Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 22, 2015 - Art Bell

02:22:20

Art Bell MITD - Douglas Mulhall Nanotechnology

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good
	afternoon, good morning, whatever the case may be in all 25 world time zones, each and
	every one covered by this program.
	Midnight in the desert.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Two simple rules for our program.
	No bad language, and one call per show.
	All right, so I know everybody must know what happened last night, and what happened last night is as described.
	Well, with a little bit of an update.
	About, I don't know, to me it seemed like 10.30.
	I guess that's when it actually occurred.
	My most immediate neighbor sent me a text saying there had been four or five shots fired real fast over near my studio.
	And of course that freaked everybody out, including my wife, my child.
	Then a second text came in from a nice lady down the street who said, Art, somebody was up in front of your studio On the circle, which is idiotic.
	Because we're on a dead-end street here.
	What fool would do that on a dead-end street?
	Dumb, right?
	So, I finally got to talk to her at about two or so in the morning.
	And she said, look, I saw someone up there with a rifle by your studio.
	And they snapped off about four or five rounds, what everybody says, and took off.
	And she described for the police, as best she could, their vehicle.
	And so, naturally, everybody was freaked out, certainly me, but the show went on nevertheless.
	And then, of course, we had, what, two separate visits, actually from the Nye County Sheriff.
	Thank you very much, Sheriff's Office.
	And gave them some information.
	And that's all I'm going to say about that.
	Then, a little later, I was going to visit my tax lady, who lives yet another house down, and I called her and I said, listen, I want to push our appointment a day because, well, frankly, somebody kind of shot toward me last night.
	She said, oh, I heard him, too.
	So that's three neighbors.
	This is a very, very alert neighborhood.
	That I will say.
	Very alert.
	Then all of that and that trauma was followed by This morning, our website went down.
	It was a specific denial-of-service attack at Artbel.com.
	Keith talked to me.
	I guess it was down for about three or four hours.
	It was specifically at Artbel.com.
	Once he was able to separate Artbel.com from Dark Matter and everything else, it turned out to be directed at Artbel.com only.
	Somebody, obviously, is after us.
	And that's where I'll leave that.
	It's in the hands of the Sheriff's Department here, and perhaps soon the FBI.
	So, that's it.
	Now, on to other things.
	Last night I told you I had big news, right?
	And it was big news.
	Now, a lot of people poo-pooed it, and I'm going to run through it again quickly again tonight.
	You all by now know, and I'm not going to repeat, The story of the star that, according to the Washington Post and all the other big media, has serious scientists talking about an alien megastructure.
	These scientists, one at Penn State, the one who analyzed the data at Yale University, virtually exhausted Every single other possibility, and then they finally, at the expense of their careers and their lives, uttered the word aliens.
	Because what was happening to the light of this star, and the odd thicker rate, pointed to no other possibility.
	And last night I told you, that NASA, I had a source in NASA, That told me that NASA internally now, believes at a level of 50% or a bit better now, that this is exactly as described.
	In other words, an alien structure.
	It's funny, I read later some comments on the show and people went, oh 50%, big deal, 50-50.
	It's a really, really big deal.
	Think about it for a moment.
	If you were to point to any given star and ask NASA if they could please take a look and see what they think the odds are that there are aliens on the planets around that star or doing something with that star, and you were to ask them for odds of that for any given star, you know, they'd come back and tell you about a hundred and fifty trillion Trillion to one.
	The zillion.
	That's not really a word, is it?
	Or a number?
	I hope not.
	Because it'll be in the budget, if it is.
	So, uh, that NASA internally, according to my source, now believes at 50% or better that this is the real McCoy.
	This is big news!
	Really big news now, tonight.
	Let me add to that a little bit.
	Oh, two items actually.
	One, I now have a second source in NASA that confirms the information from the first source, this one, from JPL in NASA.
	And again, saying that they now believe with confidence of 50% or better that this is the real McCoy.
	We're talking about alien life, folks.
	In our lifetimes.
	Moreover, SETI has, now the Ellen telescopes, just so you know, are tasked with many things.
	People come along and they write proposals and say, you know, I would like to point at so-and-so and look for so-and-so
	in the SETI world.
	And they're all canceled.
	Every single last one of them is cancelled.
	I guess Seth told them, cancel everything, forget everything, and point at this star and begin listening.
	So that's additional news.
	Now we have a second source from NASA.
	And I guess you guys are going to still do it and say, ah well, it's nothing but a coin flip.
	That's big news!
	Good Lord!
	Nothing but a coin flip.
	I think that people are not thinking this through completely or some people are in denial about it or some people think it's just like every other story about UFOs they've heard and they're waiting for a blurry image they're not quite grasping what we're being told or not wanting to accept it and I think that accounts for some of the attitude that we're seeing.
	Really, I do.
	So, anyway, that's the latest that I have, and I think it's really something.
	Coming up in a moment, we're going to turn our attention toward nanotechnology.
	Joining us from Germany is Douglas Mulhall.
	It's been a long, long time since I've interviewed him.
	Douglas, has a best-selling book called Our Molecular Future, which was one of the first to describe how nanotechnology, robotics, genetics, and artificial intelligence are leading to, get this folks, the technological singularity.
	The book is still in print, 14 years later, was selected for the New Scientist Magazine must-read list featured on the Discovery Channel's Modern Marvels, Translated into Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, Douglas Mulholl's subsequent work on nanomedicine is featured in the network television documentary, Dangerous Calcium.
	Hmm.
	Dangerous Calcium.
	His work on topics like nanoecology appear in publications including the Decker Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the Springer Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, He is a contributor to the award-winning Cradle to Cradle Design Protocol, used for designing thousands of products and is co-author of Materials Passports.
	That was launched in Europe this year in a 10 million EU initiative.
	The water recycling systems he designed provide safe sanitation for 100,000 survivors of the 2009 Haiti earthquake.
	Presently, he works on business development with EPEA International in Germany and is a research fellow at Technical University Munchen and guest researcher at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands.
	He also trains hundreds of companies and agencies.
	So, coming up in just a moment, we'll talk about the small stuff.
	Believe me when I tell you, this small stuff is really big stuff.
	Really, really big stuff.
	Prepare yourselves.
	Anybody out there want to live to be 150?
	be 150 well stay tuned. Douglas Mohawk.
	Hi, Douglas.
	Welcome to the show.
	Hello, Art.
	How are you after all these years?
	Still here.
	Well, after last night, that's good news.
	Yeah, that's right, it is.
	Okay, before we launch into the nano world, I would like to ask you, if you have been following this megastructure story, 1,500 light years away from us.
	Yes, I have.
	How does it strike you?
	Well, no, how does it strike you first?
	I think your observation that we're not ready is the most important one.
	Yeah.
	The reactions from individuals, of course there's the natural skepticism, but there's a difference between skepticism and denial.
	Well said.
	So, for example, one of the questions that comes up is what Stephen Hawking has been talking about for some time, and that is, should we tell them we're here?
	Oh no.
	I think no.
	I vote no.
	You know, it would take us, presumably, 1500 light years, short of that really, to send them that message, and it would be very ill-advised to be sure.
	I mean, even at this moment, if they are actually harnessing, you know, the energy of a star, Then that means they are what, you know, people are calling a Type II civilization.
	Almost as gods to us.
	Not quite, but almost.
	And that was 1,500 years ago.
	Right?
	Because that's how long it took the light to get here.
	So now they're 1,500 years ahead of that, at the moment.
	It also means that they probably have pretty good radio telescopes.
	It does.
	And, you know, one of the things I wonder is, now that we have realized that they are here, have they realized that we now know they are there?
	I wonder.
	I wonder.
	Anyway, it's exciting.
	I mean, this is the kind of thing that, you know, for my whole career, I've been hoping for, frankly, that one day, you know, I'd get to read a headline like this.
	And the reaction to it is really amazing.
	It ranges from... some people get angry.
	You know, they say it's a big hoax.
	And they get angry.
	Other people say, no, I just don't believe it.
	Other people say it's the devil or hell or some religiously based comment.
	And there are a few of pure science out there who look at this and go, oh my God, this really may be it.
	But there's a lot of denial.
	But it's interesting because you and I have never heard any statement from any of the space agencies or any of the military agencies or governments stating, in the unlikely event that this were to happen, what would be the response of our governments or agencies.
	We've never ever heard any statement like that.
	And that would be the sensible thing to do.
	I mean, you've got people like Hawking saying, well, the history of superior civilizations meeting lesser civilizations is not great on Earth.
	Not good, right.
	So, what would be our approach?
	And that question is sitting on our doorstep right now because CETI has already turned its sights, as you
	described, to this location.
	Everybody's projects got cancelled and this is all they're looking at.
	That's correct, but have you heard any statements out of any of the agencies, what would we do if?
	And this is the concerning part because we've been addressing this question for quite some time
	and all the agencies have been so busy downplaying the potential for alien life that they haven't thought of the
	obvious, which is to tell the population of the world what all the
	agencies collectively would do if there were some convincing signs.
	Right.
	You know, Douglas, I wonder, can you imagine some of the meetings That must be going on.
	I mean, this is news that, well, the agencies you spoke of and our government cannot ignore.
	And so there have got to be meetings going on discussing this and scenarios, I guess, of how we react if we find out it's absolutely, certainly real, or if worse yet, we somehow come in contact with these people.
	So the question is, why are they having the meetings now?
	This is the disturbing part.
	We should have a game plan.
	And this game plan is not apparent in any way in any of the literature that I have read.
	There is no announced plan.
	I'm sure there are lots of unannounced plans.
	But I think it just shows that the agencies have been so busy in public denial for the last 45-50 years Uh, that no one has just had the good sense to say, well, here is what we might do.
	It seems to me, Douglas, so honestly, somewhere in government, somewhere, Douglas, there's got to be a manual marked above top secret.
	And then probably at the top says what to do if aliens land.
	Absolutely, but the question is, has anybody distributed the manual to the 500 agencies who might make some sort of statement about this?
	Well, I know I haven't.
	Probably not.
	Yeah, I haven't got my copy, so... Exactly.
	So, you know, there's a lot of communicators out there who Uh, have the opportunity to do something.
	So the bottom line is that despite all of our advanced technologies, movements towards singularity and everything that we'll be talking about tonight, our governments and corporations are woefully unprepared and have not prepared the population for the
	options of, you know, what would we do next? There's been no public discussion
	about it at that level and so I think that's sort of at the top of the show, that
	shows where we're at in terms of our sociological capacity to handle advanced
	technologies.
	How about you personally? When you hear this news, if this news were to become 100%,
	they really are there, how would you greet that?
	Well, you know, when Einstein was asked, if you were told that the world was ending in an hour, what would you do?
	He said, I would spend the first 55 minutes thinking about it, and then five minutes doing something about it.
	Yeah.
	I thought that was a good response.
	For him, yes.
	Indeed.
	And I think that we need to, that's the first thing we need to do.
	We need to analyze at what level it is, and if it is at the level that is indicated, Then clearly they're way ahead of us.
	And then I think we need to start asking the Stephen Hawking questions.
	So, that's what I would do.
	In terms of am I surprised?
	No, I'm not surprised.
	The Kepler telescope over the past years has been discovering these planets at an increasingly rapid pace.
