US Bomb Kills Five At Iranian Wedding | Novara Live

Good evening. Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, a US missile strike has killed at least five people at a civilian wedding in Iran. Andy Bernham faces Kami Bedno in his first ever PMQs. A new study has found that almost half of the world's farmers are poisoned by pesticides every year. And Galgadok has defended her role in an upcoming movie about Bitcoin that will feature entirely AI generated sets. Sounds great. I'm joined tonight by Ben KB. How are you? Well, welcome back. Of course. >> Back. Yeah. Have I been gone that long? I guess the seasons have changed now. >> I'm in a roll neck now. So, I do look quite different, you know, seasonally and stuff. So, maybe it feels like I've been away longer than that. >> Yeah, you're right. No, you you were on with me last week. I don't know what I'm talking about. >> Wow. I can't believe I'm that forgettable. Okay. [laughter] >> If you'd like to support our work, you can sign up at navardia.com/support. You can also listen to the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Please like this video, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and don't forget, as always, to let us know what you think in the comments below. A US missile strike has killed at least five people and injured a further 68 at a civilian wedding in Iran. The Iranian government has called the blast, which hit a residential home in Kustak, a city along the Iranian coast bordering the Straight of Hermuz, a war crime. This is the aftermath of that explosion posted online by eyewitnesses and verified by Reuters. As you can see, it shows a still smoking building with windows and doors blown out and telltale rubble littering the ground as people search the site for the injured or even the dead. One of those injured in the attack told a reporter what happened. >> We were on our way to a wedding. On the way to the wedding, suddenly we heard the sound of a fighter jet. We arrived there and suddenly there was an explosion. When I went inside, there was a person who had been struck on the head and face by a building block and had lost consciousness. A lot of children and women were horribly injured, and everyone there was an ordinary person. >> In the immediate aftermath, the scope of the devastation was even clearer. Parts of the house appeared to have been knocked down in the blast with debris of bricks and beams littering a courtyard. and in a very small sitting area, a pair of women's shoes and a carpet deeply stained with blood. Among the dead are a four-year-old child and a 16-year-old. Responding to accusations of a deliberate strike on the house, a USCOM spokesperson said, quote, "The US military never targets civilians, unlike the Iranian Revolutionary Guards call." That strike was just one of a large barrage of missiles fired against Iran overnight. In a second wave of strikes against Iran following a month of relative quiet, the US says it targeted air defense and radar systems, mine laying capabilities and communication sites as well as IRGC sites. Announcing the strike online, US President Donald Trump said this. The United States is as we speak striking Iranian targets near the Strait of Hummus. The strikes are large and powerful and in retaliation for the Iranians failed attempt at adding sea mines to the straight which currently has no mines. They've been completely removed or detonated and the Iranians shooting eight missiles or successfully knocked down at our military base in Jordan. If the failed nation of Iran retaliates for this very justified attack, they will be hit again at a much harder and higher level. But it will not be the biggest attack of them all. That is waiting in the wings. And when it is over, there will be very little left of the Islam Islamic Republic of Iran, President Donald J. Trump. Iran did indeed retaliate. Footage released by Iranian state media shows missiles being fired toward Jordan with Terran claiming attacks against US interests and bases in the region. Jordan's armed forces said its air defense systems dealt with 13 ballistic missiles entering the country's airspace. It said 10 missiles were intercepted and destroyed while three fell in remote areas. Now, it's not entirely clear why the US has chosen this moment to reignite its reckless and illegal war with Iran. It could be because the action has forced US gas prices to record highs with the cost of fuel in the US set to hit an all-time high this coming weekend, just months before November's midterm elections. And it could also be because the markets fearing a fresh wave of inflation over Trump's disastrous war, have pushed US borrowing costs to new highs. Which isn't to say that Iran's economy isn't suffering too, with new US sanctions expected to trigger even greater inflation and deeper forward poverty in Iranian society. The difference is economic hits are not something Americans are used to. And when a US news channel suggested that Trump's new wave of strikes were about forcing Iran back to the negotiating table, he reacted with fury, posting this. I'm not trying to force Iran to the bargaining table. As ABC fake news reported, I couldn't care less if they sign a worthless to them agreement. I like I like our position now much better with almost total control of the Horus Strait and their economy totally collapsing. They are just playing out the inevitable. When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight today? Trump doubled down posting this. Now that we have it under USA control, should we change the name home straight to Trump Strait? Like America itself, it would be hotter than ever before. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very very unhinged. Iranian officials are using equally strong language with government spokesperson Muhammad Baka Galibah posting this. Minab school children massacred. Lame sp sport sports hall kids slaughtered Kustak wedding children killed with families if a power acts like Satan picks targets like Satan and kills like Satan it is Satan shields a junior Satan does that does the same it's the great Satan it's obviously referencing uh quite old anti anti-American language that has come out of of Iran before on the streets of tan some Iranians gave their view of the US actions their objective is that because they have become desperate, they have lost their global power. They used to be a superpower, but now they are confronted and have to deal with a country like Iran with a history of several thousand years. They can no longer come as before, for example, and flex their muscles. Our armed forces, thank God, are there. They are always there, and they protect the people. We've been negotiating for several years, and nothing has come out of these negotiations to our benefit. except that we have acted in good faith. Despite all the good faith we have shown, unfortunately the other side is not trustworthy and certainly if it finds any opportunity, it will take advantage of it. Earlier today, I was joined by Vera Ameli, a post-docctoral researcher in global health um at Oxford University who also works on Iran and ideas of national sovereignty. I began by asking her what the impact of this latest killing of civilians by a US strike would have on the morale of the Iranian people. So I think that what we are watching at the moment is not really sort of unrelated policies or a succession of unrelated policies with the military warfare and sanctions and now yet another uh civilian massacre in the south of Iran very close to where the Minov massacre took place. I think what we're really seeing is sort of the escalation of coercion that the United States is applying. And I think it would be um difficult to assume that uh on the Iranian side, the response to an escalation of coercion would be sort of an escalation of fear or losing morale. It would also be um an equivalent escalation of um um I I don't want to say resilience but the need to seeing the need or having more evidence for the need to resist. >> Let me ask you about that word you used there coercion. Uh so obviously as you said there's the military aspect of it, the strikes um within Iran, there's also the economic aspect of it. Uh so the the the US blockade which has has seen um oil exports fall but now also this package of secondary sanctions that the US is promising. Uh we know that you know the economy inside Iran is is is struggling. Inflation is quite high driving driving food prices up but these it seems to me are measures that it you don't think are going to have the intended effect. they haven't had the intended effect that the US have looked for so far and this is part of the reason why we are seeing the US escalating to um civilian massacres. Um but the other reason especially on the economic front is that um the secondary sanctions that the US is is hoping to apply um were already in