Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 20, 2001 - Art Bell

02:39:00

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Nanotechnology and Cryonics - Dr. Ralph Merkle

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high deserts and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening. I'm
	excited to see you.
	This is Coast to Coast AM, and I'm Art Bell.
	So great to be back.
	So great to be back.
	I guess it's in my blood, all right?
	And when it's gone, I just, I miss it so horribly.
	I miss all of you, and I miss doing this program, and it's just great to be back.
	Anyway, Let us look at the war news.
	Marines now aboard assault ships in the Arabian Sea are likely to be sent into Afghanistan.
	They're sending the Marines, possibly this week, to join the special operations troops already present.
	A Pentagon official speaking on condition of anonymity, please don't keep my name, said that as many as 1,500 Marines might go, but no final decision has yet been made.
	Uncertain what missions they might perform when they get there.
	Probably doing what Marines do.
	Killing things and breaking things.
	That's what the armed services do.
	And they're doing a very good job of it, too, in Afghanistan right now.
	A top UN envoy to Afghanistan said that power-sharing talks concerning post-Taliban government may begin next Monday in Germany after the rebels agreed today to participate in the discussions in Kunduz, the Taliban's last northern stronghold.
	Fighting is still absolutely fierce.
	Many are martyring themselves and blowing themselves up.
	It is indeed very fierce fighting.
	An FBI... This is a puzzle to me.
	This story is a puzzle to me, as a couple of others like it have been.
	Go figure on this one.
	An FBI microbiologist speaking on condition of anonymity Said today, there were easily billions of anthrax spores in a letter addressed to Senator Patrick Leahy.
	Billions, mind you.
	Enough to poison millions.
	Elsewhere, an elderly woman, this is what I don't get, living in rural Connecticut, was diagnosed with inhalation anthrax.
	This lady is 90 years old.
	In her 90s, actually.
	It is the most deadly form of the disease.
	One would imagine at her age it's going to be a real difficult pull back to health if she's able to.
	She is in critical condition.
	Nobody, of course, can explain how she contracted anthrax.
	It would be, if confirmed, the first case of anthrax in the state of Connecticut.
	And you know, I wonder what's going on with this story.
	And stories like it.
	Now, surely you understand the anthrax cases in the media.
	They were sent letters.
	You understand the anthrax cases in the government.
	However, these seemingly random cases that have shown up And there have been several of them now.
	People with no connection to anything that has any relevance to what's been going on coming down with inhalation anthrax.
	And you notice you get these stories, and then these stories simply disappear.
	They just go away, and you never get any follow-up to them.
	Actually, that occurs with an awful lot of stories, doesn't it?
	They just go away, and you never get a follow-up.
	Go figure.
	Climate experts at the University of Michigan's Biological Station in Pelston say that rising global temperatures could result in mild winters with little snow over the next 50 years in Michigan.
	Climate change is a result of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
	One of the so-called greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, released when fuels such as gasoline are burned In Michigan, where it ought to be really, really, really cold, it may not be so cold.
	The next few decades, in fact, may become, with regard to summers, most definitely longer and hotter, and winters will start to become shorter and warmer with less snow.
	Won't that be interesting?
	Isn't it interesting to watch the changes in the world going on around us, for example?
	Yesterday I told you there was a new iceberg.
	All adrift now from Antarctica.
	A two, get this, a 233 square mile iceberg has broken off the Pine Island Glacier in the Antarctic.
	And that makes it about 25 miles long and 9 miles wide.
	Oh my!
	My, my.
	So, you know, our satellite sensors find these things as the Antarctic continues to basically melt.
	Some world we're in, huh?
	Really, some world.
	The Sun continues to be incredibly active.
	The scientists appear to have missed the peak.
	Now, there may be some argument about that, but You know, every 11 years we have a peak in the solar cycle, and then we have an 11-year low.
	Head toward a low for 11 years.
	We should now be headed toward the low, but certainly the amount of activity wouldn't indicate that is the case, so something's going on.
	Here comes the sun.
	All kinds of comment on last night's show.
	What a blockbuster show, huh?
	Atlantis.
	Now, Paulina Zalitsky in an interview now says, not only do they have the side scan radar showing an ancient city, buildings, roads, pyramids, everything you would associate with a city in the sand, a half mile, 2200 feet below the Atlantic, I mean, now they've got photographs.
	Showing symbols on stones twenty two hundred feet below the ocean surface.
	We may have found Atlantis.
	And a lot of comments.
	Hey Art, the show last night was great, particularly drawn to this description Plato gave of the structures on the island of Atlantis.
	It seems to me that the way they constructed the rings of walls covered with blue, white and black material And the temple in the center, with a copper roof and water in between the walls, probably salt water, could be the largest natural battery ever made.
	This whole island could have been a power plant, possibly producing enough power to mine copper, even at great distances.
	This is from Wendy, and I thought that was a brilliant idea.
	And indeed, it could be the case.
	Who's to say that the ancients did not have technological capabilities of their own that would rival, and in some cases, in some ways, surpass ours.
	After all, we know that in Egypt they moved stones that were unmovable, things that could not have been moved.
	In fact, you go to Egypt, I did, and you stand with Zahi Hawass, and he will tell you, he will show you how stones can be split, how How it can be split?
	Granite can be split, but... Gosh!
	You ask him how it got way up there, and he shrugs his shoulders, and he goes, Ah, this is the mystery.
	We don't know!
	And indeed, they don't know, and it's possible there's all kinds of ancient technology, including giant batteries.
	That the ancients could have used, perhaps even power in some way, virtually from the air.
	Powers that we don't understand and we haven't used in a long, long time.
	And speaking of that, I would like, you know, I think I'd like to have a lot of you comment, if you wouldn't mind, on how you're going to feel when this story breaks.
	Are you going to be surprised?
	I mean that everything that we thought was true isn't true.
	And that mankind has been here for a very, very, very long time.
	Much, much longer than we previously thought.
	Now I understand a lot of paradigms are going to come crashing down.
	But I also understand a lot of you are not going to feel crushed.
	Do you understand that many will?
	That many people's belief systems are wrapped around, you know, what they were sure was true.
	That the ground we stand on, the continents we're on, are solid, and we don't have to worry about comets, and asteroids, and land sinking a half mile below the water, and civilizations virtually becoming erased.
	It's going to be a hard pill to swallow that all of this is possible.
	Because if it happened once, it can happen again.
	Here's another one, Rachel on Atlantis, on the Atlantis Find.
	It's quite possible that the reason the U.S.
	Navy would not reveal such a, and this is really interesting, I mean, you know that in the waters off Cuba, both Russian and American submarines have prowled those waters.
	For years and years and years, hunting each other.
	Anyway, he goes on.
	It's quite possible that the reason the USN wouldn't reveal such a find is that it could compromise sensitive information.
	Where are subs patrol, how deep they go, and so forth.
	Or, they could simply say, it's not their job.
	Which would be literally true, but amazing when you consider the implications.
	If scientists insist the ruins at such depth would be impossible, Then Arthur C. Clarke is right, and the scientists must be wrong.
	And I would think you would want to comment on this, and I would love to have you do so.
	So in this hour, and we're open lines this hour, by the way, I'd love to have you comment.
	The implications of this are just incredible.
	Absolutely incredible.
	Hey, I'd like to welcome a new affiliate.
	KWCK in Searcy, Arizona.
	That's S-E-A-R-C-Y.
	I don't know where Searcy, Arizona is.
	Anybody out there know?
	1300 on the dial in Searcy, Arizona.
	K-W-C-K.
	Welcome to the network.
	In a moment, we'll continue, and open lines are coming up.
	So, if you've got the numbers, let's rock.
	Next hour, we're going to be talking with a Dr. Ralph Merkel about nanotechnology.
	And that's another subject I'd like to talk with all of you about is technology in general, nanotechnology specifically.
	It's a really, really, really interesting topic to me.
	You can look at technology in many ways.
	A lot of people reject it.
	I don't need no damn computer.
	I'm not going to participate in that.
	And in the end though, as the world races forward, and it surely is racing right now, The quickening is well underway.
	As the world races forward, it may be the only thing that will save us.
	As nations develop all kinds of horrible biological weapons, nanotechnology may save our butts.
	Or, it could be the end of our butts.
	We'll see.
	Alright, it's into the night.
	Open lines.
	Anything you want to talk about is fair game.
	I've put a fair amount on the table, so grab what you wish and run with it.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	This is James calling from Rutland Manor.
	How you doing?
	Not too bad.
	So I heard some of your The Atlanta Show last night.
	Yes, sir.
	We're about three miles from the rail station where I work overnight for the same reason.
	We always lose you the last couple hours.
	Just bad recession doesn't come in.
	Radio conditions have been very, very, very odd lately due to the activity on the sun.
	But I like the theory that we may have been more advanced than we are now at some point.
	You know, I don't know if I actually buy that.
	How about this as a theory?
	Okay.
	That we could have been a pretty good technological civilization then, but in a different way than we are now.
	In other words, a totally different technology that we don't begin to understand right now.
	Maybe Tesla understood a little bit of it.
	But do you understand what I'm saying?
	Technological, but in a different way.
	Oh yeah, Tesla, like the wireless electricity.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I like it.
	I buy it.
	Yeah, I buy it too.
	Does it bother you?
	No, not at all.
	It maybe gives us hope.
	Maybe it does.
	Thank you very much.
	I think the way I digest it as well, on the one hand, it is going to break apart a lot of paradigms and things that people believe in religious beliefs and all the rest of it, but I think religion will survive such a revelation.
	I think I will survive such a revelation.
	And frankly, it really intrigues me.
	I'm not threatened by it, nor scared.
	Are you?
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi Art, how are you?
	Okay sir, where are you?
	San Diego.
	Okay, you're on the air.
	Okay, what I wanted to say is a few nights ago, Ian Punnett had some guy on talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	Yes.
	And he stated that the Dead Sea Scrolls don't mention Jesus.
	And I wanted to say that that is inaccurate.
	In 1973, The contents of Cave 7 were translated, and they found nine New Testament documents in there.
	Well, whether Jesus is mentioned or not, is that going to affect your... No, not at all.
	I didn't think so.
	Not at all, but he made it as if that was a truth, and it's not.
	Nine New Testament documents were found, and they were dated to the first century.
	And in fact, the London Times, the Los Angeles Times, And New York Times and the Biblical Archaeological Review stated that this is an archaeological fact.
	But you sound like you're upset.
	I am a little bit because he offended some of the audience and he stated it, you know, an archaeological dishonest.
	I said, sir, you're going to be a perfect person for me to ask a couple questions.
	I understand where you're coming from, but where you're coming from makes me realize you're going to be great for this.
	There's increasing evidence That everything that we believe to be true about the origins of man may be totally, totally wrong.
	Even some of what's contained in the Bible about, you know, when creation occurred and all the rest of it may simply be wrong.
	And there may have been civilizations millions of years ago.
	How do you digest that kind of information?
	Well, first of all, I would examine those evidential claims, and a lot of that's conjecture and theory and speculation, and I deal with facts and archaeological truths and real evidence.
	So, if they can actually provide that evidence, then we'll deal with it at the time.
	Yeah, but even a lot of the stuff you're talking about is argued back and forth and debated by many people.
	You simply accept that as fact and want to hold out for harder evidence to believe anything else, correct?
	Well, what is argued?
	You mentioned that it's argued.
	What exactly are you referring to?
	Well, I mean, people argue all kinds of things about creation, for example.
	Yeah.
	There's a great debate that rages about all of that, and I'm sure you solidly believe in creation, don't you?
	Yeah, I do.
	It is true that scientists are debating that.
	There's the young earth theory, the old earth theory.
	Oh, yes.
	I personally subscribe to the old earth.
	You know, fearing that the universe is billions of years old, because I think the greatest scientists have proven that.
	But what if, yes sir, but what if man is proven to have been around long before the Bible says he was created?
	Now, isn't that a bit of a problem?
	Well, if it can be proven, then we'll deal with them, but I don't think it's been proven yet, you know?
	If it were to be proven, just for the sake of inquiring of your mind, if it were to be proven, how would you... But if it were to be proven, sir, that's the question.
	You used the word proof yourself, so I'm just giving you a hypothetical.
	If it were to be proven, how would that affect what you think?
	It wouldn't affect it at all.
	It would just show that the book of Genesis is a mystery.
	You know, and all truth is of God.
	But now you believe it to be a fact, right?
	Genesis, what you read in Genesis, to be a fact.
	And so if there's proof that it's wrong, you would simply say it would prove the book is a mystery.
	No, if they can prove that man predates our current views, it doesn't refute Genesis.
	Shows that we haven't fully, you know, uncoded Genesis and fully interpreted it.
	I see.
	So we haven't quite read it right.
	True, yeah.
	Okay, listen, I appreciate your point of view and I thank you for calling.
	Thank you.
	Take care.
	That is really, really interesting.
	You know, I could sense I had a hardcore person of faith here.
	And isn't it interesting to listen to his answer?
	Did you listen very carefully?
	I mean, on the one hand, in doing it differently, everything in Genesis is an absolute fact, right?
	But, you know, if the scientists come along and prove it's not a fact, then he would convert what he believes very quickly and easily, and he would say to himself, well, it just means we haven't read it and interpreted the whole thing correctly.
	And maybe that's how those of great religious faith will get by all of this.
	And maybe we'll get by all of this.
	I'm Art Bell.
	From the high desert of Nevada, this is Coast to Coast AF.
	The hollow city streets, bleeding.
	Light from the neon turned the dark, fading.
	People too hot to sleep in.
	We had to get out by telling the other lie.
	Without a reason why, you've blown it all so high.
	To reach our goal in the kingdom of Nigh from Wastaville on the Isle of Wight.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	1-800-825-5033. First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line
	at 1-775-727-1295. To recharge on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator
	and have them dial 800-893-6235.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
	You lied to me.
