said that, but if indeed I did,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for that correction, Steve so so,
Speaker 1: Steve continues, I've probably come up with a couple hundred
Speaker 1: other comments on topics you've covered over the years, but
Speaker 1: I'll keep it down to two that's stuck in my head.
Speaker 1: Number one. Regarding the Band or Snatch episode, I always
Speaker 1: thought that the demon Packs is actually you, me, us,
Speaker 1: the viewer player. Packs is described as the thief of destiny,
Speaker 1: and by making the choices for the protagonist, we decide
Speaker 1: his fate slash steal his destiny. The scene where Stefan
Speaker 1: is communicating with the viewer through his computer is the
Speaker 1: aha moment in which he realizes someone has taken over
Speaker 1: his ability to make his own decisions and choose his
Speaker 1: own adventure. Or maybe Packs is Netflix. I think that's
Speaker 1: a strong uh reading of it. Certainly, at least one
Speaker 1: of the beautiful things about Bandersnatch, though, is that depending
Speaker 1: on exactly how you make your way through the plot,
Speaker 1: some of those elements are stressed more than others. Um.
Speaker 1: I think the second time I watched it, I was
Speaker 1: I think I was able to avoid like the really
Speaker 1: overt netflix uh integration stuff, which I liked more. Um.
Speaker 1: But now I'm forgetting I probably need to take a
Speaker 1: third John through there, just to be sure. I just
Speaker 1: wanted to bring up also this this came up in
Speaker 1: an episode since we did the Bandersnatch thing, but in
Speaker 1: response to Steve, there is an actual monster that is
Speaker 1: known in some ways as the Thief of Destiny, and
Speaker 1: it's the monster un Zoo, who's a sort of bad
Speaker 1: god or kind of winged monster thing from many ancient
Speaker 1: Mesopotamian religions and and on. Zoo goes in and steals
Speaker 1: the tablets of Destiny from the King of Gods, and
Speaker 1: I believe somebody has to go punish him and get
Speaker 1: them back. It might beat an inerta or something, all right,
Speaker 1: and then he moves on to number two. In your
Speaker 1: x ray episode of Invention, I think Robert made a
Speaker 1: comment suggesting that bullets have to be removed from the body.
Speaker 1: This is actually not usually the case unless the bullet
Speaker 1: is near certain vital structures, eroding into a blood vessel, bowl, etcetera,
Speaker 1: and is a common misconception that leads to many angry
Speaker 1: trauma patients insisting that they need surgery. Digging around to
Speaker 1: remove a stray bullet often causes more damage than it's worth,
Speaker 1: and the bullet is usually sterile due to the high temperature.
Speaker 1: President Garfield died of sepsis due to wound infection following
Speaker 1: many painful, uh likely misguided attempts to remove the bullet fragments,
Speaker 1: and may have survived otherwise with basic wound care. UH.
Speaker 1: This is this is a great point, if memory serves.
Speaker 1: I think I I brought that up because I was
Speaker 1: kind of like saying, hey, if there was a bullet
Speaker 1: in your body and you had to get it out, um,
Speaker 1: you know, how would you go about that properly before
Speaker 1: the age of X ray. So I didn't mean to
Speaker 1: imply that that bullets always need to come out of
Speaker 1: the body, because I mean, just in life, you occasionally
Speaker 1: run into somebody who you know will anecdotically mentioned how
Speaker 1: they still have a bullet or fragment of a bullet
Speaker 1: in their body stemming from some old injury. Yeah, totally. Uh.
Speaker 1: And what Steve says about President Garfield here James Garfield,
Speaker 1: who is sometimes said to have been killed by an
Speaker 1: assassin's bullet. He was shot while he was in office,
Speaker 1: but it took him. I don't remember how long it was,
Speaker 1: like a month or more after that to die. And yeah,
Speaker 1: Steve's exactly right that like the surgeons kept going in
Speaker 1: and digging around in him, they were using unsanitary methods,
Speaker 1: and his wound got infected and he died. So he
Speaker 1: was probably killed more by the medical intervention than by
Speaker 1: the bullet. So Steve closes out here and says, thank
Speaker 1: you again for all the wonderful content you've created over
Speaker 1: the years, and I look forward to the next kin,
Speaker 1: hopefully not from all from your closet. Please stay curious
Speaker 1: and safe. All the best, Steve l Well, thank you, Steve.
