floor for questions from you all as well. so we'll keep this fairly light, but i think just a start, one of the things that i was magazine is you've written over 25 books now. the majority of those having to do a science and science have it. so at the question, why do you put all this effort into general science book and science information for the general layout? >> i enjoy writing. i am a southerner. we tell stories. i mean, we love telling stories. i write easily and i also am in subjects of science. i have a broad interest. i also have the ambitions and move of biology, particularly evolutionary biology, which is at the outer fringe of the national scientists in the direction of the social scientist and humanities to move that closer to the other places of learning and see if we tell ourselves the colloquy across the ranches and sent him that hasn't been achieved. i've always had the ambition. >> so how close do you think eucom? >> i think we're beginning to do it. by my efforts were beginning to get to a biological science and particularly in that direction of the brain and study says evolution and even the studies of neurobiology and i put heaviest emphasis in this book. >> so that severely heaviest asberry from where we all come from to the idea of moral sense. sort of very big topics. >> they are the topics. >> at the heart of most of this is evolution. i want to know what is your one sentence definition? on evolution? >> well, it has like most heavily used words in the language, particularly english, several meanings according to context. there's also something as any radical change occurs from one state to the next. and in biology, it means a genetic change in a species or population that leads from one state to the other, whether or not it is a gap to and we believe it's practically biology of natural practical systems and the natural system and therefore is adapt to. but in the tech of definition of a different change in the frequency of genes within a population. >> so what do you think the major points are in terms of the general public would be? is a word that's been used in a lot of different contacts and a lot of different ways. if it's broken into general language. >> i would ea think this view held by everyone except from analysts. [laughter] >> all right. so certainly in your new book, you have taken on issues or put forward a position that certainly has engenders a nice fonts yet again in terms of your approach to looking at where the voucher comes from. >> it's always been one of the big questions, but since my life, my research life has been primarily the social insight, which are the most advanced -- have the most advanced social system. granted, all drawn by instinct than a nonhuman animal. and then because my interest spread to humans when i set up the discipline of sociology in 1971, i had to include humans and took a lot of heat from that, so my interest in the humans had to increase. i had to take a greater increased. nic for reasons aforementioned that we are getting close and that could be probably the most exciting intellectual development of this country is to see a continuity call, a mutual understanding oppressors. then i just a strawman to it. i'm interested in evolution as well and the emerging story of human evolution. especially now we can begin to attach it to changes in behavior, leading to want to take what i know about social and pay him about what happened when they achieve this world conquering state in a tiny number of species reach what we call a new sociology, e.u. sociology, which mainstream sociology and it's just us producing inside a society that has the vision of labor. persists over at the multiple generations raised yon, cooperatively and has a division of labor, which basically to some degree are now offering. i've discovered looking, i invite colleagues that something like -- let's rounded off a little bit, and the history of life that new sociology has been reached. it's a very rare condition and it is very slow in coming. so up until about 250 million years ago there is not a single case, even though no lerch population and insects of all kinds and then when they got in the age where there is nothing we could see any sign-up for a good long while, we got things i in good time, when they appeared, these writer x, when they appeared, these writer x, when they appeared, these writer x took over the world. they a lot outweigh leverage in most habitat, all based on the lan. they outweighed 74 to one. in the fall of the vast insect mass, the answer loan can't even though they only have a tiny fraction of the species, about only one third. that's ecological dominance. and of course we all know what sapiens are like. it's the first big animal social species. and i go into it now later. but the astonishing fact they have not noticed an answer to the puzzle they have not considered, the rarity of a prolonged time it took to appear, in addition to never asking that question, they never looked at how it happened. and arguments about the theories of genetics of old truism that agrees, that was overlooked. i decided to simply look and call attention which has been traced through social issues are not just in insects, but it happens always the same way in the same time, no exception we are whereas in its consisted -- evolution is actually in the real sense that each side in the confluence of what is going to evolve, what is there in a particular environment in which the evolution occurs. so they all went the same, rather typical way to follow, a rare route to one point were solitary individuals, still solitary or small group which was very built to last, and expensive mast which of the solitary female defendants in which she were another little group goes for an fine food and brings it to the master feed the young progressively until they grow up and are ready to disperse. when you reach that stage, every case, no exception, with every small step