	It was almost inevitable that we were going to come across something like this because A long time ago, Sagan calculated that it was virtually impossible not to have civilizations somewhere.
	So, our technological capacity is catching up with what Sagan predicted, and it's catching up more quickly than was ever predicted.
	Ten years ago, no one predicted that we would be finding thousands of exoplanets so quickly.
	So, this technological capacity is now there.
	We're now finding this.
	It's no surprise based on the calculations.
	But again, sociologically, we're not prepared for it, so we'd better get ready.
	Well, it's not just there.
	If you look at the last 50 years of progress, it's frightening.
	The pace of the increase technologically is incredible.
	I mean, nothing short of incredible, I think.
	And so it's hard to even imagine the next 30 to 50 years from now.
	I think you'd be the guy to be able to imagine it for us if anybody could.
	So I suppose it's a good moment to ask you about something I know you're looking at, and that's nanomedicine.
	And it was kind of a big tease.
	You wrote me that they are doing things In Cuba, with nanomedicine that wouldn't even begin to be allowed to be done here, and I really want to know what that is.
	I want to start with this story to give everybody a concrete example Of what the potential is of nanomedicine, because a lot of the talks that people have, and you just described this tremendous acceleration in technology, which was described by Hans Moravec and described in our book, it's logarithmic and that's why it is accelerating so quickly.
	But the question is, What can the ordinary person do about it aside from be completely intimidated by it and feel that they can't do anything about it?
	And that's why I want to tell you this story about what happened in Cuba starting in 1983, before The word nanotechnology was known to most of the scientific world, let alone the rest of the population.
	And in 1983, we were not even remotely friendly with Cuba.
	Proceed.
	That's correct.
	An epidemic in Cuba, and also in selected other parts of the world, is something called bacterial meningitis.
	Most people have heard of meningitis.
	Sure.
	So, basically it results in inflammation of the brain, it attacks children, and at that time there were 500,000 cases a year globally, 50,000 deaths annually, and the majority of them were children.
	Bacterial meningitis is contracted generally how?
	Um, it can be contracted through a number of sources, uh, but, uh, basically, uh, it's, it's, uh, it's through, uh, it enters, uh, through, uh, the skin, uh, through the, uh, uh, uh, uh, through, uh, water systems, so there, there are a variety of, uh, of intakes, uh, to, to get infected, uh, by this.
	And, and so like Mama said, wash your hands.
	Well, sanitation is an important part, but you can't simply avoid it with that.
	And it was occurring in places like New Zealand, and Australia, and Brazil, and all of these were different strains.
	So it was one of these diseases that no one was paying much attention to because it was in some other part of the world.
	But it was killing a lot of people.
	So, the Cubans actually have a medical foundation.
	And the medical foundation started a research project into a vaccine.
	Now, this research focused on a particular capacity of cells that had been discovered in 1967 in Italy and the United States.
	And the capacity of these cells is to release nano-sized particles, nanoparticles, And they're known by many names, and that was part of the problem.
	It remains the problem today.
	There's a lot of confusion about the terminology.
	It can be everything from membrane vesicles to exosomes to endosomes.
	Okay, so you're already confusing me a little.
	So, they had a particular strain in Cuba, right?
	That's correct.
	But all strains release the cells, in other words, the bacterial cells, release these nanoparticles.
	Nanoparticles?
	No, hold it right there.
	We're at this break at the bottom of the hour, so hold tight.
	Okay.
	And we will be right back.
	My guest is Douglas Mulhall.
	And, uh, we're just about to hear, I think, about, uh, what Cuba did about the strain of, uh, particular strain they had.
	And only they did it, apparently.
	Bacterial meningitis.
	Bad stuff.
	Definitely can kill you.
	And as you pointed out, it goes to the brain, up the spine of the brain.
	And the heart of the city's beating.
	And from the neon's turned to dark.
	The castle walls are shaking.
	No control.
	It's one night.
	Who's gonna drive you home?
	Feel free to snip our packets.
	Then, with a smile on your face, please call the show at 1952-225-5278.
	That's 1952.
	Call Art.
	Feel free.
	1-952-225-5278. That's 1-952. Call Art.
	Feel free. My guest is Douglas Mulholland. He's coming to us from Germany.
	By the way, where in Germany are you, Douglas?
	Well, I'm just about 25 kilometers south of Munich, and I am surrounded by farmhouses that have solar panels on their roofs because, as everybody probably knows, Germany has the largest proportion of solar-generated energy of any country.
	In the world, and it is driven by nanotechnology, but we'll get to that in a moment.
	But suffice to say that you might remember, everyone predicted that we wouldn't reach grid parity prices for solar energy until at least 2018.
	And lo and behold, they reached it in Germany in 2014, which was 50% ahead of time with the result that now 30% of all the electricity in Germany is generated from solar and wind sources which is far greater than anyone had predicted and a lot of that is due to technological advances in nanotechnology which have allowed the improvements in the efficiency of solar cells.
	That's astounding!
	30% of the total energy?
	Yeah, and it's important because when we talked earlier about skeptics about technology, all the skeptics were saying, ah, never possible, going to be too expensive, yada yada yada.
	And here we are, it's happening ahead of time, it's realistic to the extent Where some people are complaining that Germany is exporting too much of its renewable energy across the borders and competing against fossil fuel energy in surrounding countries.
	Can you imagine?
	I'm afraid I can't, actually.
	All right, let's go back to Cuba now.
	Meningitis.
	Where you started to lose me was meningitis, I guess, when it infects you Has these nanoparticles that you were describing?
	Is that right?
	Yeah, that's correct.
	And to be clear, this was the big discovery of those years.
	Every cell, almost every cell in your body, ...releases these nanoparticles, and they were originally thought just to be garbage delivery packets that just basically reject things from cells, and that was because of our limitation in technology.
	We didn't really understand, and we were not able to show with protein technology what they were.
	Today we now know that they are specifically programmed in health and in sickness to do hundreds of different things that larger cells are too big to do themselves.
	All right, I want to be clear.
	Is this something, or could you consider this part of our immune system in some way?
	It is definitely an integral and fundamental part of both the human immune system and diseases that occur in humans.
	So it plays both sides of the game.
	So it can either make us sick or make us well.
	Depending on how it's programmed by cells.
	That's correct.
	So basically cells use it as both a defensive mechanism and an offensive mechanism.
	Okay.
	Now, obviously Cuba must have done something in the nanotechnological medical world to get you excited.
	What did they do?
	Well, imagine this happened in 1983, we're talking a period before most people even had heard about nanotechnology.
	And what they were able to do, just quite straight stated, is they were able to isolate, extract and concentrate These nanoparticles and re-inject them into the patients to create an immune response that made them immune to the bacteria.
	It sounds simple, but it's not, of course, because the trick of isolating exactly those particular types of nanoparticles is a real trick.
	You said, Douglas, made them immune.
	Now, are you representing that they came up with some sort of A shot that they gave everybody for immunity?
	That's correct.
	It was a vaccine.
	Really?
	So they did it.
	A vaccine.
	Wow.
	Well, they vaccinated them.
	And you just described earlier, Art, there was a parallel private sector thing happening in Norway with one of the drug companies.
	And they were racing to do the same thing, but the Cubans got there first.
	And so you had these parallel activities going on, but the reason that Cuba is so interesting is because they were dealing, you know, with the embargo, with everything else, and at the same time, everybody probably knows, they have a really excellent healthcare system there, and that's one of the reasons that it happened.
	So the embargo actually created this necessity to have their own healthcare technology.
	And so, the result of that was the near eradication of bacterial meningitis in Cuba, followed shortly thereafter by the near eradication of bacterial meningitis in Brazil and New Zealand.
	And so, basically, by the early 1990s, bacterial meningitis had virtually been wiped out because of this use of Nanoparticles to engender an immune response.
	Except, because of course of the embargo, and because conventional science was looking at nanoparticles as garbage removal, it was completely unacknowledged in the medical community, with the result that it was actually not applied to a lot of other diseases.
	Okay, can I ask you a quick one, please?
	And that is, have we since Who adopted this technology?
	Has it gone roaring through the FDA?
	Is it approved now for use here?
	That is actually the topic of the slide presentation that is on our website at ourmolecularfuture.com.
	So, there's a story to it, which I'm going to tell you during the show, but there's more information about it.
	So, we've actually uploaded exactly that story, so people can look at it.
	So, the short answer is yes.
	However, there was an extremely long story between then and now to get there, and I was directly involved in it.
	Today, there is actually now an International Scientific Association, which was started about five years ago.
	It's called the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles.
	I gave the keynote address to the founding annual general meeting a few years ago.
	And it has 700 scientists as members.
	It met in Washington last year.
	And so it switches between Europe and the United States.
	So the answer to your question is, yes, it is roaring into the FDA.
	And it is extremely exciting for one particular characteristic.
	It allows precise targeting.
	And this is the magic word in medicine today.
	So, the traditional approach to drugs and to medicines is called systemic.
	You just basically shotgun the whole system.
	And the problem with that, as you well know, is that you get significant side effects from what it is that you're trying to do.
	Okay, let me just interject that I go to On a yearly basis, pretty much.
	The drugstore and there they offer me up various kinds of shots.
	Flu shots, pneumonia shots, things like that.
	They have not yet offered me a shot like you just described.
	They haven't offered it in the drugstore on a mass basis yet and that is exactly what our campaign is designed to do that I'll be discussing later in the show because it is available on a limited basis for limited types of diseases and there has been a recent discovery in heart disease
	That we believe using these nanoparticles has the capacity to reverse heart disease by 2020, but that's a story that we'll get to later.
	Going back to the Cuban situation just for a moment, The amusing thing is that in 1989, the Cubans won the Capitalist World Intellectual Property Organization gold medal for the vaccine.
	And nobody knows that either.
	You just go on the WIPO website and it's there.
	I missed that ceremony.
	Absolutely.
	So basically, the United States and most of Western Europe missed out on this because of the embargoes.
	This is one of the wonderful side effects of the embargo is that we missed 20 years of advances in medicine.
	Wonderful.
	Exactly.
	But the wonderful news is that this shows that more than 25 years ago, Nano-medicine innovation was going on, has been saving lives, has been proven.
	So it's not something in the future.
	It's been going on for quite some time.
	Our challenge is to acknowledge that and to scale it up as quickly as possible in order to get it to as many people as possible.
	And that brings us back to What can people do right now?
	What can people do in their ordinary lives, or unordinary lives, depending on how you see yourself?
	What can each of us do to benefit from nanotechnology?
	And from the last 20 years that I've been looking at this, The conclusion that I came to was that this is it.
	That nanomedicine is at the point where we now have the proven capacity to go from shotgun solutions that are at best only marginally effective And have terrible side effects in things like cancer, heart disease, etc.
	Really terrible, yeah.
	To very precisely targeted mechanisms that use these nanoparticles to get to the point of the source of the problem.
	Now, the nanoparticles don't do that on their own.
	They need a lot of mechanisms that are connected to them.
	And fortunately, we have those mechanisms today.
	And some of those mechanisms include, for example, antibodies.
	The purpose of an antibody, the body manufactures antibodies to recognize a particular pathogen in the body and then create an immune response.
	Yeah, they actually cause the white cells to come to a particular spot and start attacking and also develop the capacity to actually get into the pathogen.