Speaker 1: As of this recording, we are both still in our closets.
Speaker 1: Um one day, hopefully that will change. Okay, Next, let's
Speaker 1: turn to some messages we got in response to our
Speaker 1: episode about The Fly, the Cronenberg movie, The King of
Speaker 1: Bad Feelings and Reaching into the Slime. Uh, so uh
Speaker 1: so multiple listeners got in touch to correct us about
Speaker 1: something we said uh in the episode, which is that
Speaker 1: we were talking about before the Cronenberg version of the movie.
Speaker 1: There was the original The Fly from nineteen fifty eight,
Speaker 1: and we talked about the fact that Vincent Price was
Speaker 1: in the movie. But I think we both misremembered him
Speaker 1: as the actor who played the scientist who creates the
Speaker 1: telepods and gets turned into a fly, and that's not
Speaker 1: the case. He was in the movie, but he played
Speaker 1: the scientist's brother, so that was it was not Vincent
Speaker 1: Price in the Spider's web saying help me, help me.
Speaker 1: We got a number of messages about this so much.
Speaker 1: Apologies to the to the career of Vincent Price. Yes,
Speaker 1: though really it does underline just how great again, just
Speaker 1: how great a remake Cronenberg's The Fly is. Uh No, No,
Speaker 1: I mean, not only is it the one that we
Speaker 1: tend to remember and we tend to look back on,
Speaker 1: but you know, why is Vincent Price not playing Like
Speaker 1: why is the main character in the original Fly? Uh?
Speaker 1: And you know the story as well that inspired it.
Speaker 1: Why why are they not the ones going on this
Speaker 1: uh this crazy um? Uh? You know metamorphosis, uh infused journey.
Speaker 1: Why are they? Why is our main character outside of it?
Speaker 1: Uh So? I think that was a brilliant change on
Speaker 1: the part of Cronenberg and the other writers involved in
Speaker 1: the remake. Yeah, I'd agree with that. But so this
Speaker 1: next pair of messages, I'm going to sort of do
Speaker 1: them together because they get at the same thing. This
Speaker 1: came from two listeners, Linda and Fernando, who got in
Speaker 1: touch with us after the episode about The Fly to
Speaker 1: respond to us a series of comments we made about
Speaker 1: the effectiveness of Placebo's and uh So. Fernando rites, Hello, guys,
Speaker 1: longtime listener, first time caller, truly enjoyed the show, and
Speaker 1: so forth. I couldn't pass on an opportunity to blow
Speaker 1: you guys minds. You guys minds. Uh. In the episode
Speaker 1: when you reviewed Cronenberg's The Fly, you mentioned in passing
Speaker 1: the Placebo Effect you were wondering if somebody needed to
Speaker 1: believe in the supposed medicine for the placebo effect to work,
Speaker 1: or whether simply believing in the placebo effect itself could
Speaker 1: do the trick. The surprising responses apparently neither. I was
Speaker 1: recently a few months ago listening to another science podcast,
Speaker 1: and I think the pod he gives a couple of options,
Speaker 1: but I think the one he's talking about his NPRS
Speaker 1: Hidden Brain. Yeah, and Fernando continues, and in a show
Speaker 1: about the placebo, they interviewed a lady who had suffered
Speaker 1: from chronic pain for many years and tried different medicines
Speaker 1: and technique still little or no effect. She was enrolled
Speaker 1: in a study of the placebo effect, and for the
Speaker 1: first time, her pain subsided. She was placed in the
Speaker 1: placebo group, of course, but the thing is, she was
Speaker 1: told she was in that group. She knew she was
Speaker 1: taking placebos and was not expecting to get better, but
Speaker 1: she did. Nevertheless, Anyway, I thought you'd enjoy that little tidbit.
