Latest / Man in America Podcast / Baby Farming & Immortality? Here’s What The Elites Aren’t Telling You w/ Emma Waters

Transcript

Baby Farming & Immortality? Here’s What The Elites Aren’t Telling You w/ Emma Waters · Man in America Podcast

• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Welcome to Man in America, a voice of reason in a world gone mad. I'm your host, Seth Holehouse. Technology has done a lot of really great things for humankind. The fact that I can sit in my studio right here and record this video, and somehow it shows up on a screen in your house when it publishes is pretty amazing. It's done some great things, but technology in the hands of people that aren't interested in benefiting humankind can be a very bad thing.
• 0:44
  And that's what we're seeing in our world today. And if you look at one of the core elements of what it means to be human, and I think in one of the elements that God gave us, it's the creation of life. It's being able to get married and settle down with a spouse and have a vision for the future and to build a family together. And this is a way that technology has done a lot of good things, but it's a double edged sword. And we're also seeing a lot of bad things being done, and also a lot of things that are quite nefarious.
• 1:15
  And so in today's episode, my guest is a woman named Emma Waters. So she's a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation. And she's also the author of an upcoming book called Lead Like JL, which is a book that's kind of rooted in a lot of biblical, concepts and ideas in Scripture about the role of women, especially in the family and modern motherhood, and so many things that really tie into this discussion very strongly. So we're gonna be looking at the role of technology in birth, for everything from the genetic selection of babies being able to choose the eye color, the sex of your baby, how that's being used, looking at birthing farms, and how that's something we're seeing more commonly. Even Epstein himself was involved in these birthing farms, similar to John of God, right, the person that we know through Oprah, kind of a weird connection there.
• 2:05
  It's not today's episode, though. So we're looking at how does technology play into the creation of life, but also how does technology play into the ending of death? And so we'll look at that as well, and how all these topics converge into this transhumanist perspective that is involved with creating and designing the perfect baby, seeking immortality, and so much more. So this is gonna be a great discussion. It was a wonderful guest.
• 2:36
  I think you're gonna enjoy it. Before we jump in though, make sure that you are following the page. Make sure you're, sharing if you like it. Of course, if you leave comments, I'd love to see what your comments are. And for those of you that are watching on Rumble and supporting a free speech platform, thank you.
• 2:49
  Honestly, thank you. Make sure you're subscribe to the channel. So let's go ahead and dive in now on this interview with Emma Waters. Emma, thank you so much for being here with us, Sam. Really looking forward to this discussion.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: Yes, thanks so much for having me today.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Absolutely. So, your expertise is in a lot of kind of interesting areas, but specifically baby farming, designer babies, you know, kind of modifying the DNA of children, birth rates, population collapse. It's a really interesting intersection that, especially in today's world, when we have these pretty powerful people that are literally designing babies, but also reminiscent of some like sort of like a Genghis Khan, like kind of spread my seed everywhere type mentality. So there's some interesting stuff for us today. But how about we'll just start with, I'll allow you to give just a brief introduction of yourself, and then we'll jump in.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: Yes. So I am a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and the author of a new book called Lead Like JL. But beyond the work that I'm doing, which I often describe as the intersection of technology and human conception and development, So it really captures the way that technology is totally reimagining our relationship with our own bodies, with our children, and with the wider world, which means there's a lot of very interesting topics to talk about. I'll frequently hear from people, they'll say, Emma, we loved your interview. It ruined my day, but we loved your interview.
• 4:20
  So hopefully the audience will have a pleasant experience even if it's a little dark at times. But beyond that, I'm married, we have two little girls. My husband's in seminary, and so life is very full, very lovely. Both getting to research these things, but then see how they're playing out in our literal family and in the world today.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: It's funny because I I think that you're paralleling me in certain ways. I've also got two little girls, two and five, you know, married happily. But I can see, like, I'm also covering a lot of dark topics, but I try to find the the smile amidst it, right? Because we have to be able to look at these things, but we shouldn't just become so absorbed with darkness that we're like, Okay, it's hopeless. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to this.
• 5:04
  And so, I best Okay, let's just go ahead and start with the designer baby angle, right? Because this is something that is really interesting. And it also it ties into some of the stuff that we saw coming out of the Epstein files, right? So here's a this is a New York Times article from 2019 talking about how Jeffrey Epstein had hoped to seed the human race with his DNA. And this is something strange because people think about Epstein as being, oh, so he's a blackmail agent, you know, he's a pedophile, he compromises people, and that's his main role.
• 5:38
  But you realize that he was very heavily involved in a lot of tech techno, kind of biological stuff. Right? He invested a lot in in science and a lot of universities, a lot of research, but it was very, very tied to this merger of what you're talking about, right? The merger of technology and the creation of human life. So not only we have this article here, but we also know that for his Zoro Ranch, that he actually had breeding programs that were going on there, right, where they're literally farming babies similar to the John of God.
• 6:15
  Right? This was the guy that Oprah had some kind of strange association with that he also had these baby farming factories. So there's obviously, there's something much bigger going on here. What do you make of this?
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: The commodification of human life does not end with the treatment of those children who were already born, and this is something that is a tale as old as time. It's nothing new under the sun. Hitler had a breeding program to try to create the ideal humans. You see Epstein doing this. Telegram founder, Pavlov, he has promised to pay for IVF treatments for any woman who will use his sperm in the process.
• 6:54
  You have a number of Chinese billionaires doing this, but there's this level of hubris that assumes that my genetics are so good for the world that everyone needs to have them, well beyond any conception of the family, of marriage, and frankly, what's best for children. Because what is this doing? It's relying on these advanced reproductive technologies, IVF, surrogacy, genetic testing of human embryos to sort of create and modify these quote ideal humans. And the second thing that's assumed in this mindset is this genetic determinism that genetics make you who you are. Now, this is the nature versus nurture debate that is as old as time, but what Epstein, what some of these millionaires and billionaires are assuming is that if they just get their genetics in the pool, then you'll have tons of children running around who were as smart and ambitious and as successful, question mark, as they are.
