Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” And here’s what’s coming up.
After nearly six months of Israel’s bloody war in Gaza and international outcry over the deadly strike on aid workers, Biden gives Netanyahu an
ultimatum. I ask Israel’s minister of economy and industry about the growing chorus of criticism.
Then, how Trump is trying to undermine the justice system and what it means for America.
Also, ahead —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Human activity has damaged the systems of life that sustain us all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — a brief history of our future. Ari Wallach talks to Hari Srinivasan about his new PBS series, and how grappling with our past can
improve society today and tomorrow.
And finally —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JANE GOODALL, BRITISH PRIMATOLOGIST: I relieved that magic time when chimps would be running away from me, now allow me to actually play with
them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — a lifetime spent uncovering our natural world. As iconic primatologist Jane Goodall turns 90, we look back at Christian’s
conversation with the woman who transformed what we know about chimpanzees.
Hello, everyone, and welcome to the program. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is under the microscope like never before. A new IDF report blames mistaken identification for Monday’s
airstrike that killed seven aid workers in Gaza, saying they believed they were targeting Hamas operatives in the convoy, mistaking a bag for a gun.
World Central Kitchen is now calling for an independent investigation, and the U.N. says sadly the attack is not an isolated incident.
Meantime, President Biden has given Netanyahu an ultimatum, protect civilians and aid workers in Gaza or Washington could rein in its support.
Within hours of that phone call, the Israeli leader announced additional aid routes.
For Gazans, help cannot come fast enough, with millions on the brink of starvation. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed, the majority of
them women and children.
And 130 hostages remain captive, nearly six months on from the devastating October 7th massacre that killed over 1,200 Israelis. This week saw huge
protests in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
So, amid the growing international and domestic anger, I spoke to Israeli Economy Minister Nir Barkat, who joined me earlier from New York.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Mr. Minister, thank you so much for taking the time and joining us today.
NIR BARKAT, ISRAELI MINISTER OF ECONOMY AND INDUSTRY: As we’ve been reporting, Israel’s military said that it has dismissed two officers over
that tragic strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen members. And they also formally reprimanded two others, including the commander of the
southern command for his overall responsibility for the incident.
My question to you is, how can something like this happen for a military that on the one hand, actually on the same day, was able to launch such a
precise strike in Syria, where it took out three IRGC generals and pinpointed exactly where they were and yet, you counterbalance that with
this horrific incident, which we should note and President Biden has noted, is not the first time that we have seen aid workers tragically killed in
this war?
BARKAT: Well, it’s a big tragedy. These are good people that came to do good for the world. They actually helped Israelis as well. And as you saw,
it’s certainly unintentional. The same way that over 30 Israeli soldiers were killed by the IDF, by Israel itself and by friendly fire, and the same
way that, unfortunately, three of the hostages that escaped Hamas were killed by Israeli forces.
Tragedies like this happen in war. Everyone that is — was in war like myself understand that it’s a tragedy, condolences to the people, to the
families that were killed.
GOLODRYGA: But you’re — you know, the main lesson in tragedies, in these errors, is learning from them. And as we’ve noted, six months into this
horrible war, we have seen tragedy upon tragedy, whether it’s the IDF accidentally killing three of its own hostages, as you mentioned, that 30
soldiers had been killed as well.
What if the consequences —
BARKAT: That’s part of war. Unfortunately, in every war, it happens. It happens in every war. In the Second World War, 33 million people were
killed. In Syria, half a million people were killed.
It’s not our goal to, unfortunately, have these errors, but errors happen in wars. And you have to understand, the atrocities that happened October
7th were intentional. What Hamas did was intentional. They entered the cities and towns. They killed. They raped. They took the girls’ hostages,
as you know. And over 200 people were taken hostage from their homes. That is intentional.
GOLODRYGA: And no one —
BARKAT: In war, unfortunately, sometimes unintentional tragedies happen.
GOLODRYGA: And no one is denying the atrocities committed by Hamas. They are a terrorist organization. They are deemed so by the United States and
the —
BARKAT: Intentionally.
GOLODRYGA: — western countries. Intentionally, absolutely. But there are different standards. I would imagine you agree that applied to the Israeli
army, the IDF, the world is watching how this country, one of the most professional armies in the world, conducts itself.
We’ve seen nearly 200 aid workers killed so far. It was smart. It was right to conduct this investigation. There had been a lot of pressure on Israel
by the West, by the United States, even internally, to get this done as soon as possible.
The WCK commends Israel for that and notes that this investigation was launched. But they continue to ask for an independent investigation on top
of that. Will there be one?
BARKAT: I’m proud of the Israeli army. I’m proud of the values and the ethics. The fact that we focus and we do our best to target the monsters in
Hamas.
And by the way, there’s still a quarter of those Nazis still in Rafah, and the Israeli army will get to every one of them, because we cannot allow —
it’s not just what happened October 7th, it’s to prevent the next one. And if you listen to what they’re saying, these jihadists, their goal is to do
it again and again. We got to kill them all because their intention is to do it again.
And by the way not just to Israel, not just to the Jews, but all non- Muslims. And the — I have to tell you that the moderate Arab states are deeply concerned about their goals as much as we are and as much as the USA
is concerned about the goals of these jihadists.
