Biola UniversityNYC’s New Mayor: Sean and Scott discuss the election of progressive Muslim democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s next mayor—exploring socialism’s renewed appeal, the moral framework behind market economies, and biblical principles of work, property, and caring for the poor
Surrogacy in Crisis: Troubling trends in the surrogacy industry—lack of oversight, exploitation of low-income women, legal gray areas, and moral implications of turning children and motherhood into commodities
AI Erotica Launch: Sean and Scott react to ChatGPT’s announced “erotica” feature, warning that it normalizes digital pornography and creates the illusion of emotional connection while eroding real-world relationships
Listener Questions:
- Coping with chronic pain and finding God’s presence through suffering.
- Clarifying democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism.
- How Sean and Scott read and evaluate books differently depending on purpose and genre.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] New York City elects a progressive Muslim democratic socialist mayor. The surrogacy industry seemingly hits crisis stage because of such little oversight in the United States. And ChatGPT announces a new erotica feature, which releases in December. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, everybody has been talking about this story of the new mayor out of, New York City this week, Mamdani. And I'm gonna highlight a few things in this New York Times article about it, and then eager to get your take. So Mamdani is thirty-four years old. He's a democratic socialist. That term matters. The one hundred and eleventh mayor of New York City. He'll take office on January 1 and will become the most powerful Muslim elected in the United States. Very, very interesting phenomena on a lot of levels. He ran on simple pledges to make buses free, to freeze the rent on rent-stabilized apartments, and to provide universal free childcare. So really, a populist economic platform is what he did his election on. He built a campaign really from non-traditional sources, again, an interesting part of the story, winning support from young professionals, immigrants, and Muslims, some of them to have been among the one hundred and seven thousand first-time voters who registered in New York City. That's pretty impressive. More than two million people voted, which is a level of turnout for a mayoral election not seen since 1969. So the energy behind this is fascinating. And then one more thing is, only five years ago, Mamdani was a firebrand freshman assemblyman who embraced the Defund the Police movement at the height of national protests against police brutality. Now he's going to manage a hundred and fifteen billion dollar city budget, a workforce of three hundred thousand people, including more than thirty-four thousand police officers. Now, there's a whole lot of angles to this story, Scott, in terms of him being a democratic socialist, some of the arguably anti-Semitic claims and connections that he has. But give me your take on this.
Scott Rae: Well, I will say first on the anti-Semitic part, and then we can get to the economic part, which I think is the main thing, to consider on this. He's also an ardent proponent of the Palestinian cause-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... And he has actually vowed to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, should he set foot on the ground, on any part of New York City. But that's, I mean, the anti-Semitic part, that's important, but the democratic socialist part, I think, Sean, is the, is the part that really is worth talking about with our time today. And I wondered, you know, maybe this is a little, an opportunity for some conversation about sort of Economics 101-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... As it regards socialism and market economics. As you know, I don't, I don't like the term capitalism because it was ori-- that term was originally coined by Karl Marx, and it was intended as a pejorative term. So I tend to use the phrase market economies, market-based economic systems, things like that. I... So first thing I wondered is, was: What is the appeal of socialism today, especially among Gen Z folks? Because, all the polls show there is rising sympathy for socialism, particularly among that generation. As one writer put it, "S- socialism is sexy again"-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... Like it hasn't been in a long time. And I think part of it is primarily due to the excesses of market capitalist systems. In fact, I think as one writer put it, he said that, "The problem with socialism is socialism, and the problem with capitalism is capitalists"- ... Who are guilty of some of those excesses. I think primarily, it's increasing inequality of incomes and wealth is becoming seen more widely as unfair. And here's the, I think, the big, the big takeaway from that, Sean, is that it, I think it has caused people to lose hope of ever getting ahead economically. They've, they've lost hope of being able to support a family, to afford a house, and I think seeing the gap increasing between the haves and the have-nots has been, has been taken by Gen Z as an indictment on the system as a whole. Now, I think for-- to go back a bit, just to give a little, I think, a little historical context-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Sean, market economies have a track record of lifting the poor out of poverty that is unparalleled. It wasn't that long ago, probably not more than two hundred years ago, when the vast majority of the world's population was strikingly equal. They were equally poor, wretched, and miserable, and the vast amount of wealth was held not by the one percent, but by the point zero zero zero zero zero zero one percent. And market systems, I think, have since, you know, since the last two hundred years, have basically lifted half of the world's population, more than three and a half billion people, out of grinding two dollars a day poverty.
Sean McDowell: Wow!