a way part of the maximum pressure campaign and part of that toolkit. Um and the Iranian system has really developed a way to um to be um doing trade with partners that are not going to be fearing those secondary sanctions already. So it is quite unlikely to have the scale of the impact even on the economy that the US thinks it will have. It will certainly have an effect and it will certainly lead to more inflation given that the blockade is still ongoing and um there will be pressure on the households but it wouldn't be the type of shock that the US might be hoping for that would then lead to surrender and in fact the economic coercion or the secondary sanctions came after the failure of the military um violence and coercion. This death is going to be seen as a witness to the crimes of the US and is going to give more evidence for the need to resist and the need to sort of raise the cost so that future generation of Iranian children and Iranian families are not going to be confronted with this type of violence. One of the ways in which US President Donald Trump has sort of uh changed the negotiating partner in Iran online at least is he stopped talking to the government and he started talking to the Iranian people saying when are you going to rise up why don't you rise up is that something that's likely to happen >> so again I think that um the Iranian um people are not you know a monolith and there are different parts of the Iranian and within each part there are um you know grievances or or um feeling um um dissatisfied with the economic problems for example. Uh but to assume that um the the pressures are the pressure this type of pressure or this type of massacres is going to lead to the Iranian population rising for the US is quite um is a misunderstood way of understanding the Iranian population. In fact, I think there was um a nice saying from someone that I saw inside Iran that um was saying they were saying that the Iranian people have already um um chosen to rise but against the US. And in fact, when you look at Iran in in the past more than 180 days now, uh there's been um you know gatherings in all of the squares of different cities quite organically. Um, and so there is that part of the Iranian population that now has more evidence for the crimes of the US and and inevitably their voice is going to be stronger uh within the internal balance of um the different voices that might be sort of hoping for more negotiation or or more concession and accommodation. Um certainly right now they have to answer more questions because who are we negotiating with? who are we giving concession to and and what is the result of that of of agreement with the US when you know it it has now multiple times committed massacres that are now part of the political memory of this war. Um so you know we have Mino um uh political memory there is law that the US um targeted a sports stadium and and killed um children there. And then there was the um bombing um a few weeks ago that again led to the death of of a family and including a child. Um, and now we have the bombing of a wedding and it seems like the the the site of the wedding was in fact um targeted or um it was it wasn't really sharp. It's it's I mean the evidence can't be clear yet, but um um hearing some of the um stories from from people who were at the wedding and were sort of posting in the in on their Instagrams before about the wedding and then saying that that they were they felt like that they were directly targeted. So, so all of these massacres now are part of the political memory and they are going to sort of be more evidence for um or against um trusting the US and and trusting negotiations and also um more evidence for um putting pressure on the Iranian government to actually raise the cost of such like further crimes. Um so I would I would say that the balance um even though there is a lot of pressure on people the rising of the people is not going to be in the direction that that Trump might want to see and it would be quite in the opposite direction. >> Yeah. Yeah, I suppose one thing you might think is that um as you said even when there are sort of disagreements within a polity of a country or different groups or even disagreements with the government or even outside outright hostility from some parts to the government that all can get kind of put to the side when people realize actually their sovereignty in which they can do all of those things have those disagreements um is fundamentally at risk. >> Yes, exactly. sovereignty and sort of uh really um um now collection of crimes. And I think if I think two two aspects of of of of a social practice and maybe cultural aspect of of Iranian people matters here as well. Um the first is just thinking about martyrdom or shahadat which actually the word means witness in in Persian. So when someone is martyed, it's not just that they have died for a cause. It's that they are seen as a witness to that crime of of oppression or injustice. So that witnesshood is sort of a the testimony that then creates an obligation for resistance. Um and the other aspect is is patience. Uh which is something that is you know highly celebrated within Islam and also Iranian culture. And in fact, when when someone loses a loved one, uh the first thing that people say is they wish them patience. But that patience also means that, you know, that Iranians are both at the political level are not going to be reactive in the immediate to raise the cost or or uh respond to this crime or the other crimes that have already been commit committed against them. Um but it also means that they have patience for a longer horizon. So they're really not thinking about deterrence in this immediate war war time. They're really thinking about it in in the long term for future generations of Iranian children and families. >> Yeah, that kind of generational thinking uh profoundly takes you out of the immediate circumstance in in some ways. Um I'm going to end by just asking you really briefly to tell me how you think things are going to go over the next few months. How is this war going to develop? I think that I I can see that escalation is more likely than um sort of seeing um an end and and going back to the negotiating table. Um but I also think that it it it matters a lot uh where we are in terms of the US um election cycle and also Israel's election cycle because it seems that for Israel and for Benjamin Netanyahu a war works in in in his favor whereas for the US is is the opposite. Uh so I think it it really is how the US and Israel will um manage to balance each other out in terms of how to escalate um for how long um whether they would do it consistently or sort of intermittently. Uh but I um but I I would say that even if there are sort of um intermediate or or yes intermediate agreements, I think that they are going to end back at an escalation point. So it's not going to be a long-term um agreement um that we can reach. That was Oxford University researcher Vera Ameli speaking to me earlier today and of course uh she was discussing there the strike on that house where the wedding was happening. The US has said they didn't do it on purpose. People in Iran saying they thought it wasn't a deliberate strike as Vera said that the evidence is still coming out that the investigation still going on. Um but you can also look at the footage that we played and that you can find elsewhere and and and make up make up your own mind. But I wanted to ask you about um Trump. So, I think in having watched his social media posts far too much for my own good over the last couple of years, uh, I've noticed this increasing tone of desperation, especially in the last few months. Am I Am I crazy? >> Yeah, I think that's accurate to be honest. I mean he particularly through the prism of this war that's being waged in Iran, he he kind of goes through these peaks and troughs where you see him just suddenly spike up quite quickly with this very kind of hyperbolic language and kind of hyperbolic uh way of of of communicating which does feel quite desperate. Um I really agree with a lot of what your your guest Vera said there. I thought it was a very kind of useful intervention. It's worth remembering, I think, this this war in Iran that that they've waged. It begins with the bombing of school children, you know, and that was a kind of very key insight, wasn't it, into I think the scale of the depravity potentially that this war was going to unleash um being led by the US and and and [snorts] and Israel and and the visceral image of, you know, a wedding being bombed, but we've seen this in in lots of different contexts now, particularly in Gaza, of course, as well. But you know that that image of what is supposed to be a really special you know day of love you know that being kind of marred by by bombing and by this kind of military violence. It just says