Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature.
Don't give yourselves to brutes.
Men who despise you, enslave you, who regimate your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
It's time to buckle up for making sense of the madness.
And who loves you and who do you love?
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here.
And I got a super interesting episode for you today.
So as you guys know, if you've been following me or watching this show, transhumanism is a huge topic, as well as artificial intelligence.
20 Years of AI Insights00:02:47
And it's only accelerated despite the fact that I've been talking about this for almost 20 years, really.
And, you know, some people have come around and realized that I wasn't so far off.
Some people are still extremely skeptical that transhumanism is really happening at an accelerated pace where, you know, human beings don't really understand that automation, artificial intelligence are going to change the social fabric of global society within the next 10 years, like it or not.
And whether that means mass layoffs, whether that means an implementation of a UBI system, we still don't know.
But joining me today is somebody who I have known now for really almost three decades.
He is the author of both, I'm sorry your warranty has expired, Aging Evolution and the Science of Staying Young, and Crossing the Rubicon, The Turbulent Road to AI Rule and a World Without Work.
He is Christopher Rose.
I'm going to be calling him Chris.
He is actually Stephen Christopher Rose, PhD.
So, Chris, first of all, I want you to just give a backdrop of who you are to my audience, and then we'll kind of get into our relationship and how you got into this arena where you became a PhD.
Because, you know, I think you got about a decade on me, right?
Right in there, I'll be at 46 in a couple weeks because I'm an old man.
And, you know, back in the day when you first met me, I'd say it was a very different kind of thing.
I was just dropped out of college.
I mean, you knew me a little bit more, but we've got to spend time when I just dropped out of college.
It's a little bit post-9-11.
I'm one of the few people on the planet questioning this thing, let alone in New York at a fraternity house while I'm 22 years old.
And it's not like that was received positively, by the way, everybody.
I remember it like it was yesterday, sitting next to you in the bedroom, looking at the planes go past the World Trade Center.
So, again, yeah, just let everybody know who you are, and then we'll kind of get into our relationship and how it's evolved over the years and how you got into this topic in the first place.
Because even then, I don't think either of us were really concerned either with geopolitics on that level or certainly the technology that's now driving it.
Well, I'm someone who's always been interested in science and the future for sure, which is why I pursued a degree in bioengineering.
Why We Don't Treat Illness Naturally00:07:07
Ultimately, it became a PhD because I was interested in how aging works and had this basic belief that if we approach human disease from an aging perspective, we can develop a much more effective way of dealing with illness and sickness than the current method.
And along the way, I had an appreciation for artificial intelligence.
And I thought, I need to understand artificial intelligence and machine learning because it's going to help make me a better scientist.
And that kind of took on a life of its own because it's really a very engrossing and just fascinating area that's so woven and embedded into everything we do now that it's apparent to me that I definitely, that was time well spent.
So let's talk about where you think we are, first of all, because I think we're in a pretty dangerous place.
You know, you just started off talking about the fact that we don't necessarily treat illness in the way that we should.
And I think that anybody out there that's really paying attention realizes, and it's even been exposed, you know, in TV series that have dramatized things like OxyContin, et cetera, that I believe that there's been a suppression of medicine that often works and is not necessarily patentable and would extend people's lives.
You know, when we were younger, it was almost expected that you would get into your 80s, maybe 90s, unless something horrific happened, right?
It was generally dying in your 60s or 70s, early 70s, anyway, it was kind of, you know, younger, you know, in my, in my, you know, experience.
Most of the grandparents were in those 80s, et cetera.
Now, you know, 65, 70, it's almost the norm.
Now, I think a lot of that has to do with environment, diet, obviously, social culture.
But especially, and I don't want to get too much into it because there's still certain things you can't say in this arena.
The COVID-19 4 nightmare really did expose that, right?
They weren't talking about natural immunity.
They certainly weren't talking about a diet where, you know, you wanted to keep that immune system up, supplementation of things like D3.
They were telling you to stay out of the sunlight, which obviously has a natural, I mean, it's the life force of the planet, including us.
You know, we need it for natural vitamins.
And I'm not saying that, you know, natural paths or all alternative medicine is the real deal.
There's a lot of hokeum out there.
There's a lot of salesmen.
There's a lot of grifters.
But essentially, a lot of the baseline stuff that we've known forever has been completely disregarded.
And then anything that quote unquote cures something, I can't remember the last time there was a cure for anything.