Scott Rae: And just since 1970, they've... Market systems where they have been employed have lifted roughly a billion and a half people out of that two dollars a day poverty. And but historically-... Yeah, I think it's beyond dispute that it is the best thing that we have to cure poverty and fulfill the biblical mandate to take care of the poor. Now, it's not perfect. You know, Adam Smith is not the fourth member of the Trinity.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And, you know, market systems were not, you know, they're not the 11th Commandment. But I do think that is- it's, it's one of humanity's better inventions. It's, it's a human creation, clearly, and, I mean, the fact that we didn't have market system for so long suggests that, you know, it's not something that was divinely ordained, like the 11th Commandment would be, but I think it is one of humanity's better, h- better creations. I'd put it right up there with antibiotics and anesthesia- ... When it comes to, when it comes to relieving suffering and misery around the world. Now, here's... I think part of what I th- our audience needs to hear is that the market systems are not perfect, because they occur in a broken, fallen world, and they reflect the values and morality of the participants in the system. That's one of the reasons why we pay professional athletes and entertainers like we do, and schoolteachers like we do.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: You know, those market realities reflect the values of the participants. And I think it's not, it's not widely known, Sean, that Adam Smith was not an economist by training. He was a moral philosopher. And he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before he wrote The Wealth of Nations. And by the way, I would, I would suggest that The Wealth of Nations might have been the most important document written in the year 1776, right along there, right up there with the Declaration of Independence. So his point... I think his point was that the pursuit of self-interest, which the Bible does not condemn, in fact, it commends us to do that, at least to take care of ourselves and those who are dependent upon us. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the pursuit of self-interest, but Smith knew that there had to have guardrails on it, and I think he had a, he had a view of original sin, where he understood that if self-interest wasn't restrained by moral, by a moral framework, market systems didn't have much hope of working. So it needs, it needs the internal morality, as a guardrail on the pursuit of self-interest. Now, w- a couple other things, just, uh-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Just to be clear on this. Again, in more recent history, that really, as numerous folks have pointed out, the best argument against socialism are all the places that it's been tried.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And some of the places more recently where it's been tried is in Venezuela. Venezuela went from being South America's richest country to what I would call a humanitarian catastrophe. And, you know, you have historically, of course, the countries in Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Cuba, all economic basket cases, and, you know, China came out of that once they started embracing market reforms. But even more recently, Sean, Sweden tried a form of socialism in the '70s and '80s, only to reverse course after it experienced a huge flight of capital out of the country and a financial crisis, and interest rates in Sweden at that point hit 75%. France's socialist government imposed a 75% tax on earnings over one million euros in 2012, dropped the program two years later, as the wealthy basically packed their bags and left the country. And Britain's National Health Service, chronically underfunded, is in a state of perpetual crisis, even though it, according to the BBC, takes up more than a third of all government spending. So even the countries, I think, that would describe themselves as democratic socialists have all backed away from that. And I would suggest that in some of those countries, there's just a different arrangement where you... It's a, it's a different type of, social compact where people pay higher taxes, but they get more services from government- ... Than we do here. Now, I'm, I'm not sure any one of those is better than another, but I w- I will say one side effect of the higher taxes and higher, more services is I think what's been lost is the dynamism of the American economy that rewards innovation and initiative and risk-taking in ways that have, you know, places with higher taxes have incentives for people not to do those things. So I think, you know, the story of socialism, in my view, is what the late Margaret Thatcher said about this as she was bringing market reforms to the UK in the 1980s. She said, "The st- the problem with socialism is that we eventually run out of other people's money." [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And Mamdani, to his credit, has offered a scheme by which he's gonna pay for all these free things that you mentioned, but basically, he's gonna pay for that out of other people's money by raising taxes on the wealthy, which I think will be- end up being counterproductive- ... In the long run. Anyway, I think the, it's just, I think it's helpful periodically for our audience to hear some sort of, some more basic Economics 101 about the differences between socialism and market economies.
Sean McDowell: That's really helpful in a backdrop, and it's important. The Bible doesn't lay out a specific economic plan, but it gives us principles about loving our neighbors, working for the good of the city and the welfare of the city, of course, in Jeremiah-... It's got an analysis of human nature, that we operate towards self-interest. It's got things like private property. Do not steal clearly [chuckles] implies that people can own certain things, or we see in Genesis, Abraham buying a plot of land, I believe, from the Hittites to bury his wife, Sarah. So we piece these things together, and if we care about the best of society, and on an economic level, clearly socialism, it's not that it hasn't been tried, it's been tried and found wanting at every single turn, as far as I'm aware. So do you have any prediction? People are talking about- we hear this with elections. When Obama was elected, people said they will leave the country. When Trump was elected, again, people said they'll leave the country. If anyone's going to leave New York City, of course, it would be billionaires, and arguably, if people are going to move in, it would be immigrants, and arguably now, people who are poor, who are going to want social services, would arguably move in. And Social Democrats tend to treat crime differently than those who are more conservative, so it could encourage [chuckles] other people to move in. I mean, do we have... Some people are talking about a Gotham City is coming to New York City. Do you view it that critically, or what's your take?
Scott Rae: Well, I... No, I don't. Because I'm, I'm not sure that mayors, even of cities as large, as influential as New York, that mayors have that much power to change the economic structure, you know, of communities and of, you know, large- even larger cities. And Sean, I think we have to- what we have to realize is that, you know, the economic, the wealth that's generated in New York City is not confined just within the boundaries of New York City. The wealth that's created that the, that New York City benefits from is international and nationwide in scope. And so I think the jury's still out on how much influence a Democratic socialist mayor can have over the economic fortunes of a city. So I think the... You know, 'cause raising taxes is not entirely a city thing. That's, that's a, that's the... I mean, the state of New York has a lot of control over that, too. So I think, you know, I s- I'm in sort of wait and see mode on this. I'm not, I'm not sure we're gonna see, you know, billionaires flee the city, but, you know, depending on... They, they might not leave the city, but some of their money might leave the city. And typically, when taxes are raised, people will look for other places to safeguard their wealth.