you can go to social society and that is what happened. so it comes to the question when i saw that and i thought that was going to investigate the use of theology and all truism in the animal kingdom than, then i took a very close look at the evolution of humanity and an enormous amount has come out. in the last 10 to 20 years about the evolution of the human mind, all of my reference is -- virtually all of them are primarily peer-reviewed literature who actually did the research. i'll tell you i'm going on much too long. i know this is supposed to be a conversation, but this is what you said. [laughter] you have a harvard professor and even worse when you have a professor emeritus and you give them an audience. [laughter] [applause] i don't know the meaning of that applause. [laughter] is just going to conclude i suppose. it happened about three to 3 million years ago. it happened in a group of rvg ancestors, probably also remains that there is evidence that that one line out of all of these vegetarian, that was the one that started hunting two k. unique in that it to bone structure against change and by the time home or at this comes along, they were making capsize -- permit long-term capsize going down in bringing in 19 and analyzing because at that point, 2 million years ago, all the pre-humans had rants about the size of a champ, only slightly larger. it has been unremarkable. so what that moment, society falls precipitously. he goes to the president 1000 permits you to thousand, 1205 would appear that humans were quite persistent with the rule of reaching new sociology and it didn't sculpture -- advanced society, quite distinct with animal kingdoms and of course we were different and we developed culture along the way. our culture very much influenced by the instincts and posner prehuman. >> so in the picture you lay out commie talk about this idea of building a nest in this idea of the fire, planning campsite and technology in a sense is the precursor to her i needed step to this other larger loop social. >> you know commissions have culture. they have technology. but they also have 400 cubic centimeters of brain only. when different ranges of chimps are being studied, in different localities in congo and so on, they have different local populations had to behaviors that they pass on. they are very clearly cultural matters. one uses digging tools, animals or sticks to pick up food. others make tools to fish for termites. and found slain. it's interesting. the chimps just want to do so badly, but they just don't have all the apparatus. [laughter] >> said the approach of the air you put forward, there is a fair amount to a concern, consternation on some scientists about this direction is going to change the direction. where do you see this coming from quite >> what you mean mean? where we going? >> when he published the book there is a fair amount of controversy. >> i'll review that where delectation. for 1964, a young scientist named bill hamilton in england put together selection theory, which actually came from an early genesis naming the best history now. and what he proposed was that advanced societies like the ones i've just been describing originate when you have a close group of individuals, a tight little group without much motivation. that group has individuals that are closely related to one another. this that are closely related to one another are siblings. uncles, and, that sort of thing, collaterally closely related. not direct off strain. that's why the individual selection is hammered out in fast details. that's the usual thing. well, if there were cooperation that could be done by was all touristic among these close relatives, then they still wouldn't be losing their genes because they could have done -- they have equal identical genes, that they are protected. so the chain is protecting the gene. so they can basically in groups of 10, close can get together in this view and cooperate because they have the use. basically that's it. i bought it when i first published sociobiology, the introductions to it. it seemed quite reasonable at that time and to this very subject that as a matter of fact. it also had one powerful piece of evidence. that was when i was getting too technical about it, he seemed to be limited. new sociology seemed to say for termites were limited mostly to the order of the inside. they had a map at the determination, such the sisters are more closely related to one another in terms of the genes they share then or even and daughters. so it just works out that way. and this appeal appear to hamilton as a possible explanation of why at that time most of these new social societies were among those insects that have that. sisters are closely related to each other, to the mom, the relatives, sisters get together to form a society. it's such a pity. [laughter] because what happened is even though i championed it, that connection collapsed when more and more found socials that did not pass that to kill your determination, so quietly the people who believed for this sign -- you should do that. that evidence against them. it is not true. i saw a lot more and i won't go into detail about five years if i started publishing a series of paper in vain look, this isn't looking very well, but we better correct this. look at the evidence here and be equally well that's your going to do with a small group of it to see if who're using it in teaching it. which are calling equally well as explained by individual levels or group selection. when intense selection can and it out. it was thrown out as a possible mechanism for creating all touristic. and now it's wrong. so, a little warning when they're not paid much attention until i started the whole thing with hamilton. and so at some point i decided i would exit and do something more agreeable. but up until that time, i was the only person who is finding out what actually happened in by seeing what we know about. it just