Speaker 1: Please keep up the good work. Uh. I can't really
Speaker 1: express how pleasurable and provocative it is for me to
Speaker 1: intrude on your conversations. Cheers Fernando and then uh. Linda
Speaker 1: writes in about the same subject, attributing it to an
Speaker 1: episode of NPRS Hidden Brain, where she adds an element
Speaker 1: of explanation for the outcome. Linda writes, the takeaway was
Speaker 1: that the doctor who prescribed the placebo, who told her
Speaker 1: it was just a sugar pill, was kind and attentive
Speaker 1: and seemed to really care, and somehow that was what
Speaker 1: made the placebo work for her. Wondering what you guys
Speaker 1: might think of this angle of looking at placebo's and
Speaker 1: medicine in general. I wonder if people like my elderly
Speaker 1: mother in chronic pain and who have been addicted to
Speaker 1: opiates could be provided a placebo in place of their
Speaker 1: pain meds in order to break the addiction, if the
Speaker 1: doctor was nice enough. Uh and so so thanks for
Speaker 1: getting in touch, Fernando and Linda. I don't know the
Speaker 1: answer to that question, Linda, but it is very interesting
Speaker 1: to consider how a placebo could work when somebody knows
Speaker 1: it's a placebo, and whether the doctor's presence has something
Speaker 1: to do with it. So obviously it could be reduction
Speaker 1: in pain due to just positive social interaction and attention,
Speaker 1: you know, like feeling loved, feeling appreciated, feeling taken care
Speaker 1: of can in some ways make you feel better. There
Speaker 1: can also, I think, be aspects you know, we've talked
Speaker 1: about this on the show before, aspects of a relief
Speaker 1: that you feel due to reassurance from a knowledgeable authority
Speaker 1: and I know I've talked about the experience of going
Speaker 1: to a doctor with a complaint, uh, you know, being
Speaker 1: worried about some kind of like feeling in the body,
Speaker 1: and then being told that it's nothing, that is fine,
Speaker 1: and then the feeling goes away. It's just like having
Speaker 1: a knowledgeable doctor say no, I don't see anything wrong.
Speaker 1: It makes the original complaint just disappear. But then finally,
Speaker 1: I was wondering about the idea of um, sort of
Speaker 1: a double placebo effect, Like placebos sometimes work, presumably because
Speaker 1: people expect them to work. And if you're aware of
Speaker 1: this fact, could you also expect the placebo to quote work,
Speaker 1: making even a known placebo effective as a placebo, Like
Speaker 1: you get a placebo from expecting the placebo effect. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess so it's sounds possible. I also, like, you
Speaker 1: know what you mentioned about the you know, trusting in
Speaker 1: a doctor and you know, trusting in an expert. Uh,
Speaker 1: and and you know when you receive feedback on one
Speaker 1: what you're experiencing. Because it also raises the reverse question,
Speaker 1: you know, then, how does what is the effect of
Speaker 1: having I'm not gonna say, like a bad doctor, uh, necessarily,
Speaker 1: but because we don't even necessarily have to go there. Like,
Speaker 1: what when you go to a doctor where perhaps you
Speaker 1: don't feel like you really heard on a topic, or
Speaker 1: perhaps they're you know, their bedside manner is not as
Speaker 1: solid as as other professionals working in their field, Like
Speaker 1: to what extent that ends up affecting the effectiveness of
Speaker 1: of medicine, you know, via the placebo effect? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: what you could get like a brusque doctor gives you
Speaker 1: a no sebo effect. Yeah, yeah, I don't know. It
Speaker 1: seems like the kind of thing there. There may be
Speaker 1: some papers on I have to dig around. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how you tell. Well, there are ways you can
Speaker 1: test for that. Actually, I guess it would be harder
Speaker 1: to do that ethically. You can't like tell a doctor
Speaker 1: like beat me in your patients. Let's see how it goes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it would have to Yeah, it would have obviously have
Speaker 1: to be a little be someone removed from from actual
Speaker 1: clinical work. But um, they would be interesting to see
Speaker 1: where that thread would take us. Yeah, all right, Well
Speaker 1: I think we need to take another break, but then
Speaker 1: we will be right back to round this out with
Speaker 1: a couple more emails. Thank thank thank Alright, we're back now,
Speaker 1: obviously folks that listen to the show, sometimes you listen
Speaker 1: to older episodes. A lot of older episodes have been
Speaker 1: coming up in the feed recently because for one thing,
Speaker 1: we always run a rerun episode on Saturday's pull something
Speaker 1: out of the Vault for a Vault episode. But then
Speaker 1: we also have had all these playlists that have come
Speaker 1: out as part of a uh you know, a company
Speaker 1: initiative to provide some some curated selections of past episodes.