GOLODRYGA: Of course. And we have been reporting that, Mr. Minister, all along. No one here, whatever, defend the actions of Hamas, nor would anyone
say that Hamas should continue to rule in Gaza once this war is over.
I guess the question is, if you can limit the — your actions to only target Hamas, as opposed to — and I understand the difficulties of urban
warfare. That having been said, you talk about the plans to go into Rafah. There’s a lot of consternation and concern in the West, in the United
States, about how that will play out.
And given what we’ve seen and the manner in which this war has been conducted thus far, how does it make you feel to know that even your
closest ally, the United States, doesn’t view your conduct with much confidence in terms of accomplishing what you need to do in Rafah with
limiting, also limiting, the number of civilian casualties?
BARKAT: You just asked me seven questions in one question, OK. The reality is that everyone understands that we’ve got to get rid of Hamas. They’re
Nazis. They’re part of the alliance, the evil Jihadi alliance, them, the Hezbollah, Qatar, and Iran. Together, their goal is to make sure there’s no
peace. Their goal is to wipe Israel off the map, to kill all Jews, to kill all Christians. That’s what they intend to do. And that’s why we need to
finish Hamas off.
There’s total consensus in Israel. There’s total support. Now, we don’t want to hurt innocent people. That’s the Jewish DNA. We care about other
people. We don’t want to hurt any innocent people. The problem is that Hamas is hiding behind them. They’re hiding. They put all their weaponry in
schools, in mosques. They know to hide underneath it. They don’t care about their own people.
Now, this war could be over in a minute. The minute Hamas says we surrender, total surrender, the war will be over in a minute.
So, the focus should be on Hamas. How do we get rid of them? The focus should be on Qatar that supports them, that gives safe haven to the leaders
of Hamas in Qatar, and funding billions of dollars in an evil alliance.
GOLODRYGA: But do you think — I agree with you, the focus should be on Hamas, the pressure should be on Hamas to release these hostages. A lot of
this would at least temporarily come to an end if these hostages come home.
But do you think, unintentionally, the way this war is conducted, the way it’s politically, the leadership, the way diplomatically, some of the
language that we’re seeing from your administration is — in government, is taking away the pressure off of Hamas by the focus being on some of these –
– the consequences of your actions thus far, either on the ground?
BARKAT: I totally disagree. I totally disagree. We’re very focused on one thing, eliminating Hamas. We’re allowing all aid that’s coming from the
whole world, and by the way, this is presidents, there’s no country in the world, ever, in any war, that helped its enemy receive any kind of help,
but we’re fine with that.
We accept that because our values are very different than Hamas. Our values are the same values —
GOLODRYGA: But isn’t that also your responsibility?
BARKAT: — of the West. And we agree, and therefore, that’s why we agree. But our focus is laser-focused, to get Hamas, to kill all the Hamas
leadership, to totally take them apart, and doing that with minimal damage.
That’s why we’re delayed — that’s why the war took us half a year. We could have finished it much faster, but we are considerate. That’s why the
war is taking time. We’re fine with that, but we’re very committed to end the war. At the tail end of this war, Hamas will not exist.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Hamas’ goals. Your government has laid out its own preset goals, and that was destroying Hamas and releasing the hostages.
Six months into the war, we’ve seen one cease-fire where, thankfully, some hostages were released.
You’ve been able to rescue only three of the hostages during this war, and despite the number of casualties, you have yet to defeat Hamas. You’ve yet
to even defeat some of their top leadership, Yahya Sinwar is still alive and kicking. So, given your own preset goals, haven’t you failed thus far?
BARKAT: Because we’re considerate of the people — the innocent people in Gaza. We want to do that with minimal collateral damage. That’s the values
of the Israelis. That’s the values of us Jews. We want to make sure that we hit the right people.
And if it takes time, we’re fine with that. We have that energy. We have that patience. We want our girls back. We want our hostages back. We want
these girls right here. And we know some of them.
GOLODRYGA: And we want that too.
BARKAT: You know some of them.
GOLODRYGA: I do. And we want that too.
BARKAT: Right. So, we’re taking our time because we’re considerate. And that the world should appreciate and align with us. And the pressure should
not be put on us that we want to put an end to this war.
Hamas started the war. We will end it at the tail end of it. At the end of the war, there’s not going to be any more Hamas. We want neighbors like the
Emirates to change their education system, that they’re not teaching their children, educating their children to kill Jews.
The Hamas and, unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority are paying a million dollars, a million dollars for somebody that kills a Jew. And they
treat them — they educate their children to kill Jews. They’re funded by Qatar.
GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about what is — let me ask you what was described as a very tense phone conversation last night between President
Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. It lasted about 30 minutes where President Biden point blank threatened to condition future support for
Israel, depending on how it conducts itself in this war and takes into account the humanitarian toll.
Quickly thereafter, Israel said that it would reopen the Erez land crossing for humanitarian aid and allow its Ashdod Port to be used to process aid
shipments headed for Gaza. Does that not suggest that all along Israel could have been doing more to provide more humanitarian aid given this
quick response?
BARKAT: We’re talking about monsters. We’re talking about people that came into Israel October 7th, killed, raped women. They killed the women while
they raped them. They — what they’ve done is we have not seen since the Nazi time. So, Israel retaliates and decided to go to war and finish the
war and finish Hamas off.
