House of Life

About House of Life

House of Life explores the deeper meaning of sustainability by bridging philosophy, spirituality, and politics, challenging dogmatic thinking, and opening minds to new possibilities. holpod.com (https://holpod.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Asim & Tom

Category

religion & spirituality · society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

24 Feb 2025

Latest episode

13 Aug 2026

Latest episodes

22 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   13 Aug 2026

   S2:E4 - Tom's Disclosure Day: Can he actually bend spoons with his mind?

   “I feel awkward saying this.” That’s how it opens. Asim had been badgering Tom to record this since February and Tom had been finding reasons not to. What happened was that Tom sat holding a spoon, thumb resting on it with almost no pressure, eyes closed, picturing a bend, and meditated to find love in his heart and an intense desire for the spoon to bend. He didn’t expect anything to happen. And then: “It just suddenly moved in my hand and folded over. And I just freaked out.” The panic came first. The excitement arrived a beat behind it. “Holy s**t, what just happened? I did it.” That’s where this episode begins, and it is the gateway to insights that you might not expect. Why the resistance? Asim believed Tom instantly all the way back in February, but Tom wasn’t comfortable talking about it publicly. He had direct experience of something inexplicable happening and had multiple pieces of physical evidence to prove it, yet still resisted it even within himself. That’s the discovery of the episode, that modern humans seem to have an inability to process things that present too much of a challenge to their model of the world. Our own minds try to rewrite the past to make it fit into the old paradigm, and then social pressures reinforce those limits. We stay inside the lines and move on with our lives as if nothing happened. It isn’t hidden. There’s a booking link. The standard argument against strange phenomena is often availability: if it’s real, why isn’t everyone doing it? But this isn’t even hidden. The Monroe Institute runs a spoon-bending workshop. It’s four hours, on Zoom. It isn’t hidden in a cave in Tibet or inside a secret society. It’s here in plain sight, and yet we pretend we haven’t seen it. Which means the suppression isn’t happening out there, but inside of ourselves. Tom thinks that’s what most anomalies do. Plenty of people have had an experience that doesn’t fit, and rather than let it detonate their worldview, they discount it and move on. Asim actually has a tattoo specifically to stop himself doing this — somewhere he can’t avoid looking, because otherwise the strangest thing that ever happened to him would fade into the background like a dream. Spoons are the door Halfway through, Asim says he’s nervous about moving on from spoons, because moving on is exactly the shelving behaviour we had just diagnosed. So we stay, and it opens out. If your mind can alter steel, then consciousness and matter aren’t the separate categories we’ve been told. Telekinesis becomes a kind of manifestation; manifestation becomes a claim about consciousness; and with that, telepathy and remote viewing become almost trivial. “Historically, in my mind, these have all been separate things. But they’re actually all just the same thing.” Which raises the possibility that we don’t manifest things within the rules of reality, we manifest the rules. Tom’s route there is the observer — every experiment ever run needed someone to look and write it down, so consciousness isn’t a topic within physics, it’s the precondition. Once you notice that, permanent laws start to look less fundamental. The