Sean McDowell: I guess that remains to be seen, and we'll see where it goes. You know, Ross Douthat, a conservative Catholic columnist for The New York Times, had a really interesting take. He said he's a little less concerned about what this means for the future of America and the Democratic Party, and in particular, Mamdani. He says, because where the media is focused, there's a certain outsized focus placed on the mayoral race there. But if you look at mayors in the past who were claimed to be the [chuckles] next great leaders of the Democratic or Republican Party, it didn't work out. I mean, Giuliani, that didn't work out for him in particular. Bloomberg didn't work out. There was, there was even a time where Eric Adams was being proclaimed as the future of the Democratic Party. So he says it's possible he becomes governor, becomes a senator, and a key player, and kind of replaces the Bernie Sanders-type figure, but he's actually skeptical and says, oftentimes, the mayoral position is the climax [chuckles] of somebody's career, not a stepping stone to something else. I guess that remains to be seen. You know, the o- the other piece that we don't really have time to go into is that the antisemitism piece really does concern me. Just yesterday, I had a lengthy conversation on our campus, and we'll post it on the podcast soon, with a young, Orthodox Jew named Shabbes Kestenbaum, who is a political commentator with PragerU, and I asked him... He actually sued Harvard and won successfully, 'cause he was there in their divinity school, because of antisemitism. And I asked him about how much has it increased recently, and he goes, he goes, "I grew up in America. I didn't experience antisemitism until October 7th." I said, "Not October 8th?" He goes, "No, it was specifically on October-
Scott Rae: Really
Sean McDowell: ... 7th, that very day." And he said to me, he said, "All Jews are not asking when they will be unwelcome in America, but if they will be unwelcome in America." This is his take, but if he's right about that, and we've seen other signs, like another story this week we're not even going into, is kind of the platforming of, Fuentes, Nick Fuentes-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... Who is a neo-Nazi. [chuckles] Like, we are seeing these signs piece together, and Mamdani's unwillingness to condemn, you know, certain slogans that are antisemitic, and his strong focus on Islamophobia, gives me real concern and pause in New York City that this is another sign of increased antisemitism, and we need to be watching that really carefully.
Scott Rae: That's a good word, good word on that, and I think something definitely to watch.
Sean McDowell: Well, this next story, Scott, you said to me this was not on my radar. I had no idea that the issue of surrogacy was so concerning and hitting this, oh, like, literally crisis stage.... So this article gives a number of cases that have just been blown up of abuse, including international figures, taking advantage of, let's just say, the lenient surrogacy laws in the United States for a number of reasons. So last year, a Chicago veterinarian was arrested on child pornography and abuse charges just days before he and his male partner were set to collect their surrogate-born son. In Pennsylvania, a registered sex offender was exposed online after posting videos with a child he and his partner obtained through surrogacy. Other stories are up about this. Now, this is regulated by states in the US right now, and there's no required, parents to undergo background checks or home visits like we see in adoption. This article says, "These cases reveal a culture willing to turn children, mothers, and even American citizenship into commodities that foreign powers can use for access and influence," and they argue it's undermining the meaning of the family, nation, and dignity. And so the argument, no surprise, we see this in abortion, we see this in euthanasia behind it, is absolute bodily autonomy. Fascinating here, it tends to attract low-income women, which is an economic and moral concern, and surrogate mothers can make up to $75,000 in the United States. A piece I was not really aware of is there's some evidence that surrogacy is riskier than the industry acknowledges or is required to disclose. So, for example, postpartum hemorrhage and hypertensive disorders were markedly higher among surrogates. There's a more likely chance of C-sections and five times more likely to result in premature birth, which kind of makes sense if this isn't a child your body has naturally produced, and it's brought in from the outside, but that data is really interesting. This story-- I mean, this story is so heartbreaking, Scott, about a lady named Melissa Cook, conceived triplets after signing a surrogacy contract. She discovered that the father, a single man who was deaf, so now we have a gay couple being able to use surrogates, a single man being able to make surrogates, was horrified to discover that there was a inability to care for three children, so he wanted her to abort one or two of them. Bottom line, the concern is that this is turning into children are commodities in the US. And, one last point, this is something I had never thought about, Scott, is that some people are having surrogates in the United States to have a child born, and then they can use that child to then turn around and get citizenship in the United States. That's a whole another layer of concern that I was not even aware of. What's your take on this?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I've been studying surrogacy since its inception- ... In the early 1980s. And, you know, when it first got started, it was the stuff of TV miniseries and headlines-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... In the National Enquirer, and I mean, I got more stories about things gone off the rails than I know what to do with. And the possibility of exploiting women, and I think to a lesser degree, children, has always been a part of the discussion from the very beginning about the morality and legality of surrogacy. And I think, you know, as you pointed this out, the article is right that the foundation of this is the autonomy of women, clearly an extension of the notion of a wom- the woman having a right over her own body that emerged out of the abortion debate. But competing with that is the notion that the purchase and sale of children violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. That's the prohibited slavery, the idea that human beings, particularly children, are not objects for purchase and sale on the open market. And the earliest major court case ruled exactly that surrogacy constituted baby selling. The reason, the reason for that was because the surrogate actually contributed the egg and gestated the child to term, which by almost everybody's definition, made her the legal mother of the child. And so if, [lips smack] you know, the idea that, she could sign away parental rights to her child in exchange