something I think about the way in which people's ordinary lives in these places are just being kind of wre with havoc um by by this this continual war. And you know as you've said we don't have clear evidence yet about whether it was definitely the US or not. So that information is is pending. But I do think that if >> we know it was then, we just don't know if they did it on purpose. >> Okay. We don't know if they did it on purpose. So we don't know if it was I don't like the term, but collateral damage, which is a you know, quite an ugly term really, isn't it? Um >> because what it means is, you know, we don't we don't target civilians, but we don't mind collateral damage, which means we don't mind the deaths of civilians in the interest of these military aims. That that's all it means. >> And and in so many ways, it kind of adds up to the the same sort of thing, I suppose, really. But I mean this idea of why don't Iranian people rise up and fight? One of the things he was screaming on um on his social media post, you know, it reveals something which I think has been said a lot on this show, which is that he has a real lack of dexterity, I think, when it comes to understanding essentially how to do kind of like US imperialism well, you know, and to be able to have some kind of a dexterity about how to do it. Um, as your guest said, you're not really going to get Iranian civilians on side by bombing them, you know, by by causing these civilian casualties, whether it's by collateral damage or or not. You're actually going to probably embed further a certain kind of Iranian nationalism actually and a pride and a wish to uh defend um rightly so, you know, your your country from from from violence. And so his his understanding of I suppose what you might call almost like gunboat diplomacy. this idea of, you know, big guns beats everything >> is just so unbelievably unsophisticated and, you know, really just kind of bolsters this idea that there is a bit of a paradigm shift, I suppose, in terms of the US on the world stage and and it's its power as as a world power potentially shrinking because that's not, you know, I can only think of a few examples in my head historically of when that kind of gunboat diplomacy has worked. And if we think about some of the most successful kind of, you know, empires in in in history, they didn't build their empires through, you know, just military might. They build it through influence, other forms of coercion, etc., that it's not all just done through through sort of military military means. And and so this these kind of constant peaks and troughs that we're getting from him via um social media, you know, really do seem to reflect reflect a kind of real lack of stability in and that kind of long-term colonial planning actually and whether the US is still capable of doing that. Well, I I mean I think I think I think they aren't. Um and I think what's interesting is that you know at the outset every analyst said you will not be able to do this from the air by by simply um an air campaign by bombing from from from the skies. You're not going to be able to take control of that country. You're not going to be able to do regime change. Uh you're really not going to achieve very much by doing that. And they didn't listen and they they they did it anyway. And I think it says something about like the how a country as it weakens uh starts to project onto other countries um when it thinks about what the worst thing it could do uh to them. So you know I think that that so there's a kind of psychological element here where you know Trump and his generals and whatever are thinking well what is what would cause maximum damage here? What would what would cause our society to collapse? Oh, well, if there was widespread bombing, uh, our quite splintered, um, quite, um, partisan society would very quickly fall apart, um, because there's not much holding it together as we sort of enter our declining years. And Iran obviously has is is not a is you know not a great economic power is you know has has been under sanctioned for a long time but it just doesn't operate in that way as I think ver was pointing out in that interview where it's not going to fall apart in the same way because uh there is something really significant for it to lose which is what you know the US and other countries in the region Israel for example have constantly tried to remove from it which is it it its ability to be a so a sovereign nation um that when the US thinks [laughter] of you know what would happen to it when there if it was If it was widespread bombing, well, what would happen is social collapse and and lack of cohesion. Completely misunderstands that the society it's dealing with is fundamentally different and and also fundamentally forged by uh you know a campaign of isolation and economic sanction that began in you know 1979. Yeah, that's a really interesting point to be honest with you and I think that shows a lot about the the perils of that very insular way of thinking that I think happens to every empire at some point where you stop being able to understand the world around you better and you start making leaps of assumptions on the basis of yeah what the way you internally work and operate but of course that's not strategically helpful. you you you move from what you believe is your position of fundamental and um incorruptible power in some way without realizing that actually that power can go very very quickly if you do things wrong. Prime Minister Andy Bernham has had his first session of Prime Minister's questions today. That event followed on the heels of a statement he gave to Parliament on Tuesday laying out his government's priorities. >> From the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralized, economic power privatized, the country deindustrialized. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of this. And then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. Change begins with honesty. Mr. Speaker, I'm not hearing much of it this afternoon. >> Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we won't turn things around. >> Far from taking back control, the combination of these policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain. For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline. People yearn to see them restored to what they once were, as the community secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilken in the summer. >> But they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. That was just one part of a statement that took an apparently recordbreaking three and a half hours. But as far as clear and compelling analyses of the sources of the UK's economic doldrums go, that struck me as actually like pretty sound. Of course, there's not a lot of detail yet um about what he's going to do about it, and it'll be at next month's budget where we where we see how committed Bernham really is to breaking with a bad economic model and a bad economic history. But in PMQs today, toy leader Kimmy Bedno wanted less optimism and more cuts. The prime minister told the house that his summer of promises would be paid for by rep prioritizing within government. So what exactly has he cut? >> Well, in terms of what has he cut? >> Tax is the simple answer >> to that question. [cheering] >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, within days of taking office, I indicated that we would remove VAT off electricity bills. And that, Mr. Speaker, will help people with the cost of living. And then days later, with the support of my right honorable friend, the chancellor, we said that there would be a cut in business rates for pubs, social clubs, live music venues. So this government lowering the cost of living, lowering the cost of business and that is what we will continue uh to do. >> The language and the calculations of the bad econ economic model that Bernham laid out on Mon on Tuesday rather was also at the forefront of Bednok's mind. >> He needs to pay for all his new promises and he has a choice. Higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts. Yesterday he said change begins with honesty. So, will he be honest and tell us is he preparing to raise taxes again? Yes or no? >> Can I say to the right honorable lady, I've already indicated my first moves were to cut tax, but I'm not going to do what any prime minister has done and is write the budget here. That will be the matter for my right honorable friend. But can I also say to her that he and I took a deliberate decision to set an early date for the budget so that we reduced the period for prolonged uh speculation of the kind that she is wanting us to indulge in today. But can I also say to her and indeed to the whole of her new shadow cabinet, the majority of whom were part of a government that lasted for 49 days. [cheering] A government, a short-lived government that crashed