closest thing we could find to a physical explanation for spoons actually bending came from Dean Radin at the Institute of Noetic Science, but it covers about half of it and leaves the important half untouched. Tom’s fine with that: “There’s a point at which people should stop clutching at straws and just say: we don’t know.” The film about aliens that isn’t about aliens Tom’s spoon bending wasn’t the only disclosure in the episode. We went to see Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day together at the IMAX. Tom enjoyed it while Asim spent two hours interrogating its motives. Spoilers ahead. Tom’s catch is to ask, where is your attention while watching that film? On the aliens, on whether they’ll be revealed — that’s the whole basis of the plot. And yet you barely see one. What you actually watch, scene after scene, is telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, being acted out in plain sight while the script writers keep your eyes on the skies. Magicians call that misdirection. There are breadcrumbs in the film too, if you like breadcrumbs — a military character with always exactly the same name as a real general who signed the 1947 memo saying the UFO phenomenon was real and not visionary or fictitious, and a defector called Hugo Wakefield, whose name means something approximating to “watch your mind”. Tom doesn’t claim to know what it means. He just doesn’t think the film is about aliens. So who is disclosing what? Asim’s objection isn’t to the pattern, it’s to the motive. Aliens he can model: if it’s real and uncontrollable you control the narrative instead, and if it’s advanced hardware the alien story is superb cover. But telepathy and telekinesis don’t compute — psychic ability is the last capability an intelligence apparatus would want distributed. Then they land somewhere worse, and Tom takes back his framing entirely. Nobody walks out of a Spielberg film thinking that was real. Fiction is the most efficient inoculation ever devised: put a thing on a cinema screen and anyone who later reports it in life gets told they’ve watched too many movies. After all, Asim grew up knowing spoon bending was fake because a famous man once failed to do it on television. “The more people that think it’s not real, the more people that think it’s not possible, the less likelihood there is of anybody even trying to explore that space.” Belief is upstream of capability. Which is the same claim as the spoon, at a global scale. Chop wood, carry water Like in many of our episodes, we don’t pretend to have the answers, but this time we land in very different places emotionally. The world is not what it seems and the more we dig the less we feel we know, Tom’s enjoying the ride. Asim is being eaten alive by it. “Meanwhile, everybody else is just ordering things on Amazon and watching Netflix.” Then the episode ends as Tom had to go and cook dinner. As the buddha said, before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Tell us what you think Have you had an experience that didn’t fit? How did it make you feel? How did others react? Did you find a way to integrate it into your life or did you suppress some part of it? Leave us a comment on Substack or wherever you found us. And if this one tickled your curiosity, we’d be grateful if you liked, restacked and shared it — privately with one person who’d enjoy it, or publicly with everyone who’ll think you’ve lost the plot. Thanks for listening, — Tom and Asim Thanks for listening to House of Life! Subscribe here on Substack to receive new posts and support our work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit holpod.com (https://holpod.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   25 Jun 2026