	You blunted all sky high.
	You told me where we came from.
	And you lied.
	You said it was all in the book.
	That's the way a few will react, but maybe not all.
	That color was very, very interesting, wasn't he?
	You lied to me.
	We'll be right back.
	Ah, the crack of the thunder and the bashing of the night.
	We go west of the Rockies.
	You're on the air.
	Good morning.
	First of all, I want to say that this Atlantis, this Atlantis business, this is all the devil's deception.
	It is being Wait a minute, what?
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Insultation?
	Let me tell you something, I could never do half the job on you that you do on yourself.
	Now listen to me for just one moment, would you please?
	All right, good.
	If science finds through the methods science uses, which includes video cameras and all the rest of it, that there really is a city below the waters in Cuba, and yesterday we got evidence that indeed there is.
	I'll tell you what they're doing.
	I'll tell you what they're doing.
	What?
	The same pornographers that are creating that Star Trek are doing this special event.
	Pornographers did not create Star Trek.
	Star Trek is one of my favorite programs.
	Star Trek?
	Yes!
	Star Trek is an icon of American science fiction.
	It is part of the media pornography that is assaulting our nation.
	Star Trek is just among, it's terrible.
	If you've ever seen that show, whether it's 69 or whatever they have.
	I have seen every single episode of Star Trek.
	The original Star Trek with Captain Kirk.
	You would because you're in league with the media pornography.
	You don't love Captain Kirk.
	And Spock.
	Captain Kirk, if you happen to know, Captain Kirk was, who was he played by?
	A Canadian.
	So?
	A Canadian.
	So?
	William Shatner is a Canadian operative.
	So, operative?
	That's correct.
	Operative?
	He's one of the Canadian subversives.
	William Shatner is a spy for Canada?
	The Canadians are in control of the media in this country.
	Oh my God.
	Give me, give me, give me one, one shred of evidence.
	Give me one shred of evidence that Canada is anti-US, that Canada is... Okay, I have it for you.
	I have it.
	Aha!
	The X-Files.
	In fact, when I called before to talk to Chris Cater, who was the creator of the X-Files, when he was on, you put me on hold.
	You would not allow me to be on the airwaves with him, because you knew I would confront him with the light and the Lord's truth, and I would bring the new revelation forward against him, because the X-Files is Canadian pornography meant to disrupt the mind and disrupt our government.
	It's all about how the American government is evil.
	Hey, J.C., J.C., J.C., how do you feel about Hollywood?
	Hollywood is a cesspool.
	A cesspool.
	Yes.
	You've never allowed me to speak about my cause.
	I run CLAMP, the Christian Legion Against Media Pornography.
	Hallelujah.
	So you're leading a sort of a charge against... Yes, I am.
	The Christian Legion against media pornography in Hollywood is the stronghold of the pornographers.
	And there's more pornographization in our media than just sex.
	If you've ever seen the food shows that are coming out of Hollywood, where they garnish all this food and dress it up and make it look all succulent.
	Let's get back to sex for a second.
	Do you honestly think sex is... I mean, sex has a place, right, Jason?
	Even you've probably had sex.
	Haven't you had sex?
	Listen, I'm not going to give you titillating stories about my life.
	There are titillating stories to be told, are there?
	No, you're twisting my words around.
	Sex is evil.
	Sex is a punishment by the Lord.
	Sex is a punishment by the Lord?
	The act of reproduction can be accomplished in two strokes.
	Two thrusts.
	One for insertion, one for completion!
	Good Lord!
	I'm so righteous, I'm done in one!
	JC, you know something I've never asked you that I'd like to ask?
	Are you married?
	That's none of your business!
	That's true, I just thought I'd ask.
	Well you ought to know!
	You've been running around in my bushes all this time!
	You call my home!
	I call your home?
	You've been accusing me of that for years!
	I don't call your home, I don't know where you are, and I don't care!
	Yes, you do!
	You call me up, and you use that silly voice of yours to taunt me!
	Now listen, you're trying to distract me from my message, which is the new revelation, and the new commandments, as I've been charged with the Lord's work.
	And all this time, you insult me, you called me Uncle Fester last time, you called me a coward, how dare you!
	I think we ought to settle this like men, with our fists!
	Really?
	At the time.
	Yes, I would have that in mind.
	A cop behind a woodshed?
	Anytime, Mr. Ballard!
	Alright, as long as my back is in condition, JC, I'm ready for you, brother.
	You are a coward!
	You are the coward!
	Come get a piece of me, JC!
	You're the liar!
	You're the coward!
	And I was talking about the media pornographization of food!
	And you didn't let me finish my point!
	Please finish that.
	Yes, please finish that.
	These cooking shows, which are appealing to our gluttony, in order to so many fatsos stocking the snack bars in this country!
	So you watch food shows, do you, JC?
	Listen, I only, I watch in reconnaissance, I am going on reconnaissance missions, I have to know my enemy, and I'll tell you, they dress the food up, they dress the food up, they make it look so succulent and tempting, and inviting people to gorge themselves.
	Hey, J.C., do you watch the Iron Chef?
	Yes, I do.
	I knew it.
	Because, who was in charge of Iron Chef?
	William Shatner!
	William Shatner was on the Iron Chef!
	That's what I'm talking about!
	I'm talking about the glorifying food for all the workers of the world!
	you're fading away, you're fading away, you're going, you're gone.
	That would be my limit of JC for tonight. First time caller on the line, you're on the air. Hello.
	Oh, hello. I'm just giggling.
	I can't help it.
	And nibbling on a pornographic carrot, probably.
	Well, I have to redefine pornography, first of all.
	And then we need to let the world know that there's an art ballad terrorizing this poor man.
	My name is Valerie, and I'm from Ohio.
	Oh, yes, uh-huh.
	And I'm just a noon listener, and I listen to you while I try to sleep, but I can't sleep when I listen to you.
	What I'm interested in is, the young gentleman was talking about Genesis, and I guess I missed something when he talked about that this was going to redefine how we felt about creationism.
	Well, I said that.
	He said, and I thought it was very...
	Very revealing.
	He said that, look, what's in Genesis right now is absolute fact.
	However, if they find something that disputes that, that shows that it's not fact, then all it means is that we didn't read Genesis the right way.
	Yeah, I think you're right.
	I agree.
	That's what he said.
	I agree that if that's the fact, then maybe we didn't read Genesis the right way.
	But even if...
	It's not right.
	I'm so excited about them finding all these things.
	As a matter of fact, about six months ago I saw a program on cable, and I couldn't tell you what channel it was on, but they were talking about finding this sign around Cuba.
	Yes.
	At any rate, I think when we talk about creationism and God, and I'd like to think of myself as a spiritual person, Well, if the Lord created the earth first, and then he created man, then he used what was here on the earth to create us.
	And then that's what we try to do with the things that we create.
	Do you consider yourself a religious person?
	You said spiritual, and I have a feeling in today's lexicon there's a difference.
	Well, I guess maybe I'm both then.
	Because, you know, I'm a true believer in God and a higher force.
	You know, whatever you may want to call him.
	Okay, well, his name has to be God.
	I mean, if my last caller were on the line, he would tell you, it must be God.
	His name is God.
	I appreciate the call.
	Thank you.
	Yes, it has to be God.
	No other name will do.
	Is that true in today's modern world, that there's a difference between a spiritual person and a religious person?
	I think there is.
	A lot of people seem to sort of cherry-pick what they want to believe, reject a lot of traditional values and faiths, and nevertheless claim they are spiritual in their own way.
	And I guess that's right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Is that fight between you and JC on pay-per-view, by the way?
	If not, it probably ought to be on.
	I'd love to see that.
	Anyway, you know, people say about these ancient civilizations that Well, they were technologically superior or whatever, but the thing is... Not... Now, here we go again.
	Okay.
	Not necessarily superior.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	And that's my point, because... And here's my two cents.
	So, we have the Earth here tilting at 23.5 degrees or whatever, plus you have evidence, solid evidence of these cataclysmic events.
	Maybe the reason why we supposedly can't access this ancient technology is because the environment itself was different.
	Or maybe the magnetosphere was different.
	Some people say that there was a watery-like shell around the Earth instead of what we have now.
	And if the environment was different, maybe Those people didn't need, like, telephone.
	Well, you could be absolutely right, but I'll tell you something.
	I would not lay my money on that.
	I would lay my money on all that could be done then, could be done now, if we knew how to do it.
	I think our science proceeds in a certain way, in a certain linear fashion, our science does, and there could have been a whole different science based on a whole different set of rules.
	And that's why I think the people who are going to be affected by whatever new revelation is coming is not going to be the people of faith or the religious.
	It's going to be the scientific community who thinks in this linear, step-by-step, we-know-it, and you know, that egocentric, those people are going to be shocked and will not be able to adapt.
	Hail William Shatner.
	Bye-bye.
	Take care.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hi Art.
	Hello there.
	How are you?
	Well, how am I?
	That's an interesting question.
	Pretty good, actually.
	Thank you.
	I think that it was an interesting comment with the previous caller.
	It's definitely the scientists, but it's the scientists who are going to repress all this stuff.
	Well, they do that very well.
	Yeah, and I thought the Atlanta show, I didn't hear all of it.
	I heard bits and pieces.
	It was fascinating and I'm really interested in the subject.
	And I'm assuming I can go on your website and get more of what I missed?
	Always.
	Okay.
	I just feel that certainly there were civilizations, I believe, more advanced than ours.
	Lemuria, I don't know very much about, and Atlantis.
	I'm looking here at the map, I think... I say again, advanced but in a different way, I believe.
	Really, I do.
	I think there's a lot of things that were discovered long ago, were used to move stones, giant stones that could not be moved.
	There was a man who built something called Coral Castle in Florida who appeared to have the secret and went to his grave with it.
	But there's plenty of evidence, more than anecdotal, that some other technology existed.
	I'm sure it's still there, we just don't know how to access it.
	Some other form of energy.
	Yes, ma'am.
	And I've heard a theory previously about Atlantis, about crystal energy, and then actually, because Atlantis is under the Atlantic, somewhere off the coast of Florida, it's partially causing the Bermuda Triangle.
	But I like this Cuba thing, and if you look at the map just west of Cuba, wasn't there supposed to be a huge meteorite that hit there in the Gulf?
	Oh, yes.
	Which certainly would have buried Atlantis.
	Could have, yes.
	I hope this is Atlantis.
	That these people who lived in Atlantis probably did come from another star system.
	And I think that there are people from that race still here.
	Entirely possible.
	Star people.
	Entirely possible.
	And there may be many descendants of those star people.
	Some of us may be those descendants.
	Anything's possible.
	Right.
	And I think Jesus was one.
	And so that Christian caller, aside from Genesis, There's no reason why any of this would repudiate Jesus being this being of light.
	That's exactly what he was.
	Yes, sir.
	Oh, yes, ma'am, rather.
	I'm sorry.
	Yes, a being of light.
	And many have described him exactly that.
	I mean, you could be absolutely right.
	I would be last in the world to reject what you just said.
	OK?
	OK.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	Last in the world to reject anything like that.
	On the international line, you are on the air.
	Hello.
	Yes, good morning.
	This is George speaking from Oslo, Norway.
	Oslo, Norway?
	Yes.
	Aye, aye, aye.
	It must be... What is it now in Oslo?
	Middle of the day?
	Well, it's actually almost 8 o'clock.
	In the morning?
	Yes, sir.
	Yeah, that would make sense, right.
	But we don't see the sun yet.
	It won't be up for another half hour.
	Oh, that's right.
	You're way, way up north.
	Yeah, actually, we're about as far up as Anchorage.
	If I'm listening correctly to your accent, you are a Canadian.
	Yes, that's right.
	So what are you doing in Oslo?
	Well, I'm actually working as a scientist here at the University.
	Actually, that was part of the reason why I called is because after having listened to some of your previous guests, I have to say scientists are just as much of preconceived ideas and embrace their favorite and pet theories as much as, let me
	say, people who are hardcore spiritualists.
	Maybe even more so.
	I would have to say you're probably right because for us, embracing a lot of those theories
	is good for us financially and for careers.
	Well, though, did you know that the Brookings Report, which dealt with how the public would react if there were a revelation that we had been visited or are being visited by extraterrestrials, indicated that the chief group to be upset by this, first in line to be upset by this, would be scientists.
	They would totally freak out.
	They're not ready for it.
	Oh, you're absolutely right.
	You're absolutely right.
	When I talk to my fellow colleagues here in Norway about UFOs and other phenomena that are a bit on the outside of what is, let me say, measurable to most people, they treat it as if I'm some kind of dope-smoking fiend.
	You're not, right?
	No, no, I'm not.
	Well, I'm sure they do.
	I mean, it threatens everything that they believe.
	And so, yeah, I mean, they'd find any way to put you down.
	Yeah, no, you're absolutely right.
	There's so many vested interests.
	I think probably the best example is the arguments you hear about climate change and the causes and the extent of human effects on climate change.
	There are so many groups and scientists that have funded from one end or another that it really muddies the water and confuses things instead of helping humanity figure out exactly what we can or cannot or should or should not do.
	It's a shame really.
	You're originally from Canada even though you're in Norway so you might want to say a good word or two about William Shatner.
	I've heard a few stories about William Shatner, and anyway, that's a long story, I don't want to get into it.
	No kidding, you haven't sent him down to spy on us, have you?
	No, actually, we've sent Michael J. Fox down to spy on us.
	So how long are you going to be in Norway, and how do you like it there?
	Oh, I love it.
	It's just great.
	I was there a few years ago, and it is just beautiful.
	It's absolutely fabulous, especially when the snow starts falling.
	Everything's just completely snow-covered, and it's not oppressively cold, at least here in Oslo, because we've got the Gulf Stream coming through to just take a bit of the edge.