confidence in the economy, hammered people's mortgages. She took a decision at the weekend. >> She removed she removed a shadow chancellor who said that the truss mini budget was a mistake and she replaced that shadow chancellor with one that helped to write the truss mini budget. And dare I remind the house, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition herself is on record as saying that Liz Truss is 100% right. Van, there's not a lot to talk about there in terms of what policies are coming down the road, where the money is going to come from, what, you know, how the toothpaste is going to be squeezed around the tube or indeed whether or not some extra toothpaste is going to be introduced somehow. Um, but I wanted I wanted to ask you what you thought about the exchanges there. I mean, I thought Burnham looked super comfortable in at the at the dispatch box. Um, but I did think it just it's going to be really boring if we're just rehearsing old arguments over and over again. If the Tories just stand up each time and say, "Are you going to tax more? Are you going to cut spending? Are you going to borrow?" And then Burnham says, "Liz truss every time to object to something." Right? That's going to get really boring. It's not politically very not that I think PMQs is actually often politically very useful, but uh that was not that's not going to impress me or it hasn't impressed me at all so far. What do you think? >> Yeah, I mean I think you're fair enough to say like he's he's comfortable at the at the dispatch box. I mean I guess if we compare him to Stara, maybe there's a bit of a low bar there. You know, Starmmer wasn't always the most aerodite sort of communicator, but fair enough. Um, I feel like we are just going to be having this conversation until there's a budget because there's just going to be lots of like, you know, her asking the same question and him not being able to give an answer because you don't actually have a budget yet and it probably hasn't been worked out realistically. He's not going to get up at the dispatch box and say that. That's probably where we're at. I mean, I'm quite interested in like Chem Badnock's positioning around some of this stuff. I know like that there's definitely some stuff said about the Liz Trust budget which is sometimes unhelpful or not really very useful. Um, but you know, she is somebody who I think for the most part with Kimmy Badnock, despite the way I think sort of Westminster journals sometimes talk about her like she's this political dark horse and she's got a lot more up her sleeve. Um, I feel like her main USP in politics for a while was really just that she was willing to go ham on culture war stuff and that was the main thing that kind of marked her out as a bit different from maybe Brushy Sunnak for example. Um, and she doesn't really have that USP anymore of course because she's not the only one going h on the culture war stuff now. She seems quite moderate actually. >> She's not even she's not nearly as good at it as some of the out flanks from the right on that. So, she doesn't really have that anymore. And once you strip that away, of course, well, what have you got? You've got someone who really has, in my opinion, no good ideas for good growth. Um, you know, an economy that can tackle the climate crisis, for example. She's not really talking about that. An economy which can protect workers from AI threats. She's not really talking about that stuff. It's the same old stuff. If we look at some of the choices that she's made in terms of her new shadow cabinet, she's got a new shadow chancellor, I believe, who again trotting out the same stuff. We need more tax cuts, deregulation, um, and more magic growth from businesses that will just happen with kind of no state intervention and no state stimulation. And I'm wondering for how long she can keep saying that because to be quite honest with you, their base of voters, Tories and reform, have the same problem as well, which is why you see them triangulating like mad at times to not just say that they're doing neoliberalism because they know that's not popular. You've got a shrinking middle class of people who increasingly like fewer and fewer people are benefiting from the status quo. Fewer and fewer people are seeing dividends from this kind of neoliberal economic agenda that these people have have championed. You know, some of them were getting really annoyed at the fact that Andy Bernham has essentially had a go at thatcherism and the kind of long long shadow that it's left saying, "Oh, she was prime minister 45 years ago. She's not relevant, which is bizarre because normally Tories love to talk about how Margaret Thatcher was this deeply relevant prime minister." And of course she was, you know, she was a paradigm shifting uh prime minister. So, I think Kem Badnock's got a bit of a problem here, which is that she essentially propagates a kind of economic agenda which is just not really very popular with very many people. And I think she's going to find it difficult. She's going to potentially find Andy Burnham to be a difficult person to deal with with that hanging over her. >> But the Tories are doing better in the polls. They are they I think today they just they just did they just pass reform today? Yes. And I think you know and I think what I think what what what BNO is doing is something which is actually quite wise but but also sort of takes her out of you know any kind of politics which is going to fix this country but that's always been the the Tories job is to not really try to change anything. Um I think that um as uh Farage has got more more extreme and I think especially when it came to him you know sort of in my opinion um appearing to to fan on street violence um um over the summer. Um I think that a lot of Tories who had given up on the Tory party and has sort of become you know far curious were really put off by that law and order stuff. You know they don't like street violence. They don't like things thrown at the police. They like the police. They they want, you know, clean streets and quiet after 9:00 p.m. And I think they will have gone back to bed. And I think she's seen that flow of voters, traditional Tory voters back to her. And she's modified her position to appeal directly to them, to appeal to them in a way that Farage simply simply can't because he's always going to be somewhere around the language of extremism where whereas she can actually stay away from it. She doesn't need to do culture wars. In fact, if if they're doing Culture Wars, there's a whole there's a whole bunch of tries not interested in that who will who will who will stick with her and that may be enough enough. >> Um, so I think that [clears throat] I think that maybe that's how she's playing things. >> But I think that will be a temporary bounce. >> It it's going to be we are in a dynamic between these right-wing parties, which means that they're always going to be >> ebbing and [snorts] flowing and pulling voters between between them. um and they're always going to be fighting to secure from amongst basically the same pool the pool that can win um an election and I don't know that that's going to be that's going to be possible. >> Yeah, it might be tricky. I think it's probably more of a issue for reform I think at the moment who have struggled you know the rhetoric they were coming out with I think a couple of weeks ago around their reforms that they want to do over PIP for example there was you know several exchanges that they had with members of the public where they would reform ready voters who said actually I'm just not going to vote reform now because I might lose my benefits and that that's probably a bit different to the kinds of cohorts of of voters which Kem Badnox Conservative Party is is trying to court but as I said I I I just think that's an ever shrinking pool of people and I'm trying to I I would have someone to like really crunch the numbers on this like how many people are actually middle class anymore really you know I think it's a serious question >> that's that's a very good point but I mean I don't know that you have to be middle class to vote Tory right there are plent you know there's a kind of aspiration that's you know like the sort of you know >> um small business owners um people who want to own small businesses entrepreneurial types who are worried about the tax and VAT and whatever you know those are all drawn to to to tax cutting parties you know if they just think of the Tories all right all all the center right party ever has to do is promise to cut tax. Literally, that's all they have to do and people will really vote for them. Um they won't worry about the bigger picture. They won't worry about the social effects. They won't worry about um the economy as a whole. Just, you know, cutting taxes is what a lot of people really really like. Um