• 7:48
  Though I think a lot of society would say we actually don't want any more success like that in our world today and our world would be better without it, but it completely ignores the role of nurture and formation for the child and just assumes if you create the child, you throw them out in the world, everything will be fine. But anyone who's a parent or who has spent five minutes with a child know that it is both true that your child comes out with so many interesting quirks that make them who they are, and yet the role of the parent is essential in forming that child and ensuring that they are shaped and raised into a happy, healthy person. And you cannot ignore either of those pieces. And yet, this sort of technology billionaires mindset of overcoming the world with their genetics completely defies that and defies what is good for children in the process.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: When you mentioned, you know, there's nothing new under the sun, right? And I think that this is something we've been seeing over and over again. And if I try to simplify what we're looking at, it's man trying to be God. And whether you're looking at the Tower Of Babel, or any of the lessons that we've learned throughout history, that there's all these instances of it's hubris, right? When man becomes powerful enough, they believe that they are God, or they believe that they're more powerful, or or that they can do the same things that God does, or they're just atheist, and and that's a whole other story.
• 9:07
  But if you look at, say, you know, Harari, for instance, you've all know Harari, who has talked a lot about this. And if you listen to him, he talks about, Oh, you think there's this God in the clouds? Well, the real God is in the data center cloud, and we're gonna use that cloud to do these things. And I think that that's what I felt like that's where this is getting into is actually this much deeper, spiritual aspect of this, that it's just that man gets to a point where our technology becomes great enough, the people that control or build that technology start to believe that they can start to play God. And isn't this exactly it, right?
• 9:43
  If you're looking at designing babies, designing their DNA, farming babies, and without even getting into organ harvesting or any of the other kind of darker things that come out of this, just this idea of creating these babies. But, you know, you're right. Old are your little girls?
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: They are three and one.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: Okay, so very, know, so we're at two and five, right? Similar. And you see that they're so different. It doesn't matter. We're both the same parents, you know, same genetics, but they're just so different.
• 10:15
  And then also it overlooks the role of the soul. Because that's also something, it's like, Okay, yeah, we have our DNA, but there's a much deeper DNA of what is our soul? What was our soul doing before life? Right? Were we basking in heaven?
• 10:30
  What was that soul doing before we inhabited this physical body? We put this kind of machine on ourselves. Right? And that overlooks every all of that.
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and this is this you're describing the transhumanism agenda that is aligned well today. And so what is transhumanism? It's this belief that with technology, you can effectively replace God. Or as Brian Johnson, this major transhumanist who wants to, beat death, so his motto is don't die, he says that we actually got the history of the world backwards.
• 11:03
  So religion would say that God came first. He created the world as we know it, and we are on a path to being reunited and redeemed with the world. And Brian Johnson says no. The transhumanist vision is actually the opposite, which is that God didn't create the world. It was evolution or something random, but that we, with technology, are now creating God.
• 11:23
  And so God is ultimately this deity that will be formed through advanced AI and cloud computing. And so the transhumanist vision is, in many ways, a Christian heresy because ultimately what it says is that we will live forever either in these immortal bodies that will sort of, you just do all the health and revitalization tactics to live forever, or we will be uploaded in this digital cloud where we will live forever as these sort of disembodied spirits is the word they would use, though it's not a spirit at all, right? It's just this sort of cyborg existence. And so Brian Johnson and a number of transhumanists will say, we will live forever, but in this digitalized cloud. And that's the vision of human flourishing.
• 12:05
  Now, of course, that completely defies the Christian vision of the resurrection of the body and, like, true everlasting life, like, in the redeemed flesh. But what's so interesting to me is that it's this complete replacement of a true understanding of God with this technology. And so what are they trying to do with it? Well, they're trying to avoid suffering at all costs. What's one of the greatest fears for people?
• 12:27
  It's to die. So what if you use technology to never die? They're using technology to try to avoid things like the natural vulnerability of childbearing. So frequently, this technology is not just applied to how you as an adult can live a healthy life, But then they take it even further back and they say, why not start with a human embryo and start optimizing the health of our children before they're ever even born? And of course, every parent wants to have healthy babies.
• 12:55
  They want to have children who are happy, who are healthy, and live a great life. That is a natural and good thing for a parent to desire. But what the transhumanist agenda does is it takes that natural and good desire and it totally perverts it into this absolute end and says that in order to have children, they must be healthy, they must be healthy or happy, they must live a good life. And so then they take technology like pre implantation genetic testing or polygenic risk scores, And then they're testing human embryos, not only to find out basic health outcomes or indicators, but to look at over 2,000 potential conditions that your child may develop. So this isn't just, here's what we know is the case, but here's what they could.
• 13:40
  So they're looking at things like Alzheimer's disease, insulin resistance, male pattern baldness, the health, or the height of your child. Do you want a tall child? Do you want a short child? They're looking at the potential IQ. They're even looking at the way your child looks.
• 13:55
  So there's a clinic in California who for many years now has advertised choosing the eye color of your child. And they'll frame this as having a healthy baby or having your best baby in order to overcome the suffering that is sometimes tragically inherent in childbearing. But while they use the language of health and healing, the technology itself doesn't do either of those things. It simply tests, ranks the human embryo, and then empowers parents to choose which human embryos live and which human embryos die. And what's so telling to me is that some of the largest, companies who were using this technology each have incredibly tragic stories of loss in their family.
• 14:37
  So one founder of Orchid, Nour Sadiki, who's done a Ross Douthat podcast and is sort of pretty big in like the broader media space now, she talks about how when she was in high school, her mother developed this horrible disease that left her blind. And so she says her motivation for genetic testing of human embryos is to help other families avoid this pain. But the reality is, is if her grandparents had used this technology to avoid the pain of this genetic condition, it wouldn't have healed her mother. They simply would have never chosen her mother to begin with. And so while I don't think this is the intended goal, the implicit takeaway is that it would actually be better if her mother had never been alive than if her mother were to develop this disease.
• 15:23
  And of course, that's completely contrary to what we know about the vulnerability but the unconditional love, and acceptance of the human person. And you have this in other founders too, where cousins will have tragically and unexpectedly died due to a genetic condition. And all of these just really heartbreaking stories of human vulnerability. But instead of turning to faith in God, to religion, to investments in real innovation, the transhumanist agenda turns to technology to try to circumvent the problem altogether and says, what if we can avoid ever having this pain or suffering to begin with? And so you see it with good intentions, misguided compassion, but the result is actually far more harm, far more destruction of life.