And we were told, again, when we were kids, we were going to live past 100.
We were going to cure cancer.
I mean, I still remember Jerry's kids, right?
Every year they would have that telethon.
What kind of real progress have we made?
I'd love to get your take.
Well, you know, being in the longevity space for the last several years, I learned a lot.
I gained a lot of insights into how fundraising works in this realm in particular.
And I don't think it's that much different in the larger realm of things.
But one of the things you see happening is aggressive promotion of preclinical work.
And it's put across in such a way that, you know, it makes it sound like this thing we've got here is going to be a slam dunk.
And the people who are doing this are doing this because they're trying to raise the immense amount of money you need to move a small molecule drug typically through clinical trials and get it to the market.
And that amount of money is astronomical due to all sorts of systemic barriers and so forth that, you know, essentially you're talking about an average expenditure of $2.4 billion or something in that neighborhood to get a drug from the bench where it's first conceived and someone's identified, somebody has potential, all the way through human trials, which is daunting, but it incentivizes people to go to great lengths to get money.
And so in the process of doing that, not everything they say is necessarily genuine, and they generally overstate the cases.
And then on the other side, the pharmaceutical side, you have people greening patents because they're trying to get as much money out of a patent as possible.
And oftentimes what happens is because maybe they're in a particular line of work, say it's Alzheimer's, they may have crafted a better drug, but they don't want to let that drug out to the general public because they have to run out the patent on the current drug.
Otherwise, their investors aren't going to be happy with them.
So you have this very tricky balance.
And that's, you know, that's probably the kindest, most conservative view I can.
I think it's overtly kind, sir.
You know, just to give a few examples.
Clearly there are systemic problems with the pharmaceutical system and drug development.
I would say this, and I want to preface this with this is not advice, and I am not a doctor.
However, you know, in the arena of cancer, the Joe Tippin story is certainly one that now I've covered for well over half a decade.
The guy's still alive.
He went through all the traditional treatments, including chemo.
I believe he was either in his late 60s, early 70s at that time.
And his fenbenzadol protocol with high-grade turmeric and fish oil, they've got clinical studies now.
And they've been doing them, and they've even had some success.
And again, this isn't for everybody.
I'm just saying, go check out the trials in something like pancreatic cancer, which is extremely lethal.
You don't hear about that.
The controversy with ivermectin after the horse paste period, there are now people acknowledging again that these anti-parasitics, fenbenzadol also being one of them, I mean, there's a dog dewormer, everybody.
This is a horse dewormer, also seems to have some clinical benefits.
Extremely cheap, extremely generic, extremely available globally, and we don't hear about them.
Instead, Chris, when I am, you know, scrolling late night on the networks of the history channel and all these other things, I see a bunch of advertisements for two types of drugs.
They are the weight loss semaglutides all over everybody's just having a blast.
Can't wait.
Ooh, yeah.
Or HIV drugs, which literally affect a minuscule part of the population.
And again, they're playing drums.
It's a big happy time.
You know what's not a happy time?
Getting diagnosed with stage four cancer.
Data Manipulation Behind Closed Doors00:15:44
Okay, like, I mean, I think that I still didn't go extreme enough, but you see my point, right?
It seems like it is profits over people.
And these are not, you know, medicine.
I mean, yeah.
All the major corporate corporations are driven by profit.
And even when it appears that they're doing good, they're doing good in the name of getting a better image in hopes that it will improve their bottom line.
That's the way they are by design.
I mean, there was a famous book some years ago by Joel Bacon called The Corporation, where he really kind of outlined how corporations tend to function like psychopaths, qualitatively.
Characteristics of a typical corporation are very psychopathic.
They do everything in the interest of raising money.
Even when they do kind and gentle and things that appear friendly, they have to serve the stockpayers by design or the stockholders by design.
So, you know, they get fined $2 billion.
They've already done the calculus before they got fined at $2 billion.
They know that it was a good idea to break the law in an instance because they've been able to meet the requirements of the fine.
And overall, it would swing in their direction.
And that's my thing.
None of these people are ever held actually criminally accountable.
Okay.
And that, on top of, again, that investment factor, it's that scene in Fight Club in the very beginning where he's at the motor accident and he's got to decide whether or not enough people are going to die that they're going to do a recall.
What's going to cost more money, the payouts or the recall?
And that equation has nothing to do with actual human life.
And that is extended.