	For the moment, you haven't.
	Now, I read a story Before I last left, because of my back, about the Gulf Stream having slowed about 20% in the last X number of years.
	And if the Gulf Stream should ever stop, do you have any idea how much trouble England and a lot of Europe, even where you are, how much trouble you'd be in?
	How cold it would suddenly get?
	We would be in deep doo-doo.
	And I know exactly the report you're talking about.
	Oh, you do?
	You're aware of that?
	Oh, absolutely, and I've discussed it with my colleagues here, and once again, it's the same thing, because I catch on to some of this, in fact, by listening to your show, and I think, geez, I better check into the actual research.
	Could this really be true?
	And then you check into it, and lo and behold, it is.
	It's bona fide research.
	Sure.
	The hard numbers are there.
	Oh, yes.
	And so I discuss the possibilities with my colleagues here, and You know, well, you know, it's not enough information.
	I'm saying, look, you guys publish in nature, science, you know, highly rated journals, similar kind of values.
	And this is published in a highly rated journal, and you're not paying attention to it.
	Well, when it gets cold enough to freeze their tires to the road, maybe they'll take notice.
	But that really could happen.
	I mean, the Gulf Stream moderates temperatures across Europe, and they're where you are as well.
	So, yeah, wild stuff, sir.
	Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
	But I'm glad you've taken the time to research it.
	A lot of people listen to this and they sort of mentally just slough it off, and they say, wow, that's amazing, or something, and they've forgotten it five minutes around to something else.
	But if the climate in our world is changing, this is something to pay serious attention to, very serious attention.
	Absolutely, and I appreciate your efforts in broadcasting to the public that, you know, how much of a role man is playing.
	Listen, even if we're innocent, maybe we can do something about it.
	Maybe.
	I've got to run.
	We're at the end of this hour, so I've got to go.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Bell.
	Stay warm in Oslo.
	Thank you very much.
	And good morning.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Nanotechnology next.
	It is the night.
	My body's weak.
	I'm off the run.
	I've got to run, fight like the wind, to be free again.
	And I've got such a long way to go, to make it to the border of Mexico.
	Take this place, on that strip, just for me.
	Wanna take a ride?
	Well, call ArcBel from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	to the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to reach out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
	It certainly is.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Do you remember that movie?
	And the title escapes me at the moment.
	But they shrunk a guy down in a submarine and injected him into somebody's body to travel the blood vessels and byways of the body.
	And go in and fix something.
	It was the work of science fiction not very long ago.
	And I suppose, in a way, it still is.
	Actually, it still is.
	But it suggests the world of nanotechnology.
	And that's the world we're about to explore with Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	Murky, I guess it is.
	Murky?
	Merkel.
	Merkel is correct.
	Merkel, I hope.
	Dr. Merkel received his Ph.D.
	from Stanford University in 79.
	Where he, get this folks, co-invented public key cryptography.
	In other words, the secret codes, I guess, that you can use, you can get on the internet now and use to keep your messages secret, even perhaps from the government.
	We'll ask about that.
	He joined Xerox PARC in 1988.
	Where he pursued research in computational nanotechnology until 1999.
	He is now a principal fellow at ZIVX, where he continues to pursue research in nanotechnology.
	He chaired the 4th and 5th Foresight Conferences on Nanotechnology, was co-recipient of the 1988 Feynman Prize for Nanotechnology for Theory, was co-recipient of ACM's I believe it's Calicus Award for Theory and Practice, the 2000 RSA Award in Mathematics, and the IEEE Kobayashi Award.
	My, my.
	Dr. Merkel has published and spoken extensively on this subject.
	Tonight, he will speak to you.
	coming up in a moment dr merkel welcome to the program
	Bye.
	Thank you for having me.
	Oh, it's great to have you.
	Where are you physically located?
	Physically, I'm located in Sunnyvale.
	That's in the Bay Area out in California.
	That sounds about where you ought to be, I guess.
	Right in the heart of it all, huh?
	Pretty much.
	Oh, I should mention the movie you were trying to think of was Fantastic Voyage.
	That's the one.
	That's the one.
	They shrank that submarine down and Raquel Welch went out and... They didn't shrink her.
	Yeah, they didn't shrink her, though.
	Well, everything was kept in proportion.
	In proportion, that's right.
	That's really not nanotechnology, of course, but it is, I don't know, it suggests small... It's suggestive.
	I mean, basically, we will be able to have small molecular machines that we could inject into the circulatory system.
	Obviously, that's not something we have today, so we're talking a few decades before we get this.
	But at some point in the future, we will be able to inject small devices that can float around and zap the bad things and fix things up in various ways.
	Now these are actually machines, aren't they?
	These would be machines.
	They'd be molecular machines.
	And there are obviously a lot of ways you can design molecular machines.
	Well, I don't even know one.
	First of all, I don't understand.
	To me, a machine is gears and metal and moving parts and stuff like that.
	But that's not the kind of machine you're really talking about, is it?
	Well, we're talking about machines made out of atoms.
	Atoms?
	That's what everything is made out of.
	I mean, all the stuff around you is made out of atoms, and all the manufactured products we see are made out of atoms.
	And I should probably give your listeners a feel for how small an atom is.
	How small is an atom?
	It's really small.
	Well, your arm is about a meter long.
	Right.
	And if you take a thousand times smaller than your arm, You're down to one millimeter.
	Right.
	Which is small, but you can still see it.
	Not good as an arm, though.
	It's pretty small at that point.
	Yeah.
	If you go down a thousand times again, you hit a micrometer.
	Now, a micrometer is so small you can't see it, but if you use the best optical microscope, you'd barely be able to see it.
	Go down a thousand times again, and you're down to a nanometer, and a nanometer is a billionth of a meter.
	Now that's where we get the name nanotechnology, which is what we're talking about tonight.
	And an atom is just a little bit smaller than a nanometer.
	You can fit a few atoms in a nanometer.
	That's about the size scale we're talking.
	All right.
	Well, here's what I don't understand.
	Maybe you can find language to make me understand this.
	I understand how small this is.
	It's so small that nobody can see it, really.
	Certainly not with a microscope, anyway.
	Correct?
	Absolutely not!
	How do you, in any way that I can imagine, manipulate these small things into something that will be a functioning machine to do anything at all?
	Well, think of it this way.
	There are elements, there are atoms, and nature has given us the periodic table A hundred basic elements that include carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen and oxygen.
	And think of those little things as building blocks, sort of like Lego blocks.
	And this isn't a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.
	We really don't have the ability to arrange those fundamental building blocks exactly the way we want.
	In any way at all, really, right?
	Well, we can't arrange them.
	I mean, chemistry does arrange atoms, and it does a pretty good job of making small, precise things, but we don't have the ability to build things.
	I mean, think of it this way.
	Suppose you were trying to build stuff, and you weren't allowed to use your hands.
	You had to shake things around, you had to have them bump around, and they had to sort of somehow assemble into the thing you wanted to build.
	Now that's what chemistry is doing today.
	If you want to make something in a test tube, you pour molecules into that test tube and you shake it around.
	And if you've been clever, and chemists are amazing at this stuff, if you've been clever then the atoms will arrange into molecules that you want.
	They'll arrange themselves into things that are useful and interesting.
	I know, but that's the old-fashioned.
	No hands.
	Yeah, but still it's the old-fashioned.
	Pour this into this and they mix and interesting things happen.
	Fine, but I don't see how you get from there to actual manipulation of things that are that small to put them together.
	What would you need?
	What kind of tools would you need?
	You need really small hands.
	It's the way to do it.
	Well, actually, you know, a lot of people back before About 1981, thought that the idea of manipulating or picking up and looking at and moving individual atoms was just crazy, but then two guys made something called the Scanning Tunneling Microscope, and it lets you actually touch and see, if I can use that word, and move individual atoms.
	What it is, it's really just a very, very, very sharp stick.
	And if you have a really, really, really sharp stick, then the atom at the end of the stick can be brought right up to a surface.
	You're telling me there's actually a tool you can use?
	There's actually a tool you can use, and people have arranged atoms with it.
	Now, we're just beginning to do it.
	We're just beginning to learn how to arrange atoms.
	But it's pretty clear where things are going.
	We're going to be able to arrange atoms better and better as time goes on.
	And in the coming years, in the coming decades, we'll learn how to put those atoms together like you put Lego blocks together.
	Well, you know... That's going to really make a remarkable change.
	Who right now... But this is almost the stuff of science fiction.
	You know, William Shatner ought to be here right now.
	It's almost science fiction to most people.
	And you have to wonder where the money is coming from to fund all of this.
	Who is supporting this?
	Is it private industry now?
	Or is government?
	Is the DOD involved?
	Who's involved?
	The answer is yes.
	Nanotechnology, this idea of arranging atoms, has got everybody's interest.
	The government has a national nanotechnology initiative, which is funded at half a billion dollars a year, and it looks like that's going to go up.
	We're seeing funding by a lot of major companies, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, a lot of the major players in the computer industry are very interested in this because It'll let them make better computers.
	Well, they're about to hit a wall at some point.
	Do you believe they are?
	I mean, there you are in Silicon Valley.
	At some point, instead of doubling processor speeds every 18 months, they're bound to hit some kind of wall with conventional technology, aren't they?
	Well, everyone says we're going to hit a wall, and as we shrink the circuit sizes down smaller and smaller, At some point, what we're using, I mean we're using optical lithography right now, that's going to run out of steam.
	It won't let us build those small circuits.
	We'll have to switch over to something else.
	Do you think we're going to hit that wall before technology allows us to continue so that the 18-month cycle, you know, is endless virtually?
	Well, you know, a lot of people have forecast that we would We wouldn't fall off that path.
	We wouldn't hit Moore's Law, which is what you're talking about, this idea that things keep getting smaller and smaller.
	We double the number of transistors we can put onto a circuit every 18 months or so.
	And we still are on Moore's Law.
	It's really remarkable.
	That law has been going on now for decades, and it still hasn't run out of steam.
	So I'd be a little hesitant to predict that we're going to fall off any time soon.
	But it's real clear that the things we're doing now, the manufacturing methods we're using now, are going to have to change.
	We're going to have to adopt some new post-lithographic technology at some point in the coming years to keep that remarkable progress going, to let us build computers where the switches and the logic gates Can you imagine what they would be like?
	right into the molecular range so that we can build molecular computers.
	Can you imagine what they would be like, or what the speeds would be like if we could
	build molecular computers?
	Is there any reference you can use today to describe as compared to today's, you know,
	nice new 2 gig Pentium 4 or whatever, compared to what could be?
	Well, you could think of it this way.
	We'll be able to pack more computer power into the volume of a sugar cube than exists in the entire world today.
	Oh my God!
	We're going to be able to pack something like almost a billion Pentiums into that volume, and we're going to have a really astonishing amount of computer power.
	Now, I really want to convey the awesome power we're talking about.
	It will be so powerful, we will be able to run Windows 2015.
	Amazing things.
	You know, I've even heard speculation that if time travel is ever to be possible, it may take a molecular computer Well, I'll have to take a pass on that one.
	a molecular computer might be able to move or actually be in several dimensions at one
	time.
	There are a number of very distinguished physicists, theoretical physicists, who are talking about
	this now.
	Well, I'll have to take a pass on that one.
	I just study how atoms can be arranged.
	So getting into the physics of it gets a little bit beyond what I'm comfortable talking about.
	Well, again, with regard to funding, our government does not fund things quite the way private industry does.
	Their goals are different.
	And I'm sure that there is a great positive side to nanotechnology.
	And I'm sure there's probably a negative side, too.
	And I just have this feeling the government would be initially more interested, perhaps, in the negative side.
	Well, right now I think a lot of the funding is at the very basic science level.
	So we find NSF, the National Science Foundation, deeply interested.
	We also find a lot of other governmental organizations.
	I think right now We really don't know exactly what this new technology is going to be able to do and so there's a lot of basic research going on to figure out what it is and what we can do with it.
	I think everyone's in agreement we're going to be able to build better computers.
	So there are a lot of people putting a lot of bucks on it to Do the research to build better computers to keep the computer hardware revolution going.
	Well, Doctor, this may be out of your, away from your field as well, too, but there you are in the middle of Silicon Valley.
	If we build computers that good, you know, I suppose this will even brush up against religion in a way, but at some point, with so much speed, an unimaginable amount of speed and storage capability, you begin to approach and pass the human brain Incapability.
	And aren't you at some point going to get an aware computer?
	A computer that is aware of itself?
	There are a couple of things you can look at.
	First off, you can ask, how much computer power does the human brain have?
	Good question.
	A couple of estimates of that.
	And you know that number.
	It's an impressive number, but it is finite.
	And it looks as though if things keep going, we're going to have computers that have more raw computational power than the human brain.
	How much do we have?
	Is there any comparison you can give me that we would understand?
	Well, basically, if you have 10 to the 13th operations a second, I believe that was one estimate of the computational power of the human brain, then that would be roughly what the human brain could do And that is 10 trillion operations per second.
	Now, when you go down and buy your computer, you get a gigahertz computer that's about a factor of 10,000 slower.
	So we're not quite there yet, but we're getting there.
	And at the rate at which computer hardware keeps improving, we're going to have that kind of power, the raw power of the human brain, in another decade or two or three.
	Then you get into a question of price tag.
	Okay, you can build a big computer, a supercomputer that has that kind of power, but can you have a desktop computer that has the raw computational power of the human brain?
	Now, I've been ducking one question here.
	I've been saying raw computational power.
	Yes.
	The next question is how do you program it?
	And there's a lot of discussion about that.
	I think if we have a lot of raw computational power, Well, do we want them acting intelligently?
	computational power than the human brain, then it ought to make the problem of programming
	computers so that they are acting intelligent in some sense a lot easier.