• 16:05
  And of course, as you and I know, Seth, ultimately it's futile because you can't actually avoid suffering. You can't fully avoid death. These things they're aiming for will ultimately still take place, and the question is just how much harm did you actually create in the process of trying to avoid these things?
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Here's the hard truth. Every six years, your dollar loses half its buying power. That means a $100,000 savings account today could feel like $50,000 by 2031. And you see it every time you fill up your tank, buy groceries, or pay the bills. Prices are up.
• 16:39
  Your dollar's down. But there's a simple way to protect the value of your savings with something real, something proven, gold, an asset that holds its value over time. And that's why I trust Noble Gold Investments. They make it simple to protect your savings with physical gold or silver. No high pressure sales, no call centers, just honest guidance, one on one support, and transparent pricing.
• 17:04
  And right now, when you open a qualified account, Noble Gold will send you a free 10 ounce silver American flag bar as a thank you. So head over to goldwithseth.com or call (626) 654-1906 today to learn more. Again, that's goldwithseth.com or (626) 654-1906. Don't just protect your wealth, preserve its power. What's also it's interesting because if you look at Western, you know, theology, but also you look at Eastern philosophy, there's this idea that, you know, in the East, they may call it karma, right?
• 17:45
  And I think the West, they refer to it as sin. And there's different takes on it with different cultures, but it's, it's one of the kind of core principles of different beliefs is that, okay, when you sin, right, that you then that sin causes you suffering, right? And it's the idea, okay, of karma. It's like, if you do something bad, it might just come back and get to bite you, right? And so that's the idea, is that, okay, if you look at that perspective, then if you're trying to manufacture a life that has no suffering, you could almost say that you're trying to create a human that has no sin, right?
• 18:18
  Because I think sin and suffering go hand in hand. And to me, like, that is the pinnacle of a disbelief in God, you know, and even the idea of living forever. Actually, I've got I wanna play a quick video here. This is a twenty four second video. This is Jared Kushner talking, but just listen to what he says about his view of life and death.
• 18:40
  This is it's very telling.
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: Friend, and and then finally, I think that from, you know, the last year, the one thing I've tried to put a priority on since I left the White House was, you getting some exercise in. I think that there's a a good probability that my generation is hopefully with the advances in science either, you know, the the the first generation to live forever or the last generation that's going to die and so, we need to keep ourselves in pretty good shape. And then the other thing I like, friend, and
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: I mean, so you hear him say it right there, right? He thinks maybe his generation, which is my generation and probably your generation, you know, similar, right? Will be the last to die or the first to live forever. So you can see, but it's like, if someone gave me the option to live forever, I would say no. I don't want to live forever in this human body.
• 19:27
  It sucks. Like, I want to be up in heaven. I want to be flying through the clouds and, you know, basking in the the the light of of of God. And I don't wanna be stuck in this human world, but it just it's it's telling, though. And so when you hear Kushner talking about that, what do you think about it?
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: First, that's insane. I had I had no idea that clip was out there. And I think it just tells you it just shows you how mainstream this has become. I mean I mean, Jerry Kushner, like, being, like, I would say, like, a pretty central figure. I would not have pegged him as someone who necessarily held the views that, like, this generation could be the last to die or first to live forever.
• 20:03
  But I think it just, yeah, speaks to how far it's actually permeated our society and even to the degree that people may not even associate it with transhumanism beliefs or this anti god agenda, And yet that's exactly what it is. But it's just seeped into our modern culture, our popular culture, to such a degree that I think there are probably many people who don't even realize that's what they're buying into, and maybe aren't even thinking through the long term implications of that. Because if you truly think, it's really interesting. If you truly think that you're going to live forever in this like imminent human world, not in this redeemed body, redeemed heaven and earth with the Lord, is like a Christian vision or another religious vision, that's going to significantly shape the politics that you buy into. It's going to shape your decisions around having children, how many children you have.
• 20:50
  It's going to shape the decisions you make around your vision of the climate. And is global warming a real thing and what's happening in the world? And it'll add this level of fanaticism in a way, which I'm not attributing to any individual person. But if you think that it is up to you to ensure that the world in its broken and imperfect form will continue on indefinitely to be able to preserve the humans who will continue on indefinitely, then that's going to create these scenarios where you're driven by, yeah, almost a fanatic passion to sort of control and preserve in a way that may actually be very unhealthy, and well beyond what humans can control or were ever meant to control, right? Because ultimately, they're replacing the sovereignty of God with their own desire to control the world.
• 21:36
  And any time you see that shift take place, I think you see a number of just really tragic things come from that. And that's the entire lesson from the twentieth century, which was, Stalin and Hitler and a number of others who truly thought that they were going to establish these everlasting regimes, that they were going to be the parent over. And maybe they didn't think they'd live forever in the transhumanist agenda sense, but they did think that it was up to them to do this unique thing that they had to control and shape the population a certain way, shape society a certain way, well beyond the agency any human being rightly has, and what happened in its wake, but millions upon millions upon millions of people who died in the pursuit of this utopia on Earth. And I would hate to see us make the same mistake again, just assuming that more advanced technology will somehow be the solution, and avoid all of these very tragic side effects that come with that mindset.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: What also, without getting too much into the, you know, the conspiratorial, which has now just unfortunately become more mainstream, which maybe it's a good thing. But if you look at a lot of these ideas that you see coming out of these more globalist level, this kind of elite level, whether it's looking at the Georgia Guidestones, which their goals would have a population of 500,000,000, right? You see that there there is even within the Epstein files, you can see discussions of depopulation. And I think that if you look at it from the perspective of whether if these so called elites, if they believe they can access immortality, whether it's through their body never dying, or whether it's through uploading their consciousness to Neuralink through some sort of chip or whatever it is they believe they can preserve that, then you're looking at resources on Earth very differently. Because if you are part of that small class that does have immortality, you're looking at and thinking, Well, the Earth maybe doesn't have immortality, because what if all the other humans exhaust all the resources of the Earth?
• 23:34
  So that needs to be managed. I think that what you mentioned earlier is that if you have this view, then it's gonna it's gonna shape the way that you look at politics. It's gonna shape the way you look at things like the climate or any of these different agendas or even not really agendas, but just real things happening. And so it makes sense. It's like, okay, if you are part of this very elite class that you believe that you have the ability to access immortality, then that's gonna change your viewpoint of the global population.
