11.03.2020

November 3, 2020

Christiane speaks with Christiana Figueres and Bill McKibben about the state of the climate. She also speaks with BBC journalist David Dimbleby about the invasion of Iraq and poet Bernardine Evaristo about her new project. Walter Isaacson speaks with evolutionary biology professor Joseph Henrich about “The WEIRDest People in the World.”

Read Full Transcript EXPAND

> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO 'AMANPOUR & CO.'

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

WITH THE U.S. NOW OUT OF THE LAND MARK GLOBAL CLIMATE ACCORD, WHERE ARE WE IN THE RACE AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE?

I SPEAK TO ARCHITECT OF THAT HISTORIC PARIS DEAL.

AND ENVIRONMENTALIST BILL McGIBBONS WHO'S BEEN RINGING THE ALARM BELLS FOR DECADES.

> THEN --

I -- VIRUS CONCERN, THOSE TWO THINGS WERE CLEAR.

IT WAS MONUMENTAL.

AND WE WOULD DEAL WITH IT TOGETHER.

THAT EXTRA SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP THAT RESHAPED THE POST-9/11 WORLD FOR BETTER AND FOR WORSE.

BRITISH BROADCASTING LEGEND OFFERS A NEW LENS ON BUSH, BLAIR, AND THE IRAQ WAR.

> PLUS --

SO ARE W.E.I.R.D. STANDS FOR WESTERN, EDUCATED, INDUSTRIALIZED RICH AND DEMOCRATIC.

PSYCHOLOGIST JOSEPH HENRICH KEHLS WALTER ISAACSON WHAT MAKES US WEIRD.

> FINALLY, POETRY FOR OUR COVID TIME.

WITH PRIZE WINNING AUTHOR BERNADINE EVERISTO.

'AMANPOUR & CO.' IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY FUND.

SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III.

THE CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE STRAUS FAMILY FOUNDATION.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

CLIMATE IS THE EXISTENTIAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME, DETERMINING THE SURVIVAL OF OUR SPECIES AND, OF COURSE, THE SPREAD OF ANY NEW PANDEMICS.

THIS YEAR, THE UNITED STATES OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWS FROM THE HISTORIC PARIS ACCORDS WHICH WAS SIGNED IN 2015.

THANKS TO A 2016 CAMPAIGN PROMISE BY DONALD TRUMP.

195 COUNTRIES HAD COME TOGETHER AFTER YEARS OF FRAUGHT NEGOTIATIONS WITH A ROADMAP TO KEEP GLOBAL WARMING BELOW 2 DEGREES CELSIUS.

THIS YEAR, ALONE, THOUGH, A LOT OF BIODIVERSITY MAKES A PANDEMIC LIKE COVID MUCH MORE LIKELY AS WELL AS THE ROARING HEAT AND MASSIVE CLIMATE SWINGS.

CALIFORNIA IS ENDURING HISTORIC WILDFIRES THAT HAVE BURNED ANOTHER 4 MILLION ACRES.

A SIMILAR FATE HAS BEFALLEN SIBERIA, AUSTRALIA AND THE AMAZON RAIN FOREST.

2020 HAS ALSO BEEN A RECORD YEAR FOR HURRICANES IN THE UNITED STATES.

SCIENTISTS SAY CLIMATE CHANGE MAKES THEM MORE FREQUENT.

THIS YEAR HAS ALSO SEEN MASSIVE CLIMATE ACTIVISM.

STREET PROTESTS AROUND THE WORLD HAVE LED TO VOTES CAST IN KEY ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

I'M JOINED NOW BY THE ARCHITECT OF THAT 2015 PARIS AGREEMENT.

SHE HAS DEDICATED HER LIFE TO CLIMATE POLICY.

AND I'M JOINED BY THE LEADING ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALIST.

SOUNDED THE ALARM BELLS ON THIS CLIMATE CRISIS MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

AS I SAID, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS THERE'S A TECHNICALITY THAT THE UNITED STATES IS OUT OF THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD.

SO, SINCE YOU'RE ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS FOR THE U.N. ON THIS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IF THE U.S.

STAYS OUT OF IT, OR IF THE U.S.

UNDER A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO GET BACK INTO IT?

WHAT ARE THE IMMEDIATE REPERCUSSIONS?

WELL, I DON'T THINK THIS HAS ANY IMMEDIATE REPERCUSSIONS.

OVER TIME IF THE UNITED STATES STAYS OUT OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF THE UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION WOULD CONTINUE TO ROLL BACK STANDARDS AND POLICIES THAT INCENTIVIZE THE MOVE TOWARD CLEANER ENERGY, CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES, THE UNITED STATES INDUSTRY WOULD ACTUALLY LOSE ITS COMPETITIVENESS.

BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION, CHINA, KOREA, JAPAN, THEY'RE ALL MOVING FORWARD INTO THE DECARBONIZED ECONOMY NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SAVE THE WORLD BUT BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S COMPETITIVE FOR THEIR ECONOMY.

SO, SADLY, THE UNITED STATES WOULD CONTINUE TO LOSE ITS STANDING IN WORLD ECONOMY.

I WANT TO PLAY JUST A TINY SOUND BITE.

IT'S PART OF AN INTERVIEW THAT WE DID DURING THE SIGNING RIGHT AFTER IT WAS SIGNED AND IT'S AN ANNIVERSARY COMING UP RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS FIVE YEARS AGO.

WHEN THE WORLD IS FACED WITH A TRULY GLOBAL CHALLENGE, THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS CAN AND HAS COME TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE.

SO, I WANT TO ASK YOU BOTH, FIRST YOU, BECAUSE THAT IS YOU, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS HAS COME TOGETHER?

HAD THOSE KEY BENCHMARKS OF THE 2015 ACCORDS ACTUALLY BEEN MET?

WELL, YES AND NO.

IN A SENSE THAT THE REAL ECONOMY IS CONTINUING TO DECARBONIZE BECAUSE OF THE GEOPOLITICAL MASS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE CONTINUING TO HAVE THEIR CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSIBLE POLICIES BUT ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF CORPORATIONS THAT ARE INCREASINGLY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE RISK OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT, BOTH THE PHYSICAL RISK, AS WELL AS THE RISK TO THE VALUE OF THEIR COMPANIES, AS WELL AS THE FINANCIAL SECTOR THAT IS INCREASINGLY MOVING, SHIFTING CAPITAL, FROM HIGH-CARBON ASSETS TO LOWER-CARBON ASSETS.

WE HAVE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, $150 TRILLION OF CAPITAL DEMANDING DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

RISK FROM CORPORATIONS.

WE HAVE AN ALLIANCE OF ASSET OWNERS THAT IS UP TO NOW $5 TRILLION.

30 OF THE LARGEST INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS THAT HAVE COMMITTED TO MOVE THEIR ASSET PORTFOLIO OVER TO NET ZERO BY 2050.

AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS GOOD FOR THEIR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.

NOBODY'S TALKING HERE ABOUT SOME ESOTERIC SAVING OF THE PLANET, SAVING OF THE WORLD.

IT IS BECAUSE THE ECONOMICS ARE WITH DECARBONIZATION.

BILL, LET ME TURN TO YOU BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE CHINA AND I THINK SOUTH KOREA HAVE MADE PLEDGES TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL BASICALLY, THEY HAVE BEATEN THE UNITED STATES IN THAT PLEDGE.

TO THAT PLEDGE.

DO YOU -- ARE YOU A SANGUINE ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND ABOUT THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE THAT COULD BRING OTHER COUNTRIES TO MEET THEIR TARGETS, BUT ALSO BRING THE UNITED STATES BACK INTO COMPLIANCE?

WELL, CHRISTIANE, AS USUAL, IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT WHERE ALL THIS IS HEADED.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARD A DECARBONIZED WORLD.

THE ONLY QUESTION, OF COURSE, IS HOW FAST.

AND IF WE GO AT THE RATE THAT WE'RE GOING NOW, THEN WE WILL NEVER CATCH UP WITH CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.

I MEAN, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET SET A NEW RECORD IN AUGUST IN CALIFORNIA.

THE TEMPERATURE REACHED 130 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.

THAT'S THE LIMIT OF HUMAN ABILITY TO SURVIVE.

THE COMPUTER MODELING MAKES CLEAR THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED ACROSS LARGE SWATHS OF THE PLANET UNLESS WE MOVE WITH GREAT, GREAT SPEED.

SO THE HOPE, ALWAYS, OF THE PARIS ACCORDS WAS THAT IT WOULD GOOSE THIS RESPONSE.

IT WOULD MAKE US MOVE FASTER THAN WE OTHERWISE WOULD.

WE NEED TO KEEP DOING THAT.

WE NEED TO KEEP PRESSING IN WASHINGTON, SAY, BUT ALSO IN WALL STREET AND AT LEAST AS MUCH.

THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN SO GOOD TO SEE ACTIVISM FOCUSING NOT JUST ON POLITICS, BUT ON COMMANDS THAT FOSSIL FUEL DIVESTMENT MOVEMENT, WHERE A LOT OF THIS BEGAN, IS NOW AT ABOUT $15 TRILLION IN PORTFOLIOS, ENDOWMENTS, THAT HAVE DIVESTED FROM FOSSIL FUEL IN THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, YOU KNOW, BOTH THE QUEEN AND THE POPE HAVE ANNOUNCED PLANS TO DIVEST, WHICH LEAVES I DON'T KNOW WHO, BEYONCE, MAYBE, AS THE, YOU KNOW, ONLY ROYALTY WE STILL NEED TO GET ONBOARD.

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT BIODIVERSITY AS WELL.

BECAUSE THIS IS A MASSIVE PART OF IT.

A NEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORT BASICALLY LINKED THE IDEA OF NEW PANDEMICS, COVID LIKE OR EVEN WORSE, TO THIS LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY.

LOSS OF OUR NATURAL WORLD.

AND THAT THEY COULD BECOME A MUCH MORE REGULAR AND MORE VIRULENT FEATURE.

BILL, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?

I THINK FOR A VERY LONG TIME SERIOUS PEOPLE SOMEHOW MANAGED TO REGARD THE PLANET, THE PHYSICAL WORLD, AS A SUBSET OF THE -- A LOT MORE TIME WORRYING ABOUT, WE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY, WAS THE ECONOMY ON THE MEND, HAD THE ECONOMY CAUGHT A COLD ON AND ON AND ON.

THE ECONOMY'S IMPORTANT, BUT IT EXISTS INSIDE THIS LARGER PHYSICAL PLANET.

AND THIS YEAR, BETWEEN COVID, BETWEEN THE HURRICANES, BETWEEN THE WILDFIRES, IS A PRETTY GOOD REMINDER THAT WE BETTER FOCUS ON THE HELP OF THOSE UNDERLYING PHYSICAL SYSTEMS BEFORE ALL ELSE.

I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING THINK YOU BOTH HAVE SOME FAITH THAT THE LOGIC OF GLOBAL ECONOMICS IS GOING TO LEAD TO THAT.

I SPOKE TO BRIAN DEESE, WHO'S THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE INVESTING AT BLACKROCK.

I SPOKE TO HIM EARLIER THIS YEAR BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.

ABOUT WHY THEY WERE DIVESTING.

WHY THEY WERE LOOKING INTO DIVESTING.

LISTEN TO WHAT HE TOLD ME.

WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ASKING THE QUESTION, NOT NECESSARILY ARE YOU GOING TO EXIT THE ENTIRE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY, OR ALL UTILITIES GLOBALLY, INSTEAD WITHIN THOSE SECTORS WHICH ARE THE COMPANIES THAT ARE THE MOST PREPARED THAT ARE INVESTING THE MOST IN THE CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES OF THE FUTURE, AND WHICH OF THOSE COMPANIES ARE LESS PREPARED?

SO, I GUESS I WANT BOTH OF YOU TO TELL ME, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

FOSSIL FUELS OR TRANSITIONING FROM FOSSIL FUELS.

WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO REALLY MAKE THIS A GAME-CHANGING TIPPING POINT MOVE FROM ALL THOSE WHO SUBSIDIZE AND INVEST IN FOSSIL FUELS?

WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE LARGE BANKS LIKE BARCLAYS, MORGAN STANLEY, HAVE ALREADY COME OUT, IN FACT, EVEN JUST THIS YEAR SAYING THEY FINALLY REACHED THE CONCLUSION IT'S WAY TOO RISKY TO STAY INVESTED IN THOSE ASSETS AND THEY'RE MOVING OVER.

AS I SAID, THOSE ARE THE BANKS, LARGER BANKS AND MORE BANKS WILL JOIN.

ASSET OWNERS ARE ALSO ALREADY MOVING.

THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, CHRISTIANE, THIS IS A TRANSITION, AND THERE IS NO ONE THAT IS ALREADY IN THE PERFECT SPACE.

THERE IS ACTUALLY INCREASINGLY FEWER PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE TERRIBLE SPACE BECAUSE MOST OF THESE ACTORS ARE IN THE TRANSITION SPACE IN WHICH YOU SEE EVIDENCE OF BOTH THE PAST THAT WE'RE LEAVING AS WELL AS THE FUTURE THAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARD SO IF YOU WANT TO SAY, WELL, ARE WE DOING WELL OR NOT, WELL, YOU CAN FIND EVIDENCE OF BOTH.

DEPENDING ON WHAT COLOR GLASSES YOU PUT ON.

THE IMPORTANT THING IS, 'A,' WE ARE TRANSITIONING AND 'B,' HOW DO WE ACCELERATE THAT TRANSITION?

NOW, YOU DO HAVE SOME VERY INTERESTING CASES IN WHICH, FOR EXAMPLE, A FLORIDA-BASED RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANY, AND UTILITY, HAS ALREADY GONE ABOVE THE MARKET VALUE OF EXXONMOBIL.

WHY?

BECAUSE RENEWABLE ENERGIES ARE DEFINITELY MUCH MORE COMPETITIVE, EVEN IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ALSO IN MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

SO YOU SEE THAT THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AGAIN, NOT AT THE SPEED THAT WE NEED.

YOU KNOW, THE LEGENDARY, REALLY THE PERSON WHO'S BROUGHT US MORE ABOUT OUR NATURAL HABITAT THAN ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING REALLY HAS DONE ENDLESS PHENOMENAL PROGRAMMING TO SHOW US OUR NATURAL WORLD.

HIS LATEST IS CALLED 'MY WITNESS STATEMENT: A LIFE ON OUR PLANET.'

HE SAYS A WITNESS STATEMENT IS ABOUT A CRIME, A CRIME THAT I'VE SEEN HUMAN BEINGS COMMIT.

AND HE RECOUNTS THEM THEN HE HAS SOLUTIONS.

I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE CLIP FROM THE LAST THIRD OF HIS PROGRAM, WHICH COMES UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS INCLUDING ABOUT FARMING AND ABOUT FISHING.

ESTIMATES SUGGEST THAT NO-FISH ZONES, OVER A THIRD OF OUR COASTAL SEAS, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE US WITH ALL THE FISH WE WILL EVER NEED.

♪♪ IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS THE U.N.

IS ATTEMPTING TO CREATE THE BIGGEST NO-FISH ZONE OF ALL.

IN ONE ACT, THIS WOULD TRANSFORM THE OPEN OCEAN FROM A PLACE EXHAUSTED BY SUBSIDIZED FISHING FLEETS TO A WILDERNESS THAT WILL HELP US ALL IN OUR EFFORTS TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE.

LET ME TURN TO YOU FIRST, BILL, I MEAN, EVERYBODY WANTS SOLUTIONS.

NOT JUST THE ECONOMIC, AS WE DISCUSSED, BUT ALSO HOW DO YOU REBALANCE.

LIKE DAVID SAID, THE NATURAL WORLD.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT KIND OF SENSIBLE ADVICE BEING TAKEN?

I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD OF SENSIBLE ADVICE BEING TAKEN, SCIENCE BEING FOLLOWED, IS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO HOW MANY PEOPLE MAKE THAT DEMAND.

YOU KNOW, SHE WAS JUST RIGHT IN SAYING THAT WE NEED TO ACCELERATE THIS FINANCIAL TRANSITION.

I BEGAN 2020 LONG AGO, IT SEEMS, IN JANUARY GETTING ARRESTED WITH SOME COLLEAGUES IN THE LOBBY OF THE CHASE -- JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NEAREST THE NATION'S CAPITAL.

WE DID IT TO LAUNCH THIS CAMPAIGN TO DEMAND THAT THEY STOP HANDING OVER HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.

A FEW WEEKS AGO AFTER ALL THAT PRESSURE, THEY SAID THAT THEIR BANK WOULD BE PARIS COMPLIANT GOING FORWARD.

I DON'T THINK WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO JAIL BEFORE WE COMPLETELY FIND OUT, BUT IT'S A VERY GOOD REMINDER THAT IT DOESN'T -- YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE GOOD POLICIES AND TO THINK ABOUT THEM AND TO MAKE BEAUTIFUL DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT THEM AND IN THE END THIS IS ABOUT POWER AND THE ABILITY TO TRY AND MAKE THESE INSTITUTIONS MOVE AT A SPEED THAT MATCHES THE DEMAND THAT THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS PUTTING ON.

I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON WHETHER YOU'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, WE ALL TALK ABOUT PROTECTING THE AMAZON FOREST BECAUSE IT FALLS DOWN THE CARBON DIOXIDE BECAUSE IT BREATHES OXYGEN FOR US.