and straying into culture wars and all this kind of stuff is a real mistake for the tourists. They should just be is the economy stupid? I'm going to I'm going to take 2 off your tax bill. Um yeah. >> Yeah. They should go back to basics. >> Back to basics. Well, I think that is also a Tory phrase, isn't it? [laughter] >> Um, in his statement on Monday, Bernham didn't have a lot to say on the climate crisis. This summer has now been officially declared the UK's hottest since records began, bringing with it five heat waves, drought, and rampant wildfires that burned through nearly 60,000 acres of land. And yet, the word climate appeared just three times in Burnham's statement. He promised that his government would meet the climate crisis, though he didn't say how beyond saying he'd attend COP 31 in Turkey later this year. And as we all know, these cops are increasingly kind of knocking knocking shops for for for lobbyists in the in in coal and gas and all these, you know, all this bad stuff. But his actions so far aren't that promising. Bernham and his energy uh secretary Miata Famb will soon have to decide whether or not to go ahead with new drilling for oil and gas at the Rosebank and Jack North Sea fields with the FT reporting confidence from insiders that extraction will go ahead. The Scottish National has now reported that that decision has been delayed due to according to the article potential bad optics. Well, those bad optic it optics it seems are only going to intensify with Parliament today witnessing the return of a group we haven't seen doing a public protest since April last year. Around 60 just stop oil protesters staged a sitdown in front of Parliament today in an attempt to block Andy Bonham's exit from the House of Commons after PMQs. And when they refused to move, police began making arrests carrying some protesters away. One of those protesters told Navara media why she was there. after the summer we've just had all the heat, all the burning, all the scorched fields, all the people ending up in hospital with heat related illnesses. Um it just felt like, you know, for [ __ ] sake, what's it going to take to stop? And then the feeling that, you know, just stop all we we did our best. We got it in the Labour Party manifesto. We got it in all their manifestos to stop new oil and gas. And yet here it was again raising its ugly head and it feels like absolute madness. And and so this is like to Andy Burnham. What are you playing at? You uh supported a fossil fuel treaty when you were mayor of Manchester. You seem to understand. You seem to get it. And here you are going backwards. Any new oil or gas, any gas on oil project is a death sentence. We have to use up the gas and oil that we've already got out the ground. There's billions of barrels of the stuff everywhere. Let's use it up and let's move as fast as we can to renewables. Otherwise, you know, it'll be us running away from the equivalent of a melted glacia as it comes at us. This is a death sentence and I'm absolutely furious. >> Uh Jenny Jones, who sits in the House of Lords for the Green Party, was also at the protest. Well, I have been saying to the government for quite some time now that we're on a really disastrous path towards uh a very very serious climate emergency. And this summer is just one example, but there are loads of examples worldwide. And these people here are actually prepared to be arrested, go to prison, get charged and so on. And I think that's that's absolutely amazing. >> PCA, what do you think of the reappearance of Just Oil at this at this moment? >> I was quite surprised actually. I mean this time last year or just over a year ago I was writing an article about sort of the the summarizing the impact of just up oil and the way in which I ways in which I think they'd they'd shifted um shifted the boundaries a little bit in terms of how we talk about climate change. You know they they were deemed as this very controversial group of people because they you know glued themselves to things and you know my overall um uh sort of assessment was actually I thought it was good you know it was good that they drew attention even if it drew eye from lots of people as well. Um and so it's in a way I'm glad they're here because we need people to be holding the the government to account on this. I don't see what the electoral mandate is by the way um to be able to have you new licenses for for oil and gas. And it's it's such a basic thing as well. It's such a kind of basic uh basic demand or or requirement as well. >> Look, there's a technical thing here which is that they they they they set these ones aside because they had already been approved before the manifesto. So that's the reason that they that they give is that they had already they were already subject to approval and then the question is just about they and so I think in the manifesto they said they won't won't approve anymore. Um these are approved and then it's a question of whether they'll they'll actually begin extraction that I'm not saying I buy it. I'm just saying that's that's the dodge that's used in my opinion. >> So there's a bit of a loophole there. Um but frankly after the summer that we've had which has been genuinely quite shocking um particularly down here in the south where it's been incredibly hot. Um, you know, I was I was pleased to see Justin Bole pop up even though it's sad that frankly they have, you know, we have to keep having these these the these demonstrations and you know, I'm I'm quite worried about certain aspects of Andy Bernham's economic approach. We don't know much about it yet. I know we keep talking about we've got to wait for the budget. We've got to wait for the budget. But I'm a bit worried that in in having this focus on yes like criticizing things that we don't like like trickle down economics which is nonsense and and and and wanting to talk about you know the the the impact of de-industrialization and all this stuff. I think sometimes there's such a focus potentially coming from Andy Burnham on on fixing these kind of productivity issues that it there's there's there's kind of this lens or approach of well any growth is going to be good growth. So, if that means that we invest in data centers because that's going to give more people jobs, that's good because I'm I'm [clears throat] addressing the cost of living and I'm fixing the economy and I'm worried about the narrowness of that lens. In my opinion, you know, 10 billion pounds, for example, if you were to generate that through renewable electricity, you know, or better insulated homes, that's not the same as 10 billion generated through a data expansion center or, you know, continuing to drill for oil. Like, to me, that's bad growth. And I'm I'm quite worried that his perspective on it is basically looking at a graph and seeing number of GDP go up and saying well that's good rather than looking at the detail of that and the long-term vision of okay well actually what what is the long long-term effect of of you know continuing to have you know licenses for for oil and gas for example. So I'm worried that he treats these issues as purely economic in the kind of narrowest sense of the word rather than understanding that there's all kinds of aspects to this that are important whether it's social, psychological, ecological um and that the underlying kind of solution is not just mainly better economic participation from the population, but that you know there's there's some kind of sustainability aspect that has to be there as well. And I'm again I'm waiting to see the budget like everyone else, but I'm worried that his his outlook on the economy whilst he's saying a lot of things we agree with is quite narrow. I I think you're completely right and I I want to make a connection between exactly that his narrowness in terms of thinking about the economy um and the resurgence of just up oil because I think you know just there's a there's a reason that they're coming out now after more than a year's hiatus which is that uh there's obviously this question about the additional drilling which is a very serious question the the public um consultations have now ended on on both of them or I think maybe one of them is just about to end so we'll get a decision soon. Um, and so there is still room to, you know, move that that decision. It's a very big one. But it's also the case that at this point every person in Britain has felt the impact of climate change this year. There is an audience there uh who will be much more supportive, I think, of Just Bole's um tactics or of their protests. I mean it will depend on what the tactics are but will I think be be surprised to find themselves quite happy to see them back because they really feel suddenly actually something does need to be done. Um, and I think when we get to the budget and we see that as as you said, there's a kind of