1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:04,960
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. For millennia, humanity has been well

2
00:00:05,679 --> 00:00:07,719
captivated by the idea of living forever.

3
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:10,839
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a profound ancient longing.

4
00:00:11,080 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 1: Think about it. You've got the ancient Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh,

5
00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:18,800
you know, mourning his friend, searching fruitlessly for eternal life, a.

6
00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:22,399
Speaker 2: Classic example right back at the dawn of literature.

7
00:00:22,120 --> 00:00:26,480
Speaker 1: And then the Hindu Panishads contemplating cycles of rebirth, Plato

8
00:00:26,679 --> 00:00:30,879
arguing for the soul's immortality. This quest for forever, it's not.

9
00:00:30,920 --> 00:00:33,119
Speaker 2: New, is it not at all? It's woven into our

10
00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:36,439
oldest stories, our deepest philosophies. It seems almost intrinsic to

11
00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:39,079
being human grappling with our own mortality.

12
00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:41,960
Speaker 1: Right, that knowledge that we won't be here forever. Heidegger

13
00:00:42,079 --> 00:00:44,640
called it being toward death, didn't he He did.

14
00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:48,079
Speaker 2: Our unique cognitive abilities burden us with that knowledge, but

15
00:00:48,119 --> 00:00:51,560
they also perhaps inevitably lead us to speculate does death

16
00:00:51,640 --> 00:00:52,439
have to be the end?

17
00:00:52,679 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 1: And it's that ancient longing that today is colliding with

18
00:00:55,719 --> 00:00:59,240
well cutting edge technology and frankly immense.

19
00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:01,119
Speaker 2: Wealth, a potent common.

20
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:02,880
Speaker 1: So today we're taking a deep dive into what some

21
00:01:02,960 --> 00:01:06,920
are calling the immortality underground. We're going to investigate this

22
00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:11,799
shadowy world of the ultra rich and their reported quest

23
00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:12,680
for eternal life.

24
00:01:12,760 --> 00:01:14,560
Speaker 2: We'll be looking into the science, some of which is

25
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:19,079
quite strange, the talk of offshore labs and these fascinating,

26
00:01:19,120 --> 00:01:23,959
sometimes unsettling theories suggesting the elite might be closer than

27
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:28,359
you think to unlocking well a form of functional immortality.

28
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:30,000
Speaker 1: And for this deep dive, we've looked at a whole

29
00:01:30,079 --> 00:01:31,319
range of sources, haven't we.

30
00:01:31,319 --> 00:01:35,079
Speaker 2: We have scientific research, philosophical reviews, a lot stemming from

31
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:39,439
the John Templeton Foundation's Immortality project actually, plus news articles

32
00:01:39,480 --> 00:01:42,560
on billionaire investments, and even you know online discussions forums

33
00:01:42,560 --> 00:01:44,680
where people are debating this stuff constantly, trying to give

34
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:47,200
you a comprehensive, impartial look.

35
00:01:47,319 --> 00:01:49,599
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's start at the beginning. Why is this

36
00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:54,200
quest so deep in us philosophically? How have we traditionally

37
00:01:54,239 --> 00:01:54,959
dealt with death?

38
00:01:55,079 --> 00:01:58,280
Speaker 2: Well, Gilgamesh, as you mentioned, nearly for millennia old, it's

39
00:01:58,359 --> 00:02:01,840
literally about that search after his friend n Kidu dies.

40
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:04,040
Speaker 1: Right, pure grief and fear.

41
00:02:04,359 --> 00:02:07,879
Speaker 2: Then you have concepts like Ssara and the Hindu aupunishads,

42
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:14,039
the cycle of life, death, rebirth, aiming for eventual liberation Moksha.

43
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:15,919
Speaker 1: And the Greeks Plato.

44
00:02:16,159 --> 00:02:20,879
Speaker 2: Plato definitely, he systematically argued for the soul's immortality, the

45
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:23,879
idea that some essential part of us persists.

46
00:02:24,479 --> 00:02:26,680
Speaker 1: But then you get the Epicureans. They had a pretty

47
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,759
different take, didn't They sort of don't worry about it exactly.

48
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:33,240
Speaker 2: Epicurus basically said, look, death is non existence. You won't

49
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:36,120
be there to experience it. So if you don't experience it,

50
00:02:36,199 --> 00:02:37,319
how can it be bad for you?

51
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:42,159
Speaker 1: It makes a certain logical sense, but it doesn't really

52
00:02:42,159 --> 00:02:43,439
stop people fearing.

53
00:02:43,159 --> 00:02:46,000
Speaker 2: It, does it not really, And that's why many contemporary

54
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,960
philosophers lean towards the deprivation account. The idea isn't that

55
00:02:50,039 --> 00:02:51,879
dad is a bad state to be in, but that

56
00:02:51,960 --> 00:02:54,199
it's bad because it deprives you of the good things

57
00:02:54,240 --> 00:02:56,199
you would have experienced if you lived longer.

58
00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:58,919
Speaker 1: So if I could have had another happy year, death

59
00:02:59,039 --> 00:03:00,000
robbed me of that year.

60
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 2: Precisely, it's the loss of potential future good that makes

61
00:03:03,159 --> 00:03:04,840
death bad according to this view.

62
00:03:05,080 --> 00:03:07,800
Speaker 1: But then Lucretius and other Epicurean he brought up that

63
00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:10,719
symmetry problem. If we don't worry about the eternity before

64
00:03:10,719 --> 00:03:13,680
we were born. Why worry so much about the eternity

65
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:14,520
after we die?

66
00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:18,080
Speaker 2: That's the Lucretian challenge, a tough one. Some philosophers try

67
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:20,599
to resolve it by pointing to an asymmetry in how

68
00:03:20,639 --> 00:03:23,479
we view time. We generally prefer good things in the

69
00:03:23,479 --> 00:03:25,240
future and bad things in the past.