SOME ARE SAYING THAT KEEPING WHALES, AND REPOPULATING THE OCEAN WITH WHALES, HAS AN EVEN BIGGER IMPACT ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE.

LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THEY PULL DOWN AROUND 33 TONS OF CARBON DOXIDE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE OVER THEIR LONG LIFETIMES.

A HUGE AMOUNT COMPARED TO WHAT TREES DO.

WHAT DO YOU THINK TO THAT?

BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL PARTS THAT ACTUALLY HUNT WHALES.

WELSH OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE ALL WHALE ENTHUSIASTS AND WE WOULD WANT TO PROTECT THE WHALES.

ACTUALLY HAVE COME BACK IN THEIR POPULATIONS SINCE WHALING WAS MADE ILLEGAL.

I THINK AS BEAUTIFUL AS THOSE ANIMALS ARE, IT IS UNFAIR TO PUT THE ENTIRE WEIGHT OF TRANSITION AND TRANSFORMATION ON THEIR SHOULDERS.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

WE HAVE TO SEE THIS AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEMIC CHANGE.

WE HAVE TO MOVE, CHRISTIANE, FROM LOOKING AT ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AS BEING ONLY A BURDEN, AND ONLY A RESPONSIBILITY, IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY, BUT IT'S NOT JUST A RESPONSIBILITY.

IT IS ALSO A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY THAT IS BEING FORCED UPON US BECAUSE WE CAN'T SAY NO, IS BEING FORCED ON US TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS, THE ENERGY SYSTEM, THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM, THE FISHING SYSTEM, THE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM, LOOK AT THEM ALL AS THEY WERE IN THE 21st CENTURY.

THE 20th CENTURY.

OVER DECADES, THEY HAVE BECOME ARCANE, INEFFICIENT, AND POLLUTING.

WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRANSFORM THEM INTO THE MODERN, EFFICIENT, HEALTHY SYSTEM THAT WE NEED.

ALL OF THEM, ENERGY, TRANSPORT, AGRICULTURE, AND FISHING.

AND, YES, HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

AS USUAL.

IN SAYING THAT THE U.N. IS TRYING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO PROTECT 30% OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE, BOTH SOIL AND WATER.

FOR HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS.

BUT THAT IS PART OF THE SOLUTION.

WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS TO BE AN INTEGRATED SOLUTION OF ALL OF THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE LIFE SUSTAINING.

WE HAVE TO STOP THINKING ABOUT THIS IN SILOS AND UNDERSTAND THIS IS A SYSTEMIC TRANSFORMATION THAT IS BEING FORCED UPON US AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS DECADE WHICH IS THE CRITICAL DECADE DURING WHICH WE HAVE TO BE AT ONE-HALF GLOBAL EMISSIONS BY 2030 THEN WE WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO A WORLD THAT IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE WORLD THAT WE HAVE NOW.

IT IS DEFINITELY THE WAY TO GO.

NOT JUST TO AVOID THE DYSTOPIAN WORLD BUT ACTUALLY TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR A WORLD THAT IS HEALTHIER.

MUCH MORE STABLE.

MUCH MORE JUST.

MUCH MORE INCLUSIVE.

BECAUSE WE CAN DO IT.

WE CAN DO IT OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, MINUS TEN MONTHS.

BILL, LAST WORD TO YOU, ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE TEN YEARS MINUS TEN MONTH DEADLINE?

CAN WE DO IT BY 2030?

WELL, WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT.

SHE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THIS IS THE DECADE THAT COUNTS.

WE WASTED THREE DECADES LARGELY THANKS TO THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.

WE GOT TO CRAM THE WORK OF 40 YEARS INTO 10.

THE SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS HAVE GIVEN US THE TECHNOLOGY.

NOW WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF WE HAVE THE WILL TO PUT IT TO WORK.

THAT INVOLVES BUILDING MOVEMENTS, WATCHING YOUNG PEOPLE OUT IN THE STREETS, THERE'S A GOOD SIGN, LET'S GET BEHIND THEM.

ON THAT NOTE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

> AND NOW A METAPHOR FOR THESE TIMES.

THIS SUBWAY TRAIN IN THE NETHERLANDS WAS SAVED FROM A SPECTACULAR CRASH WHEN IT BURST THROUGH BUFFERS AND LANDED ON A GIANT WHALE TAIL.

THE SCULPTURE.

THE TRAIN AND ITS CONDUCTOR WOULD HAVE DROPPED 30 FEET.

LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED.

AND THEY ALL LIVED TO TELL THE TALE.

> NOW, THE 21st CENTURY HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 9/11, TERRORISM, AND WAR.

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, PANDEMICS, AND EVEN AN ALARMING LOSS OF TRUST IN DEMOCRACY.

ALL ARE SOMEHOW LINKED.

BBC'S LEGEND HAS A NEW PODCAST OUT FOLLOWING THE SUCCESS OF HIS LAST ONE ON THE RISE OF RUPERT MURDOCH.

THIS TIME HE FOCUSES ON THE CRUCIAL PERIOD BETWEEN 9/11 AND THE U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ.

ALSO ON THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TONY BLAIR AND PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.

THE FAULT LINE INCLUDES INTERVIEWS WITH SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYERS, INCLUDING DONALD RUMSFELD, COMMUNICATIONS GURU, CAMPBELL, AND BLAIR, HIMSELF.

DAVID DIMBBLBY IS JOINING ME NOW.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

HI.

I WANT TO ASK YOU BECAUSE YOUR LAST ONE WAS SO SUCCESSFUL.

IN WAY ALL OF THIS IS LINKED, GIVEN THE PUSH THAT MURDOCH, YOU KNOW, THROUGH HIS MEDIA PUT ONTO THE IRAQ WAR.

WHAT WAS THE DRIVING FORCE FOR YOU TO RE-EXAMINE THIS VERY MUCH EXAMINED TOPIC?

I THINK IT WAS BECAUSE I WAS PUZZLED BY THE WAY THAT BLAIR KEPT SUPPORTING GEORGE W. RIGHT THROUGH, DESPITE IMMENSE POLITICAL PRESSURE IN BRITAIN FROM HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY.

AND WHAT IT WAS THAT DROVE THIS MAN TO STICK WITH BUSH AND THEREFORE MAKE IT A BIT EASIER FOR BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES DO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ BECAUSE HE HAD A CLOSE ALLY WITH HIM.

IT'S THAT PROCESS.

IT'S THE WAY IN WHICH ONCE YOU DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING POLITICALLY, AND BLAIR IS AN IDEALIST POLITICALLY, HE BELIEVED IN REGIME CHANGE, BELIEVED IN GETTING RID OF DICTATORS BUT YOU COULDN'T DO THAT UNDER BRITISH LAW, SO HE GETS SUCKED INTO THIS THING THAT HE WANTS TO BE WITH BUSH, WANTS TO GET RID OF SADDAM AFTER 9/11 BECAUSE BUSH DOES.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT AL QAEDA AND SADDAM ARE CONNECTED.

SO HE GETS THIS IDEA THAT IT'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

THAT THE WORLD'S GOT TO BE PRESERVED FROM.

GRADUALLY AS THE WEEKS UNFOLD, THAT EVIDENCE BECOMES FLAKIER AND FLAKIER, HE STILL HANGS ON TO IT AND THAT'S WHERE THE ISSUE OF TRUST COMES IN BECAUSE HE'S TELLING HIS PUBLIC IN BRITAIN, HE'S TELLING PEOPLE IN THE STATES, SADDAM HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

AS WE KNOW, IT TURNS OUT HE DIDN'T.

WE DO KNOW THAT, BUT I REALLY WANT TO DRILL DOWN, ACTUALLY, ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID IS ONE OF THE CASUALTIES.

THAT IS TRUST IN LEADERSHIP.

TRUST IN DEMOCRACY.

BUT FIRST, I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE SOUND BITE WHICH HAS FROM YOUR PODCAST, SOME BLAIR AND SOME BUSH.

LET'S PLAY IT.

WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF FORMAL VISITS.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE HAD A NICE WALK AROUND CAMP DAVID AND GOT TO KNOW EACH OTHER.

AND AS THEY TOLD ME, HE'S A PRETTY CHARMING GUY.

HE PUT THE CHARM OFFENIVE ON ME.

AND IT WORKED.

SO THAT WAS GEORGE W. BUSH.

AND THEN THERE WAS A MEMO THAT -- THAT YOU DISCOVERED AND OTHERS DID, SORT OF THE BLAIR MEMO ON I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT ME TO DO, KIND OF.

TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

AGAIN, IT'S VERY WELL KNOWN, BUT HOW DOES IT RELATE TO TODAY?

WELL, THE FIRST THING ABOUT THAT MEMO IS THAT NOBODY WANTED HIM TO SEND IT.

AND HE INSISTED ON SENDING IT AND HE SAYS IN THE PODCAST, WELL, IT WAS JUST EXPLAINING I WAS ON HIS SIDE.