for cash, the court, I think, rightly ruled that sort of on its face, that's the purchase and sale of children. Now, I've argued for a long time that surrogacy should be considered similar to adoption, and the law and surrogacy reflect that. That is, that you don't... You know, if adoption law had been applied to surrogacy, then the commercial aspect of that would be taken off the table, like it is with adoption, because you can't, you know, m- except on the black market, but that's why we call it a black market. You can't, you can't purchase children for cash. You, I mean, you pay fees to lawyers to make the arrangement, but that's different. You don't pay the birth mother cash on the barrel in exchange for her signing away the rights to her child. Now, unfortunately, I think surrogacy's gone just in the other direction and reflects more of a strictly contractual agreement. But and as the article points out, this has been pointed out from the very beginning, nobody represents the interests of the child-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... In these arrangements.... Now, the way this is developed, this is why almost all surrogacies today are what we call gestational surrogacies, where the surrogate has- the surrogate only provides the womb, and she has no genetic connection to the child that she's carrying. And there's been a lot of debate, honestly, over who's the mother in those arrangements. Because you now have, you now have split the biological components between two different women. And I actually think [clears throat] you can make a good argument that what I call the sweat equity of the surrogate in the child that she's carrying, the bonding, the relationship, the contribution that is made by the person who carries the child, actually weighs in her favor, in terms of assigning maternal rights, should she wanna keep the child. But that's, that's a complicated sort of discussion for-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Another day.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Yeah, the exploitation part, I think, comes from the financial inducements to po- to potential surrogates. Now, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see this, and critics of surrogacy have seen this from the very start, that women's dire financial straits are the things that motivate their involvement.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And were it not for their dire financial condition motivating to do this is something they... That most women would never consider doing- ... For somebody else. In fact, the number of cases that are done without a financial payment is less than 2% of the total number of surrogacies around the United States. Now, some, actually, some surrogacy agencies openly recruit such women. They, they... That's part of the screening process, that they wanna make sure that they don't have the financial means to care for the children, should they want to keep them. What they don't realize, Sean, is that that's a textbook definition of exploitation. It's using someone's dire financial straits to induce them to do something that they wouldn't otherwise ordinarily do. And what's, what's really got my attention in the last 10 years or so, is that the potential for this exploitation went on steroids as surrogacy was outsourced to the developing world. Because they don't- you don't get paid 75 grand in the developing world. You get roughly five grand for it. And in some parts, Sean, in some parts of the developing world-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Scott Rae: ... That's a year's worth of wages-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... For a person. And is potentially life-altering. And, you know, the horror stories of how surrogates are treated in some of these developing countries, the- I mean, the idea that there would be things like surrogate farms and, you know, places where they're housed in dormitories for nine months, and res- their movement's restricted, it's just, you know, it's, it's harrowing to look at some of the treatment of women, in s- in some of these developing countries where surrogacy is much, is much more prominent, I think, than it is here in the US. And here... And the reason for that is because you- Western couples can do gestational surrogacy, where there's no genetic connection, for far less than they can do it here. Now, what I didn't see coming was how, what you mentioned in the intro to this, how internationals with money are using surrogacy as a path to citizenship.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, me neither.
Scott Rae: Now, it's a little bit... It's, it's not quite as immediate as you might think, because though the child, if they're born in the United States, the child is a citizen immediately, but it's not until age 21 that the child can sponsor the parents to c- and relatives to come over and basically have a clear path to citizenship in the United States. So it's a longer term thing, and it's not something that happens immediately. But, it's just, it's really striking to me that that is now being advertised by surrogacy agencies as a part of the benefit for internationals doing surrogacy in the United States. I never thought I'd see the day where that was a marketing pull. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: Me too.
Scott Rae: But-
Sean McDowell: I agree.
Scott Rae: You know, just a final word on this for me, on this. God's design for-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Procreation, I think, makes surrogacy very problematic. That it, you know, that God's design is that procreation take place between a husband and wife in marriage with continuity, this is the important part, with continuity between marriage, procreation, and parenting. We are called to take responsibility for our procreative acts and intentions. You know, unless the parents are unfit, then we've got a whole 'nother ballgame. But third parties entering the matrix of marriage for procreative purposes is something that the Scripture, in my view, is very skeptical of. And I've advised couples in cases where this is needed, that adoption or even embryo adoption is a much better option to pursue.
Sean McDowell: So I'm curious, given all the negative consequences of surrogacy that this article talks about, and some of these, again, are just that it attracts low-income women and is arguably taking advantage of their economic need, that it's riskier than natural birth. Some of the crazy stories that come out of this about triplets and then pressure to abort one or two, the fact that children are treated like commodities, and now internationally, people are using this to get citizenship, or at least it's being promoted that way. Why not be in favor of just outlawing it altogether? I don't have a problem legally of outlawing it, but if I heard you correctly, you said you're more in favor of regulating it like adoption. So, A, did I hear you correctly, and B, if I did, why not be against it entirely?