economic narrowness at play here um, with with with Burnham, people will see that in the light of the climate climate crisis that's that's coming and it will be really the moment for the Greens to stand up and reassert their position as the progressive power and the environmental power in in in this country. Um, and I think that they will find that there is an audience there for them just as there is for for Just Bo again. Um, you know, obviously the Greens have had a little bit of a a sad time since Burnham came in and, you know, had this huge huge bump, but that bump will go and these these these um these ways of thinking that I think you're spot on about will make themselves really apparent and they will be especially apparent in that budget and they will be really apparent if this drilling goes ahead and that is when the Greens will need to stand up and actually reassert their position politically. >> Absolutely. And I mean, if you listen to like your standard like Westminster journalists or whatever, they're like, "It's over for the Greens. It's over for Zack Palansky." I'm like, "Guys, you need to think more than 5 seconds ahead, please." [laughter] >> The Telegraph had a piece today about how Zack Palinsky brought down the Green Party, and it's like [laughter] he's I think it's a year anniversary of him becoming leader. And it's like, babe, take a break. [laughter] It's it's it's other things have happened that have meant this has happened and they are just they're totally reversible. >> They probably will reverse, I think. >> Exactly. Politics, it's it's a long game, you know. There's no final victory. there's no final defeat as the saying goes. So, you know, there's wide open space here I think absolutely potentially for the Green Party to still absolutely, you know, provide something that this Labour party may not be providing under Andy Bandon >> and and you know, even if they don't get the political power from providing that, they will steer the Labour party in ways that are very very important. That is a super important political function for a party to play. Whether it, you know, wins a a landslide or whether it just gets some more MPs, that is vital work to be done in this country. >> Exactly. Andy Bannon is there in part because, you know, in large part because of Zach Fansky. That that's already like a massive statement for you to have done that in in a in less than a year, you've replaced the prime minister. >> That's huge. >> Yeah. >> When we think about pesticides in agriculture, we tend to think about what we might be eating. How could these inorganic compounds sprayed on my food impact me or my family or my kids? But what we think less about, or at least I can I can admit I think what I thought less about until today um are the farmers who have to use them. A new report released today and commissioned by the pesticide action network reveals that half the world's farmers are poisoned by pesticides each year with 11,000 of them killed annually. Most of those fatalities, 60% of them occur in India. The Guardian has the Guardian has reported on these details from that study. Using publicly available data from 2006 to 2023, the study which was commissioned by pesticide action network found there to be an estimated 402 to 433 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisoning of farmers and farm workers every year. Those are huge huge numbers vast numbers of people being affected by by the toxicity of of these pesticides. Earlier today I was joined from Kerala by Jay Kumar Chelaton a director of the pesticide action network in India. I began by asking him which areas of the world are most affected by pesticide poisoning. we have a very high number coming from South Asia followed by Southeast Asia and then Eastern Africa. >> And are the farmers that um you're talking about in those areas? I'm I'm imagining that they're they're sort of small um you know personal farmers or or cooperative farmers rather than farmers on you know massive industrial farms or or am I wrong about that? >> Perfect. uh I think that is also the case like that is why this number is going up because mostly these are people who are what you call subsistance farmers or pastoral or peasants you can call in English like these are people who are both they work in the farm and they also make a subsistence by working in the farm so it is a bit complicated in the >> I see and and obviously you know dying from pesticide poisoning is is the worst kind of impact um of of these of these chemicals, but I'm sure that people present with a range of other symptoms um you know who are still deeply affected by it but but haven't died. So what what kinds of symptoms are you seeing in the areas that you work? Um and what are the impacts on on on local communities of of the illnesses created by these pesticides? The farmers are not directly relating exposure to a health problem they having. uh because in between something happens you go in the morning and you spray and you come in the evening then you feel uh very bad headache or nausea or you have skin irritation or so it is not even though it is can be correlated by people who are working in the in the in the academic side of it but for farmers they feel that because in their notion across all languages around the world pesticides are called medicine in the local language so they are bit uh taking a bit of a time to understand that they're poison. That's number one. Uh back to your symptoms, I think you start with headache, nausea, uh skin irritations and it can go all uh vomiting and when I come back from the field, I also feel I said exposure like blisters on your skin, you feel suffocation, you have new uh headaches and nosia and a whole bunch of things. So when I say I what the farmers are experiencing, I can tell that this is also something which many of us personally experienced when we went to fields and started working with farmers. The moment this acute exposure moves a little bit on a regular basis over a period of time that enters into what you call a chronic exposure. So uh that can lead into carcinoma, Parkinson's and many uh problems which are which are very complicated to diagnose but it's also very expensive to very expensive to treat. It's really interesting what you say there about about in lots of dialects the word medicine is is used to describe pesticides which I guess implies that there's a sense that well medicines have side effects and these are maybe just some of the side effects of of something which is ultimately good because it increases my yield or decreases crop damage done by by insects. So how how does the um pesticide action network uh the kind of work that you do? How how difficult is is it to persuade those farmers to give up on these chemicals? >> It is a bit tough you know why why uh we need to look at a bit historically for in many of these countries where we come from the press was not the choice of farmers. >> It was introduced as part of improvement. It is also improve introduced as that you stop your conventional ways of doing things which are inferior. So let us go for a very superior fasting fast mean immediate reactions uh and bigger benefits and you can grow for a bigger area. So it came from a what you call in agriculture terms what you what we can call is that it came from a heavy investment in extension services which introduced pesticides and agrochemicals to the farmers and that is how it came into the existence. It's very interesting what you said that because you know when I see a story like this and I see you know the the bulk of the negative impact of some industrial product is taking place in countries in let's say the global south that often implies to me that there's a kind of model there where countries in the west for example have banned these products and they're being offloaded um onto uh other countries uh and marketed heavily um in their use in in those countries who aren't who aren't legislating against them. >> You're right. And also uh in the west there was systems to check or systems to regulate and the system to protect the farm workers and farmers. And then it is suddenly coming to global south where uh the the molecules come without the regulatory systems which is in place in those countries and often the the regulatory systems are relaxed for welcoming the global investment to some extent. So what happens is that we get the poisons without the regulatory mechanisms. So it increases the exposure for the people who are working in the field or who also pass by. >> So as I said before I think the pesticide action network's sort of role is to is to try and minimize or or get people off of the use of these kinds of poisonous pesticides. I imagine that sort of industrial agriculture the production you know that industry isn't very keen on that. So what kinds of um obstructions have you encountered in your in