did not compute with the selection. at that point, two mathematicians approached me at harvard, mathematicians of the first rank. a prodigy named coaching at tornado, which i describe apart just a little earlier, who was the darling of the harvard math department. she had one deed not olympia three years ago and so on. so they came to me and said, you know, we decided to look at this thing in the assumption mathematically as the formula for all of this is an election process and we have found it has no solid foundation. in fact, it's wrong mathematically. no one had ever done that before. why? because is an extremely difficult mathematical problem. it didn't seem would be necessary to do it, but it turned out. but when i put the evidence that you got to put that group selection, then we got sent an entirely new open to. and i'm as where we are now. no supporter of the old theory, it happened 18 months after we made that move the nation magazine has actually ever addressed the scientific issues. that is the mathematical inaccuracy and also the better paradox of the nation. and that is where we are at the present time. i show in my new book that finally we have a series, an explanation of how it's originated in humans. a fifth what we know about human beings ever been done properly before. a survey at the present time. >> this use of group selection had individual selection and given quite a fair amount of explanatory comments and into the kinds of behavior. >> it shows you what's been going on. just as some historical background, it garwin thought that ants could be the death of his theory while he was writing the origin of species. so he himself said he couldn't explain how it is that worker and, which don't have offspring could evolve into these elaborate forms. you know, they were just the workers. he was in trouble. he thought about that a long time. a famous story about him, which i'll introduce another who do have the conversations were having before you move on to another and more interesting subject, darin was sitting in his garden thinking. he walked each day and thought about these things. and he was watching an ant hill, sitting in the garden and elderly retainer in dallas, a lady said, referring to charles of the profession novelists who lived an estate nearby said doesn't have something to pass his time. and anyways, darwin figured it out and basically what he figured out as the colony fan he did it again, but for humans. he said group versus group site, if i've got this right, results and what are features we think of his virtue, and divisiveness, helpful a cell on an essentially, that is where we are today. and i'll tell you what it is. i'll just give you a simple couple of formulation putting it. each is a simple fermentation first of all, here is the process. individual bubble selection based on parent taking care of offspring, having as many offspring as possible, proportionally represented in the next question. the intimate numbers of examples in the legislature. this usually referred to as williams selection. group selection is that the genes that are fixed have to do with interaction, how they communicate, how they cooperate, how well they bond together and how they act as a unit. so group versus group, does are quite different than the ones coming from the individual level selection as they are more likely to create what they call virtue. that is on her, morality. so here we have these two levels of selection. they are antagonistic because the filename and a hoop, selfish individuals beat all touristic individuals, but all touristic workgroups of all touristic individuals beat most selfish individuals. it's as simple as that. if mathematically sound. were going to work out a hole in the mathematical account of it and that is what it is. or to make it ultra simple, individual selection tends to produce what we call a thin, you know the selfishness and conniving and all of these infinite permutations make their readings so interesting. [laughter] and the group selection promotes virtue. and they are antagonistic. and this is the most important thing about it, about the human condition. i think it answers the question. we're close to answering the big question is why he brought in plug-in. the masterpieces labeled. well, were to become from? where are we and what are we going? said they were close to answering the questions. that's the answer is little disconcerting. it appears that the group selection at the driving force of this selection and that would make us human is a cause us to develop so quickly and it creates innate virtue and morality because that is antagonist than an individual level is underway within the genetic mix so i'll ever be because if we ever drove and were caught in this unstable, can dictate conviction is that it's very human and will always be conflicted to some degree if we went to -- when all the way -- is not a political speech. all the way to individual selection, then the society would dissolve. if we went all the way to group selection, then we would he come angelic robots. we would be -- we never can be any thing but conflicted. but when you think about it, this is a source of human creativity. what created this is a conflict -- causes conflict, makes us geniuses. in may this highly creative, but it also produced some internal conflict eventuated and society. there isn't any easy solution. that is the bottom line i would say two political scientists. the g hobbyist and those who train with perfect harmony on humanity was with helpful posts. and that is -- there is some perfect state. there's no perfect world government. bulges have to work same as always and this turmoil, internal kaleidoscope of feelings and intuitions and in her actions we have. you know, it may be true that since all of the two dozen times that we know of that base high-level and instinctive basis, we had a culture. they all came the same route. then maybe that's the