Speaker 1: So listen to during this time of pandemic. Uh. So
Speaker 1: here is one from Brett and this is a response
Speaker 1: to Sacred Mountains. Uh. These were a pair of episodes
Speaker 1: that we have recently rerun in the feed. Hello Robert
Speaker 1: and Joe, big fan of your show and I love
Speaker 1: the questions you ask always lead us down a path
Speaker 1: of education and curiosity. I wanted to write about the
Speaker 1: Sacred Mountain and add my opinion about mountains. Living in Colorado.
Speaker 1: It is a culture here to quote head to the mountains,
Speaker 1: whether for biking, hiking, or skiing. There is a term
Speaker 1: out there that is directed to how many fourteeners you
Speaker 1: have bagged, meaning how many you have climbed In doing so,
Speaker 1: your perspective about their true nature can be obtained from Afar.
Speaker 1: They look dominant and overwhelming with how far they reach
Speaker 1: into the sky and seem to touch the heavens. And
Speaker 1: when you drive to UH to hike one, you cannot
Speaker 1: always see the top, leading you to you to believe
Speaker 1: that the hike is is just that a hike. But
Speaker 1: once you start going up and you have to UH,
Speaker 1: that is when the power of the mountain can be felt.
Speaker 1: You notice your legs feel heavy, like someone has tied
Speaker 1: cinder blocks to each foot. You pay attention to your
Speaker 1: breathing because it feels like you cannot get enough oxygen sweat,
Speaker 1: even though it might only be fifty degrees fahrenheit. But
Speaker 1: upon reaching the summit, which is never the first top
Speaker 1: of the mountain you see called a false summit, and
Speaker 1: after you catch your breath, there is just a feeling
Speaker 1: that comes over you that is hard to describe. You
Speaker 1: were just in awe about how far away everything seems
Speaker 1: and how small you as a human really are. It
Speaker 1: is very joyous and most people do some sort of celebration.
Speaker 1: Thinking about two centuries ago, people probably did not have
Speaker 1: a concept of oxygen and an understanding of why it
Speaker 1: becomes difficult to breathe. This could bring about great respect
Speaker 1: for elevation here in Colorado. Once up top of fourteen
Speaker 1: er the oxygen level is fifty six percent that of
Speaker 1: sea level, So I can understand the respect people must
Speaker 1: have cast upon the mountains and how it happened. Also,
Speaker 1: when up that high, it is usually windy and storms
Speaker 1: can come out of nowhere, producing a lightning and hail
Speaker 1: like you were angering the gods for trying to climb
Speaker 1: to heaven. Also, if it happens to snow, becoming snowblind
Speaker 1: can lead to disorientation, which I have experienced. Another point
Speaker 1: is that today we have roads and paths to access
Speaker 1: the peaks. Uh, we're trying to get to the base
Speaker 1: of a mountain out there long ago in itself was
Speaker 1: a feat. Trying to find your way back without a
Speaker 1: path can feel impossible. Ancients may not have had our
Speaker 1: understanding of science, but they respected the power of the mountains,
Speaker 1: which a lot of us here also do. I appreciate
Speaker 1: your time and please stay safe Brett in Colorado. What
Speaker 1: a wonderful message. Thank you, Brett. Yeah that he raises
Speaker 1: some excellent points here about just the experience of climbing
Speaker 1: the mountain, all these little things that uh, you know
Speaker 1: we met. I not really have thought about as much
Speaker 1: or stressed in that episode. Like I love the idea
Speaker 1: of the false peaks, you know, or just you know,
Speaker 1: driving home. Um, like the bodily awareness of that kind
Speaker 1: of physical exertion, which certainly there's an element to that
Speaker 1: in all exercise, you know, where oh my body healing,
Speaker 1: my body more than usual, I'm feeling my breath more
Speaker 1: than usual, and that is grounding us in the now.
Speaker 1: It is an exercise and mindfulness, the exercise and mindfulness
Speaker 1: to a very large extent, like the primordial exercise in
Speaker 1: in mindfulness. But the change in elevation would seem to
Speaker 1: um to make this even more pronounced. Yeah, yeah, totally that.
