Sara Imari Walker

I'm sorry.

But so many people think it is.

They just think like it's easy.

It's been done.

You'll get like really prominent ideas.

You know, physicists, too, being like, oh, you get the first replicator on a planet and then you get life.

And the real hard problems are like, you know, the long term future of the universe and things.

And I think I think we're just we're reasoning based on assuming absolute knowledge sometimes when we don't have absolute knowledge.

That's what I've been told.

I mean, because we have a lot of, you know, there have been a lot of reactions to the work that we've been doing, both positive and like, you know, interacting with people's dogmas in certain ways.

So they're like very reactionary.

And then some people that are much more thoughtful and critical and then some people that are very not thoughtful, but very critical.

And so you get like the whole spectrum.

And I guess if you do any kind of high profile science, you're going to get everything thrown at you.

And part of the reason that I want the ideas out there is because I want that critical feedback.

So that's fine.

If it's, you know, intelligent feedback, that's amazing.

But I think the thing that I've noticed is.

Is that the way that different communities interact with the ideas are totally different.

So it's like, you know, the evolutionary biologists, you know, where some of them, not all of them, you can't make blatant statements about any group, you know, really don't understand what we're trying to do.