way all of human intelligent life certainly exists. all of it has to come right away. and now for a change or have been saved them to let you talk. >> well, something you brought up her spirits are certainly in europe early career he did a lot about communication. what is your take on treating, safe again? >> you know, we really don't know where they are sa you knowt know where they are saving this? you have to read th3 >> you know, we really don't know where they are saving this? you have to read the op-ed page of "the new york times." i should mention that. articles, what passes for intellectuals and the united states are now writing the subjects of what is this doing to us? what is it doing a conversation, education. what is it doing to have the mind works? we don't know yet because we haven't been in this experiment yet. no one says twittering, of course kos conversation. because everything is so easy on google. you asked them a question, like who is the third roman emperor after cesar and that is impressive. but what is that doing it terms of the development of their mind and their creativity if they're not having long periods of time if that ever were the case to reflect and develop their own persona, their own worldview, their own ideas. we don't know where it's going. i mean, you could go to a much more -- much better informed, better educated and thoughtful liberal society. what do you think? >> i think it's coming one way or another. we must find out. i think it's fascinating to see the entire new language. >> we are now i think actually actually -- we've answered the first two questions. we answered the question, where do we come from? i think we're beginning to end their what are we now were about to find out where we're going. and i think knowing where we came from and what we are is very hopeful. in fact, i think it's necessary to have a hammered out consent is based on science and open constant discussion and i think were coming close to a solid answer. our going to figure out we were going. >> so that me ask you another question. where do you think were going? would you hope we are going? >> actually, in this book, i answered that question by saying no one can say in a world in which 17th century science has been to blame every 10 to 20 years who can say. but i think we can save some of the things that we should not -- where they should not be going. and i don't have ever popular views. i sure he wanted to keep going? [laughter] one of the things we should keep going with this much reliance we traditionally have to find organized religion. and by that, i do not mean religion in the sense of spirituality, a theologian is -- theologian search for your -- you know, for the transcendent form for the hope for not your life, you hope for god creator. i'm mean the creation story. that's the killer. there's hundreds of creatures unknown to the creation story in the most of the creation stories were created long time ago in the late iron age, for example. they're put together by chanson profits who didn't know anything. except for the society they were in. they didn't know anything about prehuman ancestor and so they just wrote down the best that occurred and those that set in stone. that's the problem because we are an intensely traveled species. we don't understand just how a social psychologist has been able to illustrate was interesting about travel. they found for example it the tape people volunteers and divide them into teams, just a uniform group of volunteers, and they know being arbitrarily divided into teams and that they are asked to play simple games in a very short period of time, each team thinks is superior. it feels that the members of either team are not trustworthy and they don't think there is good. and when you have it at that very low-level and then seemed so brilliant on the athletic teams, let's virtualize spooler. we are intensely group oriented. we must have a try at your deal is tried, the hunter gatherer tribes are very concrete and simple. and that is palpable and stink evolved. but now the question is far more complicated and we haven't figured out yet how to slice and dice it in our daily activities, loyalties, we believe in, what we think our country out to be, we think our religion not to be, so on and so on. the other thing we've developed this seems it is extremely intent, but it is so worse, so humans -- how shall i say a quick so paleolithic that we think of it is almost air and water. something that's just part of nature. that is their excessive interest in other people. that started almost certainly in that nine times and as cognitive psychologists were delving deeply into the subject now pointing out, it is what we are breeding and other people's intention. that's probably the way it was all the way back to the time because it is necessary to spend more and more on cooperation as hunting societies with a base then you need to know because every person in that group is up to what they think, whether they're reliable, which ones you can get to cooperate, which ones you can get to manipulate, which ones you can depend upon, which ones you can bond with and we developed a genius and we are absolutely genius is that some of us cognitive psychologists say in waiting tension. and we do it by constant, intense focus. and if were not doing it, then we are engaging in the very beneficial activity across a period how you get the information passed back and forth and establish your group, probably through gossett. then we are relentlessly watching television, movies, fiction, best-selling nonfiction works on human and social behavior. it all comes to the same thing. we just cannot keep our minds off of it. that's what really -- that kind of ability and drive is what comes where we are. so it's not surprising they have those two intense urges. but it's important to know we have is their chance because that explains a lot of the difficulty we are in now. >> thank