We are considerate. And when our friends in the United States and around the world have different views and opinions on that, we’re considerate.
We’re listening. That’s fine. And we’re proud of that. We’re proud of the fact that we have values that are unlike Hamas.
I want to mention one more thing in this challenge, and that is Qatar. Qatar is funding ISIS. They’re funding Hamas. They’re funding all of these
radical Islamic jihadists. And they’re like wolf in sheep’s clothes. They’re trying to be nice to everyone.
GOLODRYGA: I know. And this has been —
BARKAT: And they’re a major, major problem in this war. We got to make sure —
GOLODRYGA: And —
BARKAT: — Qatar is out of this equation. We are — they’re an enemy of the State of Israel and they’re funding and supporting Hamas. This is
something that must end as soon as possible.
GOLODRYGA: And this has been a point you’ve made. I don’t want to get too much into another interview that you gave recently to another network, but
there has been a lot of attention on the fact that this very administration, Prime Minister Netanyahu, had green-lit millions of dollars
through Qatar to be funded to Hamas.
But I don’t want to press too much on that issue because, obviously, there are a lot of threats that Israel faces, including internal threats.
BARKAT: And Qatar is one of the biggest.
GOLODRYGA: But let’s talk about internally, because your poll numbers, your party’s poll numbers have continued to decline. Maybe there are
different views among Israelis that they do want this war to continue, but they’re clearly not satisfied with how this war is being conducted. And
those family members of the hostages, of those girls that you just raised, they are very worried about their loved ones not coming home yet. And
they’re increasingly concerned that this government is not doing enough to do that.
So, we’ve spent a lot of time now talking about the West’s response to Israel’s handling and conduct of this war. Let’s talk about the internal
response, because there’s not much love and not much popularity for how this war is being conducted and where the priorities are. How do you
respond to that?
BARKAT: The families of the hostages, I identify with them. Imagine that you had a daughter and you know that she’s in tunnels half a year, raped,
abused, they don’t sleep at night. And all Israelis feel these girls are our girls, and we don’t sleep good at night because of that.
We’re deeply concerned and the world should be deeply concerned and put all the pressure on Hamas not on Israeli government. Put pressure on Qatar. Put
pressure on the ones that did commit these atrocities. And that’s the focus.
And Israel is united. I’m not going to all the details in politics. But the whole of Israel is united on one major goal, defeat Hamas and bring our
hostages back. And that’s what we’re going to be focusing on as government, as the parliament, all of us are united. And that’s why the soldiers of
Israel are united in fighting for those two goals with which are clear very simple goals that we will eventually get and accomplish them. There’s — we
have no choice.
If God forbid, we are not successful and Hamas thinks it comes out alive of this, then this tragedy — the tragedies and atrocities of October 7th will
happen again and again, not just in Israel, but it’ll go to Europe and it’ll be here in the United States. We have to stop the jihadists that want
to kill all non-Muslims. We have to do that not just for the sake of Israel, but for the sake of the free world.
And that’s where we need your support The pressure should not be put on Israel. The pressure must go to Hamas and Qatar and their partners. Because
eventually, we have to fight the jihadists and win.
GOLODRYGA: But let’s reiterate. You keep comparing yourself to Hamas. No one is comparing you to Hamas. I think every smart and rational person
would agree that your goals are the righteous ones, that Hamas should be defeated and that the hostages should be released. No one is arguing that,
first and foremost, the United States and President Biden.
As you well know, it’s the conduct of this war, it’s at times the dismissiveness to the U.S. suggestions and advice, and it’s not just that
U.S. is a friend, U.S. is your number one provider and source of military assistance as you know. So, that let’s just let’s just be clear on, that
this is not about whether there are disagreements as to your goals, it’s about how this is being pursued and whether the focus, because of your
actions, unintentionally is taking off that required pressure on Hamas.
BARKAT: We know how to get to terms with the Americans. We all mean the same. We all want to defeat Hamas We want our hostages back and we want
minimal collateral damage. So, those discussions eventually will — I believe will be fruitful and the reality is that the war will not end
before we finish Hamas off and get our hostages back. That’s the goal.
And I’m quite optimistic that we’ll be able to achieve those goals. I’m optimistic and I believe we will do that because Israel has no choice. We
have no choice We have our back against the wall. The only democracy in the Middle East that believes in values and believes in life, that wants to
have peace, and we’ve expanded the peace with the Emirates and hopefully, with the Saudis in the future, because these are kinds of people that
Israel wants to have peace with, Arab States that believe in peace, that believe in coexistence.
And together, all of us must find the evil alignment, starting with Iran and Qatar, going to Hamas and Hezbollah. We have to defeat them. And the
USA, our greatest partner, we want to say thank you for the support, and together we will do and get those goals done.
GOLODRYGA: Well, where the U.S. is fully aligned with Israel is obviously in your protection and the increased concern about any sort of retaliatory
measures that Iran may take following the targeting and the killing of those IRGC members.
Earlier this week, there’s a lot of concern inside Israel yourself — as you know yourself. And there have been reports of people stockpiling food
to the point where the IDF spokesperson had to come out and address the country and say that that does not need to be the case. It is not
necessary, but GPS systems are being jammed.