	Huh. Well, do we want them acting intelligently? And by that I mean, maybe this is hard for
	you to discuss, but I'm not sure what consciousness really is, and it's an argument, a thing that
	everybody argues about, but at some point, doesn't computational power and storage equal
	eventual awareness?
	Well, there are a lot of philosophical arguments about that.
	People have really vigorous opinions, and I have to confess, I usually cop out.
	I ask people how they define consciousness.
	And I say, look, if you'll define consciousness, then I'll I'll try to answer the question of whether a computer is or is not conscious.
	All right.
	My best shot is self-awareness.
	Well, the reason that I say define consciousness, of course, is that it's very, very hard to define it.
	Is self-awareness consciousness?
	I mean, have we got a circular definition here?
	I'm aware of my own existence.
	Are you not?
	You're aware of your existence.
	Well, if mere awareness is the criteria, then you can have a computer that would be aware of its existence, and I think we could have a computer that was aware of its existence in some sense that was definitely unconscious
	So a computer could be aware of its existence if it was simply flopping its way across a room, and it wouldn't have to be aware in any deep or profound sense.
	I can duck that one real easy.
	Yeah, I hear that.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We're at the bye hour, and we'll be right back.
	I think that's my definition of consciousness.
	what's yours strange words as I make foolish people do
	I never dreamed that I'd meet somebody like you I never dreamed that I'd lose somebody like you
	I never dreamed that I'd lose somebody like you Wanna take a ride in my car?
	Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	Please call 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to call out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	We know it's cheap.
	Good morning everybody.
	Dr. Merkel is with us.
	Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	And we're talking about nanotechnology and right now about molecular computers.
	Computers so powerful and so small that right now they're virtually unimaginable and yet they're actually on the horizon.
	We'll get right back to Dr. Merkel.
	Maybe things like emotion and envy and ego are products of computational power, Doctor?
	Well, I think there's a fair argument that says that's true.
	I know that a lot of researchers in artificial intelligence are of the opinion that an appropriately programmed computer would be conscious, would be aware, and all of the other good things.
	Whether or not that's true in some ultimate sense is debated vigorously by Philosophers and others.
	I take it that your take on this is it probably is not true.
	In other words, you mentioned we could have a, we could have an intelligent computer that would not be conscious, or would perhaps not, yeah, would not have... You could have intelligence without consciousness, and depending on exactly what consciousness is, presumably you could have consciousness without intelligence.
	One might argue that there are people who demonstrate this today, but that's obviously not a philosophical argument.
	How far away, in practical terms, might we be?
	I know that we move very quickly, and sometimes we take big jumps.
	Could we take a sudden jump that would put us faster than we imagine into this world?
	Well, if all is possible, things will move more rapidly than expected, and they might move more slowly than expected.
	I actually have an entire webpage devoted to not answering the question of how long it will take to develop this technology.
	But I think mostly when you talk with people, they give answers of a few decades, 10, 20, 30 years, that ballpark.
	And I think if we're looking at the more dramatic developments in nanotechnology, that that's a fair assessment.
	Now, others will say, of course, that we already have.
	Some aspects of nanotechnology today, so we're seeing things moving forward.
	Indeed, and we're about to cover one of those.
	Your website, I take it, is the Foresight.org website?
	Foresight.org is the website of the Foresight Organization.
	Foresight's motto is Preparing for Nanotechnology.
	Alright, we've got a link to that on my website for anybody who wants to go up there.
	Artbell.com under program tonight's guest info and you'll be there now.
	Terrorism, we are currently, as you well know, facing this weird terrorist threat.
	We used to worry about nuclear bombs, mostly, and there's still a worry, however, The little things are beginning to be more of a worry, and by little things I mean this biological threat.
	Bad as anthrax is, it's a local problem.
	Basically a local problem.
	But if you set something loose that is capable of replicating itself like the flu virus, Or something of that order, then you have a worldwide, perhaps a worldwide problem, and a very serious worldwide problem, something that could even wipe out all of humanity.
	And I am told that there are nanotechnological solutions presently actually developed that would go after nasty little organisms and destroy them, eat them up.
	Is that It depends on what you mean by nanotechnology.
	Certainly there are pharmaceuticals which have been developed using buckyballs and other things that are normally associated with early aspects of nanotechnology.
	If you ask where is nanomedicine going, do we have molecular machines that we can inject that deal with things like anthrax or other invading bacterial or menaces, we don't have them yet.
	But at some point we will.
	I mean, we're talking about technology that is going to be developed over the next few decades.
	I think within the lifetime of most of the people listening to this program, so I think it will be of interest to get this technology moving, to get the technology in place so that we can use it to prevent things like infections, things like anthrax and other Concerns that people have.
	If we have the ability to respond to and eliminate from the system invading bacteria, we can keep people healthy.
	Is it easier to engineer a bacteria than it is to engineer a defense against a bacteria?
	Well I think we've seen a lot of cases where engineering defenses against natural problems can be easier or it can be more difficult.
	It's hard to say exactly what's What's going on?
	Certainly the defenses that have been considered, the kind of molecular machines that have been considered, look like they'll take a while to develop.
	If you ask, what about the long-term capabilities?
	If you ask, what happens if you want to defend against an attack?
	Then we see examples from history where new technologies have been Either advantageous for the defense or for the offense.
	Castles, for example.
	Castles are easy to defend and they're hard to attack until you have gunpowder, which makes it easy to attack the castle.
	Or nuclear weapons.
	Nuclear weapons are obviously advantageous to the offense.
	Something pervasive like electric power.
	It's a little bit difficult to say whether that gives the advantage to the offense or the defense.
	Electricity is something that Advantageous for both sides, and you would think that it's not clear whether you really get an advantage for either one.
	Now, nanotechnology is still in an early stage of development.
	We're still looking at the kind of capabilities, but right now I'd have to say that it's something that we can probably defend against more effectively if we have it.
	Than if we don't.
	And let me give you an analogy here.
	We've always had new technologies.
	Fire was a new technology at one point.
	When that first caveman came out and he had fire, he could burn down a forest.
	And that was really dangerous.
	But we've learned how to deal with fire.
	We have fire departments.
	We have fire extinguishers.
	We know what it is.
	We know how to gain the benefits while controlling the risks.
	And I think that's true.
	For all the technologies that we've developed, and I think it will be true for nanotechnology.
	We have a lot of bad wildfires out here in the West, Doctor, that get way out of hand and burn and burn and burn and burn.
	And we've got to keep them under control.
	So we control things, and we control a lot of it, but we don't control all of it.
	I've talked to a couple of other people in your field, and I think I know what grey goo is.
	Grey goo is interesting.
	Grey goo is neither grey nor goo.
	It's the idea that you could design something, an artificial device, that would be self-replicating, and you would design it to replicate in a natural environment.
	And if you design it that way, Then it could replicate unchecked and cause untold damage, overcome the planet, and cause, well, awful damage.
	It would virtually turn everything into some kind of goo, as it went.
	It would spread unchecked.
	In fact, it would spread, I suppose, exponentially, wouldn't it?
	That's right.
	Well, that's what happens when you have replicating systems.
	Increase very rapidly.
	Now, of course, when you look at that... How would it do that, Doctor?
	Would it be instructed to take all material, metal, rubber, wood?
	Well, it's hard to do, you know.
	I mean, when you look at it, biological systems, which replicate in a natural environment, biological systems are really pretty amazing.
	And it's pretty hard to make things that are able to replicate in a natural environment.
	Think of it this way, cars and horses both provide transportation.
	Now, a horse can live off the land.
	It can eat straw and carrots and grass and potatoes and sugar lumps and hay and everything.
	But a car, a car can only use gasoline, a single source of refined energy.
	If you feed it a sugar lump, it stops working real fast.
	Yes, it does.
	So when we design things, when we design gadgets and we build gadgets, they don't have the adaptability of biological systems.
	They don't have this marvelous capability.
	Not today's gadgets.
	Not today's gadgets and not the gadgets that I think anyone would want to build.
	If they have half a cent.
	Now that gets into another question.
	Well, we obviously live in a world where there are plenty of people without that sense.
	And now we have to ask the question.
	Who are fully suicidal and would use this technology if they had it to destroy the earth.
	You and I both know it's true.
	Well, what you need to do at that point is say, how do you defend against that?
	How do you block that?
	How do you detect it at an early stage?
	And again, you have to say, if this technology is Powerful.
	It's a new and powerful technology.
	How do you develop it safely?
	Which, actually, the Foresight Institute has been thinking about for quite a while.
	Well, how do you?
	Well, the Foresight Guidelines have been discussing exactly that.
	I think one of the things that will happen is that people will start developing systems.
	How do I put it?
	Artificial systems.
	Getting an artificial system to replicate.
	In a very controlled environment, it's going to be very, very hard.
	This is difficult.
	We're not looking at a technology which we're going to be able to develop in the next few years, the next decade, or probably even 20 years.
	It's going to take a while to get this kind of technology going.
	And when we do have replicating technology, it's very unlikely to bear any resemblance to biological systems.
	It's sort of like thinking that cars are going to resemble horses.
	It's the idea of a car running wild in the woods and sucking sap from trees doesn't make sense.
	And it doesn't make sense because it's really hard to design a system that will operate in the natural world and respond to the complex environment in a constructive way.
	It'll keep functioning.
	So, theoretically, grey goo is possible, isn't it?
	It's theoretically possible it would take a lot of work.
	Someone would have to sit down and systematically think about it.
	When you look at what would be involved, it's hard.
	Then you start to say, how do you prevent that?
	Obviously, the kind of thing you would look at would be how you detect such things early on, as I said.
	We have fire extinguishers.
	We have fire departments.
	Yes, but Professor, even if somebody didn't set out to make grey goo, as nanotechnology proceeds, there would be any number of things that could be very much grey goo-like that could get away from the developers very, very, very easily.
	I don't think so.
	In other words, we're used to thinking of self-replication In the context of living systems, and living systems have evolved over billions of years to deal with the natural environment.
	If you are building a system, one of the first things that you do, well, let's give a specific thing here.
	Living systems, biological systems, have DNA.
	They have their own blueprints on board.
	Instructions, yes.
	Instructions, exactly.
	Now, when you think about it, if you're building something, you don't want to have A hard time changing what it is you're building.
	You want to change what you're building right now.
	If you have a tree, a tree grows from a seed and it builds a tree.
	But suppose, instead of building a tree, you get a new order and you want to build something else.
	You want to give new instructions.
	So, one of the architectures for replication is what's called the broadcast architecture.
	And in that architecture, the actual device, the machines themselves, don't have their own blueprints.
	It's literally the case.
	They don't have the instructions.
	Those devices follow the orders.
	They follow the instructions they're given from outside.
	You broadcast the instructions to them, and they do as they're told.
	now if you flush that device down the toilet it's cut off from a broadcast of instructions and it doesn't
	work and
	on triple let's say it's economically advantageous to do that
	because that's what you want to do with your manufacturing you sort of build
	something that can you readily told to build
	shoes instead of boxes all right so so something like that would be possible
	You could create something in the nanotechnological world that would virtually build shoes.
	Or computers.
	Or whatever it is that you might want.
	Almost like Star Trek.
	Almost a replicator.
	In fact, this science is leading toward that, isn't it?
	A replicator.
	Well, basically we are leading toward the ability to Manufacture most arrangements of atoms that are consistent with physical law.
	So, okay, the replicator has a bunch of snazzy features that we don't have right now.
	It's awfully fast.
	I don't know how to build things that quickly.
	But we will have the ability to flexibly manufacture a lot of things.
	Think about a, well, a copier.
	Or a printer.
	Better yet, a printer.
	A printer is a device that makes marks on paper.
	Right?
	And you can send in a stream of bits to the printer, and the printer will produce any set of marks on paper you want.
	Correct.
	Now, it used to be, back in the Middle Ages, that producing marks on paper was really hard and really laborious, and you had to do it by hand, and it was painstaking.
	And now we think nothing of just printing out masses of stuff, because we have this device that can receive a stream of instructions and produce this output this printed object.
	Now suppose we had a greater degree of flexibility in that process.
	Suppose instead of a stream of instructions of putting marks on paper, it was a stream of instructions that said, here is an arrangement of atoms that I want you to build.
	Here are a series of instructions on how to build a thing.
	So you have a thing maker that will manufacture stuff.
	That device would be very useful.
	It would let us manufacture things.
	It would let us manufacture a wide range of products.
	And it would be quite useful.
	Well, that's going to be the first line of replicator.
	In other words, it's not going to replicate anything.
	It's going to have specific instructions to make one thing.
	That's going to be the first thing, I suppose, that comes along.
	But eventually, that would lead to a replicator kind of technology.
	It would certainly be on the way, wouldn't it?
	Well, it would lead to a manufacturing base where you could have devices that could make more manufacturing systems, so you'd have the ability to rapidly expand what you've made.
	Well, looking at all powerful technologies, they have two sides, and anything that would be positive, very positive and powerful on one side would be negative and dangerous on the other side, or could be certainly made to be so by those who wished it so, right?
	Well, all new technologies have been used for weapons.
	And I think we can reasonably expect that this new technology will also be used to build weapons.
	What kind of weapons do you imagine could be constructed using this technology?
	Well, one of the things going on here is that we'll be able to build lighter and stronger devices.
	So, we'll be able to build lighter and stronger systems of all types.
	We'll be able to build more powerful computers.
	So if we have more powerful computers, we can use those.
	We could have smart bullets.
	If you had a Cray computer in a bullet, then it would obviously have a much better guidance system, a much better ability to move forward.
	So we can imagine a lot of conventional weapon systems that are built using better materials, better products.
	And then, of course, there are, well, when you have a new technology, you also get new kinds of systems that you hadn't quite thought of before.