Scott Rae: ... Well, you did hear me correctly. I think, current adoption law, I think, is quite adequate to govern surrogacy. Now, it would basically put the commercial part of this off the table and would, I think, I think would cripple the industry. And I think there are- we're getting, we're hearing more calls internationally from places where surrogacy is being, to which it's being outsourced to do just what you're describing.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: Because the abuses are much... I think they are much worse, and the exploitation is much more overt. Now, to be fair, in the West, particularly in the US, there are, you know, a lot of surrogacies go off without a hitch. They, you know, they, the pe- the women are paid. They give up the child without contesting it. It does, it does require something of surrogates that I'm not sure is healthy for children. It requires that they distance themselves emotionally from the child that they're carrying. If they're gonna successfully give the child up, then it's, it's a big problem if they get connected to the child. This is why the, one of the clear criteria for being a surrogate is that you've had to have a child already, so that you know-
Sean McDowell: Oh, interesting
Scott Rae: ... You know what the experience is- ... And you'll be less likely to balk at giving up the child. And most of the... I will say on the abortion part of this, the states that do regulate it, some states do have written into the law that the surrogacy contract must include the right of the surrogate to end the pregnancy as she sees fit. So the idea that you, that somebody would be able to pressure a surrogate to abort the child, in some states, is illegal to do and is written into the contract. That's not true in every state. But you're, you're right, it's a bit of a Wild Wild West out there. So I think for a, for a Christian couple, I don't... Unless, you know, unless you have a really unusual situation. I've had one or two of these where, I think surrogacy is the best of a number of lousy alternatives. I had a couple several years ago who she- they had tried for years with IVF, and she finally conceived triplets, but she miscarried halfway through. Massive uterine hemorrhage, emergency hysterectomy, and they had embryos left over in storage- ... And she's now unable to carry those herself. And I think in those case- those rare cases, a surrogate, I think, is the, is the best of the options that are on the table for them.
Sean McDowell: That makes sense, and that's an area where you and I would differ 'cause that's a result [chuckles] of IVF.
Scott Rae: Right, right.
Sean McDowell: And I would resist-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... IVF for the same reasons I would resist surrogacy, but that's a separate [chuckles] conversation we've had.
Scott Rae: Yeah. I think in, yeah, in this case, this was... The, the IVF discussion was water under the bridge-
Sean McDowell: At that point
Scott Rae: ... And we are-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... And we are trying to just like, trying to make the best out of a-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Admittedly terrible situation.
Sean McDowell: Yeah. No, I understand. That's fair. I think one of the things that ties our first two stories together is that good intentions are not enough for something to be morally right and to have good consequences for society. Socialism can be motivated by good intentions, care for the poor. I think that's one of the draws of Gen Z is, first off, they have no collective memory of socialism, and of course, communism and Marxism from the past. They haven't seen it. So they see somebody who's so, just charismatic on social media, and Mom Dami was, makes promises to, like, free buses, free healthcare. This is great for everybody, but it doesn't work because like Thomas Sowell says, there are economic truths, just like there's truths in math and there's [chuckles] truths in other disciplines. It's not like wet clay that we can change. So good intentions don't have good results. Well, that can be the same with surrogacy. Obviously, there's some people that don't have good intentions for manipulating our systems of citizenship, for finances, but I know individuals who have been surrogates. Yes, they were paid for it, but a big chunk of it was to care for somebody who couldn't have a child. So I appreciate that motivation and that desire, but given the consequences that follow from this, I would still argue that it's not good, and it's not right, and good intentions don't overturn that. And for me, really, the principle is technology is a part of God's common grace. He's given us a commandment to develop technology and to care and steward the Earth. But when technology circumvents or goes around God's creative design, like you said, a man and a woman together, and a child naturally results from that union, then we're going to see consequences from this. None of the consequences of this should surprise us because as good-intentioned as people are, they're stepping outside of and circumventing God's design for marriage, as explained 3,000 years ago in Genesis. And so technology can help restore that which is broken, but when it starts to go outside of God's design, I, number one, have moral and ethical concern with it, but number two, the further we go, the more consequences we see for individuals, for marriages, for societies. So really, none of this stuff surprises me at all. God's design for marriage makes sense, and it's for our societal good.
Scott Rae: ... Amen. That's a good word on that.