70
00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:27,599
Speaker 1: Okay, so we look forward to good stuff. We're glad

71
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:28,520
bad stuff is over.

72
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:32,360
Speaker 2: Makes sense, right, So the future non existence feels like

73
00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:36,400
a potential loss of good things were oriented towards, whereas

74
00:03:36,439 --> 00:03:40,000
the past non existence, Well, it's just gone. It doesn't

75
00:03:40,039 --> 00:03:42,319
hold the same potential value for us now.

76
00:03:42,319 --> 00:03:46,479
Speaker 1: Interesting. So beyond philosophy, how does believing in some kind

77
00:03:46,520 --> 00:03:50,960
of immortality actually affect us psychologically? Does it change how

78
00:03:51,000 --> 00:03:52,400
we face big threats?

79
00:03:52,599 --> 00:03:55,759
Speaker 2: Research suggests it does Liftion and colleagues looked into this.

80
00:03:56,120 --> 00:04:00,439
They separated literal immortality, like believing your soul survive death

81
00:04:00,560 --> 00:04:04,680
often religious, from symbolic immortality, you know, leaving a legacy,

82
00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:07,439
having kids, impacting the world, Okay, two different kinds, and

83
00:04:07,479 --> 00:04:11,599
they found that belief in literal immortality seems to offer

84
00:04:12,719 --> 00:04:17,879
significant psychological protection against existential threats like end of the world.

85
00:04:18,240 --> 00:04:21,439
Speaker 1: Scenarios, because if your soul lives on the world, ending

86
00:04:21,519 --> 00:04:24,519
isn't really your end. Yeah, a kind of mental shield exactly.

87
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:28,399
Speaker 2: It buffers that existential dread. But there's a potential downside,

88
00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:31,519
which is it might reduce the motivation to act against

89
00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:35,600
collective threats like climate change. If you believe you're personally

90
00:04:35,639 --> 00:04:38,199
safe in the long run, why worry so much about

91
00:04:38,199 --> 00:04:42,839
saving the planet for future generations? The urgency might decrease, ah.

92
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:45,639
Speaker 1: Right, potential for apathy, that's concerning. And what about that

93
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:49,680
symbolic immortality like leaders leaving legacy.

94
00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:53,120
Speaker 2: That's sometimes called civic immortality. Think of figures like Mandela

95
00:04:53,319 --> 00:04:56,399
or Washington. Their impact, their values live on in the

96
00:04:56,399 --> 00:04:59,959
structure of society in collective memory. Wing Go in Demetria

97
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:03,560
argue societies benefit from having these civic immortals.

98
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:05,399
Speaker 1: Like role models who inspire beyond their lifespan.

99
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:10,079
Speaker 2: Yes, especially in context like post colonial Africa. Wingo suggests

100
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:15,199
figures like Sundrata Keida could inspire overcoming corruption. But Demetria

101
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:17,759
as a warning note, think of Robert E. Lee choosing

102
00:05:17,759 --> 00:05:22,240
state loyalty over national unity. An over emphasis on personal

103
00:05:22,279 --> 00:05:25,600
honor can sometimes jeopardize the very institutions that grant that

104
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:29,639
symbolic immortality. Leaders need to be conscious of that broader

105
00:05:29,759 --> 00:05:30,560
civic duty.

106
00:05:30,920 --> 00:05:33,759
Speaker 1: So, whether it's faith in a soul, a lasting legacy,

107
00:05:33,920 --> 00:05:37,560
or just having children, we seem driven to find ways

108
00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:38,600
to outlast death.

109
00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:40,519
Speaker 2: It seems fundamental and it's this.

110
00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:44,920
Speaker 1: Deep ancient desire that's now meeting well billions of dollars

111
00:05:44,959 --> 00:05:47,920
in cutting edge tech, which brings us to the billionaire

112
00:05:47,920 --> 00:05:49,959
bets who's actually putting money into this.

113
00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:52,720
Speaker 2: Well, you see some really big names. Jeff Bezos, for example,

114
00:05:52,759 --> 00:05:56,279
has funneled significant resources into a company called Altos Labs.

115
00:05:56,360 --> 00:05:57,920
Speaker 1: Altos Labs, what's their focus.

116
00:05:58,040 --> 00:06:01,480
Speaker 2: They're working on technologies aimed at rejuveni cells, basically trying

117
00:06:01,480 --> 00:06:04,680
to reverse aging processes and related health conditions. Early mouse

118
00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:05,920
studies showed some promise.

119
00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:09,639
Speaker 1: Apparently mouse studies still a long way from humans presumably.

120
00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:12,639
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely a huge leap, but it shows the direction

121
00:06:12,759 --> 00:06:16,040
of thinking. Then you have Peter Teel, another major Silicon

122
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:20,240
Valley figure. He's also heavily invested in longevity biotech startups,

123
00:06:20,439 --> 00:06:22,800
attracting billions in funding to the sector.

124
00:06:22,959 --> 00:06:26,800
Speaker 1: In Craigvnor, the guy famous for sequencing the human genome.

125
00:06:26,759 --> 00:06:31,560
Speaker 2: Yes, Craig Venter's company, Human Longevity, Inc. Or HLI. Their

126
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:36,639
approach is very data heavy. They use genomics, AI machine

127
00:06:36,680 --> 00:06:40,000
learning to predict and ideally prevent age related diseases.

128
00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:41,160
Speaker 1: How does that work in practice?

129
00:06:41,199 --> 00:06:45,079
Speaker 2: They offer these quite expensive personalized health assessments like twenty

130
00:06:45,079 --> 00:06:48,279
five thousan pounds of pop using your genetic data to

131
00:06:48,319 --> 00:06:51,079
map out risks and tailor treatments to slow down your

132
00:06:51,079 --> 00:06:52,399
personal aging process.