	A little more difficult to describe, though, because of course... Yes, but for example, in the medical world, Doctor, couldn't you virtually instruct something to go out and kill all people with blue eyes?
	That would be a little bit difficult right now.
	I don't know quite how I'd program that one.
	No, I didn't say right now.
	But certainly, one of the things... How do I put it?
	We're looking at new technologies, and one of the things you have to remember is that As we develop this new technology, we'll want to develop
	the capabilities of the good guys first.
	Because if you look at new technologies, they can be very scary. Fire or gunpowder.
	But you would not deny what I...
	They were...
	Yeah, I know. You wouldn't deny that what I just said may be possible in a future nanotechnological world, would you?
	You could target people of certain ethnicity and virtually have a nanotechnological genocidal feast.
	Gee, that sounds pretty bad.
	It sounds pretty bad.
	I think we should start developing defensive technologies very soon.
	So in other words, you acknowledge that the negative side of this technology could contain
	these kinds of dangers.
	Well, with a powerful technology you have a lot of possibilities you have to be prepared
	for.
	And I think this technology is one.
	Where we need to think about things.
	Yeah, I'm just looking at the present state of the world and saying not a whole lot is probably going to change.
	There will be bad people in the world as it goes forth.
	And if they had the ability to eliminate or to conduct genocide with that kind of technology, they'd do it.
	Doctor, hold on, we're at the top of the hour.
	My guest is Dr. Merkel, Dr. Ralph Merkel, and we're talking about very little things.
	very very very little thing.
	I'm going to show you how to make a nice little box.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
	My guest is Dr. Ralph Merkle.
	We're talking about nanotechnology.
	Little bitty things that'll change our world and turn it totally upside down.
	That will happen.
	We'll get right back to him.
	Once again, Dr. Ralph Merkle.
	Doctor, welcome back.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	You seem to be, as I listen to you, kind of a defender of the gentler side of nanotechnology, thinking that It's really not going to get that much out of our hands that there are ways to defend against that which man would do that would not be good and that overall it's going to be better than it is dangerous.
	Historically it's certainly the case that as we have looked at new technologies we have developed ways to understand them and ways to deal with them and ways to contain the risks and ways to gain the benefits I think that on this new technology we would be wise to understand the technology and as we understand it to investigate what the benefits are and what the concerns are and how to deal with the risks and make sure that those risks are controlled by basically careful investigation of the possibilities.
	And the good guys, right?
	And the good guys, yes.
	This is a technology where I think it would be advantageous to have Development by the good guys, as you call them, earlier on.
	So I think it would be a good thing, for example, if we were to develop and understand this technology in the democratic country of the world, and to realize what it was, and to not only gain the benefits, but I also think also understand how to develop the defensive capabilities.
	So we should have it before Saddam.
	Yes, I think that would be a very good idea.
	What about the positive applications?
	Cancer, heart attacks, heart problems, cholesterol in our system that we have various ways we try to reduce it.
	Couldn't there be little teeny weeny machines made that would go and basically do a Roto-Rooter job on you?
	Well, there are a whole bunch of applications of nanomedicine, and if you look around, you find that the opportunities are immense.
	Let's take heart attacks as an example.
	Today, if you have a heart attack, well, things progress rather rapidly and there's very limited time to deal with it.
	The primary problem, of course, is that oxygen is not getting to the tissues.
	Right now, your red blood cells carry oxygen from your lungs to your tissues.
	They soak up carbon dioxide and they carry that carbon dioxide back to the lungs where you exhale it.
	Right.
	If we could build an artificial red blood cell, we could do a better job if that artificial red blood cell could carry more oxygen.
	Now, as it happens, there's a proposal which has been published Which would have artificial red blood cells that basically would be very small spheres.
	They'd hold compressed oxygen at about a thousand atmospheres and you would inject perhaps 10 cc of these into the body.
	A few tens of cc's would provide you with enough oxygen for perhaps an hour and If you had these devices injected prophylactically, suppose you were at risk for a heart attack.
	Sure.
	You could have these injected and then, if you should have a heart attack, your first response would not be to collapse on the floor.
	Your first response would be, oh, my heart has stopped.
	And the reason you could have that response is that those artificial red blood cells, which have so much more oxygen That ordinary red blood cells would now be releasing that oxygen into your tissues to keep the tissues functioning and by time.
	Wouldn't that be something?
	Oh, wow, my heart has stopped.
	That would be great.
	And then you call up your doctor and say, hey, doc, my heart stopped.
	What should I do?
	And he'd say, see you in emergency room.
	See you in three weeks.
	I hope not.
	I don't think these devices would hold you that long.
	No, no, no.
	Buy you a little time, yes, but three weeks, that would be a bit of a stretch.
	But that really could come to pass.
	In other words, your system, your brain, and all parts of your body would continue to get oxygen even though your heart had stopped.
	So, basic bodily functions would continue.
	Exactly.
	You'd buy time, you'd buy enough time to get to the emergency room, You buy enough time for the doctor to examine you, to look at you, to see what was going on, to fix up whatever the problem was.
	Wow.
	And that's a rather remarkable thing.
	Now that's just one of the things that nanomedicine promises.
	That's one of the capabilities that's likely to occur again.
	It's a few decades away, but for all you folks out there who expect to be around for a few more decades, this is something that you could benefit from.
	What about cancer?
	Cancer is the out-of-control growth of cellular material, right?
	In other words... Yeah, it's your own cells gone wild.
	It's like grey goo in your body.
	It's bad stuff.
	Well, here you just inject something.
	Here the idea is you need to identify the cancer cells.
	Now, it's hard to identify cancer cells because they're your own cells gone bad.
	Right.
	But there are ways of doing it.
	There are subtle chemical differences.
	They produce slightly different proteins.
	And, in fact, people have tried to identify cancer cells by zeroing in on one particular protein they make.
	It hasn't been as successful as desired so far.
	But if you could inject a device, a nanodevice, that would monitor several different chemicals That could have a small on-board computer, and by small I mean really small.
	We're talking very tiny here.
	If that device could monitor a number of different chemicals and also could tell where it was in the body, then it would be able to not only say, gee, this pattern fits the pattern of a cancer cell, it's also in the right location for the cancer cell, and then it could remove the cancer cell.
	That would let us use pinpoint precision in identifying and removing cancer, and as a consequence, we should be able to convert cancer, which is a horrible killer, into something that could be dealt with by a visit to the doctor's office.
	Well, as I've always understood it, we begin dying not Not long after we begin living.
	In other words, for a while we generate more cells than I think we need or whatever.
	Anyway, a lot of new cells are generated when we're babies, but then as we get a little older we begin losing more than we're gaining.
	Well, basically the programming in your body doesn't quite work quite right as you get older.
	The DNA starts to get damaged and The programming of that DNA starts to lose track of whether it's a liver cell or a skin cell or a gut cell.
	Right.
	And things just don't work so good.
	Now, pretty clearly, we're making major advances in medicine today.
	And as we look down the road a few decades, we're going to have further advances.
	So I think we're going to have longer, healthier lifespans in the future.
	And nanotechnology could contribute mightily to this.
	Could there really get to be a point where With help from nanotechnology we could regenerate more than we lose virtually staying alive either for very long periods or even ultimately indefinitely.
	Well basically there will always be accidents.
	I mean if you drive around in a car there are going to be certain problems you can't fix up.
	But basically there's no particular reason to say that you know today Things are so bad that the whole system is going to fall apart if you have an understanding of the basic molecular and cellular issues and if you have the tools with which to address the damage at the molecular and the cellular level which is the fundamental cause not only of aging but also of most disease processes.
	So that would lead to good health.
	Don't we have these things called telomeres which are sort of I don't know, little clocks that are telling us when to deteriorate and so forth and so on, and when we run out of, when they get shorter and shorter and shorter, finally we die.
	Well, one of the theories of aging is exactly what you say, which is that the DNA in our cells shortens a little bit by the time the cell replicates, and there is an enzyme which puts that little bit back when that enzyme functions, and pretty obviously That enzyme has to function in the germline.
	In other words, the germline lives forever.
	So there has to be something that puts the ends of the chromosomes back on.
	But that something doesn't apply to the cells in your body.
	Now there's research going on now to try and figure out, would it be possible to put that little bit back?
	Could we extend the cells in your body?
	Give them a little bit of an edge.
	Now, there's a little bit of a problem, of course, because as you let the cells in the body live a few more generations, it might be that this is a cancer defense.
	So, it might be that this is a way of preventing cancers from growing uncontrolled.
	Something, a cell which is damaged, as long as this clock, as long as this counter is still intact, A damaged cell would replicate a few more generations and then stop.
	Isn't cancer in its own way immortal?
	I mean... Cancers are immortal, and I think that's precisely the point.
	For a cancer cell to become a cancer cell, it has to evade the control of this telomerase.
	It has to evade the control... There you are.
	Excuse me, of the shortening of the DNA.
	Yes, there you are.
	So, there's a little bit of a concern here.
	Obviously, if you make your cells in your body live longer by Letting them replicate, does that then make you more prone to cancer?
	So there's a fine line to be drawn there and people are still looking at it to figure out exactly what's going on.
	But certainly as we gain a better understanding of how the body works and as we gain tools with which to fix things that are going wrong, we should be able to extend lifespan and ultimately There's no reason why there should be any fixed limit.
	There's no reason why there should be a particular kind of damage that is utterly irreparable.
	Yeah, other than, as you point out, the old Mack truck.
	Confidence and... Other than that, you might be able to live as long as, for example, you wanted to live.
	Well, I certainly hope I'll be able to live as long as I want to live.
	Is there any possibility, Doctor, that these things will begin to occur in our lifetimes, for those of us that have hopefully a few more decades available?
	Well, certainly it's possible.
	Things are moving along at a fairly brisk clip in the research community.
	And, of course, if you don't quite have the developments happening as rapidly as we might hope, if we reach a point where Well, it looks like the technology will be developed a little bit after you need it.
	Right.
	Then there is another alternative, and that alternative is cryonics.
	Cryonics.
	Yeah.
	What do you know about cryonics?
	Now, I've interviewed a few people who are actually involved in cryonics now.
	They have in their business frozen heads and frozen... That's Alcor.
	Well, I'm signed up with Alcor.
	Oh, you are?
	Absolutely.
	So, when you die, are you going for the full package or just the head package?
	Well, I'm signed up for Neuro because two reasons.
	First off, it costs less.
	And secondly, the technology which is required to reverse all the freezing injury is going to be able to replace any missing tissue with the obvious exception of the human brain.
	That you want to keep and you want to repair.
	Then what are you signed up for?
	I'm signed up for Neuro.
	The head?
	Cryonics, yes.
	They're just going to freeze your head?
	Yes. And like I say, that's because the essential portion, the essential thing you want to preserve is of course the
	brain.
	That's a hell of a decision to have made, and I would be really interested to know how did you come to that decision?
	It's really easy.
	Think about it this way.
	There are two possible courses of action.
	You can either sign up, or you don't sign up.
	And there are two possible states of the universe.
	Either this is going to work or it's not.
	Now, if you don't sign up or if it doesn't work, well, we know the outcome in that case.
	If you do sign up and it does work, then you will have a very long and very healthy life in a very technologically advanced future.
	Well, we know it will be technologically advanced because we know that it will require advanced technology to... As long as we don't blow ourselves up, I would agree with you.
	Yes, as long as we don't blow ourselves to smithereens with this technology, then we will indeed have an advanced world a hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now.
	Let's put it this way.
	Pretty much by definition, if you wake up, we've figured out how to deal with all of the problems.
	You'll never wake up?
	You'll never wake up.
	So, your head will be separated from your body how soon after you physically pass?
	Well, now that's an interesting question.
	There is this concept of legal death.
	You cannot be chronically suspended until your paperwork is in place.
	You're legally declared dead.
	That's right.
	But the relationship between a legal declaration of death And that, by current medical criteria, is already a little bit loose.
	Yes.
	Well, for example, if you say, do not resuscitate.
	Yes.
	What that means is, I don't want current medical technology to be applied.
	No heroics.
	No heroics, even if it could revive me for a little bit.
	I don't want that.
	Now, when we think about where medical technology is going in the future, a hundred years from now, I think we'll have a very different Definition of death.
	May I ask you a hard question?
	You're good at evading them, so let's see how you do with this one.
	If you had the ability to instruct your physicians that you wished at your command to be cryogenically separated from your head, have your head separated and chronically preserved, prior To clinical death.
	If you were legally able to instruct them in that manner, would you do so?
	Well, that would depend on the circumstances.
	Obviously, if I'm terminally ill, and I have no other alternatives available, then I would prefer to start the procedure a little bit before.
	A little early.
	Right, exactly.
	Because obviously, if you start early, Then that makes things a whole lot easier and improves the quality of the whole process.
	That's right.
	In other words, your brain doesn't go through oxygen deprivation as people scramble around and you've got a much better chance if it all works.
	Precisely.
	So you would instruct them, you say?
	Oh yeah.
	Do you think we're getting closer to a time when legally you'll be able to do that?
	I think it's pretty Pretty likely we are.
	Obviously we have the Death with Dignity Initiative in Oregon.
	And if someone has the legal right to decide that they should end their life, then certainly it would be reasonable to give someone the legal right to try and save their life using this particular technique.
	So if you had some sort of fatal disease and you would come to that point, would you, since you've already signed up, would you pursue that legally and try to go to court?
	It would depend on the legal circumstances and on the conditions.
	Obviously, the closer this comes and the more favorable legal conditions, the more likely that one would pursue that.
	There might be other aspects of it that would argue against it.
	It's going to be expensive.
	It's going to require work.
	And also it requires, well, when you're terminally ill, sometimes you don't have the stamina to go through that kind of thing.
	So there are a number of factors.
	There was a case several years ago, someone who... Doctor, this is fascinating.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	We'll pick this up right on the other side, alright?
	Okay.