	So, you need something to actually recognize.
	So, number one, the nanoparticle can be loaded with a particular drug that can go to the point of the problem.
	But number two, You need these antibodies in order to do the targeting and antibodies are not the only thing but they are now there are about 50 antibodies that have been through or are in the process of going through regulatory approval at the European Medical Agency and in Europe and in the United States.
	So we have speeded up the process by which some of this stuff can get through?
	Yes.
	When I say we, I mean the U.S.
	FDA?
	Yes, there's an accelerated process now.
	The FDA has actually responded to years and years of complaints that things are too slow.
	And there are about 50% of the new drug applications now are going through accelerated processes, especially for individuals who are seriously ill.
	And so these antibody, these combined, they're called conjugated therapies with
	nanoparticles and antibodies,
	are actually going through the FDA approval process and a lot of them are in the marketplace today.
	I still hear about a lot of people who come down with something
	really awful, whether it's a cancer or whatever it is, and they have to
	end up flying to Zurich or flying to who knows where, where there exists
	a treatment the FDA simply won't allow.
	Yeah, that's correct, but it's also the other way around.
	There's some Europeans going to the U.S.
	depending on, you know, what it is that you're dealing with, and yet other people are flying off to Thailand, number one, because of costs, and two, of advances that are going on there.
	So, you have this irregular situation where different regulatory agencies are delaying different things for different reasons.
	And so that's the reason that that is going on.
	Well, if we get into the Thailand story, I'll just get angry, because I know how cheap medicine is there.
	I lived in that part of the world, thank you, and I know how expensive it is here, and it just gets me so angry that we won't get to talk about anything else, and I want to talk about nanotech.
	Well, the good news is that this form of nanotech is something that we can do something about right now,
	and if we do it in the right way, this unaffordability of medicine,
	and that is one of the main reasons why I am focusing on this particular area of nanomedicine,
	has the capacity to make it affordable, because, first of all, it's a lot less expensive
	if you're just targeting a particular part of the disease, because you're reducing all the side effects, you don't
	need as much medical surveillance, and so your costs absolutely go down dramatically,
	and the cost of developing these nanoparticles and antibodies is significantly lower.
	Douglas, do you honestly believe that the pharmaceutical giants are going to allow these upstart nano people to come in and present medicines that are A. effective and B. cheap and virtually put them out of business while they're almost like the oil cartels?
	That's definitely a challenge, and that is why we've started this Nanomedicine for All initiative.
	Because the happy news about what you've said, and what you've said is absolutely true, there's what we call inertia, institutional resistance.
	On the other hand, the good news is there are biotech companies, there are start-up
	medical device delivery companies that are distinct from the pharmaceutical companies
	that have another agenda because they are not burdened by their existing drug line that
	would lose out to these competing drugs.
	So you actually now have the beginnings of competition.
	competition within the industry, that's number one. And number two, globally you have different
	regimes where it is easier to do things. For example, in India, they're not putting up
	with this patent regime stuff anymore.
	Oh, I know. I know. I know.
	And so, yes, you're absolutely correct, and it is the number one challenge.
	On the other hand, there are private sector groups out there in the medical device industry, in the biotech industry, that want to pick this up, that are picking it up, and that are moving forward with it.
	And then, Big Pharma is reluctantly coming on board.
	And remember that actually there's a lot of, like here for example, in this tiny little town that I'm living in, is the world headquarters of Sandoz and Hexol.
	And they're one of the world's largest generic drug companies.
	So their job is to actually provide generic drugs as cheaply as possible.
	Okay, but you know, in a way, Douglas, I'm sorry, you're kind of in dreamland here, in my opinion, because everything is determined by supply and demand.
	Example, if something is really in demand, let's say you have a terrible disease.
	Let's say you've got AIDS, for example.
	And there becomes a new drug that is really effective in you living with, or even, you know, somehow getting rid of AIDS, and then some CEO somewhere raises the price by 5,000%.
	Supply and demand, Douglas.
	If the demand is sufficient, there will be people who, even though hating it and hating them, will pay the money, stay alive, right?
	If there becomes a nano-drug, Or a nano, whatever you want to call it, that allows people to live for an extra 50 years.
	What do you imagine the demand for that would be?
	Absolutely correct.
	And I think the example that you're referring to is what happened, the scandal that occurred recently when someone did exactly that.
	They actually bought up an existing drug that was actually selling for a relatively reasonable amount and jacked up the price by 5,000% overnight.
	That's right.
	And with impunity and claiming that they were doing a good thing for the world.
	So, there's no question that this type of thing exists.
	In terms of, are we in dreamland?
	Well, are you in dreamland when you say these drugs will be available to the masses and they'll be cheap?
	Hold the answer to that.
	We're at a break.
	We'll be right back.
	Yeah, I do think it's dreamland.
	But, you know, I hope I'm wrong.
	This is Midnight in the Desert.
	I'm Marc Bamford.
	I know it sounds funny, but I just can't stand the pain.
	Girl, I'm leaving you tomorrow.
	Seems to me, girl, you're not... I look around for my possibility.
	Okay, my guest is from Germany, Douglas Mulholland.
	To initiate a dialogue sequence with Art Bell, please direct your finger to his end call
	1952-225-5278.
	That's 1952.
	Call Art.
	Okay, my guest is from Germany, Douglas Mulholland.
	We're talking about nanotechnology, and we'll get to AI, robotics, and genetics as the night
	progresses.
	Douglas, welcome to the show.
	Thank you for having me.
	I'm very happy to be here.
	Professor... I guess not professor.
	Are you a professor, by the way?
	No, I'm an associate researcher at three universities, but never got the title next to my name.
	I'm a Canadian marooned in Germany.
	I do hear the Canadian in the voice, eh?
	Okay, so Mary Beth.
	Maybe I should explain.
	I get messages on a computer through what we call the wormhole.
	As I do the program for people who are listening, Mary Beth types the following.
	Is your guest familiar with a new cystic fibrosis drug, Orkambi?
	O-R-K-A-M-B-I is the way you spell it, or she thinks.
	Orkambi.
	It is nanotechnology.
	It works on turning on cells turning them on to work correctly. It's an amazing,
	amazingly effective drug for cystic fibrosis. Costs $259,000 a year.
	Yes, where have we heard this story before?
	The answer is yes, I'm familiar with it.
	There's a lot of protein research that's going on towards turning things on and off, and it's quite expensive because of the need to deliver these proteins in the right way.
	So, I want to address this question of dreaming, because I would actually like to invite, ask everybody to join the dreamers.
	I'm not saying there's anything wrong with dreaming, Professor.
	I'm just talking about reality.
	Yeah, but I think here is our strategy for dealing with that.
	Number one, there are examples of vaccines, for example, that are in the marketplace today, and I mentioned the Cuban and other vaccine that are remarkably affordable.
	So, to be clear, there are examples out there with specific diseases, especially diseases, for example, in the tropics.
	Where you do have affordability.
	So it's not what you say is correct, and the Cystic Fibrosis drug is an example.
	This is a serious problem in the United States and Europe today.
	I am absolutely not denying that.
	However, what I am saying is, there are also a few examples that demonstrate how you can get through this.
	And that is what our initiative is about.
	Our aim is to get together a group of individuals and investors who actually want to bring these approaches through to clinical trial phase three.
	And we believe that with heart disease, this can be done by the year 2020.
	And I'm going to try to stop calling you professor.
	It's because I think you sound so much like one.
	Well, probably because I work with them all the time.
	That could be it.
	I don't know.
	All right.
	Well, this is all very interesting.
	And I do hear the hopefulness in your voice.
	I, however, sort of disagree with you.
	And I think that these drugs are going to come along.
	And I do want to talk about them.
	And I do want to talk about nanotechnology.
	But I'm afraid, I believe, that they will be rare and very expensive, depending on demand.
	I don't disagree with you, Art.
	However, just let me point out the hopeful logic to this.
	One of the key things that these technologies allow us to do is to improve the effectiveness of existing drugs.
	And so, these drugs are off-patent.
	So to be clear, anybody can pick them up, they can put them into a nanoparticle, they can attach an antibody to them, they can target a disease.
	And that is what is beginning to happen now.
	As well, the nanoparticles themselves are already approved by regulatory agencies, so you don't need a big expensive pharmaceuticals company to go off and invent a new one.
	So what's going on is that one by one, ingredients of these nanosolutions are becoming generic.
	And so I believe that we're actually on the edge of a significant reduction in not only the cost, but also the capability to bring to market affordable solutions.
	And that is what our initiative is all about.
	So let's hope that we can turn these dreams into reality based on some solid case examples that have gone on in the past, but also acknowledging that what you say is also the present reality.
	Well, may we succeed beyond my doubtful nature.
	I want it.
	I mean, we all want it.
	And by the way, God bless India.
	Most Americans should know, if you look around in the right place, folks, I don't know what medicines you regularly take, but check into India because If you connect with the right people, you can buy the same damn drug from India for, when I say a fraction of the price, I mean like something that was $20 is now $0.44.
	So, I don't know that it's completely legal, probably isn't, but India is doing this.
	It's probably a combination of corruption in India, profit-making in India, and not caring about anybody's patent in India.
	All of the above.
	There.
	I'm glad I said it.
	No, I think what you said is quite accurate, and you might remember the story earlier that people were doing that also from Canada, but then that pipeline got closed down.
	It got closed down, and India's even cheaper than Canada.
	Yeah, and also it's further away, and it's harder to control.
	So there are a number of court cases going on right now.
	I bet.
	I bet.
	Who cares?
	Right.
	Have your fight in court, and good luck.
	In the meantime, cheap drugs.
	Okay, so, anyway, I want to move now to sort of other areas of nanotech.
	Something I asked you about years ago, I know somebody as hopeful and as, I don't know what the right word is, you have a view of humanity that I don't quite share, but I do admire, would say about grey goo.
	Just drop that on you.
	Grey goo.
	Yes, grey goo is what?
	Well, grey goo supposedly is the result of what happens when we reach the singularity and everything gets totally out of control and nanobots turn everything into grey goo.
	So that's where the term grey goo comes from.
	So there would be essentially a small nanobot, gazillions of them, That would be set loose, they would multiply, and they would virtually eat everything.
	Yeah, that's the fear.
	It hasn't come to pass yet.
	And if you look at the way that the whole biome, the whole biosystem of the planet works, everything is trying to turn everything else into grey goo, and has been trying to do so for billions of years.
	But there are balances that have been established, and of course the argument is, yes, but if you invent some nanobot that doesn't have any balance against it, then you will have grey goo.
	Yes, the risk exists, and you are probably going to start talking about the accelerator experiment that's going on in Zurich right now to try and find uh... different dimensions of our universe and all the only
	only if you would like to talk about that uh... well there's no but
	there's been lawsuits filed against those guys for the same reason that somehow
	this is going to get loose and turn everything into gray goo so it's it's part
	of the same well actually i think that the fear is more
	that they're going to do something and we're all going to just
	disappear instantly Something like that?
	Yes.
	I guess the general answer to that is that over the past four billion years, both in terms of physics and in terms of biology, Our systems have evolved to become extremely stable and extremely robust.
	And so the idea, I think it's a bit perhaps, shall I say, arrogant for us to think that we might be able to invent something that is actually going to disrupt that.
	We might accidentally have a large accident, there's no question about that, we've seen that in the past.
	Describe what you would think of as a large accident as it relates to the Large Hadron Collider.
	That's a good question.
	It is, yes it is.
	I think you could think of something like a Fukushima type event.
	Fukushima.
	Something that would be localized.
	Fukushima involves radiation.
	What they're doing there doesn't really involve radiation, right?
	Well, actually, who knows?
	Because what is dark matter?
	What's going on out there?
	And what happens when you delve into that dimension and pull something out of it?
	Oh, yes.
	And they're also talking of the creation of a black hole, too.
	And they think it will be small and inconsequential.
	But what if it wasn't?
	Right.
	So, these are all risks.
	The question is, is anybody paying attention to the risks?
	The answer is, no.
	A few random websites are, definitely.
	Yeah, but they're going ahead anyways.
	So, the answer is, we're going to see what happens.
	I know, we always get to see what happens.
	And here's kind of what I think.
	If a scientist creates, you know, works for years of his life, and he creates something really cool, I don't know, something like the Large Hadron Collider, let's say he does it in his private lab, and then he's finally at the end of his work, 40 years, and he's got a button in front of him, and he can press the button with possible risk to the entire world if it goes all wrong, and no risk at all if it goes right.
	So, he can sit there and he can sort of stare at that button in front of him.
	Let's see now, do I... Yeah, there is some risk, but, you know, if I push it... Nah, nah.
	You know he's going to push the button.
	Yeah, think Edward Teller.
	End of story.
	Exactly, think Edward Teller.
	Yeah, sure.
	The whole atmosphere could have gone up in a chain reaction.
	They weren't sure.
	Yeah.
	Ten years ago, on this show, you and I talked about the article that was written by Bill Joy called, Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.
	And at the time, it was the most published article in the history of humanity.
	It went like wildfire through the internet.
	And Bill basically said exactly that.
	He said, there are some technologies, we just shouldn't simply go there.
	But I think that Bill has come to the inevitable conclusion that we're going to go there anyways.
	So, Bill Joy's article still stands out there as an iconic example of where we're going.
	And in the ensuing ten years, I have yet to see a better piece than what he wrote.
	All of the, you know, Everyone, Kurzweil, Rothblatt, everyone who, very, very smart people.
	I haven't seen an evolution beyond that, that would in any way contradict what Joyce said in that article.
	They're saying that what they're doing, or going to do at CERN, by the way, it's going to the highest power it's ever gone, and this experiment is, I believe, expected perhaps within the week.
	And this experiment may cause, they said, some magnetic waves from here to leak into another dimension.
	Now when you start talking about stuff like this, it does sound like, you know, there could be a conceivable, possible downside.
	But as I guess we both now agree, we shall plow ahead.
	Definitely.
	So that's the issue.
	People are going to push the button.
	So if you look over the years, it's going to happen.
	Yes.
	Are there risks?
	Absolutely.
	Should we be doing this?
	No one's really thinking about it.
	So let's see.
	Go along for the ride and we'll see what happens.
	Okay.
	All right.
	When you and I talked about Grey Goo all those years ago, it has been a lot, when was our last interview?
	2005.
	Yeah, okay.
	When we last talked, Grey Goo, I don't know, it seemed like something awful in the scientific world of possibilities, and then not as many people in the world are as crazy as they are now.
	We have all these people now who are Well, the guys dressed in black in Syria, good example, the center of their ideology is to precipitate Armageddon, the end of the world.
	They want it over.
	And then we have crazies like the guy in Korea who may well be suicidal.
	In other words, we haven't always had all of these people, at least the communists in the Soviet Union were sensible people who weren't inclined to commit suicide.
	Now we have a new group.
	Yes, so let's talk about that for a moment because in our molecular future, your call gave me occasion to thumb through the book and I realized that everything in the book is still current and one of the things that I described in the book is that one of the key trends that we're going to be running into is the fundamentalist opposition to technology because people are increasingly alienated by it.
	Yes.
	So these so-called crazies that you're talking about are exactly the embodiment of what was forecast in the book.
	And that's why I say the book is still current.
	Because it exactly said that this type of thing is not only going to happen, but it's going to accelerate.
	And we're going to see an increase in this extreme reaction against technology as technology starts to bring us towards this so-called technological singularity.
	So actually, the world is unfolding exactly as the book forecasted.
	And if you run through the list of forecasts in the book, you'll find that quite a few of them are entirely accurate.
	Some of them are happening more quickly than was forecasted.
	I went through, by the way, a list of products that are on the market today that we were talking about then, and they're here and they're in everybody's lives.
	Right now and that brings us to, so where are we at today with nanotechnology?
	Just before you get there, I'm sorry, can you define for me and the audience what you mean by the term technological singularity?
	Ah, yes.
	Well, actually, on your show about a week ago, you actually had a scientist who described Singularity Time Wave Theory in physics.
	Yes.
	So, which is basically physics-space-time black holes, an event horizon.
	And at the time, your guest said, it's just a word for saying physics cannot say what's going on in there.
	That's a quote from him.
	And of course, the recent film Interstellar explores exactly that potential.
	explores exactly that potential. So in physics, the singularity describes basically a space-time black hole
	where nobody knows what's going on in there.
	That is quite different.
	from the type of singularity that is referred to originally by a scientist by the name of Werner Wenge and also was picked up by Ray Kurzweil in his book The Singularity is Near and three years before that in my book Where I described Verner Vinge's Singularity and everyone now, of course, there's a Singularity University and it's become a, you know, a widely used word.
	Douglas, very quickly, the movie you referred to was interesting and mentioning that once you get inside a black hole there's really no way to describe it because we don't know what goes on in there resulted in More theatrical license than I was willing to swallow.
	Yes, I would say so.
	I think that the one valid thing that it described was the bending of time.
	Yes, yes.
	And I think that was the most significant thing.
	It just shows that time is a dimension, like everything else, that can be bent.
	And that's really the exciting stuff.
	And you've come back to the top of the show, talking about 1500 light years away.
	Let's hope they haven't found a way to bend it so far that they show up on our doorstep.
	Um, actually, actually, I think that that is exactly what could be true.
	And if they were to suddenly realize that we realize they are there, they might decide to come call in.
	And I'll leave it at that.
	Again, though, I don't quite still understand what you mean when you say technological singularity.
	Right.
	So, it is the same thing, but not in physics.
	It is the, and if you look at the title of the book, it's actually Our Molecular Future, How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World.
	The merger of those technologies and their acceleration To the point where it becomes impossible to predict even the near future is the technological singularity.
	So, in other words, right now you can reasonably predict what's going to happen the day after tomorrow in certain areas, in a lot of areas in the world.
	You know, you will probably be able to walk to work, etc.
	The singularity occurs when actually it becomes impossible to predict what's going to happen next week.
	And that's because technology is moving so quickly that it is just dramatically transforming everything.
	We're almost there then, because I can't predict what's going to happen next week, technologically.
	That's a very good point, and a lot of technologists, and again referring back to the book, are saying it has started.
	For example, Martine Rosblatt has clearly, in her books about this, said that actually we are already beginning to enter the singularity.
	She's published a book called Virtually Human, And by the way, Rothblatt is also the highest paid woman in North America and is the chairman of United Therapeutics, which developed an affordable pharmaceutical for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which saved the life of her daughter.
	So, that kind of ties everything together.
	But anyways, Rothblatt is probably my favorite person on the whole planet, and she's written this book called Virtually Human that basically says the singularity is beginning now with us beginning to merge with the Internet, intelligence, and so we're on our way.
	So, you're correct.
	We have entered Let's talk about where you think it's going to go.
	Now, I mentioned living to 150 years of age a little while ago, and you said, well, maybe.
	All right, let us talk about where you think it's going to go.
	Now, I mentioned living to 150 years of age a little while ago, and you said, well, maybe.
	So where are we with that?
	Well where we are and where we're going are two different questions.
	So we could start with where we are, and then I'll get into where we're going and the potential
	contradictions.
	I'm good with that.
	So, just talk about wearables.
	So, the new thing, you walk in any sports store, you're looking at wearables, you're looking at things that can tell your pulse, etc., etc.
	It's horrible for recycling your clothes, but it's really great for sports people.
	And this is all driven by nanotechnology, because all of the nanofibers that are being used are driving these types of wearables.
	Google cars, a lot of that is being driven by nanotechnology, especially with the sensing technology.
	You know, they're actually already coming out.
	You can buy a Google car.
	Now, I saw a guy driving one the other day.
	He had purchased it, and he was on the freeway, and he let go of the wheel, gingerly, stayed close to it, And that car just stayed right in its lane.
	Did everything just right.
	So, the Google car seems to work.
	Yeah, and the reason it works is because they finally put together cars with global navigation systems, and that's exactly what we described in Our Molecular Future.
	We said in order to have self-directed navigation, you need to have the internet-based global navigation systems, because that was the thing that was missing.
	So we exactly said that, and Google put it all together, and that's why you have the cars.
	It's not just the cars.
	It was the navigation system that was actually the obstacle.
	And you might recall, for those of you who remember the Cold War, that we couldn't even do that earlier, because it was all military secrets.
	So, it was actually the end of the Cold War that precipitated the capacity to have civilian navigation systems that allowed us to do that.
	And, you know, again, Martin Rosblatt is the inventor of Sirius satellite radio, was one of those who actually was able to identify that you can basically target individual vehicles with signals.
	So, all of that came together and now we have Google cars.
	Tesla!
	So, everybody knows Tesla now.
	They're selling Tesla right down the street from me.
	There's actually a guy down the street, I can almost look at him right now, who's got a Tesla in his driveway.
	And the battery systems in Tesla are driven by nanotechnology.
	So you live in a nice neighborhood.
	Well, it's kind of like, you know, one of these neighborhoods that's halfway between the farm and the city.
	But in Germany, the strength of Germany is that in these small communities you have very, very sophisticated industries.
	So, they're called the Mittelstand.
	And they, you know, they are the strength of Germany.
	That's why Germany is the only country that has trade surplus with China.
	That was an economic comment.
	That's one of the reasons I'm here, because these guys are serious business.
	So this tiny little place where I am has, as I said, the world headquarters of Sandos and Hexol, and they also have people who have Teslas in their driveway, but I also have a farmer who spreads manure on his field.
	So you have this sort of contradiction of technologies.
	So, inside, the Tesla doesn't smell great when he drives by?
	Well, actually, it does because he's got a nano-filter.
	A nano-filter?
	Really?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, so a version of a HEPA filter that... Is in the Tesla?
	So he never gets a whiff?
	Yeah, I mean, you can have them installed, no question about it.
	So then, look at the car tires, not just on the Tesla, but any car.
	Yes.
	All the car tires today are made using nanoparticles, and the nanoparticles are designed to improve the rolling efficiency of the tire.
	There's only one tiny little problem with them.
	That is?
	Well, all those nanoparticles come off when you're driving a car down the road, and nanoparticles can penetrate the blood-brain barrier, so billions of us are actually filters for the car tires.
	Well, let me... This is the downside.
	Let me enlarge on your downside, okay?
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	Okay, so there's a story out there which is growing and growing, These old tires are chopped up into little tiny pieces, and they are frequently used as a cheap man's astroturf on basketball courts, and in fact, as turf on football fields.
	That's what we call downcycling.
	Yes.
	People are coming up with cancers at a rate that doesn't make sense, and I'm not claiming that it's related, but a lot of scientists are beginning to, and could that be the little nano things you were talking about?
	No doubt about it.
	Our institute specializes in this area of ecotoxicology.
	You mentioned it earlier, it's EPA, which is a joke on the EPA because it's called the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency.
	But it's no joke because we found that companies respond very well to the message.
	Unfortunately, the tire industry hasn't quite figured that one out yet because they're focusing on eco-efficiency instead of eco-effectiveness.
	You know, it is actually possible To design a tire that has a biologically compatible exterior that wears off.
	But the industry, due to pressure from environmentalists, has focused on eco-efficiency, unfortunately.
	All right, Douglas, you've got to hold it there.
	We've got a break.
	Midnight in the Desert, talking small stuff.
	Midnight moon is drifting through the lazy sway of a tree.
	I saw the look in your eyes, looking into mine.
	I see the love catch a ride, in my eyes.
	Now I stand here helplessly, hoping you'll get into me.
	I am so...
	Want to take a ride?
	Your conductor, Art Bell, will punch your ticket.
	When you call 1952, call Art.
	That's 1952-225-5270.
	That's it, all right.
	Douglas Moho is my guest, all the way from Germany.
	We're talking about nanotechnology.
	And to move this along a little bit, I'm curious, Douglas, you write about possibility of smart Dust.
	Now that's something my wife would like to be involved with if possible, um, because all our dust is dumb and just lays around on the table.
	So, what's smart dust?
	Oh yes, SmartDust.
	We talked about this 10 years ago as well.
	I want to come back to your sponsor in a minute, but I'm going to talk about SmartDust right now, because your sponsor actually is involved in natural nanotech.
	So, SmartDust is basically drones on steroids.
	Drones on steroids?
	You know, in the book, you remember, we talked about this again.
	All the drone stuff that's going on today was forecasted in the book.
	You can see it there.
	We've got photographs of one of the first Predator aircraft.
	This was back in 2002, remember?
	So, you know, you can read the book and see that.
	I have a drone.
	Be careful here.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And they're great things.
	You know, let's hope they don't ban them.
	And they're working on it.
	Yeah.
	First they register, then they take them.
	Yeah, so the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which you know well as DARPA, most of your listeners have heard of it.
	For years they've been working on smart dust, and it does exist.
	It's basically, as I said, drones on steroids, because it has the camera and the levitation gear.
	It's, you know, conventional stuff, but just miniaturized.
	That allows it to effectively float on air, because it just has minimal propulsion requirements, because it's so light.
	So that's basically smart dust, and you can see from the saturation that has occurred in the past 10 years, of drones around the world and some of the beneficial and nasty uses of them.
	This is, you know, years ago when we were talking about smart dust, everyone was going, gee whiz, and today it's like... No, no, no, I'm still, gee whiz, what is smart dust?
	I mean... It's a drone that is so small that it's light enough to flow in the wind.
	And it's already been demonstrated.
	It has proof of concept.
	You know, the stuff is flying around.
	And it's been heavily invested in by the military.
	Now, people, think about this.
	Drones so small that you cannot see them, perhaps under a microscope.
	I don't know.
	Could you see them under a microscope?
	Well, how small they can get is still open to speculation, but definitely so small that you wouldn't be able to distinguish them from a speck of dust.
	That's why they're called smart dust.
	Douglas, what is the application of smart dust?
	A lot of it is sensing.
	So it's a very inexpensive form of mass sensing.
	So just for example, if you wanted to test and to get sampling from an ecosystem across the forest, You might go in and spread around, you know, hundreds of thousands of pieces of smart dust.
	It's simply, and those in that case, that's simply sensors that are designed to give you a particular feedback on a particular environmental phenomenon.
	So, smart dust can vary depending on the application, but environmental sensing is one of the key things for that.
	The other one, of course, obviously, is surveillance.
	So, because these are virtually undetectable.
	So, from surveillance to environmental sensing, from military to civilian to scientific, there are all kinds of applications and a lot of those are being used today.
	I guess I still don't get it.
	Smart Dust would provide environmental information in what way, for example?
	For example, let's say you want to have a detailed reading of ground temperatures across 10 square miles.
	Okay.
	That would be an example.
	So, you'd have smart dust that has a temperature sensor and a transmitter.
	That's it.
	It wouldn't have anything else.
	Gotcha.
	And you just spread it around and it would give you accurate readings down to a very precise level at very precise places.
	You could also use it, for example, for sensing toxic chemical contamination or, for example, radiation hotspots.
	So any of those types of things you can customize the sensor for detection.
	So those are concrete examples of how it can be used.
	I get it.
	Is it possible that something you call nanites Could ever become self-aware.
	This brings us to AI.
	It's another one of my favorite topics.
	Artificial intelligence.
	I love it.
	And how does it relate to nanites?
	Nanites can be used by artificially intelligent entities for remote sensing.
	So they can be used as a projection.
	I'm sorry, so we've already got to have an AI entity of some sort which would use these nanites you're talking about.
	Yeah, let's define AI so that listeners are clear on it.
	For example, the stock market is being run by artificially intelligent algorithms today, and that's why you see a lot of the volatility in the markets.
	So virtually, I think something like 85% now of the U.S.
	stock markets are run by algorithms, they're not run by people.
	And these are not the true AI, because they're not self-aware, but they do learn, and this is called an evolutionary algorithm.
	So basically, it's trial and error in very rapid sequence.
	That allows highly-powered computers to learn from experience.
	So, this is called a form of low-level artificial intelligence, where machines learn by doing things.
	So, that's low-level.
	The high-level is when you... hasn't occurred yet, as far as we know, where you have an artificially intelligent machine that is aware of its own existence.
	And this is what Werner Wenge first dealt with when he predicted the singularity.
	And what Wenge said in the 1990s was that sometime within the next 30 to 40 years a computer will become self-aware and shortly thereafter the human era will end.
	That was his statement.
	That's what provoked the huge debate over the possible impacts of AI.
	So there's two types of AI.
	One is in the marketplace today, running all kinds of things, all of our systems, all of our credit cards, everything else.
	And then the other is the stuff that's yet to come, that nobody's quite sure what's going to happen, and basically is referred to also as the singularity.
	Douglas, do you believe that?
	That we are approaching a time when machines will replace humanity.
	You know, it's funny, you asked me the same question on the show in 2005, and the answer remains the same, and that is, what is happening today ...is the integration of human intelligence with machine intelligence, and that is occurring mostly on the Internet, where you can instantly recall things that before used to take weeks and months, and this is enhancing human intelligence.
	And also with the implants in humans, in retinas, for example, that connect directly to the brain and also to the Internet, You're seeing this merging between the human brain and machine intelligence.
	So this is already going on today.
	If I were a US Senator, angry or upset with Hillary Clinton, who was being interviewed, essentially, or testifying before me, I'd say, please, just a simple yes or no.
	Are we headed to be replaced by machines?
	We're headed to replace ourselves.
	The short answer is yes.
	But it's not going to be a machine machine.
	It's probably going to be a humanoid machine.
	Part machine, part human.
	That's correct.
	And this is already going on.
	So it's not like it's going to happen.
	It is happening.
	And again, Martine Rothblatt has made this quite clear in her book.
	She has clearly stated the evidence that transhumanism, which is the other term that's used for this, is going on today.
	We're in the middle of it.
	It is going on right now.
	It's not the future, it's now.
	While I feel a pretty strong affection for my iPhone 6, It's not getting to that point yet.
	While I feel an attachment to it, I don't feel as though, well, maybe I can't live without it.
	Well, but there are people who do.
	I mean, here in Germany, on the First Channel, there was a documentary on one of the journalists who actually is physically connected to her iPhone.
	She just can't live without it.
	And the show described how she almost had a nervous breakdown of a week without it.
	So, in that sense, we're emotionally beginning to bond.
	And if you look at what's happening with robotics, Where robotic companions were forecasted in the book, Our Molecular Future, and now, of course, they're being used in healthcare already.
	This is an example, again, where we're beginning to see this melding between humans and machines.
	Well, the way things are going here in the U.S., my friend, I'm sure that there'll soon be a marriage license issued in some state between a person and their phone.
	Yeah, and Rothblatt has actually argued that we need to look at the rights of those machines.
	She's written a whole book about it.
	She's a lawyer.
	And she's basically made this case that we actually need to have transhuman rights.
	I think the term transhuman rights is quite fascinating.
	I'm wondering if I can just go back to your sponsor, American Green Roofing, because they keep coming on at the break.
	Yes, they do.
	Is that okay with you?
	Yes, it is.
	American Green Roofing, and you know, I have no connection to the company.
	Thank you.
	But our institute actually with a German engineer by the name Wolfgang Behrens installed what at the time was the largest green roof in the world on the Ford motor plant at Dearborn, Michigan.
	And Ford is absolutely thrilled with the results ten years later.
	They've done a study on it and it's exceeded their expectations.
	But one of the things that these green roofs do is that they filter nanoparticulates from the air and from the water.
	So this company that's sponsoring your program is actually using natural nanotechnology to filter nanopollutants from the air, and it's absolutely a fantastic product.
	So you're actually being sponsored by a nature's nanotechnology company.
	And the preceding was not an infomercial, nor solicited, nor paid for, nor connected in any way with my sponsor, but thank you nevertheless for that, and it's good to know that we've got green sponsors.
	Alright, let's try some hard ones.
	Can nanotech... Is it possible, or even likely, that nanotech will cause At some point irreversible damage to the world.
	Yes, and it has.
	And the example of the car tires that we just talked about earlier, and down-cycling to put this stuff on tennis courts, and then people inhaling the off-gassing of the nanoparticulates, it's crazy what's going on.
	Basically, we've become a large experiment for nanoparticulates in products without really knowing what they're going to do.
	So, the irreversibility Some people would definitely call it damage, but the irreversibility of the impacts is definitely there already.
	You are such an optimistic fellow, you know it?
	Well, actually, most people call me a pessimist, but in terms of the damage, it is definitely significant.
	There's no question about it.
	You're looking, just for example, if you look at the impacts of pharmaceuticals on the environment, there's hundreds of studies now that have shown this, and guess what?
	The G7, at their last meeting, ...said that the resulting drug resistance that has evolved from these pharmaceuticals being released into the environment is now a number one priority of the G7 because it is the fastest rising health cost.
	Which of course brings us back to our nanomedicine thing because these nanoparticles that I was talking about eliminate that problem.
	So, there is a solution to it, but at the moment it's a huge problem.
	And the answer to your question again is, yes, there is irreversible damage going on due to the premature, uncontrolled release of nanoparticles into the environment.
	No doubt about it.
	All right.
	Well, they're getting ready to regulate my drone.
	How much regulation is there presently in nanotechnology development?
	There is very significant regulation, but the difficulty is the same difficulty that our institute has seen with the whole effort of banning chemicals.
	So, every year thousands of new chemicals are invented and are being put into products.
	Regulatory regimes take 5 to 15 years to identify, test, determine the toxicity of, and then, maybe, ban these.
	How realistic do you think it is that our regulatory system is going to be able to catch up with all this stuff?
	The answer is none.
	There is no chance whatsoever.
	Yet, we have an environmental toxicology regime that insists on the less bad approach to trying to ban the worst stuff.
	And it simply isn't working.
	So what our institute did was we turned it on its head and we said, look, instead of trying to sift through the 100,000 chemicals that are out there in the marketplace right now in products, and trying to figure out which ones are really bad, Why don't we actually develop a positive list of chemicals that we know are actually beneficial for the environment and highly functional and can perform the functions that are required?
	And in fact, that is going on right now.
	For example, there's a product that's in use in Europe.
	It's called Climatex.
	It's 100% biodegradable, and our institute developed a list.
	We didn't develop the chemicals, we took them from a chemicals company.
	We developed a list of 30 chemicals that can be used safely for biodegradability of the product, and lo and behold, The company actually saved itself from bankruptcy because they were being told by the Swiss government that they had to put in a huge water recycling facility in order to get rid of all the toxins that were in their wastewater.
	When they replaced the chemicals in their textile, the authorities thought that their machines were broken when they came to test the wastewater because it was cleaner than the water that was going into the plant.
	So, the moral of the story is, there are examples in the marketplace today where if you use a positive list of chemicals, you can have a successful and profitable product and get away from this totally impractical approach of trying to identify and ban all these thousands of chemicals as they're coming out.
	Well, you really are an optimist, and a positive kind of guy.
	I like that.
	But what's the possibility that something that we think is safe, nanotechnologically speaking, is released upon the world, and one day we all wake up and our right foot is about 12 inches shorter than our left?
	That's happening all over the place.
	What happened in Fukushima is a classic example of that.
	Whoever dreamed that you would have a tidal wave that would come in and close down all their systems?
	Well, actually, if anyone had looked at the geological history, they would have seen that it actually did happen a hundred years ago in Japan.
	They knew it was going to happen again, but the technologists simply didn't account for it, and the result was what everybody knows about.
	So, these accidents are going on all around the world, but the chance of them totally annihilating humanity as a species, I would say, are minimal.
	I would say the chances are better that we're simply seeing a slow degradation Of the human health ecosystem, so that you're going to see possibly a significant die-off of the population.
	In other words, it's not going to be the end of humanity.
	Maybe we'll only annihilate, I don't know, a hemisphere.
	That would be a positive way to look at it.
	Okay, hold on please, Douglas.
	We're going to take calls shortly.
	Alright, time for the talk.
	Douglas Moho is my guest.
	If you'd like to join the conversation, we'd love to have you come along.
	And here's how you do it.
	The national number, as just recited, is easy.
	Dial 1 and then 952-225-5278.
	Right?
	But there are other ways.
	For example, if you're a first-time caller to the show, I offer you up the following.
	area code 775285 5800. That's area code 775285 5800.
	There are still more ways.
	Skype, of course, and we would love to have you join us.
	If you have an iPhone or an Android, doesn't matter, get Skype.
	It's free.
	Put it in your phone.
	Go to add a contact.
	Not where you dial, that's what everybody does by mistake.
	Go to add a contact, little plus sign.
	And put in, if you're in North America, M-I-T-D-5-1.
	Midnight in the desert.
	M-I-T-D-5-1.
	Then we'll be in your contact list.
	And when you want to call, you just go... Right?
	And call us.
	For free.
	And then worldwide, it's M-I-T-D-5-5.
	That's M-I-T-D-5-5.
	Again, we'll appear in your contact list, and uh...
	You can call us free of charge.
	What a world we live in.
	Douglas, welcome back.
	Hi, Art, again.
	Who chooses your music?
	Me.
	Well, you do a great job.
	I always love the music you choose.
	Oh, I'm glad you have been enjoying it.
	Happy to hear that.
	So, how about bringing on some people and letting them ask questions?
	Let's do it.
	All right, here they come.
	We'll start here on the phone.
	You're on the air with Douglas Mulhall.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	It's a pleasure to speak to you.
	My name's Corey.
	You're so onto the right path.
	I have an exposure to nanoparticle toxicity, an advanced exposure.
	About seven years ago, I went to doctor after doctor, medical doctors, who misdiagnosed it.
	And kept dosing me with antibiotic after antibiotic.
	I found out through fate that I had contracted what was called Morgellons disease.
	Morgellons.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	First of all, I'm not sure we even know what Morgellons really is, the strange growing stuff.
	Is Morgellons, Douglas, really something or what is it?
	That's a good question.
	It's tied into Bartonella infections and sometimes also related to Lyme disease.
	And you're correct that Morgellons, these little strandy things, sometimes identified also as nanostrands, but they're quite distinct from artificially, I believe they're quite distinct from artificially synthesized nanotubes or nanoparticles or nanowires.
	But they've been around for many, many years, and as I say now, they've been closely connected with the Bartonella infection.
	Again, what is significant about that is that Bartonella is actually one of these bacterias that infects by using these nanoparticles, which I referred to earlier as exosomes or membrane vesicles, and those vesicles actually are the frontline troops that penetrate cells, that weaken them, that allow the Barsonella virus to take over.
	So this is an example of how nanoparticles are programmed by cells to infect other cells.
	So that's what Barsonella does, and this is related to Lyme disease, It might be connected to the formation of Morgellons, but there hasn't been enough research done on that.
	Again, the optimistic news is that we're gaining the capacity to target some of these pathogens with antibody conjugated, artificially designed nanoparticles, and this brings some hope for Lyme disease sufferers as well.
	But you cannot cure Morgellons.
	Or, moreover, don't even really know altogether what it is.
	They haven't even been targeted yet.
	So, that's the issue.
	To be fair, you don't know what Morgellons is, and you definitely don't know how to cure it.
	Correct.
	Alright, that's to the point.
	Let's go to our first time caller, Line.
	You're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, this is Mike KXNT.
	I beg your pardon?
	Mike KXNT, GE Super Radio.
	I wanted to ask, is there a... Wait a minute, caller.
	Caller?
	Did you say you were listening to KXNT?
	Yes.
	In Las Vegas?
	Yes, I'm local.
	Okay.
	I wasn't aware that we were yet on KXNT.
	Oh, 790, yeah.
	Uh, no.
	KXNT is 840.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah.
	You've got it wrong.
	In a way, you've got it right.
	You don't know that, but you've got it wrong.
	Anyway, do you have a question?
	Yes.
	Let's say nano is X. Okay.
	It's for downscale and then upscale of What the organism, or whatever you call it, would go, and then is there a hive mentality, and would it, can it, would it become sentient?
	Okay, that's a good question, and one he actually had listed.
	Yeah, everything is macro in the end.
	That's what one of the leading scientists said to me about 15 years ago.
	So, DNA is nano.
	So, the answer to your question is, that's exactly what DNA does.
	So, DNA programs systems to become sentient.
	So, actually, that happens already today in nature, and there's no reason that it couldn't happen artificially as well, and I think we're actually headed down that road.
	The stock market that you referred to as close to, not quite sentient, but close, you said?
	Yeah, it's not self-aware, but it learns.
	How did it miss the housing bubble in the U.S.? ?
	Well, garbage in, garbage out.
	That's not quite independent sentient thought.
	That's why what they're... and also...
	So that's not quite independent-sensing thought.
	No, but also what are they programmed to do?
	So the question is, were they actually programmed to support the development of the housing bubble?
	And by the way, you might remember that at the top of the housing bubble, the guys that created it sold short while they were telling their customers to buy long.
	And guess what was telling them to do that?
	So actually, you know, they didn't miss the housing bubble, they created it.
	Well, there is that, yes.
	Do you think that nanotech ...is going to actually, before we go to another call, this is such a good question, change the actual direction of human evolution.
	Assuming that you buy evolution, that we are still evolving, even at a macro level that we can't quite detect, will this speed up that evolution?
	Already is.
	Because human embryos are being manipulated at the nano-level.
	Animal embryos are being manipulated.
	So we're already changing the evolution of biology.
	There's no doubt about it.
	It's irreversible.
	Okay.
	Let's go to Brandon, Manitoba, I guess.
	Hi.
	Hello Art, it's Sharon Colling from Brandis and for your guest, I guess with nanotechnology it's a double-edged sword, correct?
	Where you can do amazing things with pharmaceuticals or cleaning of the water and at the same time do a lot of damage.
	For example, you just mentioned the changing of evolution by manipulating at the nano level Human beings in utero, I guess.
	Embryos, yes.
	So, what you're talking about is just blowing me away and I'm just wondering how much of the general public, like me, are aware of these significant changes at such a small level and what can we do about it?
	Well, the first thing you can do is read the book.
	So that's a nice introduction still today.
	It's still current.
	Yes, sir?
	Plug away, no problem.
	But she means, I think, on a big scale.
	What can we do about this?
	This comes back to your talk that you and I have been having about the optimists versus the realists.
	And I still say that after 15, 20 years working on this, we came to the conclusion That a nano-medicine-for-all initiative, where everybody benefits from this affordably, because we're all living longer but sicker, and this is one of the concrete positive things that we can do, and the information is on our website about the initiative, so that's one thing that people can do.
	The other thing is, I would go to the website of the Singularity University.
	Because they have a very broad number of courses that are quite advanced in this area.
	And also, I would go to KurzweilAI.net because they have some fantastic stories, both positive and negative, about what's going on.
	And also, Arts Show has been covering a lot of this, so stay tuned!
	Canadians, no doubt, are tasty, but they really are eternally optimistic.
	Caller, anything else?
	No, I'll just continue to listen.
	Thanks, Art.
	It's just, it's horrifying and exciting at the same time while I'm listening.
	When you get back from all those websites, give me a call in about a month.
	Thanks, Art.
	You're very welcome.
	Thank you.
	My father was from Manitoba.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	My point exactly.
	Hi, caller, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Hi, I have a question for the guest.
	Uh, yes?
	Now that, um, Islamists are taking over the entire world, and they've already downed Europe, and hundreds of thousands are being forced into America and Canada, I want to know how his practices actually have to do with anything to do with what's going on right now.
	How will Islam react against his stuff?
	Even though now that Islam is now being the biggest religion being perforated, and it's going to be everywhere, I want to know how he thinks that Islam will be with his stuff.
	That's all.
	Okay, so your stuff.
	Art, you and I talked about this earlier on the show.
	One of the things that we outlined in the book was that it's not just Islam, but there is a basic religious backlash against the onslaught of technology.
	So Islam, and we have to be careful when we talk about Islam, because there's Islam and there's radicalized Islam.
	And we also have to be careful when we talk about what's going on, because actually I'm right in the middle of it here, because the refugees are streaming past our place on the trains on their way to Munich in the thousands.
	So we're at ground zero in this area.
	But the reason that this is happening is a confluence of at least two things.
	Number one is what the caller just described, and that is the radicalization of people in response against technology.
	And the next one is, and this is no secret, that the United States and Russia are still fighting in the Middle East over oil.
	And Putin's regime has made a decision to turn to Asia and turn away from Europe.
	They've made a strategic decision to do that.
	And so one of the ways to do that is to weaken Europe by forcing Thousands and thousands of refugees into the country.
	I do have a question for you.
	Since you're in this area, why has Germany been so welcoming to refugees, which are, I think, arguably going to be a mix of both good and bad.
	While other countries have been trying to put up barriers, close borders, otherwise slow them down and stop them, and yet Germany welcomes with open arms.
	Yeah, it's a fantastic story, but it basically, it's not any one thing, but number one, Germany has an extremely successful economy and they need people to fill jobs.
	So, that's number one.
	Number two, there is quite a bit of growing trepidation over the sheer volume of people, so it's gone from, hey, you're more than welcome to, oh, wait a minute, Like nanoparticles, some are good and some are not so good.
	Exactly.
	So, but the third thing is you have to remember history, and the history is the Holocaust.
	So, Germany is extremely and rightfully sensitive to the idea of, let's put them in camps.
	You know, that really doesn't work here.
	And so, Germany has a particular history that it is very, very sensitive to.
	So, number one, successful economy looking for, and remember, a lot of these people coming here are highly trained university graduates that are going to be very beneficial.
	So, the German economy is going to turn this to their advantage.
	No doubt about it.
	You can argue however you want with the climate, but it does seem to be warming.
	It does seem to be changing.
	And the question is, does nanotechnology have anything of worth to offer in terms of remediation of climate change?
	I'm so happy you asked me that question.
	I'm happy you're happy.
	The answer is yes, our institute is working on it, but there are two areas of significance.
	I have to tell you a story that a colleague of mine, ten years ago, who is an owner of one of the companies that manufactures the machines that make nanotechnology possible, said to us in a lecture That about 20 years from now, the environmentalists are going to be complaining because we're taking too much CO2 out of the atmosphere to manufacture products.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Now, why is that?
	The reason is because the Japanese, about 7 years ago, developed a solution to artificial photosynthesis, excuse me, It's quite alright.
	The result of that was that today we actually have artificial photosynthesis at an extremely low level of efficiency.
	So, the result of that is that the efficiency is improving And when we get to 10%, we're at 1% now, you will see the widespread use of CO2 as a feedstock for artificial photosynthesis, and our climate change problem will be solved.
	So the answer is yes, it's coming.
	And today, here in Germany, we had a major conference last month, On the reuse of CO2 as a valuable chemical for manufacturing products.
	And there are actually companies in the United States that are now extracting CO2 from the atmosphere to make plastics.
	So, these are all nanotech-based technologies.
	Call me an optimist, but CO2 is a valuable chemical, and the environmentalists have not done us a great favor by painting it as the devil, because actually, it's a valuable chemical, and we're going to extract it from the atmosphere, and we are doing it, and that's going to solve a lot of our climate problems.
	It will not solve The problems that you and I talked about earlier about these nanoparticulates that we're issuing and making humanity and the environment a very large experimental dish.
	That's a different issue.
	All right.
	Let's go to Skype.
	You're on the air with Douglas.
	Hi.
	Good evening, Art.
	Evening, sir.
	And good evening to you, Douglas.
	Good evening.
	Excellent show tonight, guys, and I do have a question for you.
	I was wondering if nanoparticles and this so-called smart dust could possibly be used in the future as a preventative measure for, say, radiation or bacteria or chemical weapons released in the air.
	If it could be released beforehand or right before an attack, And if this sort of technology has any potential preventative or defensive uses, say, against nuclear weapons?
	That's precisely what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, in the United States, has been researching for the past ten years.
	So the answer is, that is already under investigation.
	Oh, fantastic!
	And one more quick question, or more of a comment.
	When mentioning, like a previous guest from Manitoba, I believe, was sort of mentioning how the public could sort of get used to this, and as it rolls out more public Sort of made me wonder if we might not see something out of Frank Herbert's Dune, the Butlerian Jihad, where we decide that everything that is mechanical, anything that's a machine of such a nature, needs to go and we're going to start throwing out, never mind nanomachine particles, we're going to start throwing out our calculators and stuff.
	Well, again, if you look back to the forecast at Hans Moravec at Carnegie Mellon... Douglas, hold on one second.
	Daniel, welcome to the program.
	Please don't say anything for a moment.
	Overseas somewhere, you'll be on in a moment.
	Go ahead, Douglas.
	Okay, so if you... Sorry, Mark.
	I just lost my train of thought.
	What was the question again?
	Guy is gone.
	Absolutely gone.
	Okay.
	And I... Is that a cigarette or a pipe that you just ignited?
	Oh.
	Apologies.
	That was just a copy from coffee.
	I'll stop chewing.
	I see.
	Sounded just like a cigarette being lit.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Sorry about that.
	All right.
	Then let's... I don't remember the question either.
	Daniel, hello.
	Where are you?
	Hello there, Ard.
	Yeah, sorry, it was me lighting a cigarette in London.
	You see, I had it right, it's just that I have the wrong country.
	Yes, OK.
	I'm innocent, then.
	OK.
	You are.
	Daniel, go ahead.
	Hi there.
	Yeah, no, I'd just like to say that, by the way, it's great to talk to you, Ard.
	First of all, I'd just like to ask if you'd ever release your top 100 songs for time, or if you could put a list up somewhere, that'd be great.
	Oh, there's a list.
	Yeah, definitely.
	Anyway, I'm just calling to say that I really do not like the way that artificial intelligence is going, especially with where we're going in the next maybe 30 to 50 years with, you know, implants, brain hacks, really, really against it.
	I mean, I think it's going to get to the point where For example, you have people turning up at job interviews and they say, oh, you know, I've got this chip, you know, that gives me better memory.
	I can concentrate longer.
	Is there a word for those types of people that are really against, you know, like cyborgs or the evolution of man at the moment?
	Well, the nasty word is luddites.
	In the environmental realm it's called the precautionary principle.
	So, the precautionary principle basically says, if you have not been able to prove the downside of it, then don't do it.
	It's actually entrenched in European legislation, and the U.S.
	doesn't like it at all.
	So, yes, there is regulatory precedence for it.
	How successful... The problem is that the technology is running ahead of the legislation.
	So, it's extremely difficult to actually put a handle on this stuff.
	The thing is, people may not even be open about it.
	There may become a time where it's, you know, kind of goes a bit underground, you know, there's people If you want to talk about underground modification, just look at Volkswagen.
	So that's exactly what happened.
	Volkswagen took a decision right at the top.
	Is that what you call it?
	Underground modification?
	Sorry?
	Is that what you said?
	Underground modification?
	He said, you know, below the radar modification.
	I would say that their software was definitely below something.
	That's for sure.
	And, you know, talking about the so-called conspiracy theory, and I really dislike this word theory because there's so many examples in the legal annals of conspiracies that have been proven and prosecuted.
	It's not a theory.
	It happens all the time.
	It's human nature.
	And in the case of Volkswagen, this was an absolute classic.
	We're at the very top of the company.
	They took a decision to develop an extremely sophisticated hardware that hid everything.
	And when regulators in Europe and the United States asked them about that, they told them they were crazy, and they were absolutely wrong.
	And then they told them how to fix it, and they fixed it, and it still didn't work.
	And, finally, they had to admit, after two years of testing, that yes, they actually had done it.
	But the first reaction was, you're all lying, no, you're telling the wrong story, no, actually, your equipment doesn't work.
	And this went on for two years.
	So, first of all, they went ahead and they deliberately hid the thing, and then they started telling people they were crazy when they identified it.
	So, you know, yes, the risk of this going on with high technology is not only there, but it's already shown.
	Indeed.
	Well, I'm sorry, I was about to absolutely calcify you for lighting a cigarette after all this ecological talk, but it was a guy in London.
	Sorry about that.
	All right, Doug.
	Doug, you're on with, well, with Doug.
	The two Dougs.
	Yeah, Skype.
	Doug, hello.
	Speak.
	Going once, Doug.
	This is your big chance, Doug.
	Going twice.
	Go on, I guess Doug doesn't have it set up right or something.
	I'll answer his question.
	Really?
	That wasn't a joke.
	You actually told a joke!
	In how to approach this whole thing, in Portland, between November 7th and 10th, there's a sustainable nanotechnology organization meeting that anyone on the West Coast might want to have a look at.
	They've got, hmm, let me see now, ten, it's a non-profit organization, mostly students.
	They've got ten topics, ranging from food to energy to urban systems and education.
	So, if anyone's interested in approaching sustainable nanotechnology, November 7th to 10th, Portland, you can Google it.
	Okay.
	Alright, Mike, you're on the air with Doug.
	Hey, how are you?
	Quite well.
	Yeah, I've got some really great stuff here.
	I'm thinking the singularity first.
	Could possibly the dimming star could be a singularity?
	It could.
	I think they've looked at that possibility.
	Or possibly antimatter.
	Antimatter?
	Yeah, I believe actually they've rejected virtually everything thrown at it other than what They think it is.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	I'm still thinking it could possibly be some kind of a small miniature black hole singularity.
	With sentience.
	And so it's just blinking at us to have fun with us.
	But they went through that with the Poxars as well.
	A friend of mine actually met Patrick Flanagan, who wrote the Pyramid Power book.
	And, uh, he had a small singularity in his basement, apparently.
	And, uh, they put their hand in it and pulled out whatever they wanted to.
	If they wanted an orange, they'd grab an orange and pull it out of there.
	Hmm.
	Sounds like something from Star Trek.
	Yeah.
	Hmm.
	I didn't believe him, but...
	Yeah, that'd be just super.
	me and uh...
	to woke me up to the possibility of my no matter mhm art wouldn't it be great if they reached into the stern
	accelerator poland or
	but yeah that i mean just super i'm sorry i'm not making fun
	i mean it's the hill is is just a lot a joke from you is so rare
	that that when you went when you let one go
	it takes me a second to realize that it was a joke
	Heh heh heh.
	Heh heh heh.
	Heh heh.
	Full of a lot of science, put it that way.
	In a moment, when we come back and we have one more break to go, I wonder if nanotech can be used to create this ever-talked-about A quantum computer that actually might put us in touch with somebody in a parallel universe, or another universe, or something.
	So, hold on!
	We'll back all this in a moment.
	Douglas Mulhall is my guest.
	I am Art Bell.
	We can't go somewhere you don't wanna go Shadow that's a fool, don't she try too hard to recreate
	what you're yet to be created Watching in slow motion as you turn around today
	Turn around and run away To initiate a dialogue sequence with Art Bell, please
	coordinate your phalanges and call 1952-833-4232 That's 1952.
	Call Art.
	My guest is Douglas Mulhall.
	He is in Germany, all the way over in Germany, but you would never know it because of Skype technology.
	It is astounding, and well, it's not quite the singularity, but we're getting close.
	Douglas, welcome back.
	I do want to ask you about, and hopefully a short answer, a possibility of a quantum computer tantalizing indeed.
	Yeah, Doug Adams said 42 was the answer, as everybody knows, and the Earth was a giant computer.
	The answer is yes.
	Why not?
	Well, right, why not, I guess.
	But a quantum computer, it is said, Well, I guess it would be the beginning of communication with others.
	We might actually talk to those in another dimension.
	Let me rephrase that, unless they get a quantum Skype program.
	It's going to be information, they believe, might be exchanged.
	Are you comfortable with that thought?
	Yes.
	I think we're coming back to this issue of the space-time continuum and bending time, and whether quantum computing is going to allow us to do that.
	The real issue, definitely, is if we can bend the space-time continuum.
	And if we can, That's going to open up the possibility that you just talked about, and I think that is why, for example, some of the work that's going on right now that you discussed earlier in the show is so important.