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. And now I just wish
Speaker 1: I could go climb a mountain, but now more than ever,
Speaker 1: I mean recording a podcast in my closet. Thanks Brett,
Speaker 1: I I totally so. I I in no way have
Speaker 1: ever done like the the actual like dangerous or athletic
Speaker 1: type of mountain climbing. You know, I'm not that sort
Speaker 1: of person, but I do absolutely feel this urge to
Speaker 1: get up on top of natural heights. Like you know,
Speaker 1: I see I see a big hill or rock, and
Speaker 1: I feel an instinct to climb on top of it.
Speaker 1: It's very powerful and I and I do want to obey.
Speaker 1: That's the goat mind speaking to you, right, That's the
Speaker 1: the Sader brain take And over all, right, I think
Speaker 1: we should finish up with one last email here and
Speaker 1: and I really loved this one. So this was in
Speaker 1: response to um our episodes about a World before Fire.
Speaker 1: This is also an older pair of episodes that we
Speaker 1: re ran recently, I think um where we talked about
Speaker 1: the history of fire on Earth. You know the interesting
Speaker 1: fact that Earth is often known as the water planet,
Speaker 1: but Earth is maybe even more uniquely the fire planet.
Speaker 1: It's the only place in the Solar System we could
Speaker 1: think of really where you could have fire, because it
Speaker 1: has the oxygen to react with the fuel and all
Speaker 1: that things that other things in the Solar System that
Speaker 1: we think of as fiery, like the Sun are not fiery.
Speaker 1: Like the Sun is a you know, giant ball of
Speaker 1: hot gas and plasma, big fusion reaction, and nothing is
Speaker 1: actually on fire there. But then we also talked in
Speaker 1: that episode about how necessary fire is for the unique
Speaker 1: history of human technological development. For example, it's really hard
Speaker 1: to imagine like an under water intelligent species ever developing
Speaker 1: the same kind of technological regimes that we did that
Speaker 1: ruled human history, because those regimes are based so strongly
Speaker 1: on things like metal working, which, as we understand it
Speaker 1: is dependent on fire. I don't know, maybe you could
Speaker 1: figure out some of the way on using hydrothermal vents
Speaker 1: to work metal or something, but it seems hard to picture.
Speaker 1: And in response to this pair of episodes, Corey writes
Speaker 1: in Corey says, Robert and Joe, I was listening to
Speaker 1: some back episodes and found the world before Fire the
Speaker 1: human flame. It was very interesting and included the unintended
Speaker 1: bonus that it reminded me of Chesterton's remarks on the
Speaker 1: poetical name of Smith in Heretics, thank you for what
Speaker 1: you do? And then Corey attaches a quote from G. K. Chesterton,
Speaker 1: And so the context here is that Chesterton is talking
Speaker 1: about um finding what he calls the poetical sense lying
Speaker 1: under all things. He's essentially trying to make a point
Speaker 1: that in fact, there are no uninterest sing subjects. There
Speaker 1: are only subjects where we fail to see what's interesting
Speaker 1: about them. And so somebody challenges him on on the
Speaker 1: sensibility of his and says that they offer up the
Speaker 1: example of a character in a book named Mr. Smith.
Speaker 1: Presumably this name is is a boring name, right, It's
Speaker 1: an unremarkable feature for a character to have, And like,
Speaker 1: how could you find something interesting about a character named Smith?
Speaker 1: And Chesterton responds like this quote. In the case of Smith,
Speaker 1: the name is so poetical that it must be an
Speaker 1: arduous and heroic matter for the man to live up
Speaker 1: to it. The name of smith is the name of
Speaker 1: the one trade that even kings respected. It could claim
Speaker 1: half the glory of that arm of verum Quay which
Speaker 1: all epics acclaimed. The spirit of the smithy is so
Speaker 1: close to the spirit of song that it has mixed
Speaker 1: in a million poems. And every blacksmith is a harmonious blacksmith.
Speaker 1: Even the village children feel that, in some dim way,
Speaker 1: the smith it is poetic, as the grosser and cobbler
Speaker 1: are not poetic when they feast on the dancing sparks
Speaker 1: and deafening blows in the cavern of that creative violence.