• 24:04
  You're looking at that, I think, from a very different perspective than most of us are even capable of even imagining.
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: Well, that makes me think, though, of such a tragic thing that is lost if you intend to live forever in this transhumanist vision. What is one of the oldest and most beautiful realities of human relationship is this intergenerational passing off from one to the other. So you have grandparents, Well, you have parents, right, who've come together in marriage. They form a family. They start having children.
• 24:38
  Those parents are both working to provide for the family, to build something good in the world, to raise and steward those children, and form them into good and capable citizens who continue on that legacy. And so then those children grow up, those parents turn into grandparents, those grandparents continue passing down their wisdom and even financial resources through inheritance and this legacy. And I think legacy is really the word here. And if you just intend to live forever, if you think that, we should control suffering even at the expense of human life. So why is assisted suicide more popular than ever?
• 25:13
  It's because we believe that in order to live, if you don't have a certain, quote, standard of living, well, it'd be better if you just didn't live at all. Why are we using genetic technology to select and then destroy other human beings? It's a complete denial of the beauty of this legacy that we're called to pass down and the sort of natural growth and progression and rebirth of the human life and of human generations. And so I think there's no it's no coincidence that the Bible, for example, is constantly listing out this generation beget this generation, beget this generation, because it's telling the story of human life, of self sacrifice, of pouring yourself into another, seeing them raise up, and then in turn giving back to the generation that comes after you. And this, yeah, beautiful intergenerational giving of oneself.
• 26:00
  And if you simply believe you're going to live forever, then as you're saying, you're not going to want to pass down those resources because you need those resources for yourself. If you have a scarcity mindset where there's only so much to go around, you're probably not going to try to have too many children because then that's just more children you then have to pass down your limited set of resources that you too need to hold onto. And so it completely cuts the cord between this natural give and take between the generations that I think is so essential for human flourishing and human development and building of wealth in the world. So just on a practical level, like that just seems like a really tragic loss of that relationship between the generations.
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: Oh, I couldn't agree more. You mentioned one thing I want to bring up, a website I found, because you talked about how many lives are destroyed in the process of creating one of these lives. So I just did a quick search as you're talking about choosing your baby's eye color, and I found this website, you're probably familiar with it, this is called the Fertility Institute. It's fertilitydocs.com, but here you can see, select the gender and eye color of your next baby. It says lowest base price.
• 27:06
  Of course, oh, it's a bargain, right? Lowest base price, highest success rate of any U. S. PGD gender selection, where they go in and you can, you know, again, you can pick your eye color, you can pick what sex you want. And so but, you know, I think one thing that a lot of people don't necessarily look at in this framing is what happens to the embryos that aren't selected.
• 27:33
  You know, because it is my belief that the soul comes in at conception, right? To me, that's it's not when there's a heartbeat, it's not when the baby is able to be, can survive on its own outside the mother's body. And I know that there's even been, and we're seeing some researchers, some showed that when the sperm actually first enters the egg, there's some sort of spark of light, something energetically happens, where, which in my, again, my belief is that that's when the soul comes in. Like, that's when, you know, God has chosen and allowed, Okay, this soul's going in to this embryo. And so, what happens?
• 28:12
  So, if someone is going through this process of choosing a designer baby, how many embryos does it take? Like, what's that process look like? And what is the loss of life involved with that?
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: These are such great questions. I was just watching that video again yesterday, and it's truly incredible. You see this little egg sitting in a petri dish, and the moment the sperm enters in, there's this flash of light as life enters the human embryo, and a child who has never been before is now created. And so it's this genetically complete and distinct living human being. And I'm with you that even if that human embryo is to perish in three days, there is now a new life, a new soul that's created that will be known by God forever, even if we, as human as born humans, never actually meet that human embryo.
• 29:03
  It's such an incredible, miraculous process even. And so there's this interesting double talk where you see those in the fertility industry who will say, No, that's not a human being. It's just a clump of cells. It's just a blastocyst. It's just this developing thing that's potentially a human at some point, but it's not a human then.
• 29:21
  And yet at the same time, they'll say, But we can take this genetically complete and distinct living human being, analyze it, and tell you everything you wanted to know about its potential genetic makeup. How can you know everything about the potential genetic makeup of a human embryo and yet claim that it's just a potential human person? It's just a clump of cells. It's not a real person yet because they're doing exactly that. They're testing it.
• 29:46
  So 75% of all IVF clinics in The United States, and there's about four fifty clinics in The United States, offer pre implantation genetic testing like that website that you showed. So they're offering to genetically test your human embryo for things, like health outcomes like Down syndrome, Tay Sachs disease, Huntington's disease, so these more severe disabilities that parents are often very nervous about. But 73% of those clinics also test for the sex of the human embryo with near perfect accuracy. And so whereas an abortion in The United States, it's illegal to intentionally have an abortion for the stated purpose of not liking the sex of your baby. So you can't go in for an abortion if you say, The only reason I'm getting an abortion is because I don't want a boy.
• 30:32
  But in IVF, we actually see a number of trends that SLAIT and other outlets have covered where there's a growing number of women and couples who are electively using IVF, so IVF with no infertility diagnosis, just so they can select the sex of their child. And so women are stating things like toxic masculinity, boys are really bad at calling their moms, they're not going to take care of them in their old age, and so they would rather intentionally choose little girls and destroy the boys. And to, like, give just, I think, a very damning example of this, Paris Hilton has intentionally used IVF to create human embryos because she wanted a little girl. And if I'm getting the numbers correctly, she created 20 human embryos. 19 of them were boys, and only one was a girl.
• 31:21
  And she selected that one little girl for birth and made no mention of what happened to the other 20 male human embryos that she created, but it was a desire to use this technology for a certain kind of child. And so while sex selection is fairly reliable, the actual health selection reliability is wildly unreliable. So in July 2025, there was a massive class action lawsuit that was filed in California where many of these clinics, not surprising to your audience, exist. And this lawsuit alleged that this company claimed that their pre implantation genetic testing, looking at health and these other factors of a human embryo, had a ninety eight percent accuracy rate. And this is the standard accuracy rate that companies will claim.