How concerned are you right now that a potential second front could open, and a much larger one at that, with a direct conflict with Iran?
BARKAT: Israel is a strong nation. We hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And if Iran is threatening, we will take the precautions
necessary and, you know, explain to our citizens and civilians what precautions they must take, just in case, just to make sure that if, God
forbid, they do decide to attack, we’ll be more ready.
Israel understands with eyes open, especially after October 7th. We’re very sensitive to any threat that is happening around the world. And we will act
accordingly. It’s certainly fine. Israel knows how to prepare itself. And after October 7th, we don’t take any chances. We get — we take all the
threats very seriously.
GOLODRYGA: Mr. Minister, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it.
BARKAT: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: We’ll add our response to the previous allegations by Minister Barket of Qatar’s role, a spokesperson for the Qatari foreign ministry, has
called such accusations “baseless,” adding that Qatar has, “Helped secure the release of 109 hostages and is relentlessly working on the release of
the remaining hostages.”
Well, we turned now to Former President Trump’s ongoing campaign against the justice system, a system which is seeking to hold him to account. At
present, Trump faces 88 charges across four criminal cases. And this week, a judge denied Trump’s bid to dismiss charges of mishandling classified
documents, citing their Presidential Records Acts.
Judges who’ve worked in the legal system all of their lives see a broader pattern of behavior, attempting to delay justice and attack the courts.
Former senior investigative counsel on the January 6th Committee, Temidayo Aganga-Williams, joins me now to discuss.
Temidayo, thank you so much. So, listen, I mean, that does appear to be the number one tactic here, delay, delay, delay until possibly after the
elections. We’re getting closer to that date by the day. There are four criminal cases going on, and every single week it appears that the former
president’s counsel, his lawyers, are filing new motions, trying to make every single appeal they can, and thus far, that seems to be working. What
is your take on this?
TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS, FORMER SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL, HOUSE JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: You know, I think it
is working somewhat, but the thing we have to remember is that our criminal justice system does move slowly. It moves slowly across the country for
Americans every single day.
It’s exasperated here because the former president has resources, and he is seeking to avoid accountability. But I think what he is also doing is he’s
testing our institutions, and I think it’s quite, I think, damaging to public perception to have the idea that the former president may not be
forced to address and account for his actions at the end of his term.
But I still hold confidence that he will find his day in a criminal courtroom, and I think it’s likely, and I expect, he’s going to have his
first day in jury selection on April 15th in the New York election interference case. So, I do think that accountability is on its way.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, April 15th, he’s been trying to delay that, and Judge Juan Merchan here in New York City was having none of it and says that that is
exactly when this case in trial is set to begin. But that doesn’t stop the former president from causing a lot of noise with regards to this build-up
and these personal attacks against the judge himself, the judge’s family.
There have been gag orders issued. I guess the judge and the prosecutor perhaps are fair game in terms of freedom of speech, but there’s a real
concern about intimidation with regards to the jurors, with regards to any of the witnesses involved in this case.
This judge has not backed down and has expanded the scope of the gag order following the former president’s ongoing attacks on social media. It’s a
fine line, and it’s something we rarely, if ever, have experienced, especially of someone of his stature, a former president of the United
States.
What are the ramifications in your view here, and do you think this judge has acted appropriately gone far enough or gone too far in issuing this gag
order?
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: So, I think he has acted appropriately. I mean, Trump has done everything in his power to disrupt our criminal justice system. He is
trying to undermine the judge. He has placed a target on the back of a judge’s daughter. And he’s done this over every case that he has been
involved in, besides one, and that’s a case with Judge Cannon of Florida, where, frankly, every ruling she makes is effectively almost a pro-Trump,
it seems.
So, I do think the danger here is the same thing we saw in January 6th. There is a connection here, is what happens when the former president uses
his words to call his supporters to focus their target on single individuals or institutions or something else? And the result there is
violence. And I do think that is what is really at stake here.
When someone like the former president is naming a judge’s daughter, who didn’t choose to be in public office, who didn’t choose to be a judge, who
didn’t choose to be a district attorney, and putting her picture, her face, or likeness to his public and saying that this is the person that’s coming
after me, effectively, that the consequence is going to one-day violence. We’ve already had it at the Capitol, and I think we have a high risk of it
happening again.
So, I think the question for Judge Merchan and all of these judges is going to be what happens next. When you have violence, when you more
intimidation, where you had more threats from Donald Trump, what do you do then?
If this were any other criminal defendant, you would be talking about pretrial remand, meaning putting him in custody, putting more restrictions.
Here, that’s not a question anyone has seriously struggled with, but I do think that question is going to become more and more at the front of mind
as his behavior continues.
GOLODRYGA: Is this something you think Judge Merchan is in the process of having to evaluate and plan ahead for, given that we’re likely to see
because of his past behavior? Once this trial begins, I’m not holding my breath that the former president won’t make personal accusations or name
calling or attacks against family members or whoever is involved in this case?
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Well, I think he’s guaranteed and already has done that. I mean, the day after the expansion of the gag order, Donald Trump, again,
posted something on his social media account that implicated the judge’s daughter. So, he has already, I think, you know, kind of thumbed his finger
in the judges’ eye there.
And in the judge’s order regarding expanding that gag order, he talked about possible criminal contempt. And what that means is that Judge Merchan
could impose fines upon Donald trump and could actually put him in jail up to 30 days for criminal contempt.
So, I do think Judge Merchan is looking down the road and trying to forewarn to Donald Trump and his lawyers that if this continues there will
be consequences, especially, at least initially, monetary. Whether he would put the former president in custody, I think practically that is incredibly
unlikely because of the blowback. Whether that’s justified, I think, it’s going to be unlikely. But I do think Judge Merchan will start with fines,
increasing those, and then go from there.
GOLODRYGA: Listen, there are consequences to these actions, you know, people follow this former president and these public threats continue. This
conservative lawyer, Judge J. Michael Luttig, called his threats “vicious, disgraceful, and unforgivable and attacks that threaten the federal and
state judiciary.”
So, this is obviously a top concern for many in this field. And of course, we’ll be watching it just days away from this trial in New York set to
start. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Thank You.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we now go back to the future. Ari Wallach hosts the new TV series “A Brief History of the Future.” Expanding what we might think is
possible for the next generations. And he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how we can learn from history.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Ari Wallach, thanks so must for joining us.
First the title, “A Brief History of the Future,” how does that work?
ARI WALLACH, HOST, “A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FUTURE”: So, look, most people think a show about the future is just going to be about the feature. But
one of the things that became very clear to me, having been doing this for 20 years, is that the future doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The future doesn’t
just happen as something that’s, you know, projecting out from the present.
In fact, most — everything that’s going happen tomorrow, in many ways, started yesterday. So, it makes sense when we decided to create a show
about the future, that we were going to talk about it, almost going to the future and then looking backwards and talking about how we got there.
And, you know, there can go back, in many ways, 20 years, when we go back, sometimes we go back 200 years and sometimes in the show, we go back
200,000 years.
SREENIVASAN: You point out that oftentimes we have some structural impediments to thinking long-term. There are plenty of examples of that,
that we see and we kind of live through. But what your program does, that’s interesting, is you point out places and people who not only have thought
long-term as part of their culture, but even today, there are groups that are getting together and thinking beyond even their own lifetimes on how
the policy decisions that they make are going to impact future generations.
WALLACH: Yes, one of the more kind of fascinating visits we did was about two hours north of Tokyo with Professor Sajo (ph). He’s basically developed
this thing called future design. And what he does is he’ll bring a group of people together. It could be 30 people, it could be 300 people who are
wrestling with a major decision at the, let’s say, the civic or organizational level.
And then what he’ll do is he’ll cleave off maybe about a third of that group and he’ll have them don these golden ceremonial robes. And when you
put on the robe, what actually happens is you transform into a citizen from the future. So, you might be in the 2050s or the 2060s. And what your role
in that meeting now is to act as a proxy for those future generations.
And so, what it means is if you’re thinking about where to build a highway or where to build a school or how to allocate your resources, it’s no
longer just doing it for everyone in the room in the present tense, you actually now have people from the future in the room. So, there’s ways of
actually designing how we think about the future and how we implement projects and endeavors in a way that will bring those who don’t have a
voice into the room.
SREENIVASAN: Well, one of your guests is Department of Transportation Cabinet Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is in charge of infrastructure. And
right now, you know, we are having this conversation in the wake of a tragic bridge accident that happened just a little while ago.
And I wonder, you know, in your conversations, I mean, is there a place where he’s thinking about our investments, in bridges and highways and
everything else, kind of in a different time scale than let’s just fix this now because we need to get cars across this channel?
WALLACH: Yes. I mean, I’ll be honest, I interview people all over the world, and Pete Buttigieg are one of the more special ones because if you
haven’t seen him on TV before you can basically throw any question at him and the answer will always start sometime in the Athenian democracy.
And so, I asked — I still call him Mayor Pete, I know it’s Secretary Pete. So, I asked Mayor Pete, I said, listen, I know you work on infrastructure,
but there’s probably different infrastructures that you think about, you know, speak to me about that. And one of the things he talked about, and
this goes back to the title of the show, is when he thinks about long-term infrastructure, bridges, tunnels, roads, he doesn’t just think about the
ones that have been built and will be built, but he also thinks about what went into the ones that were made.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BUTTIGIEG, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: This is not just important because of some vague and romantic conception of neighborhoods and
communities, it’s also about life and death consequences. There’s evidence, for example, that the survivability of tornadoes, all other things being
equal, goes up in neighborhoods or communities where neighbors know each other.
So, a simple principle or test, whether you’re designing a suburban subdivision or a dense city block, would be, does this design encourage or
discourage people from knowing who their neighbors are?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACH: Well, one of the things that I’ve — and I’ve just saw him talking about this is the community is on either side. What is it doing to
their social infrastructure when they’re taken away from their jobs and from their communities?
So, when you think about how we build for tomorrow, yes, it’s steel, it’s cement, it’s pipes, but it’s also community. One of the things that came up
in this show as I met with dozens of people around the world and I asked them about their visions of tomorrow, no one ever said, oh, I want more
monorails. I want more jet packs.
What they traditionally always said was, whatever the future is going to hold, I want to make sure there’s a room for community. The community is
centered. And this is one of the things that Pete kept bringing up is our future infrastructure has to center community, not just the infrastructure.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at the future, one of the kind of central sources of anxiety really for generations that are coming up now is
how we are collectively going to solve for the climate crisis.
I know you sat down with Katherine Hayhoe, who’s a fantastic climate scientist and science communicator. What were her tips on how to engage
people in a discussion about climate and the future in a way that overcomes some of our immediate kind of tribal instincts to say, well, if you’re
talking about the climate, then, you know, you must not be for the things that I stand for?
WALLACH: Meeting with Katherine Hayhoe was an amazing experience because she comes at how we talk about climate change in the same way my wife is a
social worker meets — will — you know, will meet with clients. You have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.
And so, time and time again, when we have conversations about climate change or anything that’s kind of disruptive to our current reality, we
come at people with the facts. We come at them with what we think they need to know. And if only they knew X, they would think Y. And with Katherine,
it became very obvious as we went through our conversation that not only does she not think we should do that, but she wasn’t even doing that with
me. It was very — it became very meta during our conversation where I realized, oh, I was asking her some certain questions, but she saw me for
who I was or what I wanted as a host of this show, and she even started to speak to me — you know, to me in my terms. Well, yes, as her host in a
show, you should think about it this way.
And so, it’s really finding the stories within the lived reality of the people that you want to talk to and then finding the commonality in the
intersection of what climate change will do to their stories and their life and how climate change will impede what they want from their life.
And it’s not about driving less or eating less hamburgers. It’s about, again, ensuring that you’re taking actions that are both for the present
and for future generations. One of the things that Katherine brought up and our own research has shown this is that people really care about their
legacy. What kind of world are they leaving behind?
So, sometimes it’s as simple as saying, hey, if you do this, there’s going to be less of that for future generations. And when people see that they’re
not giving a fair shake to the future, they’re willing to take different actions.
SREENIVASAN: You went to a place, I think it’s called Dementia Village. What is so sort of distinct about that? What did that experience teach you
about a different way to deal with something that millions of people, probably in our families, maybe even us, are going to experience?
WALLACH: So, outside of Amsterdam, there’s this place called Hogeweyk, which is, you know, known as the Dementia Village. And you’re right, over
the next several decades, barring any major scientific advancement, one in three of us will have some sort of memory care neurodegenerative disease
afflicting either us or those that we love.
In America, the way we deal with that right now, sadly, but in many ways, understandably, is we basically put people in locked hospital wards, and we
find that they can be very anxious and very depressed, and we kind of have a common image of what someone going through this looks like. You know,
they’re kind of lashing out and they’re yelling and whatnot.
So, at Hogeweyk, they’ve done something fascinating. There’s not a lot of technology in Hogeweyk. So, remember, a lot of what we do in the show isn’t
show examples of geewhiz (ph) technology. We do that. We show a lot of amazing technology.
But sometimes, the “technology” is just a mindset shift. And so, the mindset shift at Hogeweyk was, instead of having people in locked wards,
they actually built a safe and secure village. So, no one can kind of come in and out as they wish, but the residents in the village, they live in
pods, they make their own food. There’s even a grocery store, a restaurant, a movie theater that the people that are living there can visit.
Now, they don’t carry wallets, they don’t have to necessarily pay for the stuff in the grocery store. But what they found was when people were living
in an environment, in a community that was not the kind of usual locked ward, and they were able to experience aspects of their life from the years
before, so going to the grocery store, going to the restaurant, they required 80 to 85 percent less medication for anxiety or for depression.
So, what Hogeweyk showed us is sometimes the way we think about the future in terms of the past dependency, well, one in three Americans will have a
neurodegenerative cognitive disease, therefore we should build more hospitals with locked wards. That’s not locked in. There are different ways
of doing things. And so, to me, visiting Hogeweyk was one of the most eye- opening experiences of the entire journey.
SREENIVASAN: Let’s talk a little bit about some of the tech. I mean, you showed people a company that is growing mushrooms to scale, you know, huge
volumes. What were the technologies that most kind of surprised you? I mean, what made you say, wow, this has potential?
WALLACH: Well, look, you mentioned one of them already, which was we went to Ecovative, which is a company that’s literally growing mushrooms into —
you know, currently it’s for packaging, and they’re also growing a kind of form of mushroom leather, and they’re even making bacon out of it.
And what they’re doing is they’re growing mycelium, which is kind of the thicker part of — you know, it’s not the mushroom that you get on your
pizza, which is what I saw going into it, but they grow these almost — it almost looks like plywood, four by eight slabs. And you’ll see it in this
show, and it’s just amazing how it kind of rolls out of basically a mushroom oven, a growing facility. And they cut it into slabs.
And one of the things that Eben Bayer, the founder, said to me, he goes, look, right now we’re doing relatively simple things with this, but you can
imagine us creating basically bricks to create buildings out of. But inside of the bricks are tiny micro satchels of water. And in essence, the
mushroom material itself is dehydrated but it’s not dead.
So, if there was an earthquake or some sort of disturbance to the building, those micro satchels of water would break open and basically, the bricks
would grow themselves back together again. So, this idea of using what the earth has been doing for hundreds of thousands of years to help us advance
as a society, as a species in a way that has a dramatically less environmental impact and that is just kind of cool. I mean, some of these
mushroom buildings will actually be able to clean air.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the technologies that you profiled, the 3D printed homes that are actually here on earth today, the same technology is
something that we might end up using on the moon or on mars, somewhere in our lifetimes. And it’s also just stunning to me to watch an entire
community go up in two to four weeks per home. That’s crazy.
WALLACH: Yes. So, I met with Melodie Yashar who’s part of ICON 3D home building outside of Austin where they’re the world’s largest community of
3D printed homes.
Now, in some ways this is still kind of a beta project. But literally, if you’ve ever seen a 3D printer, you know, it’s small, you put it on your
desk and you might make something really cool for your kids like a keychain. Now, imagine that at the size of a home. And literally, what
you’ll see in the show is this derrick going back and forth and it basically looks like the thickest toothpaste you’ve ever seen, kind of the
toothpaste you put on an elephant toothbrush. And what they are doing, over the course of several days, is printing a home.
Now, on planet earth, we have several billion unhoused house people, many of them in ecosystems where they have to deal with the effects and impacts
of climate change, where timber is hard to come by, where bricks are expensive.
So, we look at 3D printing, yes, it’s super cool. At the same time, it could provide the ability to house basically the rest of humanity in a way
that we’re not able to do right now. At the same time, they’re taking that work and that research and working with JPL and NASA to think and look,
what would this look like on the moon or on mars?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELODIE YASHAR, DESIGNER AND RESEARCHER: 3D printing is a leading contender in in space construction. Because the premise for 3D printing in
space is that we would use local and indigenous materials on the surface of the planet, rather than bringing anything with us from earth. That’s a
really high impact concept because it is prohibitively expensive to launch heavy materials from earth to space, and it’s not going to enable us to
create the kinds of infrastructure, small cities and settlements that we’ve seen in science fiction images for decades in the past.
So, NASA’s really interested in, other aerospace companies are really interested in this idea of using the soil that is local to the moon and
mars, and sending up a single 3D printing robot that can leverage that soil and those materials to 3D print really any kind of infrastructure, any kind
of surface element that would be beneficial to the crew.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: You know, not until late in the series that I realized you had access to one of the world’s greatest football soccer players, Kylian
Mbappe, and I realized he’s an executive producer on the show. And then I realized Drake, like the singer, Drake is also an EP. I wasn’t surprised at
Wendy Schmidt, who’s a philanthropist.
How is this unlikely kind of trio involved? What’s their interest in the future or this program?
WALLACH: It’s more than trio, it’s a quad, right? So, we have Kathryn Murdoch, who’s been doing a lot of funding in the democracy climate change
space. We have Wendy Schmidt, who’s an amazing philanthropist. And then we have Kylian and Drake.
So, very early on when I was creating the show, it was important to me that the people that were around the kitchen table, if you will, kind of our
kitchen cabinet, we’re bringing very different perspectives in terms of how we think about tomorrow.
So, let’s start with Kylian Mbappe. First of all, what an amazing human being. I mean, I consider myself lucky to be alive right now because I get
to see the technology and all the amazing things that are going to happen within our species. And I get to watch Kylian Mbappe play football and
soccer, right?
Like one of the reasons Kylian is in this show is because he talks about the role of vision. And this will sound very obvious, but let’s just have
this conversation, which is when he lines up to take a penalty kick, he doesn’t envision himself missing the goal. It’s a very simple, ball, he
kicks, it goes in the back of the net. That’s how he scores.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KYLIAN MBAPPE, FRENCH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLER: You have to be able to say, like, now is the present. You know, you let the future come in your mind.
But the most important thing in the penalty is to be in the moment. And you go with the confidence that you can score. There is no other option.
WALLACH: I assume you don’t visualize you missing the goal.
MBAPPE: No, never, never. That can happen, but never. If you visualize that you miss a goal before the shoot, you lose 50 percent of your
confidence, and you need 100 percent of confidence to score a goal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACH: And the reality is, as a society, as a species, we actually haven’t had the conversation for quite some time, if ever, about what is
our goal? What is to the — you know, to what end? Because in many ways — and this is not, you know, globally, but in many ways, we’ve reached a
certain level of progress as a species.
But the question becomes, what do we envision for our far futures? So, I said earlier, I went into the show thinking we’re at the bottom of the
eighth. Now, I think we’re at the top of the first. And if we’re at the top of the first, inning, you know, using a baseball metaphor, what do those
nine innings look like? What could the next five, 10, 50,000 years look like? Those are decisions we have to make today.
But what guides it is having a strong vision of what we want to see happen, right? This might sound kind of new age or wooly. It’s not. We have the
greatest soccer player on earth telling us that if you want to actually succeed, you have to know what that looks like.
SREENIVASAN: The program is called “A Brief History of the Future. Host Ari Wallach, thanks so much for joining us.
WALLACH: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, we celebrate someone who has spent their life fighting for the future of the natural world. Jane Goodall turned 90 this
week. The legendary primatologist is considered the world’s foremost expert on chimpanzees. And her research has redefined our understanding of the
relationship between humans and animals. And she’s broken countless barriers for women as well.
The 2017 National Geographic documentary “Jane” told her story through incredible archive footage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JANE GOODALL, BRITISH PRIMATOLOGIST: Day after day and the sun and the wind and the rain had climbed into the hills. This was where I was meant to
be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Christiane spoke to her in 2017 just before that film’s release.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOODALL: It takes me back to those days, more than any other documentary that I’ve seen. I’m reliving those days, the best days of my life. And it’s
because it isn’t censored, it’s not as it was. And, you know, it shows all the banana feeding and the contact with the chimps, which today we know is
something that shouldn’t be done because chimpanzees can catch our diseases.
But back then we didn’t know that. And it’s just — and I relive that magic time when chimps who’d been running away from me now allow me to actually
play with them.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well, we have to bring in the singular achievement of your discovery. And that is how close
you got to them, how — you know, for how long you observed them. And you discovered that no, we humans were not unique in a certain aspect, which is
about tools. Let’s just listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It had long been thought that we were the only creatures on earth that used and made tools. Man, the toolmaker, is how we were defined.
And here was David Grebean (ph) using the tool. It was hard for me to believe what I’d seen.
A few days later, I watched spellbound, as chimps set off to a termite mound, picked a small, leafy twig, then stripped it of its use. That was
object modification, the crude beginning of tool making. It had never been seen before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It is extraordinary what you say at the end there, that it had never been seen before. You are the one who discovered this. When you think
about that now, all these decades later, how does it make you feel?
GOODALL: Well, it makes me feel, how arrogant science was to maintain we were the only. I mean, they told me that when I went to Cambridge to get a
degree, that only humans had personality. Only humans have minds capable of problem solving, only humans have emotions, how arrogant of us.
AMANPOUR: You were a very young girl, who came and was given this task of observing of the chimps. You were not a university graduate, you were not a
scientist, and come back with this revelation. I mean how did you stick to your guns? Did people say excuse me? Who are you?
GOODALL: The scientist did. And, you know, fortunately I loved animals all my life, had an amazing, supportive mother and had a great teacher when I
was a child who taught absolutely these professors at Cambridge may be very knowledgeable and learned arrogant, but this teacher taught me when it
comes to animal personality, mind and emotion, they’re wrong, and that was my dog.
AMANPOUR: There is a segment in this film, that is enough to make even the hardest heart weep and that’s when the elderly female, Flo, dies
eventually. And her son, Flint, just cannot accept that, take the story further.
GOODALL: He was a totally dependent on her, even though he was six, seven years old, still riding on her back, still sleeping in her nest with her at
night, still trying to suckle the milk that had dried up.
And so, when she died, he just couldn’t cope and he like wallowed like a child. Falling into deep, deep depression and in this depression, he didn’t
eat and got sick and he died. And it was one saddest times that Gombi (ph) watching him, because I had known him since a tiny baby.
AMANPOUR: We’re in this environment where the president of the United States has an EPA administrator who’s looking to, turn the clock back. They
have scientists who essentially don’t believe what you believe that are not looking to protect the environment in the way that you think should be
protected. How much of a mortal threat or a planetary threat do you think we’re under right now?
GOODALL: It’s a huge threat. We are — you know, the big difference between us and chimpanzees is the exclusive development of our intellect.
So, how it is the most intellectual being to ever walk the planet is destroying its only home?
AMANPOUR: I want to rewind the clock to around 1975 or the late ’50’s when you went to Africa to work for the great primatologist, the great
anthropologist Louis Leakey. How did that even happen? And how were you employed without a science background?
GOODALL: When I was10, I read “Tarzan” and fell in love and we — that wretched Tarzan, what did he do? He married the wrong Jane. I was really
jealous, but that’s when decided, I’m going to grow up, go to Africa, live with wild animals and write books about them.
AMANPOUR: And you’re a woman, you were a girl. You were a young girl, there weren’t many if any young girls doing that kind — none.
GOODALL: None.
AMANPOUR: There is an amazing picture which actually we are looking at right now, and before we went on you said yes there you have my legs.
GOODALL: My cover girl.
AMANPOUR: Your cover girl legs. There you have my — you said, there are my cover girl legs. Were you — going did you get a lot of that guff for
your looks, for your legs?
GOODALL: Yes, I did. There were some people saying, well, you know, she’s only famous because of her legs, and she’s a Geographic cover girl and we
don’t need to take anything seriously. But then Geographic sent Hugo van Lawick to take the film and so it was proof that I was not telling lies.
That chimpanzees were using tools, they were making tools, they were doing all the things that I described.
AMANPOUR: And Hugo was the preeminent wildlife photographer at the time. And you fell in love.
GOODALL: We fell in love. And it was not surprising. He was a gentle person. He loved animals. He always wanted to film I natural world. And so,
there we were together. He was a perfectionist. Drove me nuts. I’d say, Hugo, look, nobody believes that the chimps do this. Please film it. No, I
can film it because the exposure will be wrong and the geographic —
AMANPOUR: And what do you hope that this film does?
GOODALL: I hope that it will inspire whole new generation of young people to understand how beautiful the natural world is, how important it is to
save it.
And if it’s necessary, OK. Learn the science so that you can fight the climate deniers.
AMANPOUR: On that note, Jane Goodall, keep up the good fight. Thank you very much for being here.
GOODALL: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Oh, that was so great to watch.
Well, that is it for us for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.