And really, that was a lot of the commentary by Chuck Palahunik, who wrote that book.
I would encourage everybody to go read the book.
I mean, the movie's an excellent representation.
I think plausible denial is also woven into the system.
Always.
Well, isn't it?
That's the whole thing.
All right.
So that brings me not to, sorry your warranty's expired, but your other book, Crossing the Rubicon, The Turbulent Road to AI Rule and A World Without Work.
And I would argue that AI's main thing right now, other than obviously we're moving into automation.
Obviously, we're moving into realms of not only image and video generation, but these large language models becoming AGIs and the interaction of them being ever more human.
Right now, it's in an auditory sense, but it's also going to be coupled by visuals in a short manner.
Right now, AI is programmed narrative management.
Full stop.
Full stop.
Show me all the breakthroughs for the public.
It's made.
And yet, I have guys like Dennis Bushnell of NASA, chief scientist there for decades, left a couple years ago, talking about a gentleman named Stephen Thaler.
I'm wondering if maybe you are aware of Thaler by any chance.
Rings a bell.
So Thaler, many, many, you know, we're talking now a couple decades, maybe more ago, created his own artificial intelligence that was interwoven into the military and corporate complex.
So some of the examples he gives is that, you know, he's made better war warheads for the Defense Department and better toothpaste for Palm Olive and is able to do the work of buildings full of people.
And Thaler had created something called the imagination machine is what he was referring to it.
Now, recently, with the AI craze and the fact that Thaler's been in on this for a very long time, I think it was about a year and a half, maybe two years ago now, because I've been covering it.
He brought it to court, and he wanted his imagination machine to be able to copyright the artwork it had created.
So, in other words, you're giving some kind of, I don't want to declare it humanity, but it's certainly trying to blur those lines.
That now an AI can somehow copyright something that it's created, even though at its essence, it is a large language model that's training off of everything around it.
He lost that case.
Theoretically, you could have, I mean, corporations have personage, the rights of a legal person, and they also have essentially immortality unless the corporation is wound down or legally deconstructed.
And it's certainly feasible within the very near future that agentic AIs could form corporations and run them.
So, basically, you have an artificial intelligence entity running a corporation that has personage and irrevocable rights almost.
It's well, it's dystopian.
What you just described is extremely dystopian, especially when you're unemployed, sitting on a park bench wondering how the fuck you're going to get your next meal.
Sorry.
So, no, no, no, no, let's say, hey, I get it.
It's an emotional topic.
It's okay.
We've got presidents dropping F-bombs these days.
Anyway, that is part of my issue.
Okay.
Now, I don't know how much you're aware of the current stranglehold on artificial intelligence by the military industrial complex, but during midway through the Biden administration, they had created something and it's extended into the Trump administration.
I don't want this to be a left-it's not a left-right thing.
It is essentially an extension of the Department of Defense saying that there will be no real private AI companies.
So, they have a CAIO program that is Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer program.
And every single one of these companies that has any type of software or hardware or university, by the way, that's covered.
As you know, there are many grants.
That's very interwoven system.
They're going to be forced to have a CAIO, and that CAIO is going to have at least a top-secret clearance.
Now, they are under full audit of the Defense Department on all software and hardware.
And the only institutions that are essentially able to escape this are the Intel and defense communities and their subsidiaries.
And my big argument has always been that Google in particular has always been a military industrial complex company.
It is heavily.
They have to be at this point.
Well, even in the beginning, if you look at the beginnings of Google with Sergei and Paige, okay, they actually wrote a thank you letter to both DARPA and NASA because DARPA gave them the initial code for the search engine that essentially won the National Library Initiative.
And that National Library Initiative was at the tail end of the 90s, okay?
And basically, they were trying to digitize the world's print data.
Okay, so that was the National Library Initiative.
They ended up winning that prize.
And then, in short order, they were then seed funded by Incutel, which is the Central Intelligence Agency's arm.
They were then fitted with Eric Schmidt, who is still Defense Department National Security Council to this day, also steering member on Bilderberg.
Their last real competition in the video arena was YouTube, which they bought up for $8 billion, I believe, in 2008 or 9.
I would argue that's actually the last true startup tech company.
Okay, so it is the military.
And by the way, they've partnered with NASA on quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
And back in 2019, declared dominance.
All right.
It's not a private company.
That's why whenever I talk to, you know, even these conservatives, I say, we're kind of in a techno-fascistic state anyway, aren't we?