• 32:09
  And yet, it turns out that study after study after study actually shows very different outcomes, with some studies showing a fifty five percent false positive rate. More than half the time, they're telling you your child has a disease that they didn't have. In other cases, when retested, thirty three percent of the human embryos retested in this study that first showed that they had a disease actually didn't have a disease. And so the class action lawsuit lodged that like there are no studies that have been done that prove this ninety eight percent number. And in fact, it's a way lower percentage.
• 32:42
  And in this very tragic case, this woman had used IVF. She was told all of her human embryos had a certain genetic condition. She destroyed all of her human embryos, only to find out later that there's a strong likelihood that at least half of her human embryos would have been born completely fine. And so now she doesn't have the ability to have children. Those embryos were her last chance given her age, and she has to live with the reality that she's now destroyed them.
• 33:10
  And so she's suing under the false marketing claims. But there's a much greater, deeper, more tragic reality of what's taking place when you base the acceptance of human life on certain assumptions about health. And if you say, your life is only worth having if, and you fill in the blank of whatever your conditional goods are, but this is how the industry functions. And the reality is that that one website may have claimed the cheapest rates, but this is an incredibly expensive process. This is why you have some IVF cycles costing up to $30,000 for a single cycle because it's incredibly expensive to invest in this technology.
• 33:49
  Yes, so those are some of the basic overviews, but the takeaway is that the studies are actually far less reliable than anyone claims. And even if they are reliable, there's the bigger question of should you destroy a human embryo that's genetically complete and distinct and living and would continue to develop if it's in the right environment just because they might have a certain condition that you think would be problematic for your family.
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a big question, right? And I think, is this the video? I blink this is, right? So yeah, this is the video showing, sounds not necessary, but showing the moment. I mean, to me, that's just that's the spark of God right there.
• 34:34
  Like, how do you how else do you justify that? Like, what is their explanation? They're gonna say, Oh, well, it was the interaction of these, you know, cells, and it doesn't matter what it is. It's like, to me, that's the miracle that happens. And so, yeah, it's an important point.
• 34:51
  If you do that 20 times to create 20 embryos, and you get rid of 19 of them to choose the one girl you like or whatever it is that you're choosing, these other souls, they never even get a chance. Like, to me, that's murder, just as much as any other form of murder. It's still the ending of a life of a human's of a soul being on Earth. It's like you've opened up for them to come in here, and you've then ended that chance for them. And to me, that's doesn't matter what what doesn't matter how you argue it.
• 35:24
  That's what it is, in my opinion.
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah. I like to call it consumer eugenics. This market industry that reduces human life down to a conditional acceptance based on this vision of what is a good kind of person and a bad kind of person to have. And the moment you reduce a human life, whether it's a human embryo, a baby in the womb, or a child that is born and walking around in the world down to your life is only worth living if you meet this certain criteria, you've now entered into the realm of eugenics. And now we just have these commercial industries that are promising parents an easy and stress free ability to actualize that technology and that vision of eugenics in the world.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: And they make it sound almost popular. Right? It's it's the look at look at what the celebrities are doing and, wow, the the Trump administration is gonna make IVF available for all these people. There's so there's it's there's a lot of fanfare around it, but without people knowing what is actually going on.
• 36:30
  Speaker 2: Well, and it's it's framed as responsible parenthood. So I have heard numerous advocates of this technology make this argument, and they'll say, you choose your child's nursery, you choose your child's preschool, you even choose the person you're going to have the baby with to set them up for success in every realm of life. Why wouldn't you also choose the genetics of your child? And so they say that you as a parent actually have the responsibility to choose the best human embryo so that you are setting your child up for success in the world. And of course, it completely ignores the fact that all of those other human embryos are also your children, that you're just simply choosing not to have.
• 37:13
  But it's this weird, blurring of, I think, what I would say is proper parental responsibility and improper parental responsibility. So certainly as parents, you are responsible for the formation and development of your child. And to the best of your ability, you want to set them up for success in the world. However, if you take that logic too far or misapply it, you then have yourself in a place where you as a parent are making decisions over the life of another human being that no human should ever have. Choosing a spouse is a consensual act between two adults who can make that decision or not make that decision.
• 37:48
  But choosing whether that human embryo will ever be born or will simply be killed before it's ever in the womb is a completely improper use of human agency. Like, that is well beyond the right that any human has over another, and yet it's framed as the, quote, responsible thing to do. And then conversely, what is the implication of that? Well, if you're a parent who has refused genetic testing, has committed to raising whatever child the Lord gives you, even if that child does have severe genetic conditions or disabilities, then all of a sudden, it frames those parents as irresponsible, that they chose to do this, they weren't responsible as parents, so now it's up to them to figure out how to take care of the child. And so beyond even the questions of human life itself, I think some of the downstream effects that I'm very concerned about are twofold.
• 38:38
  The first is that if you have the assumption that parents should be using this technology to avoid certain kinds of children, then you're going to be far less inclined to support, social support systems and networks to help those parents take care of children. So it is very good that we have grants to help parents, of children with disabilities get the educational and therapeutic tools that they need. But if you now frame those parents as irresponsible, you're going to be far less likely to offer it. And then on the other hand, if you prioritize a technology that selects and destroys human embryos before they're born, trying to avoid disease altogether, then what does that mean for our investment in research and innovation to treat diseases and humans who are already here? Nora Siddiqui, in her podcast with Ross Douthat, actually says this directly, where he says, you know, Ross Douthat's talking to her and he says, you know, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper just to avoid disease on the front end than try to develop treatments for those diseases later on, which can take decades to develop, millions of dollars to test, just to hope that it works in trials with those children.
• 39:44
  And she affirms it and says, yes, this is a far cheaper, easier alternative. But of course, what does that mean? Well, just because you don't have a genetic disposition towards something doesn't mean you're not later going to get cancer or be in a tragic car accident and have these horrible disabilities or any number of factors that can happen that are freak accidents and even completely unexpected. And yet if we're not investing in innovation and research to treat those diseases or conditions, because we simply assume everyone should just avoid them on the front end, we've now set ourselves up for failure where those children and those adults who do need those innovations and treatments are going to be far less likely able to access them. There's going to be less research invested, less innovation.
• 40:27
  And I think that's where I see just a really perverse trade off, where I would far rather see us invest in these true innovations that can heal and care for the human person rather than just trying to avoid them on the front end, which will never sufficiently take care of the problem. It'll just mean that we are less equipped later on to care for and treat those humans. And so you have one which is a very proper use of human ingenuity and technology, which is to restore and heal and care for the human person. And then on the other hand, you have this use of technology that simply ranks, selects and destroys human life before it's even taken its first breath.