133
00:06:52,439 --> 00:06:54,920
Speaker 1: Wow, that's definitely not for everyone. What about others like

134
00:06:55,000 --> 00:06:57,279
Gates or Zuckerberg Are they in this race too?

135
00:06:57,399 --> 00:06:59,759
Speaker 2: They fund a lot of healthcare research through their foundations,

136
00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:02,839
with which is definitely relevant, but it often seems focused

137
00:07:02,839 --> 00:07:07,079
on let's say, adjacent field specific diseases global health initiatives,

138
00:07:07,199 --> 00:07:09,879
rather than directly targeting the aging process itself as the

139
00:07:09,879 --> 00:07:13,480
primary goal. Like altos or HLI seem to be still.

140
00:07:13,199 --> 00:07:15,839
Speaker 1: It's part of that ecosystem. We also hear about people

141
00:07:15,879 --> 00:07:19,240
like Brian Johnson, maybe not quite a billionaire, but famous

142
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:21,639
for his extreme anti aging regimen.

143
00:07:21,839 --> 00:07:24,040
Speaker 2: Right, he's kind of a public experiment in himself.

144
00:07:24,079 --> 00:07:28,920
Speaker 1: And those whispers about Bezos being on TRT tinsosteroone replacement therapy.

145
00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:32,720
It suggests a personal interest among the elite beyond just investment.

146
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:36,800
Speaker 2: It's certainly fuel speculation and the science they're betting on.

147
00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:40,879
It comes from some pretty fascinating, sometimes weird breakthroughs in

148
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:45,120
animal models like what well researchers have managed to extend

149
00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:49,759
lifespans in various non human species. Simple things like caloric

150
00:07:49,800 --> 00:07:52,959
restriction and mice limiting their food intake has shown effects.

151
00:07:53,199 --> 00:07:55,079
Speaker 1: Okay, eating less, we've heard that before.

152
00:07:55,160 --> 00:07:58,639
Speaker 2: But more specifically, there's this one mouse, the GHRKO eleven

153
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:01,199
C mouse. It lived nearly five years. That's almost double

154
00:08:01,279 --> 00:08:02,720
the normal life span for a mouse.

155
00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:03,920
Speaker 1: Five years for a mouse.

156
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:07,040
Speaker 2: They removed a specific gene, the one for its growth

157
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:10,560
hormone receptor. It seems this gene acts like a control

158
00:08:10,600 --> 00:08:14,360
knob for aging speed and mice. Finding these specific genetic

159
00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:17,839
levers is huge because it suggests aging isn't just random decay,

160
00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:20,160
but potentially a programmed process.

161
00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 1: We could tweak, so specific genes control aging speed. Wow?

162
00:08:24,079 --> 00:08:25,040
Any other examples?

163
00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, Mutations and certain genes have also extended lives in

164
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:32,399
insects and worms significantly. It keeps pointing back to underlying

165
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:33,840
biological pathways.

166
00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:38,279
Speaker 1: You mentioned something really wild earlier, the immortal hydra sounds

167
00:08:38,279 --> 00:08:38,679
like a myth.

168
00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:42,200
Speaker 2: It does, but it's real. Here's where it gets really interesting.

169
00:08:42,399 --> 00:08:45,919
There's a species hydro Vulgaris. It basically shows no signs

170
00:08:45,960 --> 00:08:47,600
of aging, none.

171
00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:49,159
Speaker 1: No signs. How's that possible?

172
00:08:49,279 --> 00:08:52,600
Speaker 2: It has this incredible ability to constantly regenerate its stem cells.

173
00:08:52,919 --> 00:08:56,519
There's a key gene involved called FOXO. Scientists observed these

174
00:08:56,559 --> 00:08:58,960
hydras for ten years, a long time for a hydra,

175
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:00,639
and saw no decay.

176
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:01,559
Speaker 1: No aging ten years.

177
00:09:01,559 --> 00:09:05,120
Speaker 2: Compare that to a closely related species, Hydrologactus, which does

178
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,559
age and die. The existence of hydro Vulgaris challenges the

179
00:09:08,600 --> 00:09:11,279
whole idea that aging is biologically inevitable.

180
00:09:11,360 --> 00:09:16,679
Speaker 1: So if a complex animal can not age, me aging

181
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:19,440
isn't a fundamental law of biology. Maybe it's more like

182
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:22,440
a feature that evolutions selected for or against.

183
00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:25,559
Speaker 2: That's exactly the implication. It provides a living proof of

184
00:09:25,639 --> 00:09:30,559
concept that biological immorpality or at least negligible senescence is possible.

185
00:09:31,279 --> 00:09:34,480
There are theories about its heat shock responses contributing to

186
00:09:34,759 --> 00:09:38,240
and simile longevity systems are seen in other simple organisms

187
00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:40,759
like sponges, corals, some plants.

188
00:09:40,840 --> 00:09:43,399
Speaker 1: Okay, my mind is slightly blown, so what do these

189
00:09:43,399 --> 00:09:45,679
animal studies suggest for us? For humans?

190
00:09:45,799 --> 00:09:49,440
Speaker 2: They fuel the idea of radical life extension, the possibility

191
00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:53,600
of developing, say, pharmacological interventions drugs that could dramatically slow

192
00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:54,960
or even halt human.

193
00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:57,159
Speaker 1: Aging, allowing us to live Yeah how long.

194
00:09:57,320 --> 00:10:01,000
Speaker 2: Potentially for centuries, maybe even millennia according to some projections.