I mean, the merger of government and private corporations, that's the definition of fascism.
I know everybody wants to put it into a race thing or whatever.
I'm sorry, guys.
I'm not into the, we're a species.
And right now, this is actually threatening the entire species, this alliance.
So it's bigger than that.
I'd love to get your thoughts.
Being someone that kind of studied on the inside, and then I kind of want to get into that study, you know, what led you through that process, because I know that you studied over at Harvard and ended up in Albany.
Yeah.
Well, there's, you know, an AI arms race in effect happening, right?
There's this, at least the idea that this is happening.
We're in competition with China, the other major world power, and we're racing to get to artificial general intelligence.
And we're trying to get there first.
And we're assuming that if we don't, we're going to be at such a tremendous strategic disadvantage that we're going to be screwed.
So there goes the Defense Department's initiative or interest in doing everything they can to speed forward the development of artificial intelligence, but not allowing breaks of any kind.
So this is a matter of concern for everybody everywhere.
But at the same time, it's a bit of a condundrum because we really don't want to be leaps and bounds behind China in their development of artificial intelligence.
So what do we do?
We don't want to, we can't completely deregulate the industry, but we don't want to hobble it too much.
This is the thinking anyways, right?
So for instance, there was some recent talk about essentially making it impossible for states to regulate AI at the state level.
And the argument behind this, driven mostly by tech moguls and the people they influence from the government, was something like, listen, if you do this, the regulatory hurdles you're going to set up are going to slow everything down.
And that's going to put us hopelessly behind our opponents.
You can't do that.
So they set it up, is my understanding, basically so that all this stuff could be modified and regulated, but only at the federal level.
So let's talk about that.
All right.
Because here's my big issue.
All right.
Number one, with that being said, like if China is such a threat, for instance, Google, I just mentioned Google and I mentioned Eric Schmidt.
In it was either 2017 or 18, right around there, Google got caught because they weren't making it public knowledge that they were working on and creating Dragonfly, which was the Chinese censored internet.
Okay.
And Schmidt gets asked about that in the European press, in the UK.
And Schmidt's like, well, I can't tell you much about it.
I've actually moved on.
You want to check out Sergey Brin?
Blah, So obviously, there's a huge corporate partnership.
Forget about the fact that in that tech industry, you've got a lot of the same parts being driven cheaply through China.
You know, the hub there is essentially South Korea that's been a proxy of our tech since the Korean War.
You know, that's why, you know, that's why that's allowed to be there.
That's why NVIDIA is there, et cetera.
They're kind of that gateway into the Asian hardware.
But we gave them the software.
And Chris, I would argue, especially after the COVID-19 44 nightmare, there were already shades of that quote-unquote censored internet.
It's not even Chinese-styled censored internet anymore.
It is censored internet.
Biggest search engine in the world, which is Google, censors the ever-loving truck-ins out of us.
And then the second largest search engine, which is Youtube, which is what they own, and the first largest video platform does the same damn thing.
And we're already here in that narrative uh management.
Now, with AI uh, you don't.
Even when you search something, you get the Google AI overview.
We're about eight, 18 months away from forget about the overview.
It's going to be an AI avatar that looks 100 human and is appealing to you.
Okay, and what you think is authoritative because you're being spied on all the all the time the last 20 plus years is going to be catered to you that you're going to want to click on it and it's going to be the authoritative answer.
And it's going to be the same type of bullshit narrative management that we have today.
That's the problem I have and that's happening on a hyper level.
So do you think that that, that you're able to circumvent that?
And then again, going back to these authoritative sources, you know you studied at one of the highest levels of academia.
What did you see behind the scenes?
Well, it depends which which particular topic we're talking about, but in this arena specifically, I would.
I would add to what you said by saying these tech behemoths shouldn't be looked at as like companies working with the government.
They should be looked like.
They should be looked at essentially as like players on equal footing with an intention to just dominate.
But the currency they use is data and they're absolutely going to control the data, because that's fundamental to controlling people and controlling their profits.
Their data pipelines are infused into every single company everywhere, and they don't want to just dominate and control the United States.
They want.
They want the world, so they're going to try and get as much of a foothold as they can in China before China evolves all their own technology.
They want to be the.
They want to be the first ones there.
They're going to use the data they have to nudge and manipulate everyone to fall in line with whatever their worldview happens to be and whatever their mission ultimately is, which you know is to some extent behind closed doors, but it's it's not really like that hard to figure out.
Well unfortunately, I think I want to get into this later.
I think that we have enough meat on the bone here that the first half of this can really be on ai, but I think it's a transhuman agenda and maybe even a post-human one, which is extremely alarming uh, but let's go back to kind of that, not only narrative management, but but you just said it you can't just look at them as nation states, because they're not and they are really looking for global domination of information.
Now I think a Gis already exist.
I think that they are well beyond what they're showing us with things like chat, Gpt and, you notice, with things like chat, Gpt or even Google's VO, which is the image generation slash, video generation.
It's all done through the cloud.
Now, I know what I can do here at home.
You know me.
I'm a big dork.
I put all this stuff together.
Probably got a dozen video cards I'm not even using in the other room.
If I were able to actually use software and utilize my video cards, I could have image generation.
It wouldn't be as quick, but they're not going to give me that.
Instead, it's always going to be online, just like my Adobe's been for the past decade plus, and they just raised the price.
It's always going to be limited to what, because you know what?
I pay for that Adobe.
A lot of times I try to generate an image and it's against policy.
And you know me, I'm such a bigot that obviously they should be doing that to me.
Again, narrative management.
Unlimited Energy, Hierarchies Form00:15:38
So when you see that and you see the amount of energy that they're telling you this is going to be, I'm sure you know about the data centers, right?
Oh, yeah.
So fascinating.
Well, what's really fascinating in my mind is how anti-human they are.
So you're telling me now that Meta, aka Facebook, is going to build a center the size of almost lower Manhattan in Kentucky and is going to have on-site mini nuclear facilities to power that data.
100%.
I guarantee you right now, all those major tech companies are pouring tremendous amount of money into the development of nuclear technology, fusion, fission.
Well, I would argue that technology need the power to continually enhance the automation and the data collection that enables them to do what they do.
They absolutely, there's not enough electricity on the grid to meet the feet the future vision of what AI can do and also supply electric to everyone.
The grid itself is a bottleneck.
So they're putting a lot of energy into expanding the grid to accommodate these data centers.
And the amount of energy they require is on par with what you would see in a large city at this point.
So I think it's going to be way more than that.
Oh, at this point, for sure.
But I'm saying what their vision is.
Now, here's my issue with that.
They've been scolding us as human beings since I was a kid about my carbon footprint and how much energy I use and how bad I am because I use all this energy and I have all this stuff.
It's not a nut's hair on a minute of the energy they're going to use for the data on AI if they get their way.
Number two, back in the day, I lived in the Hudson Valley and I actually went to the nuclear plant as a kid.
I think I was in like third or fourth grade.
We went on a trip.
And at the time, you know, there was the big scare that we were going to end the world.
Chernobyl was being talked about.
So it was almost demonized and this was like a PR move.
But, you know, nuclear power really went by the wayside in the argument, right?
When I would argue, especially third, we're in like almost, they're working on fourth generation for these micro centers is actually pretty damn clean and safe.
Okay.
And I agree with that.
Yeah.
And I would say that what they're giving them now is essentially the tail end of the military, militarized technology that they've been using for nuclear submarines again for probably 60 years.
Let's be honest with ourselves.
Okay.
So that tells me one, they've suppressed plentiful and abundant energy from the human population for decades for various reasons.
I mean, you could talk about weapon systems.
You could talk about resource management, greed, all those things, and control of people.
But I would also, you know, say, you know, Mark Andreessen made this comment that they said that they were going to do the same thing to AI by limiting them, probably in that CAIO program I talked about.
The way they did with physics, they classified large portions of physics post-World War II during the Cold War.
Those are weapon systems.
Those are energy systems.
And whether or not the public gets to understand them, there was a long time we weren't allowed to understand nuclear power, yet we were able to utilize it.
They're not even giving us that, brother.
That is extremely, all of this stuff seems totally anti-human to me.
I mean, what is your perspective?
What's the question?
Which question are we talking about?
Well, I mean, just the overall thing, not sharing this nuclear technology to empower humanity, not revealing any types of other technologies to us, and now allowing tech companies to use the nuclear power, not for you and your hometown, not for you and your people to have, again, cheaper energy, but to run the Borg, essentially, and multiple Borgs by corporations that are going to have, you know, how big these are.
Okay.
Literally miles and miles of land to do God knows what with our information, process it, and then feed it back to us.