Sean McDowell: Well, let's shift to this last one, that actually, it was announced maybe a couple weeks ago, and I thought about covering it, but I think it's really important we discuss it because this shift is taking place in December. And this is a really excellent podcast, and it's a discussion that came out of Christianity Today, and it has, three people, Mike Cosper, Russell Moore, and Brandon Rykertaw, who's a beloved partner with us in our philosophy program here. And they're talking about how Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, recently announced that ChatGPT will roll out a new erotica feature in December that will loosen the restrictions and, quote, "Treat adult users like adults." That's the justification. Now, there's a whole lot of commentary in this article, but one thing Rykertaw says is, "AI companions constitute a host of potential relationships. They can purchase things for us, they can plan out vacations for us. There's mental health bots, there's bots that are trained to behave like friends, romantic partners, do counseling. But now we've got bots that can serve the purpose of erotica as well." And his concerns is they- w- that when we use these kind of bots, we tend to anthropomorphize them and attribute human attributes to them, such as consciousness. It's like we can't avoid that. Moore points out that, "AI companions possess all the problems of digital pornography, plus an illusion of m- emotional connection." That illusion is really important. Now, there's some other things that are mentioned in here that I think are important, but tell me some of your concerns and your reactions to this new technology.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, yeah, my first reaction was, so much for the guardrails on AI.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, exactly.
Scott Rae: They, they just... I'm, I'm now very discouraged about the ability- ... Of the industry to police itself- ... On this. Now, now that it seems to me that with this new, rollout from ChatGPT, the industry is now em- openly embracing and promoting AI porn in ways, in ways that are they are, they are open about it, they are direct about it, and there's, you know, there's no effort to, put any guardrails on this for adults. Now, they say that they've got age requirements for children. I'm super skeptical about those being even remotely enforceable.
Sean McDowell: Agreed.
Scott Rae: And I think that's, that's gonna ultimately be on the parents of kids to enforce that, and, I'm not super optimistic about that either. And I think Brandon, you know, one of our, one of our philosophy grads, is right, I think, to point out, like a good, like a good person specializing in metaphysics would-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... That these chatbots, they ha- they don't have understanding. I'm s- I'm shocked at how many people say, "You know, my, this chatbot really gets me." And they don't have the capacity to get you. [chuckles] They don't have, they don't have understanding. They have no sentience. There's no sen- there's no genuine community that's being provided here. And I think that, you know, this is bringing, not just relationships and not just community, you know, out of the real world into the digital world. It's bringing sexuality in the context of a relationship or a pseudo-relationship out of the real world into the digital one. And, you know, God's design for sexuality is always in the context of a real-life relationship-
Sean McDowell: Amen
Scott Rae: ... In the context of a covenant, and ultimately, I think in a relationship to God. Now, here you've got the illusion of a relationship. You've got sexuality without a covenant, without really any gen... As, as Russell Moore puts it, "Without any genuine reality at all." now, and Sean, as we've mentioned before, these chatbots are not in the business of challenging users, making them uncomfortable. I remember, I forget the person who said it, but the role of the Holy Spirit is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. These, they don't do any of that. And the algorithms are not-- they're not set up that way. And I would say for the, you know, for the Christian who's considering using one of these, I would suggest, you know, reflecting on what Paul's admonition is in Philippians 4, where he says, I've, I've got it here: "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, or praiseworthy, think about such things."
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: Focus our mind on such things. And I think what this is promoting, I think directly undercuts that. And I think that's, that's only not a good advice for believers. I mean, it's not only good advice for the people of God, I think it's good advice for people, regardless of their worldview or faith commitment.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Because it's sort of, you know, the adi- adage is, "Garbage in, garbage out." and that applies regardless of your faith commitment. So this, I find this very troubling. I have to admit, I'm not surprised by it.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, me neither.
Scott Rae: It may, it maybe came a little faster than I thought it would, and it came more openly and sort of unabashedly than I thought it would. But, you know, here we are.
Sean McDowell: Here we are.... You know, a few things went through my mind, Scott. Number one, I started thinking about this new technology in pornography. What has the evolution of pornography been? And the first kind of pornography was, like, drawings on the wall of caves or on vases going back long before [chuckles] the time of Christ. [clears throat] Then you shift to photos, which gives a level of realism, and then videos, where it's not still, you're watching somebody actually act something out. And then you have virtual reality, which starts to shift towards a level of participation, and then now we shift towards AI with erotica companions. Like, what does that mean in the history of pornography, which has always been with us? It's worth thinking about what's new now, and how is this going to affect us differently. It's like every single step in the evolution of pornography is moving closer and closer to, quote, "the real thing," which arguably makes people less likely, or the need for the real thing in the way that God designed it to be. It's like, for lack of a better term, better and better substitutes, or counterfeits is probably a better word, and this is the latest incarnation of that. So what's really new with this? As far as it struck me, is number one, now things are personalized. You're not just watching from a distance, a script that somebody else made for a video or a photo or a scene. Now it's actually participatory and tailored to your own desires or feelings or wants. So now there's a level of personalization here. There's also increased illusion of emotional connection. I think that was there somewhat before. Like, I remember when I would do research and give talks on concerns about pornography, you'd see young men in particular, who would see scenes of pornography, and it would remove the barriers from them in terms of like: "I'm afraid to go ask a girl out. She might say no." But in pornography, the woman's always smiling. I'm always accepted. I'm never rejected. So there's a level of kind of somewhat emotional connection that might