BUT HIS OWN FOREIGN SECRETARY WAS SAYING, WHAT ON EARTH IS HE DOING?

AMBASSADORS WERE SAYING, WHY IS HE SENDING THIS MEMO?

I THINK WHAT IT TELLS US IS IT'S TO DO WITH THE -- IT'S TO DO WITH THE POWER OF A PRIME MINISTER OR A PRESIDENT WHO, IF THEY SET THEMSELVES ON A PARTICULAR COURSE, IN A WAY SWEEP ASIDE ALL OBJECTIONS, BECAUSE POLITICALLY, IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO BACK DOWN.

AND, THEREFORE, YOU GET A POLICY WHICH YOU MAY BE HAVING DOUBTS ABOUT AND ALL AROUND YOU, THERE ARE PEOPLE SAYING THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

YOU HAVEN'T GOT THIS RIGHT.

AND, YET, BECAUSE YOU'VE SET THAT COURSE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BE DEFLECTED FROM IT AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT LEADS TO A DISTRUST WHICH IS THAT IT WAS PATENTLY OBVIOUS AFTER THE IRAQ WAR, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, AND AS WE REVEAL, YOU KNOW, THE EVIDENCE, THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THIS EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IS JUST NOT TRUE.

IT'S FLAKY.

YOU CAN'T TRUST IT.

NEVERTHELESS, A POLITICAL LEADER KEEPS HAVING TO USE ANYTHING TO BOLSTER THEIR CASE.

THEY HYPE UP THE EVIDENCE.

THEY HAVE TO KEEP ON BECAUSE GETTING OFF OF POLICY IS SO DIFFICULT.

BUT IF YOU DON'T GET OFF OF POLICY, PEOPLE DON'T TRUST YOU BECAUSE IN THE END, THEY FIND OUT YOUR POLICY WAS BASED ON A LIE.

DAVID, CAN I ASK YOU ABOUT THE PRESS' ROLE, YOU KNOW, I SAID THAT YOU DID THE PODCAST ABOUT RUPERT MURDOCH.

EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW FOX NEWS AND THE MURDOCH NEWSPAPERS REALLY DID RAMP UP THE MARCH TO WAR.

AND WERE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT AS, I GUESS, A PROPAGANDA OUTLET FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT ARE THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THAT, DO YOU THINK, AND PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE SEE KEVIN RUDD, THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA, IS GATHERING A PETITION TO LOOK INTO, YOU KNOW, THE MURDOCH HOLDINGS, THE MURDOCH DEALINGS.

CAN YOU REFLECT ON SOME OF THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER AND WHAT IT LEADS TO BY CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, MURDOCH PRESS IN THIS CASE?

NEWSPAPERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DANGEROUS.

NEWSPAPERS HAVE ALWAYS DONE THIS.

I MEAN, IN THE 18th AND 19th CENTURIES, IT WAS LIKE THIS.

I THINK MURDOCH'S PART IS VERY DANGEROUS.

AND VERY FRIGHTENING.

BUT THE PART ABOUT THE NEWSPAPER JUST AS FRIGHTENING, IN BRITAIN, FOR INSTANCE, THE POWER OF THE 'DAILY MAIL', 'DAILY EXPRESS,' RAMPING UP A STORY, USING BANNER HEADLINES.

BUT, I MEAN, IT HAPPENED IN THE RUN-UP TO THE WAR WITH GERMANY.

IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

EXACTLY THE SAME THING, THERE WERE PAPERS WANTING APPEASEMENT AND PRAISING IT.

I THINK THE POWER OF NEWSPAPERS IS THAT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CONTROL IT.

I DON'T SEE WHAT YOU DO.

I MEAN, YOU CAN DO -- THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AS MANY VARIETIES OF NEWSPAPERS AS POSSIBLE AND PREVENTING NEWSPAPERS, ONE MAN, LIKE RUPERT MURDOCH, GETTING AHOLD OF A WHOLE LOT OF NEWSPAPERS.

NOW, WE HAD LAWS IN BRITAIN TO TRY AND PREVENT THAT, BUT THEY WERE NEVER USED SUCCESSFULLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HE OWNED THE 'TIMES,' THE 'SUNDAY TIMES,' 'THE SUN,' WHICH IS THE MOST POWERFUL POPULAR PAPER AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER -- THE TROUBLE IS ONCE THEY GET A LITTLE BIT OF POWER, THE NEWSPAPER BARENS ARE SUCKED IN BY POLITICS AND THE POLITICIANS SUCK THEM.

. HAVE THEM TO LUNCH, TEA AND DINNER, TALK TO THEM, ASK THEIR OPINIONS.

THEY THINK THEY'RE THE POWER -- MURDOCH THINKS HE'S THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE.

YOU KNOW.

YEAH.

INI WANT TO ASK YOU THIS.

I WAS TALKING TO AMERICAN HISTORIAN JON MEACHAM WHO IN A PREVIOUS LIFE HAD BEEN A JOURNALIST ABOUT WHAT HE DEFINED AS A MORAL CHALLENGE FOR JOURNALISTS GOING FORWARD.

SAYING WE HAD A MORAL DILEMMA AS TO WHETHER TRUMP OR WHOEVER, DEMAGOGUES WHO ARE KNOWN AND PROVEN TO HAVE USED THE MEDIA TO SPOUT UNTRUTH, FALSEHOODS, LIES, THAT WE HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE OFFERING UNFETTERED USE OF OUR MEDIA.

AND HE WENT BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE McCARTHY ERA AND HOW SOME NEWSPAPERS SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER UNCHECKED McCARTHYISM.

DO YOU THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE A BASIS FOR GOING FORWARD, NO MATTER WHO THE LEADER IS, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR WHEREVER, TO GIVE THEM UNFETTERED PUBLIC ACCESS?

HAS GOT TO BE RETHOUGHT?

WELL, I THINK THAT'S -- IT'S THE FIRST RULE OF GOOD JOURNALISM.

FACT CHECKING.

AND WE'VE NOW -- WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT NOW, THE BBC HAS A FACT-CHECKING UNIT THAT WHATEVER ANYBODY SAYS IN A SPEECH, WHATEVER STATISTICS THEY USE TO SUPPORT AN ARGUMENT, THEY DO A FACT CHECK, THEY'LL SAY, THAT ISN'T QUITE TRUE, THIS ISN'T QUITE TRUE.

THIS IS THE FIRST JOB OF A JOURNALIST.

NOT NOT TO REPORT A PRESIDENT, ALWAYS TO REMEMBER THAT A PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY A MAJORITY.

A PRIME MINISTER BY A MAJORITY.

THEREFORE, THERE'S SOMETHING IN WHAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO DISENTANGLE AND UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN TO THE READERS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT IN TERMS OF FALSE INFORMATION, IN TERMS OF THAT KIND OF DEMAGOGUERY, ABSOLUTELY.

TO REPORT IT, YES, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SAID BY THE PRESIDENT OR THE PRIME MINISTER OR WHOEVER IT IS, THE HEAD OF STATE, YES, REPORT IT BUT THEN SAY, ACTUALLY, THIS ISN'T TRUE, THE FACTS DON'T BEAR THIS OUT.

THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY.

YES, I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL.

THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE BY LAW.

THAT'S JOURNALISTIC ETHICS.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY LAW IS MAKING SURE THAT NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH POWER.

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT A CHANGE COMING TO DOWNING STREET, THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, WHO HAS HIRED A NEW SPOKESMAN WHO IS GOING TO GIVE ON-THE-RECORD, ON-CAMERA BRIEFINGS.

NOW, THIS IS COMPLETELY NEW FOR BRITAIN.

IT'S NOT THE TRADITIONAL WAY THAT THE PRIME MINISTER GET HIS MESSAGE OUT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF GOING STRAIGHT TO THEIR OWN MEDIA RATHER THAN THE WAY THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT IN THE PAST?

I WILL WAIT TO SEE.

I MEAN, THE WAY THEY'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST IN DOWNING STREET IS BRIEFINGS TO A SMALL GROUP OF JOURNALISTS WHO ARE SWORN TO SECRECY NOT TO SAY -- SO YOU GOT INFORMATION COMING UP WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO ATTRIBUTE IT.

ONE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING -- DOING IT AS JOHNSON'S PRESS SECRETARY, AT LEAST, SHE IS HIS MOUTHPIECE, HIS VOICE.

WHETHER SHE'LL BE ABLE TO COPE WITH WHAT I HOPE WOULD BE AN ONSLAUGHT OF CRITICAL QUESTIONS AS IF IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS THE PRIME MINISTER, HERSELF.

WE AWAIT TO SEE.

IT'S A FUNNY TREND, IT'S A FUNNY WAY OF DEALING WITH INFORMATION.