195
00:10:01,399 --> 00:10:03,559
But it likely wouldn't be a one shot cure. You'd

196
00:10:03,559 --> 00:10:06,519
probably need to take these drugs continuously, stop taking them,

197
00:10:06,639 --> 00:10:08,120
and the aging process might.

198
00:10:08,039 --> 00:10:10,840
Speaker 1: Just kick back in continuous management, not a permanent fix.

199
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:13,600
And gene therapy that feels like a major frontier here.

200
00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:16,799
The sources mentioned it's become really easy to do in lapse,

201
00:10:17,080 --> 00:10:18,120
even a gene gun.

202
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:22,840
Speaker 2: Yeah. In a research context, manipulating genes has become remarkably streamlined.

203
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:26,240
The tools like Crisper are powerful. Think about it. One

204
00:10:26,240 --> 00:10:30,159
company developed an omicron vaccine in just four months. That

205
00:10:30,360 --> 00:10:33,519
speed is indicative of how fast biotech.

206
00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:35,840
Speaker 1: Is moving four months. Yeah, incredible. That speed must apply

207
00:10:35,879 --> 00:10:36,360
to other.

208
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:39,360
Speaker 2: Areas too, absolutely, and it's not just gene editing. Look

209
00:10:39,399 --> 00:10:42,519
at new drug developments. Eli Lilly, for example, is working

210
00:10:42,519 --> 00:10:46,200
on a pill called or for glippron or for glippron.

211
00:10:46,279 --> 00:10:46,799
Speaker 1: What does it do.

212
00:10:47,039 --> 00:10:49,639
Speaker 2: It's a daily pill that works similarly to drugs like

213
00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:53,080
ozempic or Manjaro, the GLP one agonists famous for weight

214
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,240
loss in managing type two diabetes. This could be available

215
00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:58,840
by twenty twenty six, offering perhaps a more convenient way

216
00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:01,919
to manage metabolic health, which is closely linked to aging.

217
00:11:02,039 --> 00:11:05,120
Speaker 1: Okay, so the science is moving fast. The investment is there,

218
00:11:05,360 --> 00:11:09,200
which brings us back to the whiskers. This secret immortality underground.

219
00:11:09,759 --> 00:11:13,639
What about those online rumors billionaire body growing labs, doctor

220
00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:16,519
mendele labs doing unethical tests. Is there anything to it?

221
00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:20,399
Speaker 2: Well, there's understandable skepticism. The first question is who's doing

222
00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:24,120
the science. It's really hard to keep world class medical

223
00:11:24,159 --> 00:11:28,919
researchers secret. If top scientists suddenly vanished from academia or industry,

224
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:32,759
people would notice. You'd need these extensive shadow networks.

225
00:11:32,799 --> 00:11:35,399
Speaker 1: Sure, it's not like building a secret bunker. You need

226
00:11:35,559 --> 00:11:37,039
highly specialized people.

227
00:11:37,519 --> 00:11:41,200
Speaker 2: Some online discussions draw an analogy to World War II physics.

228
00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:44,559
You know how just before the atomic bomb, publications on

229
00:11:44,639 --> 00:11:46,440
nuclear fissions suddenly went dark.

230
00:11:46,559 --> 00:11:47,639
Speaker 1: They stop publishing.

231
00:11:47,799 --> 00:11:51,279
Speaker 2: Yeah, the idea being, when serious progress happens in secret,

232
00:11:51,360 --> 00:11:54,720
the public scientific discussion dries up. So the argument goes,

233
00:11:54,960 --> 00:11:57,720
when that happens for aging research, then we can unfold

234
00:11:57,720 --> 00:12:00,840
our tinfoil hats again. Until then, maybe it's still mostly

235
00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:01,480
public R and D.

236
00:12:01,679 --> 00:12:04,279
Speaker 1: But others online pushback right saying some of them are

237
00:12:04,360 --> 00:12:07,879
doing this, it's just super early staged. The companies aren't public.

238
00:12:07,679 --> 00:12:11,080
Speaker 2: Yet exactly, And there's the argument that billionaires wouldn't want

239
00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:14,000
to tell the public anyway. Imagine their reaction. It could

240
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:17,960
cause riots, some say, fear of social unrest if immortality

241
00:12:18,039 --> 00:12:19,480
was achieved, but only for the few.

242
00:12:19,759 --> 00:12:24,240
Speaker 1: And the ethics, the idea that maybe unethical human testing

243
00:12:24,840 --> 00:12:28,759
is necessary for rapid progress, and perhaps it's happening somewhere

244
00:12:28,759 --> 00:12:32,440
with fewer regulations, places like Russia, China, or North Korea

245
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:33,480
get mentioned.

246
00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:37,200
Speaker 2: Though realistically the level of biotech expertise needed might be

247
00:12:37,279 --> 00:12:40,440
limited in places like Russia or North Korea compared to

248
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:43,919
say China or the West, but the idea persists.

249
00:12:44,159 --> 00:12:47,399
Speaker 1: There was even that Reddit comment you flagged about Zuckerberg's

250
00:12:47,399 --> 00:12:51,279
compound in Hawaii, All those NDAs implying secret projects like

251
00:12:51,360 --> 00:12:54,480
gene editing, cloning, maybe immortality research.

252
00:12:54,559 --> 00:12:56,600
Speaker 2: It feeds the narrative, But then you have the counter

253
00:12:56,720 --> 00:13:00,279
argument solving aging, let alone achieving immortality is just an

254
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:04,720
astronomically hard problem, maybe harder than anyone even billionaires really

255
00:13:04,799 --> 00:13:06,639
has the resources to crack right now.

256
00:13:06,879 --> 00:13:10,039
Speaker 1: Their wealth isn't always liquid cash, right They have companies

257
00:13:10,039 --> 00:13:11,480
to run, status to maintain.