be there, especially if you're watching somebody. But now it's emotional connection built from your own emotional desires and gives the illusion and the lie of a response to us, and finally, it also puts us in the position of creator. So in one sense, this is kind of what scares me, and I don't know that I've really fleshed this out in my own mind, but it used to be in the past, and we've talked about this, Scott, that somebody could envision some kind of pornographic scene, and they could go discover it. Somebody had created it. Now all you gotta do is type it out, and quite literally will be created based on your own prompting. That's a radical shift that I don't even know what that means for relationships, but I know this: I know that the deeper the illusion comes, the more we're gonna get hurt by it. So a normal relationship, and this is something Cosper points out, he says, "A normal relationship between a man and woman has some friction, conflict, difficulties that you work out." And really, love is about learning to listen better, to care for somebody better, to conform my wants and desires and my life to somebody else. These chatbots shift it around. It's entirely self-focused. It's all about me, and like you said, this thing is wired to make me spend more time on the chatbot, more money on the chatbot, and to try to make me feel happy based on the technology of artificial intelligence. So it literally dehumanizes us. It wires us to not love, but to use. That's what I think is the root of what concerns me. And the last thing I'll say is, we just recorded this, Scott. We're gonna release it on YouTube probably next week, and then on the podcast coming up after that, with Johan Li, who teaches neuroscience at Biola.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: Absolutely brilliant. Michael Arena, the head of our business, department, our dean, and then Merav Guttu, one of the leading AI experts on [chuckles] consciousness in the world, talking about what's coming with artificial intelligence. And one of the points each of them made is that AI systems are not built neutrally. There's ethical ideas and worldviews built into them from the beginning, and let's just say, these are not biblically based or even neutral-
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... Worldview ideas. So without realizing it, underneath the surface, these ideas are affecting us, and I would argue, teaching us how to love or not love, teaching us how to treat people or not treat people in a way that moves against a biblical design. So I said last thing, but I would really encourage... We did this last week on gambling. I'd encourage pastors and parents to talk to their kids in congregation about this, not in a way that talks about it, "Can you believe this crazy idea? These people are nuts," because there's probably a whole lot of people sitting in our congregations who are trying this and who are wrestling with this and addicted to this, especially as it launches in December. We've got to address it with a biblical worldview when it comes out. Any other thoughts, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, I just w- I wonder, what's gonna be next-
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... In the evol- in the evolution of pornography? And I don't, I don't know. You know, where, when, where do we draw the line between, you know, when it crosses that line and moves into actual adultery? Um-
Sean McDowell: Well, probably robots-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Will be next, with-
Scott Rae: Probably
Sean McDowell: ... AI integrated into robots in different ways is incarnationally, where this moves would be one of the next-... Movements. But you're right, the question of adultery, like, is this really- I mean, the Bible, of course, [chuckles] didn't anticipate this artificial relationship. That's such an interesting question we may have-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... To come back to and revisit.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: I love that.
Scott Rae: All right, let's answer some questions.
Sean McDowell: All right, so this first one, I wanna get your thoughts on this, but this is for me. This is from an individual who- with terrible pain for several months. You've mentioned dealing with health challenges after donating your kidney. I talked about a lot of pain that I went through for several months. What are some of the things that have helped you get through these difficult times? One thing really quickly, I don't like to punt here, but I did two years ago, right when I was coming out of this, I did a YouTube video with some depth on this, my experience and my teaching-
Scott Rae: Sure
Sean McDowell: ... What people did, what was helpful and wasn't. So if you just search YouTube, health update, my name, that'll give you some more depth and encouragement that I think you're looking for. But any- what would you say, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, you know, Sean, what helped me get through... And I, you know, I didn't experience anything like you did. And, it's- what I, what I went through, nothing like what this listener is describing. You know, what, where I, where I got hurt was in my level of energy. And then I'm- that's, some of that's still with me today. I've not... You know, I've recovered as much as I'm going to, and it's- I'm not at 100%, ... Which I'm- but I'm good enough, and I've basically stopped-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: I've, you know, I can do everything I wanna do. I just can't do it with the same level of energy, and I crash harder- ... At the end of the day, if I overdo it. So, but I'm, I'm kinda done, yapping and moaning about it. I was originally not all that fired up about it, but, you know, this, you know, this is part, it's, it's part of what I signed up for. You know, and it's, it's far outweighed by how well my brother is doing. Now, our numbers are about the same, in terms of kidney function. Mine is about a probably 20% decrease. His is a fivefold increase-
Sean McDowell: Oh, my goodness
Scott Rae: ... Compared to where he was.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And so, you know, that by, that by itself, just has made it all worthwhile. And so what I've- what's helped me deal with some of this is the- is asking the question: How is, how is God's Spirit shaping me spiritually as a result of all this? And basically, I think what's happened is it's helped me, it's helped me see my limits. It's helped me see more of my humanity. And it's helped- it's just helped me see that, you know, there, I j- I just, you know, I'm a, I'm a created... It, it's reinforced this idea that I'm a created being. I'm, I'm not God. I'm not in control of, I'm not in control of everything. It's not, and it's not all about me. And just so learning to live with some of those limits has been a really valuable lesson, 'cause this is the first time I've really had to do that in any significant way. So that I think has been, more than a passage of scripture or something like that, just reflecting on how God is sort of continuing to chip away some of the rough edges of my character as a result of going through all this. But overall, I'm thrilled with how well my brother is doing.
Sean McDowell: Good.
Scott Rae: And that's, that's the trump card that, you know, outweighs everything else.