Speaker 1: The brute repose of nature, the passionate cunning of man,
Speaker 1: the strongest of earthly metals, the weirdest of earthly elements,
Speaker 1: the unconquerable iron subdued by its only conqueror. The wheel
Speaker 1: and the plowshare, the sword and the steam hammer, the
Speaker 1: arraying of armies, and the whole legend of arms. All
Speaker 1: these things are written briefly, indeed, but quite legibly on
Speaker 1: the visiting card of Mr Smith. That's wonderful. I love
Speaker 1: this and I for me this encapsulates a lot of
Speaker 1: what I try to do with this show is try
Speaker 1: to find the thing that you might not even realize
Speaker 1: has something interesting and mysterious lying underneath it, and dig
Speaker 1: down into that that sediment. Yeah. Absolutely, the idea that
Speaker 1: that there are no uninteresting topics, that that is something
Speaker 1: that we we try and take to heart here. I
Speaker 1: mean they're there are. Of course, there are topics that
Speaker 1: we tend not to cover on the show. But I
Speaker 1: think it has always been our experience, has always been
Speaker 1: my experience with h you know how stuff works as
Speaker 1: well prior to all of this that, you know, any
Speaker 1: any assignment that one gets, any topic that has passed
Speaker 1: down or suggested by another, you know, there's there's gonna
Speaker 1: be something there. Once you start digging around, you're gonna
Speaker 1: find some nugget of wonder. Well, what I would admit
Speaker 1: is that I think, I think I agree with Chesterton,
Speaker 1: like there are no uninteresting topics, only topics which we
Speaker 1: fail to find what's interesting about. But there. But I
Speaker 1: admit that there are plenty of topics where I keep
Speaker 1: failing to find what's interesting about them, like that, you
Speaker 1: know there there are things that don't interest me. I
Speaker 1: just want to say that I think that's a failing
Speaker 1: on my part. I haven't gotten there yet. I mean,
Speaker 1: part of it is like, you know, you lock yourself
Speaker 1: in a room long enough, and the walls will start
Speaker 1: speaking to you. Right, your mind will find the patterns
Speaker 1: where there are no patterns. Um. Spend enough time with
Speaker 1: a topic that you might otherwise not really um you
Speaker 1: know that you know might otherwise not research, and you'll
Speaker 1: you'll you'll suddenly start seeing things you didn't see before,
Speaker 1: though hopefully things that are actually there. Right, I hope
Speaker 1: we're not just like always hallucinating interesting things about Well, No,
Speaker 1: we do our best to keep it real. I think,
Speaker 1: so all right, Well, I think maybe we need to
Speaker 1: call our first listener mail episode right there. But we've
Speaker 1: got another whole episode worth of listener mail to catch
Speaker 1: up on that we're gonna feature next week. I believe, yes,
Speaker 1: and I believe the plan is we're going to have
Speaker 1: recorded these listener mails before anyone has had a chance
Speaker 1: to respond to the episode that we have coming out
Speaker 1: this month on a Star Wars related topic. So if
Speaker 1: you if you end up writing in about that topic, uh,
Speaker 1: we'll have to catch you on the next listener mail,
Speaker 1: which you know hopefully won't be quite as um as
Speaker 1: far in the future. Maybe we can get back in
Speaker 1: a pattern of doing one of these a month like
Speaker 1: we used to. I don't know, we'll see. We'll see
Speaker 1: if we get to do anything like we used to.
Speaker 1: That's kind of the big open question right right, But
Speaker 1: either way, keep them coming. We we always love hearing
Speaker 1: from you, absolutely. In the meantime, if you want to
Speaker 1: check out other episodes of Stuff to Blow your mind,
Speaker 1: you will find us wherever you find your podcasts and
Speaker 1: wherever that happens to be whatever strange program or aggregate
Speaker 1: or uh you know, uh you know. Back Alley Shady
Speaker 1: h Man in a trench code who sells podcasts on
Speaker 1: thumb drives. I don't know wherever you get the show.
Speaker 1: If there is a way to rate, review and subscribe,
Speaker 1: then you should do it. If the man in the
Speaker 1: trench coat has like a notepad where you write down
Speaker 1: a little review and UH and leave your your name
Speaker 1: and social Security number, then I guess go ahead and
Speaker 1: do that because that probably helps us out huge Thanks
Speaker 1: as always to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson.
Speaker 1: If you would like to get in touch with us
Speaker 1: with feedback on this episode or any other to UH
Speaker 1: to submit some listener mail that might be featured in
Speaker 1: a future listener Mail episode, you can email us at contact.
Speaker 1: That's Stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff to
Speaker 1: Blow Your Mind is production of I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts for my heart Radio, visit the i heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listening to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows