Should We Fear a Pandemic That Wipes out Humanity?

Author A.G. Riddle recently joined Glenn to talk about his “Extinction Files” book series and the future of humanity. In “Pandemic” and “Genome,” Riddle explored the fear that a rapidly spreading disease will wipe out millions of people and change our world forever.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

  • Stephen Hawking’s warning that humanity may not survive on Earth
  • The continued evolution of humankind
  • What the “next great leap” for our species will look like
  • How robotics and artificial intelligence will change everything

What do you think? Tell us in the comment section below just how worried you are.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I did something after -- I was on holiday, and I downloaded a whole bunch of books. And one of them, I think was Pandemic. I think that's the first one that I read. And I've never done this. You know, at the end of the book, it says, hey, write to the author. Tell me what you think. So I did. And so I wrote, hey, just finished one of your books. And I really enjoyed it. And he wrote me back right away and said, hey, thanks so much. Would like to send you an autographed copy. And I'm like, oh, thanks. No recognition of who I was. I don't even know now if he really knows who I am.

But -- so I said, I'm already into the second book. And it's really great.

Well, probably much to his surprise, I've -- since that, I've read all of his books. Because he is looking at a problem that I am really interested in. And he has some -- kind of some facts that he builds his fiction and a lot of his -- I wouldn't classify it as sci-fi I guess in a way. He builds his fiction around some facts that I want to find out more about. So I want to introduce to you A.G. Riddle. He's the author of Pandemic. And also The Atlantis Gene. And I think the new one is called -- what is it, A.G.?

RIDDLE: It's Genome.

GLENN: Genome. No, no, no. Departure. I thought that was the new one.

RIDDLE: Well, Departure actually came out before Pandemic. So it's a standalone. But it may be the most recent book you've read.

GLENN: Okay. So, anyway, they're all great. They're all great. So let me -- first of all, thank you for coming on the program.

RIDDLE: Oh, of course.

GLENN: You really kind of look into a couple of things that interest me. You know, Stephen Hawking has said -- he just said it again this weekend that homo sapiens are going to be a thing of the past by 2050. And people freak out. And they think, oh, my gosh, we're going to be all wiped out. I don't think that's what he means. He means that homo sapiens as we know them, as we are now, are going to be so transformed, that you won't be able to recognize the current homo sapien next to the -- the new homo sapien of 2050. Does that make sense to you?

RIDDLE: It does. And I think he's right in that we're -- I believe we're in the midst of this radical transformation, that we're just now getting our heads around.

GLENN: So in your book, you talk about something called The Great Leap. And I was only familiar with the great leap forward of China, which was a nightmare. But you talk about the great leap. Can you describe that?

RIDDLE: Sure. One of the interests and one of the themes in my work is, you know, humanity's genetic history. So what we now believe is the current -- you know, that our rates of humans, the homo sapiens sapiens are about 200,000 years old. And so when we first evolved, we know that Neanderthals existed on earth for maybe two or 300,000 years before us. And there were these humans called Denisovans and homo floresiensis on the island of Java. So there were other human species. And so we coexisted with them for about roughly 150,000 years. And it was status quo.

You know, life went on, on earth, as it had for a very, very long time. And then something happened about 50,000 years ago. And we see it especially in Europe, this explosion of creativity.

We see these cave paintings, and sort of this advent of figurative art, and so making, you know, clay sculptures and these other things. And so we also see the advent of complex language. And so these are things that really had not existed on earth before.

I mean, there were species that were -- that homo erectus had made tools and other sort of breakthrough. You know, we had learned to control fire.

But we -- no human species had ever done anything on this level, cognitively. So we call -- a geneticist called this The Great Leap Forward. And so the only thing that we know for a fact is that after that, all the other human species went instinct.

And so this -- I think this coincides with the extinction of other archaic humans. So I think there -- you know, to me, it feels like we're in another great leap forward.

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. Before we go to the other great leap forward, let me just ask one thing. Because in your books, you kind of -- and I don't know what's fact and what's fiction here.

You -- you allude to the fact that those -- that, you know, the other species were kind of killed by us for competition of meat. And, you know, we had to go -- we needed 20 percent more calories for our brains. And, you know, they were bigger, stronger, but we were smarter. So we kind of wiped them out. So that true, or is that speculation?

RIDDLE: Well, it's still a matter of debate. What we do know for a fact is that when our species moved into an area, we see the archeological record of other species stopped. And so the big debate is, was that some sort of interbreeding with our species, or was it competition? You know, Neanderthals had existed in Europe for half a million years. They had seen a lot of climate change.

So a lot of anthropologists say, hey, look, you know, we think -- obviously the world was getting warmer at that point. And we think that created this ecological disaster that wiped out the Neanderthals.

But to me, that doesn't hold a lot of water. Because you got a species that's very long-lived. We show up on the scene. You know, the cognitive revolution happens at the same time, and these guys disappear.

GLENN: Okay. So the reason I bring this up, and it may be where you're going, take us to the next great leap.

RIDDLE: Well, I think, you know, we're -- to me, it's sort of a ripple on the horizon. And, you know, in the late '90s, people said, oh, the internet is going to transform everything. The retailers are going to go bust. And then it largely didn't materialize. Things went on the way they had for a long time. But now we're seeing this transformation of empty malls.

You walk into a restaurant, and now there's a touch screen to take your order, instead of a person. The people are still there. Assembly lines need less people.

So we're seeing, you know, this -- call it a technological revolution of robotics and artificial intelligence. You know, robotics are doing a lot of the manual labor that we've traditionally done for -- you know, since history began. And artificial intelligence threatens to frankly do a lot of our thinking for us.

So, you know, part of the thing that I explore in my books is, what becomes of the human race? What does the future look like?

That's something I worry about.

GLENN: Okay. So let me ask you this: As I have read yours, I'm also reading -- you know, I read a lot of Ray Kurzweil. And I'm reading Brett King. His book called Augmented, which is all about, you know, what do we need to teach our children? What is on the horizon? And what do we teach our children? And one of the things he talks about is that we have to be open-minded. We have to learn how to work with robotics and AI. And we have to really be open to accepting the changes that will be coming to even our own bodies and with nanotechnology, et cetera, et cetera. So as I'm putting these all together, and then I read your great leap, I think to myself, okay. So what I believe Stephen Hawking is talking about. And Ray Kurzweil, is the transhumanism. It's the singularity of bringing man and machine and making them one.

If you do this and you have quantum computing and AI, a -- an upgraded human is going to talk to a non-upgraded human. And it will be like talking to a dog. The information and the -- the modeling that the individual could do, who is upgraded, that would be completely lost on a non-upgraded homo sapien, puts us in a different category. And so that was my first thought, was, okay. This is going to put us in a different category. You're not going to be able to relate. And then I started thinking, well, we're already starting to talk about cars. Once automated cars are really everywhere, it's only a matter of time before we don't let humans drive anymore, because they're going to screw it all up. Well, if you have a non-upgraded human and everybody else is upgraded, I'm not going to let the human really touch anything because it's like have your dog drive a bus. You don't do that. You can't do it.

Then I read your book and I think of The Great Leap. Is it possible that we -- that the upgraded humans actually do wipe out the homo sapien because we're dangerous to them?

RIDDLE: Well, certainly.

I mean, I think the long arc of human history has been to a certain extent replacement and sort of one dominant species.

I mean, one of the thing that fascinates me is the fact that there are no Neanderthals, but there are plenty of chimps and gorillas and bonobos, and these are obviously, whether you believe in evolution or not, you have to agree genetically a chimpanzee is 99.8 percent the same genome as our species of human. And so it's like, why did they survive and Neanderthals didn't? And I think it's very clear that chimpanzees were not a competitor for food to us. And to some extent, they weren't a threat. And so the question for me becomes, all right. If we know the future is about a certain amount of merging human with technology. You look on the street today, and everyone walking around is staring at their cell phone. Half the people driving is staring at their cell phone. So whether it's been implanted or not, there is this sort of merging with technology that we know is somewhat inevitable. What does become the role for humans? And I do think there will be this -- probably a minority of people that say, you know, I like life the way it is. And I'm not -- I'm not going to join this sort of future that humanity at large has envisioned.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

RIDDLE: And I'd like to think that there will be coexistence and peace. But, you know, the long arc of history hasn't really borne that out. We may be entering this new era.

GLENN: Yeah. A.G. Riddle, author of Genome. Also, that's a part of the Pandemic series, The Atlantis Plague, and Departure. You can start really anywhere and pick them up and enjoy them. Great storytelling. Really, really great storytelling. I really enjoyed it. A.G., I'd love to talk to you again sometime. Thank you so much for all of your hard work.

RIDDLE: Oh, thanks for having me. Really appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet.

Buh-bye. Name of the book, again, is genome. It's part of the Pandemic series. I started with Pandemic, then went to Genome. Just went to Departure, which was an earlier book, which I thought was really, really good. But doesn't have some of the kind of deeper stuff in it about The Great Leap. I mean, if you're -- if you're at all curious about what the future holds and where do we come from and what is -- what is -- what's the next turn? He gives you some food for thought. It's all sci-fi obviously. But it's quite good. A.G. Riddle is his name.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.