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: Now before we jump in, I have a quick word about something that's really, really great that Rumble is doing. So censorship is back. Maybe you're seeing it, but it's happening everywhere. Platforms are controlling the narratives, and they're pushing the stuff that they want us to see, and we do need to fight back. Rumble is the only company that stood the test of time and deserves our support.
• 41:25
  So on one side, Rumble is challenging big tech censorship, which is why I can be on Rumble saying these things. But now on the other side, they've introduced something that will give us protection from the big banks shutting us off. So banks can cancel our accounts. They can freeze our cards. That's why Rumble has launched Rumble Wallet.
• 41:44
  Let me pull this up for you. Okay? So this is Rumble Wallet. Okay? And it is a wallet that no one can cancel.
• 41:53
  It's a wallet that supports, so our supporters can use to instantly tip creators like myself without any middlemen taking a cut. With Rumble Wallet, you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not even a tech company. Right? Not even not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours and only yours.
• 42:09
  So it's yours to protect your future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin or Tethr Gold. There's not only a wallet to buy and save. It also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them with a click of a button. There's no fees when you tip my channel or others, and we actually receive that tip instantly.
• 42:29
  Unlike other platforms, we have to wait for payouts. So support my show and other creators by clicking the tip button on my Rumble channel, and go to wallet.rumble.com. Okay? So that that's where you download your Rumble wallet. There's an app for it.
• 42:43
  So download the Rumble wallet today. Open an account, and step away from the big banks for good. So it's wallet.rumble.com, or just search for Rumble Wallet in the app stores. Something that I try to do with this, I try to look for patterns, and that's how I try to not get so focused on one individual instance that it clouds my vision, but look, take a step back and see the patterns. And what I see, and based upon you talking about this, it really brings this up in me, that the pattern that I see is the social engineers, whatever you wanna call them, they create this scientific solution, which is their kind of playing God's solution to different things that are happening.
• 43:29
  But they ignore the fact that their science also created a lot of the problems that they're solving with their new godlike solution, right? It's a Hegelian dialectic. And so they're looking at, How do we create these healthy babies? Well, they're not looking at what the science of big pharma is doing to babies, as an example, in terms of the baby's health or its rates of autism, etc. They're just bypassing that and say, Oh, okay, so here's the solution.
• 43:55
  It's not to fix the things that we're doing or fix the industries or fix the giant corporations that are profiting off of these mistakes, we're gonna actually go even further. And I think a good example of that same pattern is farming. Right? So they've created you know, we have these, especially here in America, giant monocrop GMO seed farming industry, and they've done that. And so it's like, okay.
• 44:25
  Well but that's causing all these other problems, so we're gonna actually get even more advanced. So now we're gonna develop aluminum resistant seeds. Right? So if there's aluminum coming in from the the, you know, from the sky or the poisoning, whatever, in the soil, we're gonna use science to play God to fix it. Whereas, where's the, where's the push for regenerative agriculture?
• 44:48
  Where's the push for permaculture? Where's the push for actually realizing that when you align yourself with nature, which is, in my opinion, God's plan, it's how God designed the world. If you align yourself with that, there's abundance. Like, look at permaculture on an acre of a beautiful permaculture orchard or whatever it is, you have so much abundance in food. But actually, what they've done though is they've ignored the natural way of doing things.
• 45:17
  They've ignored the path that God gave us for abundance. Instead, they've used their atheist scientific view and their atheist scientific, strategies and technology to engineer the solution that actually would be fixed just by going with how God wanted things to be done. I mean, does that make sense for you?
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. This is such a good point, and it's something that I think about frequently in this space, which is what you can call the make America healthy again versus the techno transhumanist vision of how you shape the world. And so one of them says, well, we should return to root causes. We should actually treat the problem at the source instead of just piling on more pharmaceuticals, more chemicals, more pesticides, more interventions. Let's actually go back and ask, why are we having this problem in the first place?
• 46:09
  What can we do to actually fix this issue as it stands? And I think that's really one of the core divides that we have today. So think about Nucleus Genomics, which is one of the largest fertility companies who's promising this advanced genetic testing of human embryos. When they are promising this technology, they're saying, well, you can treat miscarriage rates with our genetic selection technology. But then you have something like natural procreative technology or restorative reproductive medicine that actually says, no, the reason you're struggling miscarriages is not a problem with your human embryo per se, but it's a problem with your own body not being able to sustain that human life as it should.
• 46:51
  So instead of creating human embryos and IVF, then just genetically selecting some and destroying others, what would it actually look like to optimize the health of the mother and the father so that they are in the best possible position to sustain that life through pregnancy? And I think that's one of just the really good examples of do we actually want to restore health at the root cause, or are we just going to try to get around the problem with more advanced technology that ends up creating far more problems in the process and is far more expensive and far more complicated even than something like good miscarriage care in The United States. And going to the earlier point about how certain technologies can inadvertently discourage innovation, the common OBGYN practice in America is that they will not start treating you for miscarriage loss until you've lost three pregnancies, three babies. Can you imagine telling a mother who has suffered that tragic loss of a pregnancy of a baby early on that we're not even going to look at the root causes until that's happened two more times, two more babies, and yet that's our standard miscarriage care.
• 48:02
  And instead we're saying, well then just use IVF and select the human embryos before you even implant them and you can improve miscarriage rates, they claim, instead of just doing good root cause care. But we actually stifle innovation. We actually stifle good men and women's health when we replace it with these advanced technologies that are incredibly dystopian.
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: Well, so you have and you have the scientific, but you also have the cultural, right? And if you look at, this chart right here, I know that one of your other big things is looking at birth rate collapse. And you look at this chart, which this is The U. S. Total fertility rate from 1917 to 2024, you can see that it peaked in the late 50s, 1957, it was at 3.68, which is a really healthy birth rate for a growing healthy population.
• 48:49
  Whereas in 2024, it's dropped down to 1.63, which is my guess is the lowest it's ever been for our country. And so this is obviously a really, really big deal that we're having a collapse in fertility. Now you could say, how much of this is scientific? How much of it is the health of the woman? How much is it is tied to, say, pharmaceutical drugs they've been given their whole lives that are affecting fertility or in response to the COVID pandemic.