258
00:13:11,759 --> 00:13:14,759
Speaker 2: Exactly, Pouring everything into such a high risk, long term

259
00:13:14,799 --> 00:13:16,879
bet might not be feasible even for them.

260
00:13:16,919 --> 00:13:19,440
Speaker 1: But the counter to that is, billionaires invest where they

261
00:13:19,440 --> 00:13:23,000
see potential return. And what's a bigger potential return than

262
00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:23,799
conquering death?

263
00:13:23,960 --> 00:13:26,759
Speaker 2: Precisely, if they believe there's even a small chance of

264
00:13:26,759 --> 00:13:31,200
a massive ROI living indefinitely, the incentive is enormous. It

265
00:13:31,279 --> 00:13:36,519
becomes the ultimate long term investment, potentially justifying huge secretive.

266
00:13:36,039 --> 00:13:39,120
Speaker 1: Efforts, which leads us perfectly into the whole transhumanist dream,

267
00:13:39,159 --> 00:13:43,360
doesn't it The idea of moving beyond biology altogether, merging

268
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:44,440
human and machine.

269
00:13:44,679 --> 00:13:47,879
Speaker 2: That's often seen as the next or perhaps ultimate step

270
00:13:47,919 --> 00:13:49,360
for radical life extension.

271
00:13:49,519 --> 00:13:52,960
Speaker 1: So transhumanism. We hear this term a lot, especially around

272
00:13:52,960 --> 00:13:55,840
tech billionaires. Can you break down what it actually means?

273
00:13:55,879 --> 00:13:57,159
What's the core idea?

274
00:13:57,480 --> 00:14:01,000
Speaker 2: At its heart? Transhumanism is about using technology to overcome

275
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:06,559
fundamental human limitations, including aging and death. It's about expanding

276
00:14:06,639 --> 00:14:10,320
human life span, maybe even achieving immortality through tech.

277
00:14:10,519 --> 00:14:11,399
Speaker 1: How do they approach that?

278
00:14:11,440 --> 00:14:14,559
Speaker 2: It's very much an engineering mindset applied to life itself,

279
00:14:14,919 --> 00:14:18,879
viewing biological limitations, even death, as tractable problems to be solved.

280
00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:22,039
There's a deep underlying faith in the potency of human

281
00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:24,080
reason and technology.

282
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:25,279
Speaker 1: In this idea of morphological freedom.

283
00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 2: That's key. It's the idea that individuals should have the

284
00:14:28,679 --> 00:14:32,200
right to modify their own bodies and minds using technology

285
00:14:32,200 --> 00:14:35,240
as they see fit. Choosing your own enhancements.

286
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,720
Speaker 1: An engineering mindset to life, treating it like a problem set. Okay,

287
00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:42,399
and this vision often gets broken down using the NBIC

288
00:14:42,559 --> 00:14:49,000
acronym right nano bio info cogno. Let's start with biotechnology.

289
00:14:49,039 --> 00:14:52,679
We've touched on it, but how does it fit the transhumanist.

290
00:14:52,039 --> 00:14:56,240
Speaker 2: View think Genetic engineering figures like Aubrey de Gray strongly

291
00:14:56,279 --> 00:14:59,120
advocate for fixing the damage of aging at the genetic level.

292
00:15:00,120 --> 00:15:02,600
Genome Project finishing in two thousand and three, and especially

293
00:15:02,639 --> 00:15:05,559
Crisper gene editing tech emerging around twenty twelve made this

294
00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:07,440
feel much more real, much more possible.

295
00:15:07,480 --> 00:15:11,120
Speaker 1: But doesn't this brush up against some uncomfortable history eugenics.

296
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:14,679
Speaker 2: It does. Critics point to an evident legacy of eugenic

297
00:15:14,720 --> 00:15:18,879
thought in some transhumanist discourse. While proponents emphasize individual choice

298
00:15:18,879 --> 00:15:23,080
morphological freedom to distance themselves from state sponsored eugenics, critics

299
00:15:23,200 --> 00:15:26,240
argue that focusing on human enhancement can easily become a

300
00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:30,240
rebranding of eugenic aims, potentially leading to similar societal pressures

301
00:15:30,240 --> 00:15:32,360
and inequalities, even if unintended.

302
00:15:32,480 --> 00:15:36,320
Speaker 1: Hmm the fine line. Okay, Next is INFO, information technology

303
00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:38,600
and AI. This is where it gets really sci fi right.

304
00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:40,320
Digital immortality.

305
00:15:40,559 --> 00:15:45,120
Speaker 2: Yeah. This involves concepts like uploading consciousness, transferring human identity

306
00:15:45,200 --> 00:15:50,320
to alternative substrates computers basically, or merging our minds directly

307
00:15:50,320 --> 00:15:53,240
with computers through brain computer interfaces.

308
00:15:53,600 --> 00:15:57,519
Speaker 1: BCIs mind uploading. Wow, and AI's role.

309
00:15:57,759 --> 00:16:02,600
Speaker 2: Some see artificial general intelligence AGI as crucial. There is

310
00:16:02,679 --> 00:16:06,120
ij goods old idea of an altering intelligent machine an

311
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:08,919
AI so far beyond human intellect it could trigger an

312
00:16:08,919 --> 00:16:10,519
intelligence explosion.

313
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:11,879
Speaker 1: Leaving human intelligence far behind.

314
00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:15,559
Speaker 2: Exactly good thought. The first ultra intelligent machine might be

315
00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:18,200
the last invention that man need ever make, because it

316
00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:21,679
could solve everything else, including aging. Some today explicitly believe

317
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:23,679
AGI is the way to go to solve aging. Let

318
00:16:23,679 --> 00:16:24,919
the super AI figure it out.