Sean McDowell: You know, you said something to the effect of being adequate with energy. Well, you're more than adequate, at least how I see things. [chuckles] Just for the record, don't downplay yourself.
Scott Rae: I apprec- I appre- I appreciate that.
Sean McDowell: You know, a couple things with this man, I would say, is I just... I hurt for him. This has softened me so much towards other people going through pain in a way that wasn't really on my radar, you know, before, which is heartbreaking. He says in this letter, he says: "I'm discouraged by how difficult it is to function each day." Only a couple things come to mind, and I'm just hesitant to even throw this out there, but it's okay to express that and feel that. One of the things that encouraged me is I read some of the Psalms and was like, "Okay, I'm not alone." What is it? A quarter or a third of the Psalms are complaint Psalms. There's something healing, like if you feel like, "I can't express my pain. I can't... I don't wanna be a burden on anybody," you gotta get rid of that. Now, it can go too far, where it's just [chuckles] you become like an Eeyore, but I think there's something to leaning in with other people, not doing this alone. And for me, I didn't realize how much I had a self-dependency here and absolutely needed my wife, absolutely needed family, and I could not have done it without them. So allowing other people to minister to me and reading the Psalms was a couple things I'd, I'd highlight. But I hope that that video might be encouraging to you. Here's a quick question here. I think in some ways you've, you've answered this. The concern was that democratic socialism is different than some of the examples that we've given when talking about, this topic, such as Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba. Is it misplaced criticism to bring those examples in, when we talk about democratic socialism?
Scott Rae: Well, I would... There, there's obviously a big difference between the Sov- the Soviet Union, the, then their republics in Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Mao's China, and Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe today. There's an obvious difference. I just got a couple of, just observations about this. I would suggest that perhaps that the way socialism was practiced in some of those examples, in the former Soviet Union and others, were actually a more consistent practice of socialism- ... Than in the democratic socialist countries. And it's clear that, I would, I would not call Scandinavia and France and the Netherlands and the UK socialist countries.... Because socialism exists on a continuum. You, you are more or less socialistic. And I think, you know, frankly, in the, in there are some, there's some aspects of the US that reflect socialism. Now, we're, we're a long way from being the dem- what I would call a democratic socialist nation, but what I think what our listener's referring to are tho- is that different social compact that I mentioned a little bit earlier, which is it's higher taxes, higher services, as opposed to lower taxes and fewer services. And I think that's just a difference in how the agreement between government and the individuals is navigated.
Sean McDowell: That's a helpful distinction. Good, good stuff, Scott. I... So last question that came in was just about how we read books, and I'd just say quickly, how I read a book depends upon the book. Some books, if I'm familiar with the content, I can, I can skim. I've kinda trained myself to read more quickly, slow down on parts I'm not familiar with, kinda skip through parts I'm familiar with, and get the big picture. Some books that I really value, I will read multiple times, and I will underline and highlight, and I will think about and go back through. So it really depends upon the book, depends upon what my goals are, sometimes depends upon how much time that I have. You and I have to read a lot of books because... Or get to, we don't have to. We get to read a lot of books-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... Because of what we do, and a lot of the interviewers we select are because they have books we want to read anyways. [chuckles] That's a piece of our process, in case people are wondering who we select and who we don't. But I, as a whole, I think quanti- quality is more important than quantity. I'd rather have somebody read three or five books in a few months carefully and own it than 20 books and kinda skim through them and just get the big picture. Anything you'd add to that or take away?
Scott Rae: Yeah, I mean, I'm with you. It depends on the book. Some books... I mean, we get, you know, we get a ton of books sent to us for the podcast, and so those we tend to review a little more quickly and superficially to see if it's a good fit- ... For what we're doing. But, and just to let our audience know, too, we read every book that we've, where we interview the author on the podcast.
Sean McDowell: That's right. That's right
Scott Rae: ... We're not, we're not, we're not winging it on this. [laughing] which means we probably, you know, each of us, for just for that part of the podcast, we probably read, you know, 40, 50 books a year- ... Just for that part, and so it i- does become a matter, a function of time as well, so depends on the book. I'm, I'm reading, I'm reading one book now line by line. It's really good stuff, but I ca- I don't have the luxury, and none of us have the luxury of reading... In fact, that's not good stewardship, I think, of time-
Sean McDowell: I agree
Scott Rae: ... To read every, to read everything that carefully.
Sean McDowell: I'd recommend the book How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: It is a phenomenal, helpful book. You read English differently than you read science, differently than you read law, differently than you read poetry, and it talks about speed reading. It talks about underlining, highlighting books. Incredible book by philosopher Mortimer Adler called How to Read a Book. Scott, as always, good conversation.
Scott Rae: Likewise.
Sean McDowell: I'm looking forward to next week.
Scott Rae: Good stuff.
Sean McDowell: This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you from where Scott and I both work, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We've got master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more, online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we would deeply appreciate, if you value this podcast, just taking a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. Every single rating helps with the analytics to train more people to think biblically. We really appreciate you listening, and we will see you Tuesday, when we have Ruslan KD, a rapper and a popular YouTuber, who's gonna talk about his new book, Godly Ambition. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