   S2:E3 - When did Nazi stop meaning Nazi? Or, who benefits from polarisation?

   In this episode of House of Life, we explore the topic of purity testing to try to understand why the world seems to be increasingly polarised, and what motivates polarising behaviour. And it all begins with an unexpected story from Asim’s wife, Zanete. Zanete, is a knitwear designer and she created a pattern called the Children of Gaza sweater. She then ran the Brighton Marathon to raise money for War Child, got injured before the finish line, but still raised £5,000 for charity and was, for a brief moment, riding a wave of genuine warmth from her online community of 200,000 Instagram followers. Three days later, sitting on a plane with intermittent wifi, she started getting messages. People were calling her a Nazi. A fascist. A white supremacist. She was losing followers in a visible stream, with her reputation and livelihood seeming to evaporate in real time. The source of the outrage: she had appeared on a small knitting podcast — a few hundred views, two people talking about a mystery knit-along pattern she’d designed — hosted by a man who, it had been decided by an influential Instagram account, was right-wing. By appearing alongside him, Jeanette had, in the logic of online purity culture, revealed her true colours. What Is Purity Testing? This experience lodged in Asim’s mind not just as a family crisis but as a clarifying lens on something much bigger. Purity testing, he argues, is the engine of polarisation — and once you’ve seen it, you see it everywhere. His definition is deliberately simple: purity testing is just deciding who is in and who is out. It’s not about fixing problems. It’s not about changing behaviour. It’s about drawing and enforcing a line. “It’s deciding, are you in this group or out of this group? And that’s all I think of when I think of purity testing. Even when I’ve been accused of greenwashing, it’s not because the purity tester particularly cares about solving any problems.” The consequence is that the fuzzy middle disappears. Between any two political positions, any two communities, any two camps, there is always a broad, messy middle of people who partly agree with both sides, who haven’t made up their minds, who hold contradictory views, who are just getting on with their lives. Purity testing firms that middle into a wall. Then into a moat. Then into a chasm. Until the camps on either side seem like different species who could never possibly speak to each other. Tom’s instinct is to reach for a darker analogy: “It sounds awfully similar to me like a key technique in cult mind control. Arbitrary tests of obedience to prove that you’re in the group. And if you’re just a little bit disobedient, then you’re a traitor and you’ve got to get in line or they’re going to kick you out.” A subset of knitters following a knitting influencer, he suggests gently, might not realise they’ve joined a cult. But the structural dynamics are the same. Who Benefits? The episode’s sharpest question is also the one that reframes everything: if purity testing doesn’t actually solve the problems it claims to care about, who does it serve? Asim’s experience with the Children of Gaza sweater is a case in point. Zanete designed the sweater explicitly to raise money for children affected by the conflict. She raised thousands of pounds. The online mob that called her a fascist, ostensibly because of concern about the very same children, did not raise money for those children. They did not change any policy. They did not build any bridges. They lost her several thousand Instagram followers — which means less income, which means less capacity to donate in future. “The activity of purity testing from that example doesn’t even result in the positive outcome that you want to have. It actually results in the opposite.” So who wins? Tom’s answer lands with some weight. The people who benefit from a polarised society are the people who need you divided and distracted — politicians who want a loyal base rather than an engaged citizenry, online influencers who need a tribe rather than a conversation, and anyone with power who would rather you argue with your neighbours than look at what they’re doing. “Divide and conquer,” Asim says. “That is a literal military strategy. On many different fronts.” Free-Floating Anxiety and the Promise of a Pill How does a society become this susceptible? Tom reaches back to Mattias Desmet, the Belgian psychologist whose concept of “free-floating anxiety” describes how populations become vulnerable to polarising forces. The conditions are familiar: economic uncertainty, the threat of war, environmental disaster on the horizon, the existential dread of new technology. Not acute threats you can fight, but diffuse, ambient ones that hover over daily life without offering any clear target. When people carry that kind of anxiety without anywhere to put it, they become desperate for someone to point them at a persecutor and promise salvation. “What they’re looking for is a pill,” Tom says — and then ties it back to the previous episode’s geoengineering discussion. The same dynamic that makes someone want to chemically patch a planetary crisis rather than change behaviour makes someone want a simple enemy rather than sit with complexity. Reform UK’s landslide in the recent UK council elections is the obvious live example. Asim’s response to it is instructive: rather than dismiss the result, he asked an AI to steel-man the Reform position. What came back surprised him. Nationalising utilities. Policies that sounded, stripped of the tribal branding, like things people across the political spectrum might actually support. “I like a lot of this,” Asim admits, somewhat to his own alarm. The point isn’t to endorse Reform. It’s to notice that “populist” has itself become a purity-testing term — a way of marking someone’s views as unengageable without having to engage with them. And that, as Tom drily notes, is “a bit weird” in the context of democracy, where being popular is ostensibly