you. i know you want to up of our questions. i'm going to ask one other quick one because as an expert in evolution, i've been waiting for someone to explain to me the evolutionary advocation tollway been experiencing over the last several years and the advantage this is giving me. [laughter] what evolution advantage is now with my receding hairline? >> i thought you knew that. it has something to do a test ostrow. >> already. [laughter] >> now that you've asked that really interesting question we want to make this an entertaining evening, and not, you know, anthropology 201 harvard, yes, we have a very good i.t. away we don't have any hair on the body. it is because we are persistent hunters. i think most agree with that. persisting hunting is destined in savanna where humanity evolves. you can see it today in the hunter gatherer. you go after them you have to try and kill it or slow it down. but if you don't succeed, then you can follow it or you can pick it kudu out of a small herd and you can chase it. all of these animals for millions of years of evolution have become sprinters. they can sprint away from every predator and they saved themselves that way. but human beings were above to the dissenters. a relatively slow, but we can go on a non-chemists knesset these hunters are gatherers. they are gatherers and their homes for animals. they are superb trackers. so same animal get down inside, but not just a by little scuff on iraq, just a slight broken branch from a drop of blood they know they are behind it and they keep going. they keep going until they fall to exhaustion and then they kill it. so be a long-distance runner, that kind team is of course requires a lot of heated exchange. this argues why we lost our hair. it's a cooling device to not have hair. most have been evolutionarily coolheaded. [laughter] [applause] he made a fun question. i'm sorry, i wanted to get through the nitty-gritty of the book. because that's worth talking about, which is covered. >> surveys your hand. >> so come on he started conversation with a fundamentalist to bring them around to your point of view? [laughter] >> you don't. [laughter] [applause] you sneak good science courses into media -- entertainment into the media and teach salad good science scorches into the schools. that's the only way. what you don't understand about fundamentalists, you know, literalists another jihads as if they are totally irrational on these issues mds believes are not rational, that they are identifying their signature traits of the tribe. if you challenge anything -- were talking about creation stories here. not talking about belief in god, not theological studies and present of divinity, anything at the store. we are talking about creation stories and those are absolutely setting down for fundamentalists. if you mess around with any of that comment it's taken as a personal threat. and that is what you're dealing with. i'm not >> i would like to know, how subtle is the science that we'll go back to see mother in africa 200,000 years ago? >> you go not so much that the population there. we didn't all go back to a single individual. what happened is the evolution of language is, certain names, like hawkins or joyner or st. john's, you know, i'm on my ancestral names disappear. they disappear, in this case, by culture and tradition by passing the name only two the male line. but that means that there is certain names that go all the way back. i'm a good friend of peter all been. that thing survived all the way and he has said. and in the same way, there are certain genes transmitted in the x chromosome that would be for certain the female line, which have persisted. they spread through the whole population and they have persisted ever since through the whole population from one individual you can track it back in one individual of that gene. but that doesn't mean she's the ancestor. for the ancestor of everyone. one of her jeans, a small number survives to the present day, just the way the name hawkins or harvard has survived in the present time. >> robert travers has done some interesting work on deception and self-deception. i can see how it could evolve in terms of individual selection, that is anywhere been done in terms of how it may have been served in terms of selected by a group? >> no, that's correct. i think is true of all individuals and groups. and i don't know how other fields about the new theory -- i mean, the new presentation. i hope he comes to agree thoroughly. he told of his early work what was done off of assumptions of selections. and that probably doesn't work now. it's not correct. the later he did excellent work. i was a major contribution made. now recently he has been publishing the book on deception deception -- self-deception and so on. and i think we've all known about that, but he wanted to produce more than a scientific explanation. we could get him to agree that you can get what he was writing about at an individual level and selection. >> rate here in front. >> when you are talking about the individual selection in the group selection and you are saying there is always a conflict, does that mean scientifically we could never have peace in the world because of it will always be conflict? >> you'll never have a joining of the groups. i think forming groups is so fundamental towards humanity. were more likely to do in the future is continued not. but that will be creating new kinds of groups. i believe that there will be a diminishment of organized religion basically because of the problems with the creation stories. there may be, it's hard to predict, but there may be a softening of nationalism. it's hard to say. new groups are forming all the time and that's what i met when i said we don't know what direction it going to take. but it's certainly not going to lead to a one world unified human society. now, too humid to be blown to groups and considered their superior, real superior light