	Stay right there.
	Huh.
	I'm already thinking of him in a sort of a detached... a detached way.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	And you can tell he's absolutely serious.
	Would you do it? Coming back a thousand years in the future?
	I'm missing, only through the ground and sheen.
	I'm thinking, only me now.
	To reach Artbel in the Kingdom of Nigh, from Westerberock East Isle 1.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-618-8255, east of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1222.
	To reach out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Network.
	Dr. Ralph Merkel is my guest and, whoa, the things you find out as an interview progresses.
	He signed up for cryonics when he passes.
	We're going to talk about that.
	It's absolutely fascinating to me.
	It has been for a very long time.
	Stay right where you are.
	This is Coast to Coast AM, raging through the nighttime.
	Once again, Dr. Ralph Merkle.
	Dr. Merkle, may I ask are you married?
	Yes.
	You are?
	Absolutely.
	I'm really fascinated with the decision with regard to cryonics.
	Did you discuss it?
	Obviously, you must have with your wife.
	No, no, no.
	Definitely, I discussed it with my wife.
	We both signed up.
	Oh, you both signed up?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that makes life easier.
	Absolutely.
	Or death.
	Well, one of the things people are very concerned about when they think about cryonics is they think, I'll wake up in this future era where there are no friends, no family, no one I know.
	That's right.
	And of course it helps if you have friends who are involved, who are signed up, who are going to be there, and quite a few of my friends are.
	That makes life a lot simpler.
	So it's been a big topic in circles you run in, I guess, huh?
	Well, it's certainly a topic that comes up, and a fair percentage of my friends are signed up, because when you look at it, Think about the alternatives.
	Oh yes, well listen, the issue of whatever fatal disease or what might be killing you that causes you to separate your head from your body and be frozen, aside for a second, the technology needed to resuscitate your brain in whatever manner you imagine it might be done in the future, when do you imagine, for example, that technology might first or reasonably Well, now that's an even more difficult question than how long it will take to develop nanotechnology.
	Right.
	So, it's clear that we're going to have to wait until after nanotechnology has been developed.
	We'll have to wait until after the medical applications have been explored and developed, and we'll have to wait for regulatory approval.
	So, we're looking at quite a few decades down the road at that point.
	Oh, only decades?
	I would think so.
	A century is a long time.
	Well, think of what the world was like a century ago.
	There it is, 1900.
	Suppose you went to someone in 1900 and you just started explaining what the world was like.
	Oh, you're right.
	Computers.
	Sure.
	Flying machines that take you from here to Europe and back.
	Landing on the moon?
	Right.
	Oh my gosh!
	Sure.
	And so if we project... Completely wild.
	You could be right.
	It could be only decades, but even a century.
	I presume that... How do you imagine that you might, if you do, reawaken?
	Would you reawaken as a brain operating independently of a body?
	Would you imagine?
	I certainly hope not.
	You would imagine?
	I should add, for those of your listeners who are a bit queasy, that Yes, indeed.
	Alcor does also offer whole body, so you can take your choice on that.
	It's not really a major issue.
	No, that's right.
	It's just a money issue.
	I think the whole body thing is more expensive, isn't it?
	Yes.
	It's $120K for whole body, it's $50K for neuro, and typically you pay for it with life insurance.
	Right.
	And I suppose if you have planned properly, you could be financially way ahead of the game when you come back.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Benjamin Franklin, when he was dying, put a thousand pounds into an account in Philadelphia, another thousand pounds into an account in Washington, and two hundred years later they were worth millions of dollars.
	So just to give you an illustration of compound interest, Of course, he's not around to enjoy it.
	Well, there is that minor problem.
	Of course, he did say that he would prefer an ordinary internment to be put into a cask of Madeira.
	He had observed that flies that were in Madeira got up later and went off.
	Really?
	I didn't know that.
	Yes, he actually did.
	And he said, unfortunately, the era that he was in was probably insufficiently advanced for that to work.
	Nonetheless, he would like to see what happened.
	A great experiment called the United States that he was deeply involved in.
	Right then, how do you imagine yourself revived?
	In other words, as you project in your mind what technology might be in these decades or a century that might pass, would you awaken with a new body?
	Well, I would certainly hope so.
	That is, of course, the sort of the ordinary That's an interesting question.
	one wants to have a body with two arms and two legs and things like that.
	It looks as though it is indeed possible for such bodies to be made.
	I mean, certainly it is feasible within the laws of physics for bodies to exist.
	Would they be made, Doctor, or grown?
	In other words...
	Well, that's an interesting question.
	Essentially, at a fundamental level, we don't have to answer that question as long as we
	are sure that there is at least one approach that will work.
	Certainly the advances in biotechnology suggest that the ability to grow individual organs or individual components could be extended to replace all the tissues that are needed.
	Alternatively, you could consider other methods such as replacing tissue by simply building it to order.
	That would require rather more advanced technology.
	But in essence, there are a range of possibilities.
	There are a lot of ways it could be done, and any one of those would be entirely satisfactory.
	Would you... I hate to get into this area, but I can't resist.
	Would you say that if it can be done, then it's okay with God?
	On the theological issue, well... Sure.
	I'm not religious, so I really can't speak authoritatively on this issue.
	I sense that.
	But it's certainly the case that people who are religious are signed up, and in essence, they have a feeling that they are put here to do God's work, and if they can live for a longer period of time, if they can stay here longer than they have a duty, they can do more work, because you can do better.
	And if you look at the various religions of the world, you usually find that suicide is viewed as a bad idea, and staying alive and continuing to do the work that you were put on this earth for is a good thing.
	So I think, by and large, there is a lot of support in sort of the theological structure for this.
	And certainly if you talk with people who are involved in cryonics and who are religious, they find it to be a very good idea to live longer and continue to do the work.
	Do you personally doubt that we have immortal souls?
	Hmm?
	Do you personally doubt that we have immortal souls?
	Well again, if you will define a soul, I will undertake to decide whether or not There is one, and whether it is going to be immortal.
	All right.
	For the purpose of this discussion, let's say, something that allows you to continue with some form of consciousness following physical death.
	Well, you know, actually, it's interesting you talk about that, because a number of the philosophers of artificial intelligence and consciousness actually are of the opinion that the description of your brain, the description of your mind in an information theoretic sense, is the essential element, and that if you can model that computationally, then that would be what you could call a soul.
	So if you define a soul in that way, and obviously this is a very specific definition of soul, but if you define a soul as the information content that fully describes your brain, then that could in some abstract sense exist independently
	of the physical structure of the brain
	and could be modeled computationally so that that whole area gets into a number of very interesting
	philosophical issues uh... there was a story on sixty minutes about a year ago
	or in which uh... some lady had uh...
	uh... very dangerous uh...
	balloon uh... i guess one of the her blood vessels or veins in her brain
	uh... was ballooned out and it was going to uh... pop and of course that would be
	the end of her uh... they had to operate and what they did was they
	brought her body temperature way down
	they removed all of her blood all of her vitals stopped her heart stopped
	uh...
	oxygen to the brain stopped everything stopped and they kept her in that condition for
	forty five minutes While they opened her brain, fixed this egregious area, and then put her blood back in.
	And this lady reanimated.
	She came back alive.
	Actually, it's a procedure they use not regularly, but it can be used and does work.
	And so for 40 or 45 minutes, this lady She was dead.
	I mean, clinically dead.
	I mean, where did she go during this period?
	As you think about life and death, if you define death as a permanent cessation of vital functions, then these reports of people who died and came back to life, how do I put it?
	If death is defined as a permanent cessation of vital functions, then fairly clearly any reports that someone died would have been greatly exaggerated if someone walks up to you on the street and you talk with them They say, oh yes, and gee, I heard you were dead.
	And they say, well, no, that was a greatly exaggerated report.
	You have to sort of take that at face value, because if someone is alive and healthy and talking with you, then presumably claims that they were dead at some point were exaggerated.
	I have talked to many such people.
	Doctor, are you not somewhat intrigued by the consistency of the stories that are told by those who have experienced clinical death and returned?
	It's hard to know exactly what's going on there.
	Certainly that's not an area that I've studied.
	I wouldn't move in and say, you know, this, that, or the other on that particular subject.
	But these are things that you must have contemplated since you signed up for the cryogenic trip.
	Well, certainly in cryonic circles there's a lot of discussion of what is it that you are preserving?
	What is it that makes a human a human being?
	Yes.
	Clearly, if you physically preserve the structure of the brain, that will make most people, that will persuade most people, yes, that's something that if you preserve it and you can restore function, that is you.
	That is a preservation of a human life.
	As you go into more abstract issues, more and more people start to lose interest.
	So as you start to discuss, If you had loss of information, if you were to model things computationally, fewer and fewer people have an interest in that.
	So I think, right now, the primary interest in cryonics, of course, is to define a common basis that provides a broad range of agreement.
	And if we preserve the physical structure of the brain, I think most people will say, yes, if you preserve the physical structure of the brain, If you restore the function of the brain, if you are able to do that, then yes, you have preserved life.
	I think mostly you stick with that as a more conservative approach than going into the exotic things that might be possible, but where there's greater philosophical disagreements.
	Well, on the practical side, wouldn't you be concerned that if more time passed than you thought, a thousand years, say, and you were brought back in some reasonable manner, you would be so out of it, you'd be like a caveman, and certainly in a thousand years, you would be like a caveman.
	Well, you have some advantages.
	Clearly, first off, I think that, in fact, the time frames are going to be more rapid than that.
	Secondly, if you wake up in that future, Then you know a couple of things.
	One of the things you know is that someone went to the effort of keeping you in suspension all that time, presumably Alcor because that's Alcor's stated purpose.
	Someone went to the trouble of reversing the injuries, of restoring you to good health, again presumably Alcor because that's Alcor's stated purpose.
	So when you wake up, you are automatically restricting the kind of world into which you
	are waking up, into a world where someone preserved you, someone cared enough to restore
	you to good health.
	So there are some boundaries on this process that provide at least some grounds for believing
	that you'll wake up under pretty good circumstances.
	And of course, that's something that one says, well, you know, that's sort of a downside.
	The upside is you wake up, it is in fact some number of decades, perhaps a century, and society exists, people exist, things are rolling along, things are doing pretty good.
	And you're back in the game.
	And you're back, exactly.
	And now you get to take part in a very long and very healthy life.
	You get to see Where society has been going, you get to see all of these marvelous technological advances that we've been discussing this evening.
	You get to see a whole lot.
	So there are a whole lot of things that make it worthwhile.
	Well, if you can in any way control the manner of your, the immediate manner of your passing, your odds are greatly increased.
	What does Alcor tell you?
	about how critical it is that you know you be fresh meat.
	Obviously there's a lot of concern about the precise circumstances and pretty clearly the more rapidly the process can begin the better.
	Actually it's very interesting recently we've adopted a new cryoprotectant.
	One of the issues here of course is when you cool to the temperature of liquid nitrogen There can be ice.
	Ice, of course, is a bad thing.
	Freeze or burn.
	Alcor has, for many years, used glycerol, which is anti-freeze, basically.
	And in the last year, we've adopted new cryoprotectants and new ice blockers, which effectively eliminate ice formation.
	Really?
	Yes.
	I mean, that really was the problem.
	So, in other words, people frozen today have a much better shot than people frozen over the last... There's lively debate about that, because, of course, We don't know in some ultimate sense.
	Think of it this way.
	What are the correct clinical trials to evaluate cryonics?
	I mean, if you were to sit down and say, okay, let's do this, buy the book.
	And the answer, of course, is you would select some subjects, you would freeze them, you would wait a hundred years for this advanced future technology, this advanced medical capability we've been talking about And then you would see if that technology could reverse the damage.
	Now, the correct answer to does Clionex work is to say the clinical trials are in progress, come back in a century and we'll give you a reliable answer.
	It's quite literally the case that what we have to do is decide whether we want to be part of the experimental group or the control group.
	That's the decision we have to make And we have to make it before we finish the clinical trials.
	So it might be that indeed future medical technology is able to reverse extensive damage, or it might be that you have to be much more careful.
	We don't know at this point in time.
	But if you're considering doing this and you're signed up, I'm sure you would err on the side of being much more careful.
	The general tendency is to be conservative, if you can, yes.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	I don't know why, it's just absolutely fascinating.
	It's an opportunity for a long and healthy life and a very interesting and very wonderful future.
	And on the negative side, to be tossed aside like bad hamburger.
	Well, eventually.
	What happens to you right now?
	That's a good point.
	If you look at what's going on, We know what happens now if this has a reasonable prospect of working, and I think actually it has a very good chance of working, all things considered.
	That's the current thinking of those who have signed up mostly for Alcor?
	There's a mix of opinions.
	One of the things that you find when you get involved in cryonics is that all the people involved in cryonics have a lot of opinions, like people in the world at large, So I don't think there's any way of button-holing and saying everyone thinks this or that.
	But certainly there are a lot of folks who think the odds are pretty good.
	There are other folks who think the odds are kind of not so good, but hey, why not?
	Give it a shot.
	As a matter of interest, what do you think the odds are?
	I think the odds are pretty good.
	With today's technology?
	Today's technology, if you are suspended under favorable circumstances, I mean, we can all imagine, you know, if you go down in an airplane crash in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, forget it.
	Yeah.
	But if things go reasonably well, I'd have to say 70, 80, Oh, those are very good odds.
	Yeah, that's what I think.
	You really think they're that high?
	Yeah.
	Well, think about it.
	If you have a medical technology which can literally analyze and restore molecular and cellular structure, you can repair extensive damage, and we have suspension technology today We've managed to effectively eliminate the ice damage under good circumstances.
	And if you can hang in another 10 years, it's going to be even better, right?
	Yes.
	Well, obviously, the longer you can stay alive and healthy, the better the technology gets.