319
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:28,039
Speaker 1: Okay, then cognitive science, how does that fit? In?

320
00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:31,480
Speaker 2: This pillar focuses on understanding the mind, often through a

321
00:16:31,519 --> 00:16:35,360
mind as machine lens. It draws heavily on cybernetics, the

322
00:16:35,360 --> 00:16:39,840
study of communication and control systems. Using this information frame

323
00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:43,440
makes it easier to make those frankly fantastical claims about

324
00:16:43,480 --> 00:16:47,519
the tractability of existence. If the mind is just information processing,

325
00:16:47,519 --> 00:16:50,559
then maybe it can be copied, uploaded, enhanced like software.

326
00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:53,480
Speaker 1: It reduces the mystery, I guess yes, makes it seem solvable.

327
00:16:53,759 --> 00:16:56,360
And finally, nano nanotechnology right.

328
00:16:56,480 --> 00:17:00,159
Speaker 2: Richard Feinman's vision of building things atom by Adam K.

329
00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:04,599
Eric Drexler's concept of radical abundance through molecular manufacturing, and.

330
00:17:04,519 --> 00:17:08,000
Speaker 1: The immortality angle nanobots fixing us from the inside.

331
00:17:08,039 --> 00:17:12,759
Speaker 2: That's the fascinating dual potential here. Medically imagine nanobots patrolling

332
00:17:12,799 --> 00:17:17,200
your bloodstream, identifying cancer cells, repairing damage. Incredible potential.

333
00:17:17,240 --> 00:17:18,160
Speaker 1: There's always a butt.

334
00:17:18,240 --> 00:17:20,559
Speaker 2: But the same technology that can heal could also be

335
00:17:20,640 --> 00:17:25,599
used for unprecedented surveillance and coercion. Tiny invisible monitors everywhere

336
00:17:26,039 --> 00:17:30,000
or vast arsenals of lethal or non lethal weapons operating

337
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:33,680
at a microscopic level. The power is immense and double edged.

338
00:17:34,039 --> 00:17:38,920
Speaker 1: So this whole grand transhumanist vision it's not without serious criticism,

339
00:17:39,039 --> 00:17:40,720
is it? What are the main pushbacks?

340
00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:44,039
Speaker 2: One major critique is aimed at what some call its

341
00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:49,279
epistemological certainty, this almost unquestioning faith that technology and reason

342
00:17:49,359 --> 00:17:53,519
can solve everything. Critics argue this massively underestimates the depth

343
00:17:53,559 --> 00:17:57,359
of complexity of reality, of biology of consciousness. It's seen

344
00:17:57,400 --> 00:18:00,599
as overly simplistic, even arrogant, life.

345
00:18:00,559 --> 00:18:02,359
Speaker 1: Like code to be debugged exactly.

346
00:18:02,720 --> 00:18:05,680
Speaker 2: This leads to what N. Catherine Hales calls the information

347
00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:11,400
materiality hierarchy, where abstract information code data is valued more

348
00:18:11,440 --> 00:18:14,440
than messy physical reality the body of the environment. It

349
00:18:14,559 --> 00:18:16,559
enables ideas like life as code.

350
00:18:16,720 --> 00:18:19,359
Speaker 1: Hails called it a platonic backhand and forehand, didn't you

351
00:18:19,480 --> 00:18:20,039
what did you mean?

352
00:18:20,160 --> 00:18:23,400
Speaker 2: It's a two step process. First, you simplify a complex

353
00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:26,839
reality into abstract data the backhand. Then you use that

354
00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:30,960
simplified model to reconstruct or manipulate reality the forehand. The

355
00:18:31,079 --> 00:18:34,079
danger is that in simplifying you might erase, meaning losing

356
00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:37,880
the richness the context the embodied experience that makes life.

357
00:18:37,640 --> 00:18:41,519
Speaker 1: Meaningful, and we risk confusing metaphors for reality, like the

358
00:18:41,559 --> 00:18:44,519
brain isn't literally a computer, even if the metaphor is useful.

359
00:18:44,240 --> 00:18:48,240
Speaker 2: Sometimes precisely, when you start treating metaphor's mind as machine, life,

360
00:18:48,279 --> 00:18:51,599
as a book of code, as literal facts, it enables

361
00:18:51,599 --> 00:18:56,519
these grand claims about digital immortality or radical abundance. But

362
00:18:56,759 --> 00:18:59,720
it's a reductionist view that might miss crucial aspects of

363
00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:02,359
what it means to be human, potentially leading us down

364
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:07,119
dangerous paths by ignoring complex ethical and existential.

365
00:19:06,559 --> 00:19:10,279
Speaker 1: Questions, which brings us squarely to the dark side. If

366
00:19:10,279 --> 00:19:15,440
these technologies could halt aging or radically enhance humans, what

367
00:19:15,480 --> 00:19:18,359
does that mean for society. Let's ask that question. If

368
00:19:18,400 --> 00:19:21,200
only a select few get access, living for maybe thousands

369
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:24,559
of years while most people live in normal lifespan, is

370
00:19:24,599 --> 00:19:25,519
that a just world.

371
00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:28,640
Speaker 2: It's hard to see how this immediately crashes into the

372
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:32,160
problem of distributive justice. Would it be remotely fair or ethical?

373
00:19:32,319 --> 00:19:35,759
It seems like a recipe for unimaginable resentment and social turmoil,

374
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:38,839
creating a biological caste system far starker than anything we've

375
00:19:38,880 --> 00:19:39,480
seen before.

376
00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:43,079
Speaker 1: And this plays into wider critiques of techno capitalism. Right,

377
00:19:43,599 --> 00:19:47,119
how tech and capitalism seem to reinforce each other, often

378
00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:48,720
making inequality worse.