	But in physics, the theory is there, so the question is if we can get on with the practice.
	There you have it.
	All right.
	Marvin, welcome.
	I have a question.
	Now, as we advance nanotechnologically, I think that nanoparticles can be used in everything, and certainly medicine, for example, could be one of them.
	But again, we've also been talking about artificial intelligences, and if there could be possible dangers with those.
	So, what could happen if, say, for example, these nanomachines were in us, and an artificial intelligence might, for example, interact with those, you know, to control them or monitor them, and actually use those nanomachines to control us?
	Or... That's already being done.
	After we die and, you know, we're buried... Wait, wait.
	Caller, hold on.
	Caller, hold on.
	You missed.
	He said, that's already being done.
	They're controlling us.
	I can give you an example and it refers back to the nanoparticulate therapy that is already being used currently.
	This is traced externally with near-infrared that is controlled by computing.
	So, basically, what you're seeing is the detection and manipulation of nanoparticles that are in the body that are being used, for example, to target cancer tumors, and they're being activated by computer-controlled mechanisms outside the body, non-invasively.
	So, this is already going on.
	But I think this caller may have meant controlling us in a way that we might not be, if we were fully functional, happy with.
	That's correct.
	That's the downside of it.
	And I'm quite sure that experiments are already going on in that area that we don't know about.
	So, again, it's a double-edged sword.
	The only thing that I can say is it is happening today.
	Let's really wake up and smell the coffee on this one.
	It's not something that's going to happen in the future.
	All right.
	And what could be scarier still is after we're dead and buried, these nanomachines could still be left in us.
	What if there's a nanomachine zombie apocalypse?
	Well, actually, you know, a lot of people that are dead and buried are considered to be toxic waste because of all of the toxins that we have in us already, so it wouldn't be any surprise to have what you say, nanobots resting in biological materials.
	You know, I know some people that are already what I consider toxic waste and they're still alive.
	Exactly.
	But in nature, if you look at the way that nature invented the seed, that's basically what seeds are.
	What seeds are, are time packages that last over, in some cases, hundreds of years, that allow biological systems to replicate from degraded matter.
	So, what would be new about having nanobots in people that suddenly spring out many years later?
	You know, plants that grow into coffins that implant themselves in biologically dead matter do exactly that.
	Well, I think what this caller has in mind Our nanobots that begin to be active after we're dead and buried, and then cause us to rise, as in The Walking Dead, a show you may or may not get to see in Germany, and, you know, take after us.
	Yeah, but why bother?
	When you can actually have real live robots walking around doing the same thing, so why go to all that trouble?
	Well, I think he's... Okay.
	Anything else?
	There's easier ways to do it.
	That would be my only argument.
	I don't think so, but now I'm worried.
	I'm willing to.
	You should be.
	You should be was the answer.
	All right, thank you very much for the call.
	That was another example of Skype magic.
	On my first time caller line, you're on the air with Douglas.
	Hi.
	This is George.
	Hello.
	Hello, George.
	Yeah, how you doing?
	I'm glad to get through.
	Glad we got you.
	Okay, my question is, I've got a real bad case of glaucoma.
	And with the detached retina.
	Will there be any help for that in the future?
	Good question.
	Have your doctors talked to you about a retinal replacement with the synthetic retina?
	Not really, no.
	Well, you should talk to them about it because there are retinal replacements.
	It's all been done with the FDA.
	There have been clinical trials done on it and that's one of the solutions for glaucoma sufferers.
	And you think that would help bring vision back?
	Well, the evidence from the clinical trials shows that it's very quickly progressing.
	It started with only being able to see fuzzy images, but it's getting better and better.
	So I would definitely investigate retinal implants as a solution to your problem.
	And what's this about stem cell, my doctor said?
	There's future research on that.
	That's not future research, it's going on right now.
	So, for the readers who are unaware, stem cells are the core cells that evolve, that allow us to evolve all of our organs into everything else, and they're used for researchers for generating new tissue.
	And I am not personally familiar with the level of stem cell research in glaucoma, but you can very simply look into it by googling it.
	Stem cell research, tissue regeneration, glaucoma.
	And you yourself, without talking to your doctor, will be able to see that and then ask your doctor about it.
	So that would be an example of how to look into stem cell research.
	You could also go to clinicaltrials.gov In the United States, where they have all the most recent clinical trials on treating glaucoma.
	Douglas, how far have they come in retinal replacement?
	You mentioned, and you were right, that the early examples of it just gave people light out of the darkness, but fuzzy light only.
	How much further have they gone, and when might the next step come where people actually get sight?
	The resolution is improving again due to nanotechnology, because the pixels, what has been the basic problem, are improving quite dramatically.
	And I would put my foot in my mouth, Art, because I haven't checked up on that, and I cannot tell you absolutely the level of resolution they've reached right now, but what I can tell you is That the trials have been done, the retinal implants are accepted and they are being used.
	So that's what I can tell you.
	All right, very good.
	Joe on Skype, you're on the air with Douglas.
	Hello Art and Douglas.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	There's a lot of people doing research on free energy.
	Would it be possible for nanoparticles to be like magnets that could flip their polarity on their own and they put them in a coil and Actually, if you look at a lot of the recharging that's going on right now, there's a huge field of applied research that's already being used for recharging cell phones, for residual energy that's flying around in the atmosphere right now.
	So actually, a lot of devices are being recharged right now, using residual energy, which is actually free energy, because it's waste energy.
	It's out there and nobody's using it.
	And if you go into airports, for example, you know, they have similar types of charging devices.
	So this is going on right now.
	It's nothing new.
	Yeah, it's very interesting.
	There is so much RF flying around in the air in Las Vegas that it's one of the most congested RF cities in the world.
	And so I would think that with the right equipment, you should be able to keep a cell phone charged all the time.
	Absolutely, and this technology is being released in the marketplace today.
	So, again, it's not new, it's happening, and it's being scaled up quite rapidly.
	Yes, wonderful.
	But the possible downside to that would be that we are all being bombarded.
	You know, we are nothing but sacks of water, basically, right?
	So we're all being bombarded with energy, and we have no idea how that may be changing us in the long term.
	Yeah, and it's a major issue with routers in homes, because they have to pump out a lot of energy in your home in order to get this nice wireless internet access that everybody has, so this is direct exposure.
	And there's a lot of research right now going into how to effectively shield that by different delivery mechanisms, but Art, you are correct.
	It is a clear and present risk.
	There you go, Colin.
	I think that we are being poisoned on a daily basis with these chemtrails, with nano in particular.
	from the phone.
	Hello.
	Hey Art, hey Doug, how are you doing?
	Hi.
	I think that we are being poisoned on a daily basis with these chemtrails, with nano in
	particular, and I was wondering what are they constructed of and what powers them and what
	is the direction we can go in with to purge them from our systems, our bodies in the future?
	Hold on, Hilary.
	That's a pretty interesting question about chemtrails.
	Now, Douglas, there are people in this country worried about the fact that jets may be dispensing more than just what we see as You know, trails in the sky.
	Yeah, they're more than vapor trails.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And he's wondering what it's doing to us and how we can purge it from our bodies.
	Well, first of all, of course it's more than vapor.
	What do you get when you have combustion?
	So, yes, there's all types of chemicals being released from this combustion process.
	There's no rocket science to that, if you'll pardon the pun.
	So, and the answer is what can you do to protect yourself from that is the same answer as what can you do to protect yourself from all of the tens of thousands of chemicals that are being released into our atmosphere.
	And one of the things is nanofiltration.
	And there are a lot of nano filters on the market today that can be introduced, for example, into air conditioning systems, but there is a major defect in them, and that is that a lot of them plug up very quickly.
	And as a result, they actually end up worsening the problem, and this is happening in China big time, because, as you know, they have a horrible microparticulate problem in China, and a lot of people are buying these filters, and the filters are making the problem worse, because they're not changing them rapidly enough, and so they end up spitting the stuff back in.
	So the question is, What is the solution to that?
	Well, actually, there are new products that are coming onto the market in air conditioning systems, and there's one particular product made by a company called KE FiberTech in Denmark that is replacing the air conditioning ducts in homes and offices with textile ducts that you can wash.
	And the result of that is that the ducts don't, when they get dirty, you can simply take them out and wash them.
	And these ducts, the textiles, actually filter the microparticulates much more effectively than the traditional ducting does in air conditioning systems.
	So there is a product out there that's on the market right now.
	It just came out about two years ago, and it's fantastic.
	So that's an example of what you can do.
	So you're going to want to snap one of those up right away, Conor.
	Yeah, I think I will.
	Thank you very much for the call and take care.
	One more I guess.
	Hello there, you're on the air with Douglas Mulhall.
	Hi Art, thanks for taking my call.
	This is Gary again in Oakland and I have a couple of quick questions.
	I know we're getting close to the end of the show.
	We are.
	The first question that I had was As anybody followed up on some of the thoughts that were presented in X-Files with the ideas of super soldiers, in the sense of you inject the nanobots into the human bloodstream, you get shot, you take a wound, etc, etc.
	These nanobots rush to that wound, immediately heal that wound, and the person continues.
	Yeah, well the answer to that is it's happening the opposite way to start with, and that is with exoskeletons.
	So now the military has currently exoskeletons that if a soldier is shot, for example, it actually senses that.
	and can release a temporary repair mechanism that stops bleeding, for example.
	So this is all a result of, again, research by DARPA.
	So it's happening externally at the moment.
	What you're talking about is also being heavily researched, so you're looking at a sequence of events.
	One is the exoskeletons that make it happen on the outside, and the second, which is probably going to happen in the next 10 to 15 years, is what you're describing.
	Okay, and then my second question real quick was, Would it be possible to take these nanobots, and I was reading a book called Recursion, and I cannot remember off the top of my head the author of the book, but basically in that book they had nanobots that would be used to build structures, entire buildings, space stations, etc., etc., but I was thinking more down to the smaller side where you could get the world's finest sharp
	Knife or scalpel.
	All right.
	We're going to have to hold it there.
	The world's sharpest knife.
	That sounds like a nano job to me.
	Me too.
	You too.
	All right.
	Well, the program is ending.
	So what do you want to plug?
	Anything?
	I would just say, if you really want to do something that you can control, go to the website, download this PDF file that we've got there on nanomedicineforall.com and let's get going on this and work on it together.
	Certainly works for me.
	Thank you so very much for being with us.
	Douglas, it's been a wonderful show, and we'll do it again sometime.
	Art, I'd be delighted, and thank you very much for having me after all these years.
	Take care, my friend.
	All right, all the way from Germany, that's been Douglas Mulholland.
	What a world when we can do this now.
	Really, what a world.
	In all 25 time zones, to all involved, I would like to say thank you.
	It has been a blast, as always.
	And tomorrow night, I want you to be thinking about this.
	We're gonna do our Back to the Future night a little late.
	We're gonna do it tomorrow night.
	I want you to think in open lines.
	I'm gonna have a special line for What you think the world is going to look like in 30 years.
	So between now and tomorrow night, contemplate what you think, what kind of world we'll have.
	What kind of iPhones we'll have.
	Yeah, what kind of Androids we'll have.
	Or maybe we won't have any of those and we'll have something completely different.
	That's up to you.
	Use your imagination.
	From the Baha'i Desert, good night.

▲