IT'S A SLIGHTLY NARCISSISTIC THING TO DO, I THINK, TO HAVE YOUR OWN, YOU KNOW, NOT ME, BUT MY SPOKESMAN WILL GO OUT THERE AND EVERY DAY, EVERY DAY, TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SYSTEM WHERE EVERY WEEK THE PRIME MINISTER GOES TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS THERE IN THEORY, THAT'S MEANT TO BE THE WAY IT'S DONE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT, BUT, I MEAN, WHETHER IT'S BETTER THAN PRIVATE THINGS, I DON'T KNOW.

EVERYTHING LEAKS SO MUCH, YOU KNOW, NOWADAYS.

THE PRIME MINISTER CAN'T SORT OF BLOW HIS NOSE WITHOUT IT LEAKING, SOMEBODY SAYS.

SOUNDS WAFFLE.

FINALLY --

WITHOUT IT BEING REPORTED.

YOU KNOW.

YEAH, FINALLY, IT'S BEEN NOTED THAT BORIS JOHNSON'S ADMINISTRATION, OR HIS GOVERNMENT, HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO TO THE BBC A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT TRUMP HAS BEEN DOING TO CNN AND THE OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

TRYING TO DOMINATE.

TRYING TO IN SOME WAYS DENIGRATE AS WELL.

ARE YOU GOING TO POTENTIALLY RUN TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THE BBC?

I WAS SO ANGRY WHEN I READ THAT THE PRIME MINISTER HAD CHOSEN THE NEXT CHAIRMAN OF THE BBC, SOMEBODY WHO IS PERMANENTLY, ALWAYS HAS BEEN, HOSTILE TO THE BBC AT EVERY TURN.

I WAS SO ANGRY AT THAT THAT I SAID I'D PUT MY NAME FORWARD AS CHAIRMAN TO DEFEND THE BBC.

I'VE BEEN -- I'VE ACTUALLY RAN FOR THE CHAIRMANSHIP TWICE BEFORE BECAUSE I HAVE VERY STRONG VIEWS ABOUT HOW THE BBC SHOULD BE RUN, BUT THAT -- THAT HAS NOW FADED.

THE PERSON THEY SELECTED TO BE CHAIRMAN THEN SAID HE WASN'T GOING TO BE CHAIRMAN.

AND NOW IT'S MUCH MORE OPEN COMPETITION.

SO I THINK THAT THE -- I THINK THAT THE PERSON WILL COME THROUGH WON'T BE SOMEBODY WHO IS ACTUALLY ENDEMICALLY HOSTILE, LOATHES THE BBC.

IT WILL BE SOMEBODY WHO MAY SPR VIEWS AS EVERYBODY WOULD ABOUT CHANGES BUT WON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO DESTROY IT.

AND I GET A SENSE ALREADY THAT MAYBE THEY'RE BACKING OFF A BIT ON THE ATTACKS ON THE BBC BECAUSE DURING COVID, THE BBC HAS BEEN HUGELY POPULAR IN THE COUNTRY.

PEOPLE HAVE TRUSTED IT IN A WAY THEY DON'T TRUST ANY OTHER MEDIA.

AND CERTAINLY THE GOVERNMENT REALIZES THEY NEED A TRUSTED MEDIA.

DAVID DIMBLEBY, THANK YOU SO MUCH, INDEED, FOR JOINING US.

THANKS, CHRISTIANE.

> WE COME TO THE STUDY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR, ARE WE GETTING THE FULL PICTURE?

OUR NEXT GUEST SAYS NO.

JOSEPH HENRICH IS A HARVARD PROFESSOR OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND SAYS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN NATURE IS SKEWED BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEER TO TAKE PART IN STUDIES COME FROM THE SAME CROP.

EDUCATED WESTERNERS.

AND ONCE MORE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY QUITE PECULIAR.

HENRICH SPELLS IT OUT IN HIS NEW BOOK, 'THE WEIRDEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD' AND ALSO TELLS IT TO WALTER ISAACSON.

THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

PROFESSOR JOSEPH HENRICH, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

THANKS, GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

FIRST LET'S EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY W.E.I.R.D.

RIGHT, IT'S A ACRONYM, STANDS FOR WESTERN, EDUCATED, INDUSTRIALIZED, RICH AND DEMOCRATIC.

TWO COLLEAGUES OF MINE, WE COINED IT BACK IN 2010 WHEN WE WANTED TO REFER TO THE BEST BODY OF SUBJECTS OR PARTICIPANTS THAT PSYCHOLOGISTS USE TO POPULATE THEIR EXPERIMENTS.

ON WHICH MUCH OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY IS BASED.

SO IT'S A PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNUSUAL POPULATION.

MOST OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY TAKES PEOPLE LIKE US, I'LL SAY, WESTERNERS WHO ARE EDUCATED AND LITERATE AND MAKES PSYCHOLOGICAL, YOU KNOW, ABSTRACTIONS AND JUDGMENTS ABOUT THEM.

WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM?

WELL, IT TURNS OUT WHEN WE BEGAN TO REVIEW THE LITERATURE, NOT ONLY ARE THESE W.E.I.R.D.

POPULATIONS PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNUSUAL, SO THERE'S VARIATION AROUND THE WORLD IN PSYCHOLOGY AND THEY TURN OUT TO BE THE EXTREME END OF THE DISTRIBUTION ON LOTS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES.

SUCH AS WHAT?

WELL, SO A BIG ONE IS INDIVIDUALISM.

SO HOW MUCH PEOPLE FOCUS ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES THAT AFFECTS THINGS LIKE OVERCONFIDENCE AND SELF-ESTEEM.

INCLINATION TO CONFORM TO PEERS.

THERE'S A VARIATION THERE ON WHICH W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE ARE.

GUILT VERSUS SHAME, ANTHROPOLOGISTS NOTE ARE DIFFERENT ACROSS SOCIETIES.

W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE TEND TO BE EXTREME ON THE GUILT END OF THE SYSTEM.

USE OF INTENTIONALITY AND MORAL JUDGMENT.

HOW MUCH YOU THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S INTERNAL MENTAL STATES AND INTENTIONS WHEN JUDGING THEM MORALLY.

THINGS LIKE TRUST IN STRANGERS AND COOPERATION WITH STRANGERS.

ARE THESE GENETIC TRAITS?

NO, NO, THEY'RE VERY MUCH CULTURALLY LEARNED.

THE BOOK IS ABOUT ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH OUR INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER FEATURES OF SOCIAL LIFE SHAPE HOW WE THINK.

ONE OF THE KEY IDEAS THAT COMES FROM MY PRIOR WORK IS THAT WE EVOLVED AS A CULTURAL SPECIES SO OUR MINDS ADAPT TO THE KIND OF CONSTRAINTS CREATED BY OUR INSTITUTIONS.

WE END UP THINKING DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THE KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS WE ENCOUNTER WHEN WE'RE GROWING UP.

YOU SAY W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE, I.E., WESTERN-EDUCATED PEOPLE, TEND TO BE MORE INDIVIDUAL ISTIC.

EXPLAIN THAT.

THE IDEA IS W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THEMSELVES, CULTIVATING THEIR OWN ATTRIBUTES, ON BECOMING A KIND OF UNIQUE MEMBER OF THEIR SOCIETY.

AND THE REASON I ARGUE IN THE BOOK IS BECAUSE IN THIS WORLD, YOU'VE GOT TO GO OUT AND MAKE YOUR OWN FRIENDS AND MAKE YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIPS, FIND YOUR OWN SPOUSE, FIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS PARTNERS.

FROM THIS, YOU KNOW, COLLECTION OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE PLAYING THE SAME GAME.

LOTS OF SOCIETIES OVER HUMAN HISTORY, YOU'VE HAD THESE DENSE NETWORKS OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS SO YOU WOULD RELY ON FAMILY AND OTHER KINDS OF RELATIONAL TIES TO FIND BUSINESS PARTNERS, CREATE ARRANGED MARRIAGES.

THE IDEA OF THIS, HAVING THESE KINDS OF KIN-BASED RELATIONSHIPS OR MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIPS AND LOOKING FOR PEOPLE IN YOUR SOCIAL NETWORK TO BUILD ANY KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH, YOU END UP WITH A DENSE NETWORK AND TRUST BECOMES BASED ON HAVING NETWORK CONNECTIONS.

RATHER THAN CULTIVATING A KIND OF DISPOSITIONAL TRUST.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING ABOUT W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE, THEY THINK IN TERMS OF DISPOSITION.

HE'S EITHER TRUSTWORTHY OR NOT.

A OPPOSED TO TRUSTWORTHY, IF I'M CONNECT.

ED TO HIM THROUGH MY NETWORK.

ISN'T IT MORE AVANTAGEOUS TO TRUST PEOPLE BASED ON EVIDENCE RATHER THAN NETWORKS?

DEPENDS ON THE STRUCTURE OF YOUR SOCIETY.