379
00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:54,119
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the technosystem, as some call it, tends to intensify inequality.

380
00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:58,559
You see the rise of data totalitarianism or surveillance capitalism.

381
00:19:59,160 --> 00:20:02,680
Knowledge production comes focused on what's commercially valuable, what data

382
00:20:02,680 --> 00:20:06,240
can be extracted and monetized, and people become individuals, in

383
00:20:06,319 --> 00:20:11,319
Duluz's term, not unique individuals, but fragmented data points, samples,

384
00:20:11,519 --> 00:20:15,240
data markets, or banks were broken down into functional units

385
00:20:15,240 --> 00:20:15,839
for the system.

386
00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:18,920
Speaker 1: It sounds like reification, treating people like things exactly.

387
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:22,880
Speaker 2: Both people and objects become thing like, defined by their

388
00:20:22,920 --> 00:20:26,720
functional role, where quantitative elements data metrics are privileged over

389
00:20:26,799 --> 00:20:28,000
qualitative experience.

390
00:20:28,160 --> 00:20:32,839
Speaker 1: So, even if transhumanists talk about morphological freedom individual choice,

391
00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:35,359
could the system itself force our hand.

392
00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:39,720
Speaker 2: That's the concern behind transcendent conformity. The sheer pressure of

393
00:20:39,960 --> 00:20:44,200
capitalist competition might compel people to enhance themselves just to

394
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:49,119
stay employable or socially relevant. Real choice, real plurality, could

395
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:53,000
diminish as everyone feels pressured to conform to an enhanced norm.

396
00:20:53,240 --> 00:20:56,480
Speaker 1: What's fascinating here is how This connects to fears about automation.

397
00:20:57,200 --> 00:20:59,920
That Oxford study suggesting almost half of jobs are red

398
00:21:00,559 --> 00:21:01,640
automation unemployment.

399
00:21:01,799 --> 00:21:05,000
Speaker 2: And we saw during the pandemic how billionaire's wealth soared

400
00:21:05,079 --> 00:21:07,559
while many struggled. Put those trends together and you.

401
00:21:07,559 --> 00:21:12,279
Speaker 1: Get You've all Knowahrari's chilling concept, The Gods and the Useless.

402
00:21:11,960 --> 00:21:16,319
Speaker 2: A scenario with a tiny, ultra wealthy, technologically enhanced elite,

403
00:21:16,640 --> 00:21:20,440
the gods controlling almost everything while the vast majority become

404
00:21:20,519 --> 00:21:24,519
economically redundant, utterly dependent on the goodwill of that elite.

405
00:21:24,599 --> 00:21:27,400
Speaker 1: And history suggests relying on the benevolence of a tiny,

406
00:21:27,480 --> 00:21:30,960
super powerful elite is well naive.

407
00:21:30,640 --> 00:21:33,119
Speaker 2: At best extremely naive. And if we connect this to

408
00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:37,000
the bigger picture, the technologies enabling enhancement are often dual use.

409
00:21:37,359 --> 00:21:40,599
AI is already used for spying, selling, killing, and.

410
00:21:40,559 --> 00:21:45,960
Speaker 1: Gambling, which raises the specter of militarization. Autonomous weapons kill robots.

411
00:21:46,440 --> 00:21:47,400
What are the risks there?

412
00:21:47,480 --> 00:21:51,200
Speaker 2: The sources warn they could dramatically lower the barrier to war,

413
00:21:51,440 --> 00:21:55,759
making conflict easier to initiate. They could destabilize the current

414
00:21:55,799 --> 00:22:00,720
geopolitical order. Imagine a few individuals controlling a large military

415
00:22:00,759 --> 00:22:03,200
force of robots. It could make the planet a much

416
00:22:03,240 --> 00:22:04,799
more dangerous place.

417
00:22:04,759 --> 00:22:08,000
Speaker 1: And an AI arms race seems almost baked in, doesn't it.

418
00:22:08,200 --> 00:22:09,720
Driven by nations seeking.

419
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:13,559
Speaker 2: Advantage, seems virtually inevitable unfortunately, which brings us to another

420
00:22:13,599 --> 00:22:16,640
controversial idea, long termism or bostermism.

421
00:22:17,160 --> 00:22:21,160
Speaker 1: This philosophy prioritizes the distant future extremely distant.

422
00:22:21,240 --> 00:22:25,519
Speaker 2: It focuses on maximizing value for potentially astronomical numbers of

423
00:22:25,640 --> 00:22:28,960
artificial beings or enhanced post humans trillions of years from.

424
00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:30,319
Speaker 1: Now over people alive today.

425
00:22:30,519 --> 00:22:35,039
Speaker 2: That's the controversial part. Some interpretations suggest present suffering, even

426
00:22:35,160 --> 00:22:39,119
the worst atrocities in human history, could fade into moral

427
00:22:39,160 --> 00:22:42,680
nothingness compared to the potential value of this vast future.

428
00:22:43,079 --> 00:22:45,480
It's even been used to argue for giving to the

429
00:22:45,559 --> 00:22:47,920
rich instead of the poor, on the grounds that the

430
00:22:47,960 --> 00:22:51,319
wealthy are more likely to drive the technological progress needed

431
00:22:51,319 --> 00:22:52,039
for that future.

432
00:22:52,759 --> 00:22:55,920
Speaker 1: That's quite a justification. And finally, we have to address

433
00:22:55,920 --> 00:22:57,839
the eugenics connection again. It keeps coming up.

434
00:22:58,359 --> 00:23:01,440
Speaker 2: It's hard to ignore the evidence legacy of eugenic thought.