	Of course.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We'll take some calls next hour.
	How would that be?
	That sounds great.
	Good.
	Stay right where you are.
	Dr. Ralph Merkel is my question.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Though I would not give you false hope on this strange, mortal day.
	But your mother and child reunion is only a motion away.
	Oh, and there's a dawn in my mind.
	I can't fall, the light from beneath.
	Remember a Saturday, I know they say let's be.
	La la la la la la.
	Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255, east of the Rockies 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	to the Rockies 1-800-825-5033. First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295. To reach out on the toll free international
	line call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	I'm the man I used to be.
	Dr. Ralph Merkel is my guest, and if you have questions about nanotechnology or cryogenics, and I imagine that's caught many a fancy out there, I suspect he'd be prepared to answer either one since he's signed up.
	Remember, doctor said, Just put a little ice on it.
	We'll be right back.
	Once again, Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	Doctor, welcome back.
	Thank you very much.
	Hanging in there all right?
	Absolutely.
	Good.
	All right.
	I'd like to begin answering a few callers' questions, if that'd be all right with you.
	That sounds good.
	Here we go.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Can you hear me?
	I hear you.
	Absolutely.
	Hey, I'm writing a script here.
	I'm a film student in L.A.
	I'm writing a short film about a World War II veteran crippled who's frozen and wakes up a thousand years in the future a severed head.
	And unfortunately, he is part of terrible experiments.
	I wondered if you had any opinions on maybe the adverse effects, maybe waking up Your mental being in a computer or something absolutely outrageous like that.
	Do you have any interesting opinions on that?
	Interesting question.
	In other words, Doctor, without necessarily a new biological body, but nevertheless maintained as a functioning brain, certainly technologically possible, kind of a horror show though.
	Well, basically there are a lot of possibilities that people talk about and for some reason people think that Horrible things might happen and space aliens would swoop down and regard frozen human beings who are slightly ill at the time they were frozen as marvelous food or something like that.
	And I've never quite understood the sort of the deep visceral attraction, but certainly... Well, I don't think we have to go that far to imagine a horror story.
	In other words, forget the aliens for a second, but suppose you are revived as an independent head Technologically, no doubt possible even prior to our technological ability.
	Even possible ahead of our technological ability to provide you a new body.
	Well, there are a lot of things that are possible that I don't think are very likely.
	Certainly Alcor is not going to do that.
	Certainly that would not be my wish and I think certainly it's not the wish of the folks who are pursuing this.
	So again, if the technology to provide a good satisfactory Restoration is not available.
	Stay on ice another 10 years.
	It's not that big a deal.
	Are you able with Alcor, Doctor, to specify the conditions under which you would be willing to return?
	Sure.
	You can have instructions that say, you know, don't revive me as a disembodied head, something like that.
	I think Alcor would be very supportive of pursuing that particular approach.
	Fascinating.
	All right.
	Have you given such an instruction?
	I've just given the general instructions.
	Basically, you don't want to second-guess too much.
	In other words, the future is not 100% predictable.
	You don't know exactly what's going to happen.
	So give the folks enough flexibility to do the right thing.
	Trust in the folks who you've dealt with, who you know, who you've come to understand and say, look, I know what I want generally.
	Take care of the specifics, understand the situation, and do the sensible thing.
	So I haven't tried to over-specify it.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	How's it going?
	Okay, sir.
	Good.
	Art and Dr., good evening.
	Good evening.
	Good evening, sir.
	This is a very interesting show.
	My question is, actually a couple of quick ones.
	First one would be, do we know enough about, really, inner brain function?
	I mean, I've always been told, all my life, that, you know, humans only use a small percentage of their brain, and that we actually utilized, you know, 70-80% of our brain function, that we could do incredible things, you know, levitate houses, and you know, I grew up hearing this stuff, and Probably heard it on our show, you know.
	But the question is, I mean, do we truly know enough about inner brain function to make this kind of technology feasible?
	And, you know, I mean, you're talking 70-80% you feel the odds that you'll be revived.
	I'm not a doctor, but I feel that's incredibly optimistic on your part.
	You know, what are the odds on this thing?
	Well, I think that the opinions vary.
	Obviously, if you go to the established medical community, I think most doctors would say, gee, this isn't going to work.
	I think one of the reasons they'll say that is that most doctors haven't thought about where technology is going to be a hundred years from now.
	And when you sit down and think about what it is that's possible, if you think about the laws of physics and what are feasible within that framework of law, You find there are a lot of things that are possible that we have not done yet.
	And so, the range of possibilities, the range of capabilities we're going to have is going to be quite remarkable.
	So, we can talk about the details, but basically, there are a lot of people with a lot of different opinions.
	I think the odds are pretty good.
	Other people who are signed up think the odds aren't that good, but it's worth a shot.
	And then, of course, there are a lot of folks who think that, well, I don't see exactly how it'll work, so they haven't signed up.
	Are you sure you're going to want to wake up?
	I mean, how about waking up in a world... In other words, you may wake up in a world that you don't want to be living in.
	Well, there's an easy solution for that one.
	Basically, as I said, I think if you wake up at all, you'll wake up in a pretty good world.
	And of course, obviously, if you think about it for a while and you think, oh, well, you know, maybe I'll wake up in a world that's so horrible it's just not worth living, okay, well, that can be dealt with by various techniques.
	I think, you know, one of the interesting things is when you look at this and you talk with people, some people think the future is going to be just horrible.
	And most of those don't sign up for cryonics.
	Other folks think the future will be pretty good.
	Those are most of the folks who say, yeah, this looks like a good thing.
	Life is pretty good now.
	Yeah, and obviously it's going to be better.
	In interviewing you, you feel that way, don't you?
	You look forward to a brighter, better future.
	I think the odds are on our side.
	I mean, if you look back historically, over the past several thousand years, and you say, are we better off than people a thousand years ago?
	And were they better off than people several thousand years before them?
	I think by and large, the answer is yes.
	We have longer, healthier lives.
	We've dealt with many of the major plagues and illnesses that have afflicted mankind for centuries.
	We have living standards that are, well, by historical standards, quite remarkable.
	So I think, as time goes on, we have seen progress.
	We have seen our lives getting better.
	It's uneven.
	Sometimes things go Let me take a contrarian view for just a second.
	I have a different theory on life.
	I kind of think that by the time we're in our 70s, 80s, and or 90s, whatever it is we make it to the century mark, you may have noticed that the music that you loved when you were young is still great today.
	Today's music absolutely sucks.
	That is, if you're, I don't know, how old are you?
	Well, I'm only 49.
	49, all right.
	Well, you can still be experiencing that.
	Yeah.
	The social changes that go on, you know, you look around and you see the earrings and the, you know, whatever all, every, everything is a rage these days.
	And I think that God has arranged it Or the Supreme Being, or simply biological reality has arranged it so that by the time we get to be 78 or 90, we look around the world, and we look at what's going on around us, and everything that has changed, and, you know, it's almost the point where we say, God, take me, I'm ready to be out of here.
	Well, this place is nuts!
	And that's just 70 or 80 years, but take another 100 year jump, and you're going to land in the middle of a place you're not going to recognize at all.
	Suppose we take that scenario, and now we say, okay, you're 70, 80, 90, but instead of being 70, 80, or 90, and your health is going down, and your hearing isn't so good, and you're gumming your food, and your eyesight is a little bit blurry, suppose we say, look, medical technology has reached a point where you're healthy.
	You're as healthy as you were when you were 20.
	You can go running around the racetrack And you're fast.
	You can go out and have a good time.
	That's a good point.
	You're not talking about miserable, wretched old age.
	You're talking vibrant, good health.
	You can chase a young, hard-bodied 21, you know, gals at 2100.
	They don't even know how old you are.
	It's a good point, Doctor.
	I hadn't thought of that.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	With people expecting to live only 80 years or so, Well, I hope they'll change their behavior.
	I hope they'll be a little bit more careful about committing those crimes.
	I've got to get education, I'm going to travel, go to war or commit a crime.
	When people get the idea or the notion that they're going to live forever, it's going
	to change their behavior a lot.
	I'd like to hear some ideas and thoughts on...
	They're going to recycle more.
	Well, I hope they'll change their behavior.
	I hope they'll be a little bit more careful about committing those crimes.
	They'll think twice.
	Also, I think there's something we've lost.
	One of the things that I feel I've lost...
	I have a hard time understanding one area, and I like to pick a few others.
	We've lost the Renaissance, man.
	We've lost the idea of a person who can study all the different arts and all the different sciences and can write a play and do research and understand the human body.
	We don't have that concept because life is too short.
	We just don't have time to learn all about all the different fields and all the different things that people can do.
	But with replicators and no hunger and no poverty and a greatly extended life, mental health care is coming down the line.
	I think even the death penalty is a problem.
	That we should address today.
	You know, when you're sanctioning death penalty, you're saying, it doesn't matter if this person might have 100,000 years of life available to them in 10 years.
	No, you're saying we don't care.
	We want them to die now.
	I don't care whether they have a year or 100,000.
	That's it right now.
	If the state unsanctions the death penalty for this reason, then it will send a clear An unambiguous message to everybody.
	Well, maybe.
	I don't know.
	The death penalty doesn't seem to have sent enough of an unambiguous message so that it stopped people from bringing it forth with their acts so far.
	So, I don't know.
	That's a great separate argument.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hello, and welcome back, and hello, Dr. Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	I'm wondering if I have a killer application here for nanotechnology, where I believe that if you make an array of billions of carbon nanotubes and abut them into n-type semiconductor, you'll make a diode array where you'll be able to rectify the Johnson noise at each junction and turn heat directly into electricity.
	Well, there's something called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
	I know, but I don't think it counts on the nanoscopic level, where heat is irregular anyway.
	It doesn't have this mathematical uniformity.
	Last I heard, it's still applied.
	Well, has anybody made one of these nanoscale machines and explored that?
	I don't know if someone's built that particular structure.
	I do know there are a lot of people who are interested in molecular electronics.
	There's a lot of talk about using these nanotubes for Transistors in a computer for using them because some nanotubes are semi-conducting and some are conducting and you can build little, tiny, teeny, molecular transistors and switches.
	So there are people doing that kind of research all over the place.
	Yeah, that's the difficulty we have is the properties of the individual nanotubes theory, but if that can be overcome, then you can make an array of them and they're all in parallel and they independently sort out the random direction of electron I don't think you're going to turn physics on its ear, but certainly you can get incredibly increased efficiencies, Doctor.
	Well, you can certainly have high efficiency if you're talking about energy conversion devices of a more conventional type.
	And obviously, if you can build things with very great precision, you can talk about high precision conversion efficiencies.
	There you are.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	Hi, Art.
	Welcome back.
	Hi, Dr. Merkel.
	Dr. Merkel, I have a question about cryogenics in relation to religion, because I'm a non-believer like yourself.
	I'm an atheist.
	I'm very much fearful of nonexistence, which I feel is logically, rationally what death is, nonexistence, and I would like to continue existing a hundred years or a thousand years from now if possible.
	So my question to you specifically Could you give me, the whole audience, the name, address, and phone number of Alcor in detail?
	For me, as an atheist, once I die... I'm 51 now, by the way.
	Once I die, years from now, I can continue existing.
	All right.
	Well, of course, that's available on the web, but if you have the information and want to give it, go ahead.
	Well, Alcor is in Scottsdale, Arizona, and you can go on the web.
	They have a website, www.alcor.org, and you can get the information there off of the web.
	And you can also get information in Scottsdale.
	Alright, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Markle.
	Hi.
	Hello, it's me?
	Yes, you.
	Great, Mark.
	I can tell by your voice, you sound fabulous.
	Thank you.
	You sound really good.
	Thank you.
	Alright, here's something I want to throw on the table.
	Reincarnation and the continuing of the existence of the person, regardless of which particular body he's inhabiting and operating.
	In any particular lifetime.
	Well, you're going to be outside Dr. Merkel's box here because I don't think he's a particular believer in reincarnation.
	Well, it's not something that I personally have thought about, have pursued, but we do have people involved in cryonics and signed up members who are.
	Really?
	Now, that's really amazing.
	There are very mixed opinions.
	I've talked with people who believe in reincarnation and say, well, I have two kids, two boys.
	and therefore I don't want to do it. I've talked with other people who say, well, cryonics
	is, who are involved in reincarnation, and say, well, cryonics basically is like reincarnation
	except you get to remember what's going on. So I can't address it any more deeply than
	that. Okay, just an anecdote for your interest.
	I have, my wife and I have two kids, two boys. The older one now is 22, the younger one is
	18. Both of them, we're Scientologists by the Both of them, over the course of their growing up, came and told us various recollections of their just previous life, with all kinds of details of where they were living and what they were doing, which we verified.
	All right, sir.
	I appreciate the info.
	It's another show, and we've done lots of shows on that subject, and we will do others.
	But to imagine that anybody who's a believer in reincarnation would be involved in cryogenics is a real surprise.
	Cryonics?
	I'm sorry, cryonics.
	It's a real surprise to me.
	I would not have imagined they would consider it because they would, as you pointed out, imagine it would mess up the process, I would think.
	We'll talk more about that in a moment.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Dr. Ralph Merkle is my guest.
	Nanotechnology, cryogenics, that's what we're talking about.
	me cry I'm never frightened or worried I know I always get by
	Good advice here.
	I light it up, get out the cool down When something gets in my way I go round it
	Don't let life get me down Gonna take it the way that I found it
	I got you to get me, I got you to get me I got the music in me, I got the music in me, yeah, I got
	the music in me Well, there's nothing there that I don't understand
	You shouldn't worry after that, it ain't no crime Cause if you get it wrong, you'll get it right next time
	I'm gonna make you stay.
	you To rechart Bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222, or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them
	dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the premier radio network.
	It certainly is.
	My guest is Dr. Ralph Merkle, and we're talking about nanotechnology and cryogenics.