IN LOTS OF PEOPLE IF YOU WERE TO TRUST STRANGERS, YOU WOULD BE TAKEN AVANTAGE OF.

ECONOMISTS HAVE DONE INTERESTING STUDIES LOOKING AT THERE'S AN OPTIMAL AMOUNT OF TRUST YOU SHOULD HAVE IN OTHER PEOPLE BASED ON HOW TRUSTWORTHY THE PEOPLE YOU'RE LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER ARE.

THIS IDEA IS A LOT OF HUMAN TRUST WAS BUILT BY EXTENDING THESE NETWORKS THEN TO CREATE THE KIND OF MODERN WORLD WHERE WE'RE ACCUSTOM TO THIS ANONYMOUS, NONPERSONAL INTERACTION, WE MIGHT MOVE A LOT, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON DISPOSITIONAL STRATEGY.

ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS PSYCHLOGICAL TESTS IS THE MARSHMALLOW TESTS WHICH TESTS PATIENCE.

IN OTHER WORDS, ARE YOU WILLING TO DEFER GRATIFICATION BY PUTTING OFF HAVING ONE MARSHMALLOW FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING TWO OR THREE LATER ON?

TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT A DIFFERENCE ACROSS CULTURES?

YEAH, RECENTLY FOUND INTERESTING DIFFERENCES IN THE WILLINGNESS OF CHILDREN TO WAIT FOR THAT SECOND MARSHMALLOW, HOW LONG THEY WAIT IS A MEASURE OF THEIR SELF-REGULATION.

AND RESEARCHERS WORKING IN THE U.S. AND WITH WESTERN POPULATIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT THAT WILLINGNESS, THAT ABILITY TO SELF-REGULATE, PREDICTS STAYING IN SCHOOL, SAVINGS, OTHER KINDS OF THINGS THAT REQUIRE A DEFERRAL OF GRATIFICATION LATER IN LIFE.

PARALLEL WORK DONE BY ECONOMISTS MEASURING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN 80 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD SHOWS THERE'S TREMENDOUS VARIATION IN PEOPLE'S WILLINGNESS TO DEFER GRATIFICATION.

THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE FOR US W.E.I.R.D. WESTERN-EDUCATED SOCIETIES THAT WE DEVELOPED THAT CULTURAL INSTINCT?

YEAH, BUT, AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS I POINT OUT IN THE BOOK IS IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR SOCIAL MILYU.

AN ECONOMIST HAS DONE EXPERIMENTS WHERE THEY TOOK SOME POOR MEN IN LIBERIA AND TRAINED THEM TO HAVE -- TO BE ABLE TO DEFER GRATIFICATION MORE.

SO THEY PUT THEM INTO AN EIGHT-WEEK TRAINING AND SHOWED THEY WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR ABILITY TO DEFER GRATIFICATION THEN IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE BEGINNING TO SAVE MORE.

DO THINGS THAT LEADS YOU TO.

THEY LOST THEIR SAVINGS BECAUSE THE POLICE TOOK IT AWAY FROM THEM, TACTICS, IT WAS STOLEN FROM THEM.

IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T PAY IN THAT ENVIRONMENT TO SAVE AND DEFER FOR THE FUTURE.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOUR INSTITUTIONS WORKS.

A LOT OF TIMES IN KIN-BASED SOCIETIES, YOU INVEST IN THE FUTURE BY INVESTING IN YOUR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS.

IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE IN THEIR FAMILY GETS INJURED, THEY NEED MONEY FOR A MEDICAL PROCEDURE, THEY GIVE THEM MONEY AND LET YOU KNOW IN THE FUTURE YOU'RE INSURED THROUGH YOUR NETWORK OF SOCIAL RELATIONS AND GOOD WILL YOU BUILT UP BY GIVING AWAY.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.

TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE A ROLE IN BREAKING DOWN THIS NOTION OF FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND MARRIAGE WITHIN CLANS?

YEAH, SO I MAKE THE CASE IN MY BOOK THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE, THAT EUROPE PRIOR TO THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY THROUGH NORTHERN EUROPE, PLACES LIKE NORTHERN FRANCE AND ENGLAND, GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, PLACES LIKE THAT, THAT THESE WERE TRIBAL POPULATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE HAD COUSIN MARRIAGE AND POLIGINOUS MARRIAGE.

THERE'S VARIOUS LINES OF EVIDENCE.

IT SEEMS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SYSTEMICALLY BROKE THESE POPULATIONS DOWN INTO MANOGONOUS FAMILIES.

PREVENTED YOU FROM MARRYING INITIALLY FIRST COUSINS THEN EVENTUALLY STRETCHED OUT TO SIX COUSINS BY AROUND THE YEAR 1000.

NO MORE SEX SLAVES.

AND THEN THINGS ABOUT INHERITANCE ARE CHANGED.

SO EVENTUALLY, YOU GET THE KIND OF MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES WHICH ARE QUITE UNUSUAL IN THE WORLD TODAY.

KIND OF GLOBAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.

THEY'RE PRESENT IN EUROPE BEFORE 1500.

SO WHEN THEY SPRING UP IN EUROPE AROUND 1500, MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES, HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE WAY WE BEHAVE?

WELL, IT MEANS BY BREAKING PEOPLE DOWN INTO MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES, IT FORCED EUROPEANS TO GO OUT AND BUILD NEW KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS.

SO I ARGUE THAT THIS WAS A GRADUAL PROCESS THAT HAPPENED OVER CENTURIES.

AND IT'S UNDER WAY IN SEVERAL PARTS OF EUROPE BY AROUND A THOUSAND.

AND THAT'S WHEN YOU SEE THE PROLIFERATION OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.

SO YOU GET THINGS LIKE GUILDS, UNIVERSITIES, CHARTERTOWNS.

PEOPLE ARE JOINING TOGETHER WITH VOLUNTARY STRANGERS TO FORM SOCIAL SAFETY NETS.

SO ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THESE KIN-BASED INSTITUTIONS DO BACK INTO HUMAN HISTORY, TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE SICK, WHEN THEY'RE OLD, WHEN YOU GET INJURED, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, PEOPLE NEEDED TO FIGURE OUT NEW WAYS TO DO THAT.

THEY BEGAN BANDING TOGETHER WITH STRANGERS.

THERE'S OFTEN A RELIGIOUS OVERTONE TO THE FIRST GILDS.

RELIGIOUS MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETIES.

EARLY CHARTER TOWNS DID THE SAME KIND OF SIMILAR THING.

THEY HAVE TO DECIDE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE TOWN.

AND SO THEY BEGIN TO COME UP WITH REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS.

AND THIS -- THIS I REALLY THINK IS ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT THEY'RE MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES.

YOU DON'T HAVE CLANS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND HAVE A INDIVIDUALISTIC SOCIETY.

PEOPLE ARE MOVINGING INTO THE TOWN AS INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN BRINGING A LARGE FAMILY.

THAT ENCOURAGES THE EMERGENCE OF MORE FORMAL INSTITUTIONS BASED ON REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND EVENTUALLY DEMOCRACY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

YOU REALLY SEE THIS TAKE OFF IN EUROPE.

ONE OF THE ANALYSES I LOOK AT IN THE BOOK IS THE MORE CENTURIES THAT A REGION HAD UNDER THE CHURCH, THE MORE LIKELY THEY WERE TO COME UP WITH REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

IF I HAD TO COME UP WITH A MISSION STATEMENT FOR US W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE, I.E., WESTERN, EDUCATED, FOLKS, TAKE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

PARSE THAT SENTENCE FOR ME.

WELL, I THINK THE IDEA, YOU KNOW, WE CAN UNDERSTAND A LOT ABOUT THAT SENTENCE IF WE RECOGNIZE THERE WAS ALREADY THIS PRE-EXISTING PSYCHOLOGY IN THE HEADS OF THE GUYS THAT WERE COMING UP WITH THIS.

THE NOTION THAT WE'RE INDIVIDUALS, AND THAT WE HAVE INSIDE OF US THESE RIGHTS OR SOMETHING, WHERE THESE RIGHTS COME FROM.

THE VERY NOTION THAT WE'RE ENDOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH RIGHTS WHICH THEN PROPEL THEIR BEHAVIOR OR GIVE THEM POLITICAL POWERS.

SOMETHING THAT I THINK DEVELOPS SLOWLY AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS I'M TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S NOT EVIDENT, THOUGH, TO LOTS OF OTHER POPULATIONS IN PLACES IN TIME THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO ENDOW PEOPLE WITH THESE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FROM WHICH WE DERIVE ALL KINDS OF OTHER PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CONSEQUENCE.

THIS IS THAT DISPOSITIONALISM I MENTIONED ABOUT HOW W.E.I.R.D.

PEOPLE THINK.

DO YOU THINK GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING TO WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, THE WORLD COULD USE SOME MORE -- WE IN THE WEST COULD USE SOME MORE NON-W.E.I.R.D. INFLUENCES?