the point. Darryl Davis Has 200 KKK Robes in His Wardrobe If purity testing is the problem, what’s the solution? Asim went looking for evidence that the obvious answer — actually talking to people you disagree with — has ever worked at scale. He found Darryl Davis. Davis is a Black American blues musician who played with Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis, and who spent 30 years befriending members of the Ku Klux Klan. More than 200 people left the Klan because of his relationship with them and he always keeps their robes. He has a wardrobe full of them. His opening line, every single time is apparently, “How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?” And crucially: he refused to do any of this except face to face. Asim’s second example is Nelson Mandela, who after 27 years in prison emerged and negotiated directly with the people who had imprisoned him. “Today we would call that platforming the apartheid,” Asim observes. The logic of purity testing would have demanded he refuse to engage. Instead he ended apartheid. What both cases share, beyond moral courage, is the willingness to be physically present with the other person. To look them in the eye. Tom has found this in his own life — meeting someone he fundamentally disagrees with, preparing the argument he’s going to make, arriving in the room and finding that something just... softens. “Everything changes when you look somebody in the eye. You might still be really, really pissed off with them, but everything changes.” Online, that moment never comes. You type it out and hit enter and walk away. Thoughts and Actions Are Not the Same Thing One important distinction the episode draws, quietly but firmly: there is a difference between someone who has done something harmful and someone who merely thinks something you disagree with. Asim’s wife’s crime, by the logic of her critics, was proximity — appearing alongside someone whose views someone else had deemed unacceptable. She hadn’t done anything. She had knitted, and talked about knitting, with a man who held different political opinions. The moral framework that treats that as equivalent to active harm is, Asim argues, both intellectually incoherent and practically counterproductive. This is not an argument for refusing to push back on genuine harm. It’s an argument for maintaining the distinction — because when everything becomes equivalent, when appearing on a podcast with someone is the same as endorsing their worst views, and endorsing their worst views is the same as committing atrocities, the scale collapses and loses all meaning. And a world where Nazi means anyone who once talked to someone with different opinions is a world in which the word no longer means anything at all. The Drama Triangle, and the Problem with Heroes Tom offers a framework near the episode’s end that is worth sitting with: the Drama Triangle. In almost every conflict — personal, professional, political, online — three roles emerge. The victim, whose suffering is being invoked. The persecutor, who is blamed for that suffering. And the saviour, who swoops in to rescue the victim and, in doing so, claims the most power of all. The saviour cannot exist without the other two. Which means that anyone positioning themselves as a hero has a structural incentive to maintain both the victim’s suffering and the persecutor’s threat. The drama triangle doesn’t resolve conflict. It feeds on it. Asim’s conclusion is the episode’s most subversive: “The problem is heroes.” The people doing the quiet, unglamorous work of genuine change — raising money, teaching, building, negotiating — don’t present themselves as heroes. Asim mentions a friend who has spent years running maths and philosophy Olympiads for Palestinian children, has a Peace Garden named after him, and manages to mention none of this in any of his professional bios. The people who announce themselves as champions of a cause are, more often than not, feeding the dynamic they claim to oppose. The Slow Work The episode doesn’t end with a tidy solution, because there isn’t one. But it arrives somewhere more honest than despair. Tom’s view, which Asim finds both daunting and clarifying, is that beneath all the specific crises — climate, AI, geopolitics, economics — the deeper variable is the collective state of human consciousness. Solve the policies without changing the people and the cycle will simply restart, because we will recreate our inner world in the outer one, at scale, as we always have. The free will aspect is this: every person who does even a little work on themselves — the shadow work, the self-reflection, the willingness to sit with discomfort and not project it outward — changes, in some small way, every interaction they subsequently have. It ripples. Slowly. Almost invisibly. But it ripples. The fate aspect is that we are, as a civilisation, somewhere in a cycle. Things fall apart so they can be rebuilt. The question is what kind of people are doing the rebuilding when it’s time. In the meantime: talk to people you disagree with. In person, if you can. Listen more than you argue. Notice when you’re positioning yourself as a saviour. Ask yourself which role in the drama triangle you’re playing — and whether you’re willing to step out of it. And maybe, if someone you know gets called a Nazi for appearing on a knitting podcast, tell them they’re not alone. We’d love to hear your thoughts. Have you ever changed your mind — or changed someone else’s — through actual conversation rather than online argument? Where do you see the drama triangle playing out in your own life? And do you think there’s a meaningful difference between engaging with someone’s ideas and platforming them? Leave us a comment, and if this one resonated, please share it with someone who might need it. Thanks for listening to House of Life! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. 🙏 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit holpod.com (https://holpod.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   14 May 2026

   S2:E2 - Who owns the weather?

   Tom proposed the topic of geoengineering and weather modification, thinking that it sat at an interesting convergence of environment, technology, and truth. Asim agreed. And then Tom panicked, because he realised he had no idea where he actually stood on the issue. That uncertainty turns out to be the most honest starting point imaginable. Because geoengineering sits at the exact intersection of two things that should make any reasonable person feel unsettled: a technology with the potential to reshape planetary systems, and a political class that has repeatedly shown it cannot be trusted with far less power than that. It’s Always Been a Thing Before getting into the science and the politics, the conversation begins somewhere unexpected — with a shaman on a clifftop in Sedona, Arizona. Tom describes a ritual he witnessed there: a group in the desert, a shamanic drum, a man calling upon the forces of the universe. And then, on an absolutely still day, the wind arriving on cue. Tom still can’t fully explain it. Maybe coincidence. Maybe, he suggests, something more interesting: that collective focused intention — when humans gather and really mean something together — can have effects on the world that we don’t fully understand. It sounds strange. But it’s a useful frame for what follows, because the desire to influence weather isn’t some fringe modern obsession. It’s ancient. Indigenous cultures around the world developed rituals for it. It seems, as Asim puts it, “baked into our psyche.” The question was never really whether humans would try to control the weather. It was always how, and who would be in charge. Geoengineering as a Climate Pill Asim arrives at what becomes the episode’s most useful metaphor early on: geoengineering is the pharmaceutical drug of climate change. The analogy holds up with uncomfortable precision. We have a chronic condition — not an acute one — caused by deep structural problems in how we produce energy, grow food, and organise industrial society. The responsible thing to do is the hard thing: address the root causes, change behaviour, do the difficult work. Instead, geoengineering offers a pill. Take this and carry on. No lifestyle changes required. And like pharmaceuticals in chronic disease management, it has unintended side effects. It partially solves one problem while potentially creating several others. And perhaps most importantly, it gives everyone a convenient excuse not to have the harder conversation. The fossil fuel industry can get behind it because it means they don’t have to change. Environmentalists can tentatively support it because at least it’s something. Everyone avoids the actual problem. Geoengineering is the culture of 18 pills every morning, applied to a planet. What Has Actually Worked? There’s a blunt question underneath all the theory: has any of this ever succeeded? When Asim went looking for examples of geoengineering that had genuinely worked at scale, he found essentially one: the recovery of the ozone layer. But as both Tom and Asim quickly agree, that doesn’t really count. We didn’t engineer a solution — we just stopped doing the thing that was causing the damage. We removed CFCs and the planet healed itself. It was a root cause fix, not a technological patch. Almost everything else in the historical record, from Mao’s catastrophic campaign to eliminate sparrows (which wiped out the main predator for locusts, triggering a massive locust plague that killed millions) to botched cloud seeding experiments to redirected hurricanes, sits somewhere between “inconclusive” and “disaster.” Cloud seeding is the small-scale version that is already common — about 50 countries regularly use it to try and make it rain. China does it. Dubai does it. Skiers in the Alps want it. And even at that modest level, it comes with its own troubling question: if you trigger rain here, do you steal it from somewhere else? “Rain theft” is apparently a well known concept among rural communities in China who are downstream from the cloud seeding that benefits cities. Contrails and the 9/11 Study One of the episode’s more quietly startling moments comes when Asim mentions the research that followed the grounding of all US commercial flights after the September 11 attacks. With no planes in the sky for three days, researchers found measurable changes in the diurnal temperature range across America — around two degrees Fahrenheit (roughly 1.1°C). The contrails from normal air traffic, it turned out, were meaningfully affecting the climate in ways nobody had been paying close attention to. This was before anyone invented the term “geoengineering.” Planes had been inadvertently modifying the weather for decades — not through deliberate spraying of anything, but simply by being there. The water vapor in jet engine exhaust creates a greenhouse effect high in the atmosphere that cools the daytime and warms the night time, reducing the day to night temperature variation. It doesn’t last long, but there are now vastly more planes than there were fifty years ago. The effect scales. Airlines are now running trials to see if they can modify flight paths to reduce contrail formation. Which is, in a quiet way, a form of intentional geoengineering — in reverse. Chemtrails, Distrust, and the Liar’s Paradox This is where the conversation gets more uncomfortable, because it asks a harder question: why do 40% of Americans at least partially believe in chemtrails (the idea that governments are spraying toxic chemicals from aeroplanes)? And why does this suspicion seem to be growing even in the UK and Europe? Tom’s answer: conspiracy theories are not the cause of distrust in institutions. They’re a symptom of it. If your government had always been transparent, had always done what it said, had always put the public interest first — most people would just get on with their lives and not worry about what’s coming out of aeroplanes. But the historical record is not like that. It’s full of documented cases of governments conducting experiments without consent, lying about the results, and then only acknowledging the truth decades later when there was no one left to sue. The 1952 Lynmouth flood in Devon killed 35 people. The rain was described as biblical. Local communities knew the RAF had been running cloud seeding experiments nearby that week. The RAF denied it. It later emerged they had been running those experiments. The two things were never conclusively connected, but the denial had already