your efforts to do this where you are? So there are often legal cases which stop most of the activists doing do those kind of work and even threatened or sued or class action source what you call in US. So we had a lot of limitation or limiting factors and there is also many times your credibility is challenged. Your uh you are also presented as a uh uh as a as a spin like uh the the international collaboratives are trying to work with you because the pace at which if all these things are used the global south countries growing faster will be a threat for northern countries. So I mean it is a it is a very unimaginable kind of stories which are presented by the industry on one side and on the other side there is a lot of promotional activities which are happening in many countries like in Thailand 15 years back when you buy a particular facade after a lot you may win a motorbike for example >> I imagine you must sometimes feel like you know David versus Goliath here uh what kind of progress do you think you're making >> in India we worked with a large number of farmers and we are seeing a large enthusiasm like as I told you earlier when we sit with farmers learn together about how to make farming profitable and how to make crop produce more yield and how to confront the climatic challenges we are having to build resilience in farms. When we start doing this together we see a lot of enthusiasm and lot of interest from farmers to come together. The large number of farmer demands are coming for alternatives. There is a big demand for biocrol agents like one there is one fungus called baria basiana and beria basiana is a p mean it's a fungus it attacks in insects which b so for example where we work on cardamom cardamom one of the biggest problem is like stem borer and the stem borer is equally or even more effectively controlled by biocrol spray like varia basana. So we are seeing that the farmers are very keen but to switch to biocontrol agents because it is cost effective and the applications are much more easier. You need a mask and you need a glove and you can explo spray the bio control agents at a very comfortable pace. So I think what I'm seeing at at I I don't know about the global picture but uh in in India for example we are seeing a uh possible uh movement of farmers and farm workers coming together for to approve for the right questions like how the pests are becoming harmful and the government stepping in with newer schemes like the natural farming or in Kerala we have the organic farming support program by government of Kerala. So these are kind of making a them and moving forward. >> That was Jay Kumar Chelatin from the pestifide action network speaking to me earlier today. There's a new movie coming out soon and it's about two dubious technologies with very limited if not non-existent social value getting together to make beautiful slop art. No, that's not the plot, it's the production called Bitcoin Killing Satoshi. The film focuses on the hunt for Bitcoin's inventor and relies heavily on generative AI. There were no real world sets and locations were also produced by by AI while performances were also said to have been adjusted. Filming was completed in just 20 days with decrypt describing the surroundings like this. The cast worked inside a former car showroom lined with gray screen nicknamed the gray box with every set and lighting setup generated afterwards. Producer Ryan Kavanaaugh has said shooting it conventionally would have cost more than 300 million and put the saving at over 200 million according to Variety. Now one of the film stars is Galgadot, the Israeli actress best known for playing Wonder Woman and she's been defending a film that frankly didn't need to be made. >> What is the AI component of this Bitcoin film that you did? >> I'll tell you this was the longest contract I've ever worked on. I think it was 6 months for my lawyers to go through any scenario we could think about as far as the AI of it component of it. >> Uh because I absolutely did not want the AI to have anything to do with my performance. So as far as the performances for me, you know, it's all me >> what they did there. And again, I'm afraid of AI, but am I going to be afraid and look away? No, I'm afraid and I'm playing with it and I'm learning it and I'm trying to educate myself with it because I think that the train had left the station. You know, it's one of those things. It's either you're going to >> work with it or Yeah. to ignore it out of the game completely. Yeah. >> So, I'm trying to make the best of it and protect whatever I can protect. Now look, I saw a lot of stuff online and reacted to this that, you know, I I can't comment on because I've never seen Wonder Woman, which are all about how if any actress should be replaced by by AI, it's Galadot, who is, you know, apparently very wooden, one of the worst actresses ever, etc., etc. I mean, I don't know. I saw um, you know, over the bank holiday, I tried to watch a film on Netflix called uh, Death on the Nile, an Agatha Christie thing, and it starred Galgadot, and I I had to turn it off after like 20 minutes. I don't I can't entirely blame her because Kenneth Brer wasn't great in it either. Um but I think there are but you can say what you like about this. Maybe you know more about Galadot than me but I will say something about how the lack of solidarity at at play here. You know in that interview she talks about and I think this is a way in which she's trying to sort of present what she's done here as being for a greater kind of good. She talks about how the contract that she got um from the studio or from the filmmakers was so complicated about what could and couldn't be you know they could use AI on and she worked with her lawyer for you know months to sort of stipulate the things in the contract and as she put it so that she could so it could be used by the screen actors guild you know the the union of screen actors in the future as a kind of template um but it's you know it's that's already conceded a lot right to say like oh the way I'm going to assist my fellow actors is by designing a contract that will protect protect them maybe their performances possibly um but won't protect any of the other workers around me in the production of film or in the production of television or you know whatever kind of industry it is we're talking about film here obviously um so it's a kind of this conception of oh actually the essential parts of film making are the cast everything else all the other parts can actually be happily used up replaced by by AI but the cast is irreplaceable and if you think that you're crazy right the cast [laughter] It's very very expensive. It's going to be one of the things that AI will be used very quickly to try and get rid of and there'll be no one to stand up for you because you'll have already helped it to get rid of all of the people who otherwise would the production designers, the the the lighting designers, um the set designers, all the people who require you to be in a film so they have a job as well. you've helped, you know, people obsessed with AI and by making films on the cheap, get rid of them and they won't be there to to help you when they try to get rid of you, which they are absolutely inevit inevitably going to do. I think some people think about this, you know, as like what's happening here is a kind of some one of those regular transformations in how work works or in how industry works or whatever, you know, that that comes along and it's like a revolution of of some kind. But it's like it's just fundamentally different because you know what those things did was they sort of you know they transformed what workers did. Um they transformed the way in which things were made and the how workers were used where they were used in order to produce things. But what they didn't do was replace >> the workers which is what AI is intended to do. It's intended to actually remove an entire class of people or not probably not totally but as much as possible from production so that it's just billionaires and computers. M >> and I think this is like really like sort of class A foolishness um on the part of Galador. >> Yeah. I mean I won't comment on uh Death on the Nile or and the merits or demerits of of those films. Um I I told you earlier actually I spent my bank holiday weekend watching old films. One of the film films I watched was singing in the rain which the premise of that film if anyone's ever watched it is when you get this evolution in film making from silent movies to um the talkies as they were called at the time which is just you know a film with sound um and the ways in which the the actors have to cope with this kind of changing landscape. So I think the point that you make is really interesting about the way in which this kind of AI revolution is actually quite different to a lot of the other previous