• 49:20
  Right? We know there's a lot of research about this without getting into details. But the other thing with this, though, is the cultural. And this is the other big thing because what was different about 1957 than 2024? Well, my guess is that the average woman was a stay at home mom, and she was valued for that role that she had in society as the mother.
• 49:44
  And it's like, you know, my dad, for instance, was one of nine kids. You know, he was born in in actually, I think he was born in '57. So, he was one of nine. So, it's like, what's happened to our culture? What's happened to the role of women?
• 49:58
  And I know that that's something you've also spent a lot of time looking at from that through that lens of especially through the biblical lens of what is the role of the woman. That's also, I think, a big part of your book, right, which is coming out March 24. Lead Like Jail. Is it jail? Right?
• 50:16
  Is that how I pronounce that? Jail. Okay. Yes. Right.
• 50:19
  So Lead Like Jail, Seven Timeless Principles for Today's Women. So when you're looking at the culture, how do you think the culture fits into what we're seeing right now? And how do you look at that through the lens of your book?
• 50:31
  Speaker 2: This is such a great question. And it ties in directly with this whole conversation we've been having on technology. And I think this is where you see this very, intimate play between technology and culture shaping devices as both being so central for how we think about these questions of marriage, children, and even dating culture today. So Marshall McLuhan, this Canadian philosopher in 1973, published a book called The Extensions of Man, looking at the influence of media on our popular culture. And so he has this infamous line where he says, The medium is the message.
• 51:10
  And he goes on to describe this by saying that we can't simply assess a given technology based on what the technology literally does. You know, your microwave heats your food with certain technologies and so on. But you have to look at the social and psychic consequences of the technology. How does the technology reshape the way that we think about food preparation and meal preparation, if you will? And so I think that framing is more important than ever when it comes to looking at our modern technologies and how it shaped our marriage and family formation rates.
• 51:45
  So if you look at 1957, you certainly have a culture that really prioritizes marriage, stay at home moms, it really values children. But between 1957 and 1973, there was a massive drop in the number of children being born. Well, what happens technologically? What happens culturally those years? Well, in 1960, three years after that, you have the introduction of the hormonal birth control pill into mass culture.
• 52:15
  And I'm not inherently anti birth control, that's not the point people should take away, but what's important to keep in mind is that for the first time, it was possible to separate the relationship between sex and children. And you could actually try to far more successful degrees to have as much sex as you wanted without the consequence of having a baby. And so this is often lauded as this big advancement for women. They can quote, be just like men and go into the career workforce and do everything men can do and not have to worry about having a baby. But that radically started to shift how we thought about marriage, sex, and children.
• 52:52
  And then after 1960, with the widespread adoption of the pill, you have 1973, which is when Roe v. Wade was decided and wrongly assumed that abortion was a constitutional right. 1973 was also the year that there were over ten million women using the pill. And so it was sort of abortion as this other birth control measure that even if you accidentally got pregnant, don't worry, we have an easy way to get rid of the baby so you can still be just like men in avoiding fertility and children altogether. You have the rise of no fault divorce starting California and then rapidly spreading across The US where marriage went from being a covenant relationship to a mere contract that either party could exit out of for whatever reason they wanted to.
• 53:38
  And then by 1979, the very first baby was born using in vitro fertilization in The United States. And this is where you take egg and sperm, create the human embryo, and then implant it in the woman, the mother, or the surrogate mother, depending on your situation. And further, and so again, with IVF, while it was created to treat infertility due to cancer or blocked fallopian tubes, the impact of that, culturally speaking, is that you can now completely sever any bond between marriage, sex, and children. You could be married to one person, having sex with another person, and then having children through IVF, and none of those people have to be the same or connected. And biologically speaking, that would have been impossible for the entirety of human history until 1960.
• 54:28
  And so I think something that we haven't fully appreciated is that we have radically overturned what the rest of human history has ever done or thought about it when it comes to that package deal of marriage, sex, and procreation just in the last sixty years of human existence. And so are we at all surprised that all of a sudden marriage rates began to decline and you had hookup culture becoming very common, you had no fault divorce, a very popular and ever popular option, divorce skyrocketing because of that. And then starting in the 2010s onward, you have the number of babies falling further and further and further. And all of those causes, outcomes, and technologies, I think are intimately connected. But even think about dating culture today, and other people have made this point that if we're concerned about declining birth rates, which we should be, if we're concerned about people delaying or never getting married, which my generation, Gen Z, is on track to have over a third of one of of Gen Z never get married.
• 55:31
  This will be the highest percentage we've seen of any recent generation. And take, like, the '19 I think 1965, over sixty five percent of the population was married. And today, that number is far, far lower. And so if you're concerned about the too few children, too few healthy marriages, you also have to be concerned about dating culture. And so you have a number of factors playing into this, which is that one, men and women are far less likely to meet and start dating someone through natural in person communities like church or their family or a social, activity or club that they're a part of, they're far more likely to rely on dating apps.
• 56:10
  But dating apps, they're there to keep you as a user of their app. And, yes, like, I know many people who have gotten married from people they've met on dating apps. I don't think that they're inherently bad. But the way the dating apps shape you is to constantly be thinking about, could I do better? Is there someone better out there?
• 56:27
  Well, I'm getting a lot of likes here. I guess I am in high demand. What if I just delayed marriage a little longer to try to find the absolute best person? And it sort of changes the calculation you're making in dating. Or even the introduction of the cell phone, all of a sudden, your work follows you 20 fourseven.
• 56:45
  Yeah, 20 fourseven. And so you're checking work emails at 9PM, you're replying to your boss at 7AM. And what are you not doing? You're not being as present in the home that you're in, you're not being as present going out and dating, you're giving over more and more of your life to these digital technologies. And in many cases, the impact of that is just you're far less social or you're far less present in the social settings you're in.
• 57:08
  And so taking all of those things together, I think just in many ways, intentionally putting ourselves in this position, we have not fully appreciated the way that technology has radically reshaped marriage, sex, and children, including the very intimate dynamics between men and women and how we date and learn to flirt and attract one another. And these sort of soft skills that I think were an assumed given in your generation, it was even something I think far more common when I was coming through high school, where now you have people graduating high school who have never even had their first kiss, who have no interest in getting married, who don't want to think about kids until they're in their 30s or 40s when it's going to be biologically speaking far harder than ever to have children. And yeah, it's just a massive, massive rethinking. And so that's a large part of why I wrote the book Lead Like JL was for women in those, really core years of end of high school, college, early adulthood. Because even as I was coming through college, I was wrestling with these questions about what do you do with work and these passions that you have?