435
00:23:01,559 --> 00:23:05,720
As critics put it, While proponents stress individual freedom of choice,

436
00:23:05,839 --> 00:23:10,039
the focus on enhancement and optimization echoes eugenic goals, even

437
00:23:10,039 --> 00:23:13,000
if the mechanism isn't state coercion. Some see it as

438
00:23:13,000 --> 00:23:13,680
a rebranding.

439
00:23:14,000 --> 00:23:16,079
Speaker 1: Are there extreme examples of this thinking.

440
00:23:16,319 --> 00:23:19,440
Speaker 2: Yes. Stephen Fuller talks about a republic of humanity where

441
00:23:19,559 --> 00:23:23,319
being biologically Homo sapiens isn't enough to qualify as human.

442
00:23:23,839 --> 00:23:26,480
Machines could gain rights, while humans who can't or won't

443
00:23:26,559 --> 00:23:29,480
enhance could be well expelled.

444
00:23:29,000 --> 00:23:30,920
Speaker 1: Expelled from humanity. That's terrifying.

445
00:23:31,119 --> 00:23:36,359
Speaker 2: Fuller makes truly disturbing claims that ordinary people are zombies

446
00:23:36,400 --> 00:23:40,359
if they aren't transhumanists, that murder could be justified for progress,

447
00:23:40,599 --> 00:23:43,759
that mass extinctions are good for evolution. It's a deeply

448
00:23:44,039 --> 00:23:44,880
chilling vision.

449
00:23:45,119 --> 00:23:49,160
Speaker 1: What about trying to make people better ethically moral enhancement?

450
00:23:49,599 --> 00:23:53,559
Speaker 2: Seveleski proposed this, but the obvious concern is who decides

451
00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:57,640
what's moral and who implements it. Existing power structures might

452
00:23:57,759 --> 00:24:02,000
use it for increased surveillance and control, forcing a relinquishing

453
00:24:02,000 --> 00:24:04,000
of civil liberties like privacy.

454
00:24:04,119 --> 00:24:06,160
Speaker 1: It sounds like a potential tool for oppression.

455
00:24:06,359 --> 00:24:10,279
Speaker 2: And lastly, there's a critique of the hypercolonial pretensions in

456
00:24:10,319 --> 00:24:14,720
some transhumanist visions. Ray Kurdswel talks about saturating the entire

457
00:24:14,839 --> 00:24:16,720
universe with our intelligence.

458
00:24:16,279 --> 00:24:18,319
Speaker 1: Like cosmic colonization exactly.

459
00:24:18,640 --> 00:24:23,079
Speaker 2: Critics see it mirroring hand oracle colonialism's exploitative expansionism, but

460
00:24:23,160 --> 00:24:26,640
on a universal scale, it risks overlooking the fragility of

461
00:24:26,640 --> 00:24:29,559
a material world that cannot be replaced. In its relentless

462
00:24:29,599 --> 00:24:33,319
drive to transcend limits and spread intelligence. It's a profound

463
00:24:33,319 --> 00:24:35,519
shift in how we might see ourselves and our place

464
00:24:35,559 --> 00:24:36,319
in the cosmos.

465
00:24:36,559 --> 00:24:40,519
Speaker 1: Wow, we've covered a huge amount today. It's been well,

466
00:24:40,640 --> 00:24:43,599
a fascinating and sometimes deeply unsettling deep dive.

467
00:24:43,839 --> 00:24:46,599
Speaker 2: It really spans the ages, doesn't it, From that ancient

468
00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:50,200
philosophical yearning for eternity right up to the cutting edge

469
00:24:50,279 --> 00:24:52,559
labs funded by today's billionaires.

470
00:24:52,759 --> 00:24:55,160
Speaker 1: Yeah, the quest isn't new, but the tools and the

471
00:24:55,200 --> 00:24:59,400
stakes feel radically different. Now we've seen these transhumanist visions

472
00:24:59,559 --> 00:25:02,400
promise incredible futures, radical life.

473
00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:06,440
Speaker 2: Extension, but inextricably tangled up with really complex ethical notts,

474
00:25:06,960 --> 00:25:10,519
huge questions about inequality and the fundamental nature of power

475
00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:12,720
in a technologically advanced society.

476
00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:16,640
Speaker 1: We've explored how these dreams could fracture society, creating maybe

477
00:25:16,640 --> 00:25:20,359
biological casts the gods and the useless. We've touched on

478
00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:23,079
the philosophy of why we fear death, the psychology of

479
00:25:23,119 --> 00:25:26,720
needing immortality, and the cold, hard cash flowing into companies

480
00:25:26,799 --> 00:25:31,000
like Altos Labs. It's both tantalizing and frankly terrifying.

481
00:25:31,200 --> 00:25:33,559
Speaker 2: It forces us to confront some fundamental choices.

482
00:25:33,759 --> 00:25:36,079
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for you listening right now?

483
00:25:36,599 --> 00:25:40,160
As this tech accelerates, as the lines blur between human

484
00:25:40,200 --> 00:25:45,000
and machine, between life and obsolescence, how do we navigate this?

485
00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:47,920
How do we make sure this pursuit of longer, maybe

486
00:25:47,960 --> 00:25:51,960
better life for some doesn't create unprecedented division and control.

487
00:25:52,200 --> 00:25:54,400
Speaker 2: What kind of future do we actually want? And maybe

488
00:25:54,440 --> 00:25:56,680
more importantly, who gets to decide what that future?

489
00:25:56,680 --> 00:25:58,640
Speaker 1: It looks like it leaves us to the start question,

490
00:25:58,680 --> 00:26:01,920
doesn't it Is this quest to cheat death ultimately a

491
00:26:01,960 --> 00:26:05,759
collective human triumph waiting to happen? Or is it paving

492
00:26:05,759 --> 00:26:08,880
the way for a terrifying new kind of existential inequality?

493
00:26:09,079 --> 00:26:12,839
Something to really think about.