um sort of changes that we've seen before through the artwork of film. I think your point about you know Galadot's phrase I think she uses in the variety article that that I read earlier was the train the train has left the station she says isn't it in other words this is happening so you better get on board or you'll be left behind um you know and I think just saying AI is a technological reality which it is the technology exists it's accepting that is quite different to saying therefore I will kind of accept you know a lot of the the terms and conditions which actually diminish the quality and the creative output of my work and potentially other people's. So, I think her read on that is not particularly helpful to be honest. And you're right, you know, it's great for her as an individual, a very famous, well-known sort of Marvel actress who has great lawyers who can negotiate for her and get her a great contract, you know, in terms of um being protected in her view from some of the dangers of of AI, but really like if we're going to actually face up to the the issues and problems that AI being driven by profit, that's the kind of fundamental issue going on here. If we're going to face up to that, we have to do so collectively. And I'm not sure sort of individual singularly negotiations via expensive lawyers. I don't see how that's going to translate into the other people on a film. So, as you've said, you know, what about the stunt people? What about the extras? What about junior editors? You know, those people who've got far less negotiating power. Um, and I think also this idea of one of the things that they spoke about as well in in the Variety article that covered this, they talked about the idea of of efficiency of of film sets. Um, and the idea that you'll spend, you know, actors will spend less time um, just sort of waiting around on on set. Creatively, I think there's probably some use for some actors and actually just sitting around and and, you know, thinking and mulling over their creative experience. Um, but [clears throat] it also means that if shooting time is going to be condensed, for example, into a shorter period of time, you'll be working more intensely over a shorter period of time. Is that a great experience for you as a worker to essentially have to do a lot more work within a shorter period of time? So I'm not even really sure that what potentially the likes of of Galadot and others who are individually negotiating is actually going to be that good e even for them as well. I'm quite concerned even with the amount of creative power that is going to be given to um you know sort of executives or or film producers um over their ability to be able to sort of edit um an actor's performance without having to do re-shoots. Again, like if you don't have to do re-shoots, presumably that means you'll be paid maybe a bit less because you'll be spending less time on set. So there'll be less money for you, less work for you. I think re-shoots is part of the creative process as well. So there's something about alienation there and there's something about the way in which you as an actor, you may be further removed actually from that final creative product which should be a wonderful collaboration I think between different artists and instead you're going to be pulled further away from that potentially as well which I also don't think potentially is going to be very good either. Um so I think this is quite a sad a sort of sad story really about the way in which film is going. We had a wonderful film released in the summer, the Odyssey, which Christopher Nolan kind of painstakingly went out of his way to shoot in real locations >> and all practical effects. Yeah, >> absolutely. Yeah. And that's been a a major success. And I think one of the sad things about that is Christopher Nolan said, you know, I used up my Oscar sort of like uh points that I got making Oppenheimer to make this film because if I had if I didn't have that, I would have never been given the remit to make these kinds of films. and he seemed to talk about it as though really that being able to make films of that kind of spectacle and scale using, you know, real locations and and all the expensive stuff that comes with it is going to become less and less of a reality. It's that's going to make up less and less of a film. And and I think that that's a real economic issue for those who are involved in in the production of film um those who who are actors etc. that that's a real issue, a creative issue and and I think it's a workers issue as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think what we need to see really is actually like solidarity not just amongst workers as workers but also workers as like paying audiences for these things. It be very interesting to see what the box office take on a film like like this is because I do think that there is a kind of tide turning against the use of AI. Like I I spend a lot of time on TikTok and when whenever someone posts something that's done without AI, there is a stream of comments objecting to the fact that it contains any AI at all, talking about the climate, talking about data centers, and talking about slop and just really not liking it. Um, and I don't know whether that translates to other platforms or whether it will translate to film, but it will be interesting, I think, to see whether audiences want to go and see it or not. um and whether audiences and when if audiences don't want to go to see it. There's also then the question of whether there should be like some solidaristic action, organized action amongst workers in TV channels and stations and uh you know places like I mean I'm not going to bank on somewhere like Netflix or Amazon but like you know the BBC, Channel 4, YTV and there like across across the world whether you know you actually do want to license these these these kinds of films or whether you want to use your power as a kind of cultural beacon in a society or a media beacon in a society to also you know shape the rejection of this very speedy incursion into our lives of of of of this stuff. >> Yeah, definitely. It'll be really interesting to see, you know, like the way in which we were talking was it last week about the way in which people are coalesing very quickly around being anti-data center, for example. That's something that's happened quite quickly despite the fact that data centers have not necessarily been in the kind of cultural and, you know, economic lexican for a very long period of time. So, it'll be interesting to see if if audiences and and other parts of of the industry do this. And one of the things I often think about when it comes to AI as well, I can't remember who said this, but it's not just so much that AI will replace us or that AI will take our jobs. That's a very real threat, but also the ways in which like we will also become more like AI. And so the the use you the man becomes the machine as well. And that's also a big maybe that's more of a philosophical or existential issue rather than just purely a political one, but but I do think that it matters. You know, what does it mean to say that parts of of a creative experience and a creative output have been made by AI? When I'm looking at an actor's face trying to portray a particular feeling or emotion, what does it mean that I am seeing something that has been produced ultimately by a machine and reading that? Like, what does that do to me? What does that imprint onto me as as the audience and the way in which I participate with a piece of film? You know, I think a good film is two-way, right? It's not just you passively watching something. It's it's also having an imprint, an emotional imprint on you. What does it mean that that emotional imprint is coming from a machine? >> It's very interesting. There have been a whole um series of articles written recently I think one in the New Yorker, another in the New York Times um and other places as well which is all about the way in which our conception of beauty is changing because of social media and the screen um and and because of engagement um and you know so people are having treatments done which change their faces in ways which you know offline we wouldn't necessarily find attractive but it's sort of it's sort of engaging and immediately grabbing because it certain features are really really enhanced >> um and how that's affecting our perceptions of of what is beautiful and AI of course you know if you look at like stuff that people generate on grog they have a very it has a very particular understanding of what a beautiful man or a beautiful woman might might look like. Okay, Bucker, thank you so much for joining me tonight. >> Thank you so much for having me. >> Uh thanks everyone for tuning in. Come back tomorrow for another show from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Navara Media. Good night.