• 58:15
  How does marriage, how does children fit into this? And this sort of dichotomy between girl boss feminism on the one hand, and then this online trad wife movement that are both saying to be the ideal woman, you have to either embrace this careerism above all else, or you have to retreat into your home and bake sourdough and be this like perfect flower dress wearing woman who has a farm and chickens and all the things. And I think for most women, neither of those visions really speaks to what they want in life. They want to be strong and wise and smart women who are doing important things, but they don't want that at the expense of getting married. They don't want to feel like they're choosing between a meaningful life and children, right?
• 58:57
  And we've just completely corrupted those scripts. And so I wrote Lead Like JL to provide women with that third way forward based in biblical wisdom and the lives of these incredible women throughout the Bible who really show us this compelling vision of what it means to live seasonally as faithful women who were growing in wisdom and faithfulness to God, but not pitting things like the goodness of work and the goodness of the family against each other, but rather asking how does wisdom help us actually navigate those things in a way that honors the Lord, honors our children, but still enables us to enjoy the fruits of our labor, in whatever field or industry or stay at home life that plays out in.
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: It's, one thing I I found as you were talking, and I know that we're to wrap up shortly here, but there is I'm not sure if you've seen this. Have you seen this chart before?
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'll play it. It's fifty six fifty six seconds long. I apologize to the podcast listeners because it's just, it's a visual chart. But it's showing how couples met.
• 1:00:00
  It's from the, it's kind of showing over time from 1930 to 2024. And you can see that it used to be the number one way was through friends, you know, then your family, school, etcetera. You know, back in the actually, here's an interesting point. Let me rewind real quick. So back in, 1930, about 10% of people met their, significant other through the church.
• 1:00:26
  And you can see how that starts to go. So, I'll go ahead and just fast forward because towards the end and see. So, you get to the very end here, oops, you get to, oops, 2024, there we go. And you can see the church is now 2%, friends are 13%, you know, from where they were at, which was before, is almost 20%. Family and school have dropped way down.
• 1:00:51
  Online is now 60%. So, like, this is the exact case that you're you're making. Like, I remember when I was in high school, I worked in a shopping mall. I worked in a little kiosk, and it was part of one reason I liked it is because I could talk to girls, I could get their phone numbers, and I could go on dates. And it was part of that, you know, coming of age of being 18 or 17 and working in a mall, and while I was a cute girl, I at my stand, and I had to become brave and talk to her, then ask for her phone number.
• 1:01:19
  But now you're just swiping or you're doing all these online things. And it's just, again, I think what is the lesson that we're coming to, right, with this is that technology ends up screwing up everything. It does some good things, but I'd say that the net, the net of it is a very net negative in terms of how it's shaped our culture.
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 2: Doctor. Yeah. And what's so interesting on that chart is by 2024, the least common way to meet someone is college at less than 1%, which I think is really interesting because I mean, we still, you know, we still laugh about the trope of you go to school and you can double major, you can get a business degree and you can get your MRS degree and go out with your ring and planning your future marriage. But I think it's really interesting that college is not less than 1%. And so a big reason why people would choose a certain school was to meet the kind of spouse they want to spend the rest of their life with.
• 1:02:12
  And yet that being the least common of all the options, I think it's incredibly telling about the state of higher education today and the makeup of our universities. But that, of course, is an episode all on its own that you can dive into. But I just thought that was such an interesting, such an interesting thing that I think defies what a lot of people expect to get out of their college years or expect for their children in going to school.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: Exactly. So, Emma, as we're finishing up, I'm gonna pull up your book one more time. I'll make sure that we have a link to this in the show description. Looks like your release date is March 24. Can people preorder it though?
• 1:02:46
  Right? You can preorder. And I know that's important. I've got a book coming out. Preordering is really important.
• 1:02:51
  So, for everyone that's watching this, if this seems interesting interesting to you, go ahead, preorder it. And also, one of the keys, if you preorder it, you buy the book. One of the most important things that someone watching can do to support what you're doing, Emma, is leave a review. Amazon highly prioritizes reviews, and if you get a lot of good reviews coming in within a short time window of your book release, it really helps your book to hit those, you know, kind of best selling charts, all the algorithms work in your favor. So anyway, there's there's the, the homework for people, from this interview.
• 1:03:24
  I'll make sure the link is in the description.
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 2: Amazing. Yes. Thank you so much. And if you enjoyed this conversation, absolutely please preorder Leave Like JL. I think it will really resonate with you, in whatever season of life that you're in.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I think a lot even a lot of grandmothers, it's good for them because I think and you touch on the role of the grandmother, but also the the role of the the daughter or the granddaughter that the grandmother should hopefully have an active role in helping guide the younger women that are part of their, you know, lineage and raising the next the next generation. So, Emma, do you have any final closing thoughts for us as we end up here?
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 2: My final my final closing thought, especially for more of a doom and gloom episode like this could potentially, be heard of, It's just that ultimately, life is such a beautiful gift, and we have been given these incredible technologies. And so this answer isn't that we reject technology or assume that it's evil, but that we actually have this incredibly high calling before us to steward and encourage the development of technology that restores and affirms the goodness of the human person and aids in human flourishing. And that means saying no to certain technologies, but even better than that, it means saying yes to a host of incredible technologies that are being developed with human flourishing in mind. And that ultimately, there's nothing new under the sun. There's nothing that the Bible hasn't accounted for that God's word doesn't speak to that isn't applicable for us today.
• 1:04:51
  And so that's why Lead Like JL goes back to the bible to give us the framework and tools that we need to live as wise and godly and faithful men and women today. And that's ultimately what I want to leave your listeners with today is this positive vision of the of this very good thing that we are all working toward together in submission to the Lord.
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: Wonderful. Well, Emma, thank you again. It's wonderful speaking with you, and I hope your book does well. I'm sure it will. And yeah, thanks for coming on.
• 1:05:19
  It's been a great conversation.
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: Of course, thank you so much.
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 1: You're welcome.