the red sox in the future is. last night he asked me not to be provocative. >> i think he gets the two. a lot of pleasure comes from writing from the whole team and despairing and cheering and so on. >> thinking about where we are going, i wonder if you have comments about the future in terms of scarce resources and population growth and the implications of that. i know that is both does entrance. >> is taken, as you probably know, a very strange twist. excessive numbers are no longer the wordless we have reversal in the industrialized countries, and current fertility trends. the breakeven point is 2.1 children per woman. the zero population. .1 child allows for that percentage, 5% who are going to make it. and don't have children and so on. but all of the industrialized countries now are well below it and they are beginning and negative population growth. that has seeped holes in europe's, countries like germany and are soon going to be a severe problem in japan and china. and the results of it is the latest united nations population projections hasn't present trends, you know, accelerated or decelerated trans, that we will peak somewhere around 9 billion people or 7 billion. it could be as low as nine if we continue. and if we had a reversal, which is highly unlikely, so women everywhere are beginning to choose. the hope thing is based on women's choice. women's liberation save the world. [applause] if it turns out that women everywhere in every society gain independence and financial independence to do what they wanted, they stop letting their husbands play the lottery and have a couple quality children. when that happens, they went to the fertility rate, thank heavens. if we have reversed -- if we tighten still more, we could peek out -- it could peek or reach the end of the century below what it is now. there is a reversal, which is highly unlikely for obvious reasons, than we could go up as high as 15 billion or more and that would be disastrous. the problem is not the number of human beings. judaica take all 7 billion people. if you don't believe me, try this on the back of an envelope. 7 billion people, if you could do that, and then you could fit the entire lot into a single cubic mile and a worry to the canyon out of sight. so it's not just people running around and eating. it is per capita consumption. you know, it is everybody wanting an american level of life. so we have to do one or the other two things. we've got to slow ourselves and persuade other countries that are moving up fast, including vehicle and slick check and china and use the finest of our science and technology to make everything less expensive so we have increased per capita growth, economic growth combined with quality life, far less natural resources. >> @night, presidential candidate -- [laughter] [applause] >> you are talking about progress in society has come in as a result of groups. >> as a result of what quite >> as a matter of groups working together. but on the other hand, real genius of individuals who are at dean actually saw officially for their a benefit and grand iceman per se are the ones who are really making the greatest progress in our society. do you feel that the groups will overwhelm the systems click >> not at all. in fact, i couldn't agree with you more. i'm just finishing another book to put in the pipeline. i'm not going to keep writing books forever. but this one is called letters to a young scientist and i distilled into it everything i found her teaching at harvard for 40 years. undergraduates, graduates, postdoc and so on. and it has been in a lot of discoveries and new developments i've known people who are doing it themselves, so i know how real innovation takes place. i know when it's not group thinking. it's not going to come from taking a bunch of really bright people and putting them in one of these think tanks and ask a man to sit together in front of a black board and it together in produce great ideas. that is not the way it works. it works on one mind, usually rebellious in a way, usually ambitious, enterprising decides to do some pain you, preferably where no one has tried before and goes for it. and what you find them, time and again as an individual like that, a real innovator in every society, of a larger group you have to find who they are. in high school, they will be the nerd, the kid least likely to succeed, who is always doodling with them pain or crazy about the chemistry or something like this. that one person pursues the comment is required the spirit of entrepreneurship, if anything is more important than high i.q. that person then gathers dusters together people, collaborators, one here who could eat a mathematical model. another one there that can do it in a natural products, chemistry. another one there who knows how to design the right computer programs to push the limit forward. and before long, that is not the proof is innovative. that way we don't have to dream. that is not going to disappear it out. >> this is the first time i've had a meeting like this and nobody ever asked me a question about ants. [laughter] >> one last question. >> wistfully out the roach are right or wrong when he said nice guys finish last? >> nice guys finish last. not at all, i don't think. it is the nice guy who may in fact be the one that is having a great idea over who gets enough cooperators around him or her to form a coalition that starts a political movement or knows how to run a con to me at a time when goodwill and partnership for among the key employees is on port 10. that is the new trend in business management, is it not? life-size. >> all right. want to join me in 19 e.o. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. have a good night. [inaudible] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> is there a nonfiction author of book you'd like to see featured on booktv? and is the name of booktv at c-span.org. or treatise that twitter.com/booktv. ..