happened. The project, incidentally, was called Operation Witch Doctor. In 1947, the US government tried to redirect a hurricane through a project called Project Cirrus. The hurricane made a sharp left turn and devastated Georgia instead. The official position was that it had nothing to do with the cloud seeding. A scientist on the project said he had 99% confidence that it did. The government couldn’t admit it, because admitting it meant liability for the deaths and destruction. Then there’s the US military’s use of weather modification in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos — operations designed to extend the monsoon season and flood supply routes. This was real, documented, and militarily intentional. It eventually led, in 1977, to the United Nations Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), in which countries including the US, UK, and Russia agreed never to use weather modification as a weapon of war. An acknowledgement, if nothing else, that the technology was serious enough to need a treaty. As Asim notes, a healthy distrust of any institution means that as soon as they sign a treaty saying “we won’t do this,” your main response is probably: so you were doing this. Climate Global Control Trading LLC The episode’s most surreal moment arrives with Tom’s deep dive into a Dubai-based company called Climate Global Control Trading LLC — a name he repeatedly admits he cannot say without laughing. The website design is terrible (https://climateglobal.net/)but the content on it is intriguing. There are news clips, case studies, and even a notarised multi-million dollar contract with the government of Balochistan. The company claims it is not doing cloud seeding. It claims instead to have an energy-based technology — a series of antenna deployed around the Indian Ocean that can beam energy into the upper atmosphere and both generate and direct storms. And they take credit for Cyclone Ashooba. Their account, as Tom reads it, is that they were hired by the UAE government to reduce temperatures and bring rain. So they created a cyclone in the Indian Ocean, directed it towards Oman where it burned off its worst energy, then steered the gentler remnants over the UAE, where it delivered precipitation and cooling without significant damage. They describe this as a successful delivery of their contract. Tom is genuinely unsure whether to laugh or be horrified. Probably both. His spidey-sense tells him that this might be an elaborate scam and the technology not really exist, but he wonders how we can be sure. It matters because it connects to something that does exist. HAARP, the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, in Alaska is a vast array of antenna used to beam energy into the ionosphere. The US government has always said it’s purely for scientific research but conspiracy theories have long claimed that it has other applications, including weather modification. The point isn’t whether that’s true. The point is that when a company in Dubai is openly advertising an energy-based antenna system for generating and steering storms, and the US military has the largest ionosphere research antenna array in the world, and a 1996 US Army paper is titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA333462) — the connective tissue becomes very hard to ignore. Who Has the Means, Motive, and Opportunity? Tom runs through the classic investigative framework. Means: Military fleets of aircraft, balloons, drones, antenna arrays, classified research budgets. Yes. Opportunity: The ability to act in secret, within black projects, outside the reach of civilian oversight or commercial law. Yes. Motive: This is where it gets interesting. If you could trigger a drought in a region that supplies a key commodity, then bet against that commodity in financial markets, you would make extraordinary amounts of money for a relatively modest investment. Asim puts it even more directly: you don’t even need to run the operation yourself. You just need to know someone who is, and place the trade accordingly. Insider trading of the most extreme kind, at planetary scale. And then there is the simpler motive of geopolitical power. Imagine, as Asim suggests, weather modification as a tariff negotiation tool. Give us what we want, or your harvest fails. The Rules-Based Order, Such As It Was The episode ends in the broader landscape of institutional collapse, because geoengineering cannot be understood apart from it. Mark Carney, now Prime Minister of Canada, recently gave a speech at Davos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flsgJe8mN-A) in which he suggested, with unusual candour, that the rules-based international order has effectively ended. Once one major actor starts openly breaking the rules, the logic of compliance unravels everywhere. Countries do what they need to do. And ultimately, Tom argues, individuals do what they need to do — and we shouldn’t be surprised when the slow erosion of faith in institutions shows up in people’s daily behaviour. Asim’s conclusion, and perhaps the most honest one the episode offers, is that the answer to institutional failure isn’t a better institution. It’s decentralisation. Smaller communities. Local accountability. Less reliance on systems that can be captured, corrupted, or weaponised by a single powerful actor. Not libertarianism in the loaded political sense, but something more pragmatic: if you can’t trust centralised power with this much leverage over human life, then the answer is to distribute it more evenly. It’s not an optimistic conclusion exactly. But it might be a realistic one. As ever, we’d love to hear your thoughts. * Should anyone be allowed to manipulate the weather, and under what circumstances? * Do you think there’s legitimate reason to believe governments (or other groups) are conducting undisclosed atmospheric experiments? * Does the history of weather modification change how you think about chemtrail theories? * And what would it actually mean to decentralise the kind of decisions that currently get made in the dark? Leave us a comment — and if you found this episode thought-provoking, please do share it with someone who might too. Thanks for tuning in! — Tom and Asim Thanks for listening to House of Life! Subscribe for free to receive new episodes. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit holpod.com (https://holpod.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Contact House of Life

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.