	Cryonics, actually.
	I keep saying cryogenics.
	Cryonics, actually.
	I know I've always got that wrong.
	I don't know why.
	It's that head thing, I think.
	Anyway, we'll be right back.
	Stay right where you are.
	All right, if you would like to read more about what Dr. Merkel is talking about this evening, he's got several websites listed.
	Go to my website, artbell.com.
	Under tonight's guest info, you'll see www.foresight.org, a link to that.
	Uh, as well as another website and the Alcor website, uh, as well for the cryonics.
	Call it cryogenics, I don't know.
	Doctor, welcome back.
	Thank you much.
	Uh, and here comes some more people waiting.
	Lots of people want to talk to you.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hello, sir.
	Where are you?
	I'm somewhere outside Bakersfield.
	All right.
	In a truck, I guess.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Okay, go ahead.
	I've got two questions.
	One on each subject, actually.
	And the first is on the subject of cryonics.
	Let me see if I've got it right.
	The body and the brain is frozen after death.
	After you're legally dead.
	And you get your choice whether you want whole body or neuro.
	It's just, you know, when you sign up, which insurance policy you fill out.
	Or just the head.
	So if that's the case, and kind of to dip in theology here a little bit, once you're dead, It would seem the soul has already left the body, so it would be kind of difficult to bring that back or to reanimate the body.
	You could maybe physically reanimate the body, but wouldn't the soul already be gone?
	I can't really answer that question directly, but I can point out that there are a lot of
	people who have been frozen as embryos.
	They are alive and healthy, and if you believe that the soul enters the body at the point
	of conception, then those people were frozen, were stored at the temperature of liquid nitrogen,
	although they were embryos at the time, very small embryos at the time.
	Actually, they're alive and healthy.
	I'm sorry to interrupt.
	Doctor, I think I gave you even a better analogy.
	That lady who was gone for 45 minutes.
	Temperature lowered, all vitals gone, brain activity ceasing, the heart not pumping, the blood gone.
	Where was she?
	She came back.
	Yeah, that definitely poses an interesting question about where the consciousness goes or where it is.
	Or even, where does the soul go when you're asleep?
	True.
	Another conundrum.
	Suspended animation as well, because you've got to wonder, if you put someone to sleep for a few years, you know, say in space travel, like they do in the movies, you know, where is their consciousness then?
	Are they dreaming?
	Anyway.
	Right.
	And my second question on the subject of nanotechnology, I did read somewhere recently, and I can't quote exactly where, that it is possible that these nanobots Would be powered by artificial intelligence that comes from quantum computers or quantum technology?
	Does that sound familiar to you?
	Well, that's a mix.
	There are such things as quantum computers.
	Right now they're in their infancy.
	The last time I heard they only had a few qubits.
	Quantum computers have qubits and normal computers have bits.
	Quantum computers have been the object of a lot of research.
	If you want to have a intelligent computer, then you're going to need a lot of computational power.
	It's probably going to be a little bit bigger physically than something you'd pack into a device, a small device that was floating around inside the body.
	But a slightly larger device might have a fair amount of computational power in it.
	They were saying that these nanobots could begin to proliferate or, you know, self-replicate If they had some sort of computing power, if they could
	build anything at the molecular level, which is what they're set up to do, then they could
	build another version of themselves and continue to replicate, if not properly checked, which
	is why I like your idea of putting a broadcast, I think you called it.
	The broadcast architecture, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, that's a smart way to control it.
	Well, I certainly wouldn't want to put a self-replicating device into my body, and I don't see any need
	to do that.
	If you inject some device into your body, presumably it's been built for a specific
	function, and it's going to be a lot simpler and a lot more effective and a lot easier
	If it is designed to carry out its function and that's all, if you want to design something that can replicate in the body, that's a lot more complicated.
	If you have a device which is a manufacturing system, often a factory somewhere, And that factory builds the devices that you then inject.
	So, you know, you buy an injection of these devices, inject it, they do their thing, and they're flushed out of the system.
	That's a plausible scenario.
	There's no need, in fact, there are a lot of reasons for not having those devices have any ability to replicate, both because it's difficult to do and because it's... It's dangerous.
	...difficult to function, yeah.
	In other words, you reinvented cancer.
	Really?
	I mean, if you have something that is simply replicating for the sake of replicating, you don't want it.
	No, it's a kind of cancer, really.
	Alright, Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hi, good evening, gentlemen.
	This is Larry in Fort Lauderdale.
	Yes, Larry.
	I had a couple quick questions.
	One, can you select your thaw out time?
	For example, let's say you don't want to opt out when your disease is first cured at the earliest time, but you want to go maybe another 100 or even 500 years beyond that.
	Can you specify your thaw out time ahead of time?
	Oh yeah, that's a good question.
	As long as there's some specific thing you can describe, basically you can have advice that says, hey, I don't want to be thawed out until we've reached the moons of Jupiter or we've made it to Alpha Centauri or whatever, and pretty obviously you could leave some instructions that say these are your wishes and that's what you prefer to do.
	I personally am a little hesitant to try and second-guess things too much, so I might not go for that kind of thing, but it's certainly possible to do.
	Are there any known famous people that have allowed their identity to be revealed that are frozen, besides that famous movie mogul from the 60s that the rumor always says, the one who made cartoons?
	Oh, well, actually, normally I don't comment on who is and is not frozen, but in the case of Walt Disney, I think it's appropriate to say that, as far as anyone in the cryonics community can tell, he wasn't frozen.
	Okay, thank you.
	Alright, thank you very much.
	That is interesting.
	What are the options like with what we know presently, Doctor?
	In other words, in terms of how long you might want to tell them you wish to remain frozen.
	In other words, 50 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years.
	Certainly, at 1,000 years, your odds of being successfully brought back, well... Well, there are two issues.
	Obviously, you want to stay frozen the entire time.
	And the other is you want the technology.
	I think generally most people who are frozen want to get it over with as quickly as possible.
	They want to be thawed rapidly.
	I haven't heard a lot of interest in recreational cryonics, just for the heck of it.
	So that's maybe a concept for the future, but right now I think people are just saying, well, this looks like it could save my life.
	And when you have the technology and it works and it's in place and it's been checked out, Restore me to good health.
	You don't think you're overly optimistic.
	I mean, 70 or 80 percent, that's really high odds.
	Well, basically, this is one of the things where it's either going to work because the information has been preserved, or there's some fatal flaw in the whole scheme.
	And what might the fatal flaw be?
	Well, if you have a technology that can reverse molecular and cellular damage, you can reverse a whole lot of damage.
	And we now have suspension technologies.
	We have this new vitrification capability, which eliminates the ice damage.
	So it looks as though we are preserving the structures that encode your memory, the synapses, the neurons.
	It looks like those are being preserved, as far as we can tell.
	And so it looks pretty plausible, at least as far as I can tell.
	Eaves to the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Markle.
	Hello, Markle.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hey, how you doing?
	Okay, sir, where are you?
	I'm fine.
	I'm calling from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
	I am... It's just amazing to me that... This is all hypothetical.
	I mean, how in the... I've seen someone... I've seen the documentaries.
	I've seen the newspaper reports.
	I've seen on TV how they took a monkey's head off his body and put it on another monkey's body and change it all around.
	But the monkey's eyes were rolling in the back of his head and his tongue was wagging
	out.
	He looked like he was in a coma.
	I mean, giving a doctor the rights to your life insurance, then you'll probably have
	to give him the rights to your bank accounts, to everything you own so that he can hold
	it for you when you come back thousands and thousands of years into the future.
	Not that far.
	Well, basically, all you have to do if you want to do this is get a life insurance policy
	for the appropriate sum of money.
	And I have to confess, today's medical technology is not up to the job.
	So I think if you believe that today's medical technology is going to stay the same, if you think medical technology in the future is going to be pretty similar to what we've got today, then I don't think this is going to work.
	is that we're going to see major advances in medical technology.
	We're going to see a quantum leap, and that will let us restore people to good health even when there's been pretty bad damage.
	And if we can reduce that damage by using better prevention techniques, we should be in good shape.
	So you're optimistic, and I think there's good reason to be.
	I think that In all probability, there will be, say, another 50, 100 years.
	In all probability, there is going to be an exponential jump in medical capability.
	I'm sure.
	As nanotechnology develops, and since you're in the field, you'd be one to know.
	I think that's the case.
	Okay.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Merkel.
	Hi.
	Hey, calling from Rancho Cucamonga, California.
	Yes, sir.
	If a person is frozen for a considerable amount of time, would anything need to be done or could be done to keep the consciousness from being aware of itself?
	Well, once you reach the temperature of liquid nitrogen, and in fact a long time before you reach the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the activity in the brain is all turned off.
	There are no nerve impulses.
	There are no things that we associate with consciousness.
	There's nothing going on.
	Absolutely nothing.
	That assumes that the consciousness is strictly biology-related.
	Well, it assumes it's correlated with a biological function.
	You don't have to assume that that's all there is, but if you assume that an important component of consciousness is a neurological activity, and that seems to be the case.
	Certainly, if you take someone and use surgery today, cooling surgery for example, where the body and the brain are cooled down, the brain stops at some point, or if you use anesthetics that stop
	nerve impulses, if you use some sort of technique which stops nerve impulses, we observe
	that consciousness appears to go away.
	So that's our best guess at this point, based on what we know of these things.
	It just seems worrisome that there would be a situation like an out-of-body experience
	where the body may seem dead, but the consciousness would still be there.
	Ultimately, it depends on how you define consciousness, like I say.
	If you define consciousness in some particular way, then perhaps we can start asking a specific question as to whether or not it does or does not have that particular property.
	But as far as we can tell, all the evidence today is if you cool the brain, if the nerve impulses in the brain are no longer present, then you are not conscious, you are not aware.
	Okay, thanks a lot, gentlemen.
	All right, you bet.
	Thank you.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Merkle.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	I have only a concern to, well, there's a balance for everything, correct?
	Or I may be wrong, but within regards to it falling into the wrong hands, as atomic Nuclear and anything, any technological advances through warfare, it has fallen into the wrong hands.
	Yes, and so then why are you not concerned, Doctor, that this would also fall into the wrong hands?
	well i think think about this when we meet you
	uh... ensure that this technology is developed and deployed and used
	by responsible parties and so we have to do our best
	to move things in that direction obviously if you look at the future and you say
	here is a new technology what are the possible scenarios there are a whole range of scenarios
	and what we want to do is say you know some of those scenarios we don't want to have happen
	and other scenarios look pretty good let's try and move things towards the scenarios that look
	pretty good and away from the scenarios that look pretty bad
	and that means helping and encouraging the good guys to develop new technology and make sure we understand it
	Now, I think we all understand that if we have good advances in technology, if we have the technological edge, then that helps us when things become a little bit confused and problems occur.
	Okay.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Ralph Merkle.
	Hi.
	Hi, Dr. Ralph Merkle.
	This is Brad in Paulsbo, Washington.
	I'm listening to you guys on KOMO.
	I come from a family that runs in the family.
	I come from a family that runs the family, the centenarians run the family.
	It's been my personal experience of having lost loved ones that there is a real heavy
	burden for people like me because I have a tendency to be over emotional.
	So, what kinds of treatments are going to be existing for those of us who are prone to extreme depressions?
	Well, pretty clearly we have treatments today.
	We have various pharmaceutical and pharmacological agents that can be used.
	They're not 100% effective.
	We're gaining better understanding every day with the sequencing of the human genome.
	We are now in a position to understand more the neurotransmitters that are involved.
	And as that progresses, we will have an increasing ability to treat depression of all types.
	And as we have better tools, certainly it looks as though we'll be able to treat depression probably with advances in existing technology.
	Certainly, if we add nanotechnology to the mix of medical capabilities, we should be able to cure an even wider range of mental diseases and mental conditions.
	Yes, indeed.
	The day would come, wouldn't it, when today's pharmacology approach would look like flying with a hammer?
	Pretty much.
	Basically, with nanotechnology, you should be able to deliver therapeutic doses of drugs to specific sites Not deliver them to sites that you don't want them delivered to, and do so with great precision, so you'll have much greater control over exactly where and how much of the drug you deliver.
	Okay, East of the Rockies, I think we have time for one more with Dr. Ralph Merkel.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi, where are you, sir?
	I'm coming out of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
	Toronto, okay.
	Yeah, my voice is almost gone, so bear with me.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I'm just curious.
	From an insurance point of view, right?
	Say something happens during the filing process and you happen to lose a body part.
	Something happens and you can't get it back.
	That would be considered non-cosmetic.
	Do you think insurance would cover cosmetics such as facial reconstruction if something Yeah, basically you put in enough money to keep you in suspension indefinitely and that's put away into the patient care trust fund where it's sequestered and it only gets spent on keeping people in suspension and when the technology is developed, using that technology to restore them to good health, part of that process is to restore you to complete good health.
	Pretty obviously, if we have the technology to reverse freezing injury, we should be able to have really wonderful cosmetic surgery at that point.
	Well, what a pleasure it has been to have you on the air.
	Well, it's been my pleasure, too.
	Absolute blast.
	I'm just fascinated by this kind of thing, Doctor.
	And we will have you back.
	I hope you will come back again.
	I'd be honored.
	In the meantime, I hope your websites hold up.
	I hope so, too!
	Take care, my friend.
	I will, and thank you very much.
	Stay away from the freezer burn.
	Well, I'll delay it as long as I can.
	All right.
	Good night.
	Night-night.
	Night-night is right.
	Tomorrow... Tomorrow, Sean David Morton is going to be here.
	He is a psychic who is probably more accurate than any we've ever had on the air here.
	I mean, it's scary stuff what this guy can do.
	That's tomorrow night on Coast to Coast AM.
	In the meantime, hang in there and keep fighting.

▲