YEAH.

ONE OF THE CASES I MAKE IN THE BOOK IS THAT A LOT OF OUR CAPACITY TO INNOVATE, BOTH IN TERMS OF BUILDING NEW INSTITUTIONS AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, COMES FROM BRINGING IN IDEAS FROM ALL DIFFERENT SOCIETIES.

AND KIND OF CREATING RECOMBINATIONS.

SO AT THE END OF THE BOOK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THE KIND OF MASSIVE PROLIFERATION OF INNOVATION.

BASED IN 1750.

TYPICAL STARTING DATE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

AND THE CASE I MAKE IS IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS KIND OF BROAD-BASED TRUST, THE FLOW OF INDIVIDUALS AMONGST DIFFERENT SOCIETIES, IN BETWEEN OCCUPATIONS, CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HIGHER AND LOWER STRATA INDIVIDUALS, LEADING TO SPREADING IDEAS AROUND THE WORLD.

I THINK A LOT OF THE STRENGTH OF THE U.S., THE U.S. HAS COME FROM IMMIGRATION.

SO I RECENTLY REVIEWED THE LITERATURE ON THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON INNOVATION, MEASURED AS PATENTS.

BASICALLY, AT EVERY CASE, EVERY TIME YOU TURN UP IMMIGRATION, YOU TURN UP INNOVATION BECAUSE PEOPLE FROM OTHER PLACES BRING IDEAS, RECOMBINES WITH IDEAS THAT THE LOCALS HAVE AND CREATES NEW STUFF.

YOU DISCUSS A LOT ABOUT IMMORAL JUDGMENT.

HOW WE W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT INTENT, INTENTIONALITY.

WHY IS THAT AN IMPORTANT CULTURAL DISTINCTION?

WELL, IT'S IMPORTANT FROM THE -- WHAT I THINK CAUSES IT IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU ARE IN A -- IF YOU'RE IN A DENSE NETWORK WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO PICK PARTNERS WHO YOU HAVE SEVERAL CONNECTIONS TO, WHAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THEM TO BEHAVE WELL IS THE FACT THAT THEY'RE CONNECTED TO YOU.

SO IF THEY DON'T BEHAVE WELL IN YOUR BUSINESS TRANSACTION, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE YOU CAN TELL WHO KNOW THEM AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BE BAD FOR THEM REPUTATIONLY.

IF YOU'RE IN THIS KIND OF MORE DISCONNECTED SOCIAL WORLD, YOU'VE GOT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE HIS INTENTIONS, WHAT ARE HIS GOALS, WHAT ARE HIS INTERNAL MENTAL STATES, WHAT'S HIS DISPOSITION, OR HERS, THAT'S GOING TO THEN AFFECT YOUR JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO GO INTO BUSINESS WITH THEM OR MARRY THEM OR DO ALL THESE DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO.

SO YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THESE MORE INTERNALIZED ASSESSMENTS.

DO YOU THINK THAT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELATIVE SUCCESS THAT W.E.I.R.D. CULTURES HAVE HAD IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LITERACY, INNOVATION?

WELL, YEAH, I DEFINITELY MAKE THE CASE IT'S A SHIFT IN PSYCHOLOGY THAT LED TO INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE KINDS OF ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS WE HAVE AND KINDS OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS WE HAVE AND THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS HELP EXPLAIN INNOVATION IN WESTERN SOCIETIES, INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, WHY EUROPEAN MILITARIES WERE SO SUCCESSFUL AROUND THE WORLD AFTER 1500.

WHICH, OF COURSE, HAD LOTS OF AWFUL AND CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES FOR LOTS OF POPULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

BUT YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE ABLE TO DO IT.

SO THIS IS A STORY ABOUT WHY THEY WERE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE THIS CHANGE IN FAMILY LED TO A CHANGE IN PSYCHOLOGY WHICH LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS WHICH DIDN'T ARISE IN OTHER PLACES.

ONE OF THE AMUSING TASTY MORSELS IN YOUR BOOK WAS A DISCUSSION OF UNITED NATIONS DIPLOMATS GETTING TRAFFIC TICKETS.

EXPLAIN THAT.

YEAH, SO IT WAS A RESEARCH DONE BY TWO ECONOMISTS.

AND WHAT THEY DID IS THEY GOT ALL THE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS FOR U.N. DIPLOMATS.

SO U.N. DIPLOMATS, 90% OF THEM LIVE WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE U.N.

COMPOUND IN MANHATTAN.

AND UP UNTIL 2002 AFTER 9/11, THEY HAD DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

SO THEY COULD PARK ANYWHERE WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY THE PARKING TICKETS.

SO WHAT THEY DID IS THEY JUST LOOKED AT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE HOME COUNTRY CORRUPTION AND RELATED IT TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING TICKETS THAT PEOPLE HAD AND NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE COUNTRY-LEVEL CORRUPTION PREDICTED THE PARKING TICKETS.

PEOPLE, DIPLOMATS FROM MORE CORRUPT COUNTRIES HAD MORE PARKING TICKETS.

WHAT MY COLLABORATORS DID WAS WE TOOK THE INTENSITY OF KINSHIP IN THESE DIFFERENT PLACES AND WE USED THAT AND CAN EXPLAIN THE NUMBER OF PARKING TICKETS BETTER.

IF YOU CAME FROM KINSHIP, PEOPLE ACCUMULATED A LOT OF PARKING TICKETS.

LOOK AT THE WHOLE U.N.

DELEGATION OR JUST THE DIPLOMATS.

SAME ANSWER.

PLACES WITH SMALL MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES TENDED NOT TO GET VERY MANY PARKING TICKETS.

HOW COME?

WELL, THE IDEA IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE FROM THESE SOCIETIES THAT HAVE SMALL MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES YOU TEND TO BE BIG ON FOLLOWING THESE IMPERSONAL RULES SO THESE KIND OF INVISIBLE INSTITUTIONS YOU CAN SEE WHICH IS WHY YOU MIGHT COMPLY WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, EVEN WHEN THERE'S NO PENALTY, THOSE THINGS BECOME DEEPLY INTERNALIZED AND WE CAN SHOW IN SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS THAT PEOPLE ARE MORE WILLING TO FOLLOW THESE IMPERSONAL INSTITUTIONALIZED RULES.

WHEN YOU'RE IN A SOCIETY THAT'S BASED ON RELATIONSHIPS, YOU'RE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT HOW ARE THESE GOING TO AFFECT MY RELATIONSHIPS, YOU KNOW, WHO AM I TRYING TO HELP AND WHO AM I TRYING NOT TO HELP HERE?

AND IF IT'S A CASE THAT'S AN IMPERSONAL INSTITUTION, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR LOYALTY OR RELATIONSHIP TO THESE IMPERSONAL INSTITUTIONS.

THAT DOESN'T WEIGH IN YOUR DECISION MAKING AS MUCH.

WHAT OF THE LESSONS FROM YOUR BOOK, THE ANALYSES FROM YOUR BOOK, ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROBLEMS WE NOW FACE WITH WESTERN DEMOCRACY AND WESTERN SOCIETIES?

WELL, I THINK, I MEAN, IF I'M ANALYZING THE SITUATION THAT THE U.S. IS FACING RIGHT NOW, I LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE SHAPED PEOPLE'S MORAL PSYCHOLOGY.

SO ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I PUSH IN THE BOOK IS THE IMPORTANCE OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY.

SO PEOPLE NEED TO MOVE AROUND AND NOT GET ANCHORED IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS THAT BUILD UP SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE U.S., CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE U.S. POPULATION HAVE HAD A BIG DECLINE IN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY.

SO PEOPLE ARE STAYING IN THE SAME PLACES, THEY'RE STAYING IN THE SAME SOCIAL CLASSES, AND THIS LEADS TO A MORALE -- A KIND OF MORAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE MOVING AROUND, BUILDING NEW RELATIONSHIPS ALL THE TIME, LOOKING FOR MORE EGALITARIAN RELATIONSHIPS, NOT CONCERNED WITHIN GROUP LOYALTY.

THAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN CREATING THIS DIVIDE AND MORAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT WE SEE IN PLACES LIKE THE U.S. TODAY.

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK YOUR RESEARCH CAN HELP US CHANGE THE WAY WE LOOK AT PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH HAVING READ YOUR BOOK, IS SO FOCUSED ON PEOPLE COMING INTO THE LABS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND GETTING TESTED AND THOSE PEOPLE ALL TEND TO BE EDUCATED PEOPLE WHO END UP BEING TESTED AND SO WE'VE HAD A BLIND SPOT IN OUR PSYCHOLOGY.

DO YOU THINK THAT SHOULD CHANGE?

YEAH.

WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING IS WE NEED TO HAVE AN INTEGRATED SOCIAL SCIENCE WHERE WE HAVE LABORATORIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT RUN CONTINUOUSLY IN DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND WE STUDY PEOPLE ACROSS THEIR WHOLE LIVES AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN RUN EXPERIMENTS, WE SHOULD ALSO BE INTERVIEWING THEM AND KEEPING TRACK OF WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY SPEND THEIR TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, FROM TRIALS ALL THE WAY TO ADULTHOOD RATHER THAN JUST PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET OR PEOPLE WHO GO TO COLLEGE OR SOMETHING.

PROFESSOR JOSEPH HENRICH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

IT WAS GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

> AND FINALLY, SOME EMOTIONAL RELIEF.

WE TURN TO A TRUE TRAIL BLAZER.

ALSO BERNADINE EVERISTO BECAME THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN TO WIN THE BOOKER PRIZE FOR FICTION IN 2019 AND SINCE THEN HE'S BEEN FIGHTING FOR RACIAL JUSTICE AND TO MAKE SURE THE BLACK EXPERIENCE IN BRITAIN IS PROPERLY REPRESENTED, READ, AND HEARD.

SHE'S ALSO A POET, OF COURSE, WHOSE LATEST IS A POWERFUL ODE PENNED FOR OUR PANDEMIC TIME.

AND BERNADINE EVERISTO IS JOINING ME NOW FROM LONDON.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

HELLO.

GOOD TO BE ON THE PROGRAM AGAIN.

SO I TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EMOTIONAL RELIEF, WE REALLY ARE UNDERGOING POLITICAL STRESS, CLIMATE STRESS, PANDEMIC STRESS.

TELL ME HOW YOU'RE FEELING ABOUT THIS MOMENT.

AND WHAT LED YOU TO WRITE YOUR LATEST POEM, 'THE WIND.'

YES, WELL, I WAS ASKED BY THE BBC TOINSPIRING.

THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT ABOUT WAS WIND.

WE'RE UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE.

AND I TRY NOT TO FOCUS ON IT TOO MUCH.

I TRY TO THINK ABOUT -- I NEED TO STAY ABREAST OF THE NEWS BUT TRY NOT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME LISTENING TO IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET DEEPLY DISHEARTENED.

I DO DO EXERCISE OUTSIDE AND I ABSOLUTELY -- I'VE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE WIND BECAUSE I FIND IT SO INVIGORATING AND SO REFRESHING.

AND, YES, SO WHEN THEY ASKED ME TO WRITE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE UPLIFTING, THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT OF.

AND IT'S NOT THE KIND OF THING I NORMALLY WRITE.

I HAVE TO SAY.

BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, I'M A VERY POLITICAL WRITER.

YEAH.

BERNADINE, COULD YOU READ US 'THE WIND,' PLEASE?

I HAVE TO REMOVE MYSELF FROM THE CIRCULATION OF DEAD AIR INSIDE MY HOME.

AWAY FROM THE ROLLING NEWS AND THE DESPAIR AND FEAR ALL AROUND.

AND VENTURE OUT INTO THE WINDY WILD OF THE CONCRETE STREET.

OUT PAST THE BRICK BUILDINGS INTO THE PARK, THE RIVERSIDE WALKS, THE COUNTRYSIDE.

TO ENJOY THE WIND AS IT RUSHES ENERGETICALLY TOWARD ME.

WAVES OF IT STROKING MY FACE OR LASHING AT IT.

SO THAT MY SKIN COMES ALIVE AND I FEEL MYSELF TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF SOMETHING OLDER AND GREATER THAN MY OWN PREOCCUPATION.

THE WIND IS A FREEDOM FIGHTER THAT WILL LIBERATE US FROM STUFFINESS AND INERTIA.

IT WILL CLEANSE OUR MINDS OF THE CHAOS AND UNCERTAINTY AS WE WALK OR CYCLE, SAIL OR RUN, OR FEEL THE REVOLUTIONS OF THE WHEELS OF OUR WHEELCHAIRS.

FEELING OUR BODY SHAPED BY ITS CHOREOGRAPHY WHIRLING AROUND US, AND ITS MUSIC HOWLING THROUGH THE BUSHES AND TREES.

FADING AWAY AS IT DISSIPATES UP INTO THE SKIES.

THERE IS A HEALING AND A JOY THAT TAKES PLACE.

WHEN I AM OUTSIDE AND OPEN MYSELF UP TO THE TACTILE, YET INVISIBLE, MOVEMENT OF AIR.

NOT RESISTING OR RESENTING THE FORCE OF IT, BUT ALLOWING IT TO REFRESH, ENERGIZE, INSPIRE, WHEREVER I FIND IT, WHEREVER IT ROAMS.

THE WIND.

THAT IS BEAUTIFUL.

AND I LOVE THE WAY YOU SAY, TO INSPIRE AND ENERGY, BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN, MANY HAVE BEEN THROUGH A REALLY ROUGH PERIOD.

IT'S NOT JUST THIS PANDEMIC.

IT'S ALSO THE PANDEMIC OF RACISM WE'VE SEEN AND INJUSTICE AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE STREETS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

HOW IS THAT PART GOING FOR YOU?

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE REALLY ALSO PUT YOURSELF FRONT AND CENTER OF THAT STRUGGLE, ESPECIALLY IN YOUR AREA, OF LITERATURE, GETTING, YOU KNOW, BLACK LITERATURE, BLACK WRITING, RECOGNIZED.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN DOING FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

IT'S JUST THAT I NOW HAVE A MUCH BIGGER PLATFORM IN THE LAST YEAR SINCE WINNING THE BOOKER.

BUT I'VE BEEN AN ACTIVIST AND AN ADVOCATE FOR THE INCLUSION OF RACES OF COLOR IN BRITISH PUBLISHING FOR DECADES AND I'VE SET UP PROJECTS TO TRY AND MAKE THINGS HAPPEN AND SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN QUITE SUCCESSFUL ESPECIALLY IN THE FIELD OF POETRY.

FOR ME, IT'S NOT NEWS.

WHAT I FIND REALLY INTERESTING IS SINCE THAT HAPPENED IN THE SUMMER, THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY IS WAKING UP AND HAS REALIZED THAT THEY NEED TO DIVERSIFY, REALLY DIVERSIFY, THEIR WORKFORCE AND ALSO JUST TO PUBLISH A WIDER RANGE OF LITERATURE.

INCLUDING ALL KINDS OF THOUGHTS BY WRITERS OF COLOR.

SO BLACK LIVES MATTER HAPPENED AND THAT WAS A TERRIBLE THING, AND THE PROTESTS WERE A CATALYST FOR CHANGE.

AND I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT IS WE ARE SEEING THAT CHANGE IN MY FIELD WHICH IS IN LITERATURE AND PUBLISHING.

WE'LL SEE IF IT SUSTAINS ITSELF.

YOU ALSO DO HAVE A NEW PENGUIN SERIES ABOUT BLACK LITERATURE, BLACK WRITING.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ON TOP OF EVERYTHING YOU'VE BEEN DOING?

HOW DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO WORK?

YEAH, SO I'M SO EXCITED BY THIS.

MY PUBLISHER AFTER I WON THE BOOK SAID TO ME, I WANT YOU TO CURATE A SERIES OF BOOKS AND I WANT YOU TO BRING BOOKS BACK INTO CIRCULATION HAS HAVE BEEN OUT OF PRINT.

SO WE DECIDED THEY WOULD BE BLACK BRITISH BOOKS BECAUSE OFTEN THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY COME AND GO VERY EASILY, BLACK BRITISH BOOKS.

SO I SPENT THIS YEAR, REALLY, LOOKING FOR BOOKS TO BRING BACK AND WE HAVE NOW CURATED A SERIES CALLED 'BLACK BRITISH WRITING BACK.'

AND THERE ARE SIX NOVELS, THEY GO BACK TO 1934.

TO A BOOK, WHICH WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POLITICAL FIGURE AND NONFICTION WRITER IN THE 20th CENTURY.

FROM TRINIDAD.

AND HE WROTE A NOVEL PUBLISHED IN 1936.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE REPUBLISHED IN FEBRUARY ALONG WITH FIVE OTHER BOOKS BY WILLIAMS, JACQUELINE ROY, MATT PHILLIPS.

THEY'RE A MIXTURE OF CRIME FICTION, LEGAL THRILLER, LITERARY FICTION, HISTORICAL FICTION, AND I'M JUST, LIKE, SO PLEASED I CAN USE MY PLATFORM TO GIVE THESE BOOKS A SECONDARYING AIRING, BRING THEM TO THE LIGHT, AND INTRODUCE THEM TO NEW READERS.

WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

GOOD TO SEE YOU.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

REMEMBER, YOU CAN FOLLOW ME AND THE SHOW ON TWITTER.

THANKS FOR WATCHING 'AMANPOUR & CO.' ON PBS.

AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.