Is that not anti-human?
It's pretty, it's pretty scary.
So I'm going to say a few things.
First, in my life, I saw Chernobyl, Three Mile Island.
There was an event off the coast of Japan or within Japan some years ago.
And that started.
I remember this whole conversation.
It just went on for years and years and years.
Like, it was the not in my backyard conversation.
Oh, I see the potential of nuclear power, but I don't want it in my backyard.
And then you have, so there you have some dissent.
The public isn't necessarily ready to embrace nuclear power because they're scared because of what they saw happen.
And then you have the advancing technology also, which people don't always appreciate because technology now is advancing on an exponential scale.
So we're able to do things that people can't even begin to wrap their heads around.
And one of those things is, you know, we can, in the foreseeable future, produce safe, small-scale nuclear power that can be distributed all over the place.
And also, you have, you know, probably dwindling oil supplies.
You have the energy companies.
Power tends to want to maintain power, right?
So the energy companies that are, you know, people in oil and petroleum, they're going to start dumping money into nuclear power also and try to get themselves positioned in a control position so they continue so they can continue to dominate the energy business.
Even if we reach a place where we have essentially unlimited energy and there's no reason why we should be paying anything more than pennies at most for all the energy we can use, I think the big energy companies are going to position themselves to control nuclear energy.
And I've seen this actually happen in my life.
I can tell you a ridiculous story.
I had a client back when I was in the personal training business down in Westchester, very wealthy guy in a very wealthy community in Arman.
And they decided as a community, they were going to put solar panels on their houses.
And everybody, they got some high-tech engineers in there.
They put the solar panels up.
I saw one of these, you know, these conversion units where they have the nuclear, I mean, they have the panels up on the roof and they have this really sophisticated workroom, like a control room, where they're able to distribute the power.
Anyways, the point is, they invested an incredible amount of money in this.
And what happened was they were actually sued by NYSINC.
New York State Electric and Gas took them to court and somehow won, essentially on the grounds that the solar panels were ugly.
And now they're putting them everywhere in upstate New York, by the way.
Like literally, and here's the deal: once again, I think there's promise in solar power.
At the same time, and we'll probably talk about him a little later on.
Transhumanists, especially Ray Kurzweil, have pushed this idea that we're going to have exponential growth in that region and that by 2033, 2035, this time that the singularity comes in, we'll have an abundance of energy, and energy essentially will cost next to nothing.
I don't know if that's possible.
And if it is possible, I don't know that that technology is going to be distributed to humans because, again, once you have abundant energy, not only do you have more freedom as a human being, but look at it in the military sense.
The military sense is if you have unlimited energy, you have unlimited time and resources to work on weapon systems.
And they're going to go.
That's just hit the nail on the head.
You and I both know a bunch of people.
And just imagine those people that we know with unlimited energy, essentially unlimited power.
Would you want them to have it?
Probably not.
So, you know, yeah, I like the idea of bringing the cost of energy way down.
And everybody should be able to be empowered to do all kinds of things.
But I think the powers that be are going to look at it differently.
They're going to look at it like we can't just let people have unlimited power.
God knows what they'll do with it.
Somebody has an axe to grind.
Next thing you know, we're going to be rebuilding Manhattan.
So I expect, with that rationale in hand, that even when the capacity is there to produce unlimited energy, so nobody really has to worry about gassing up their cars or going broke because they don't have enough energy to pay their fuel bills in the winter, they're not going to realize those tremendous gains or get the chance to enjoy a sort of, you know, the potential paradise of a world like that because the powers up here are just going to say, no, not having it.
Yeah.
And that's my problem, you know, with this trajectory because we have, like, like you mentioned before, we haven't had criminal accountability for these things called corporations and the people that run them in the sense that anybody does some real prison time for literally connect, you know, committing many genocides on different populaces throughout not only this country, but the world.
But again, those powers that shouldn't be don't even want to set up a system where it's abundant and cheap.
Okay.
Our energy prices have gone through the roof.
The mantra of, you know, you will own nothing and be happy could not be more real today.
I mean, when you're watching Super Bowl commercials, Chris, of, you know, generations of families, you know, get married, have a kid, go to the bank, work the job, get the house.
And they do it all the way to the 80s.
They get to now.
It's, you know, get out of college, get the job, have four roommates, and gamble on crypto.
Coinbase.com.
Like, those are real commercials that they're airing.
That's frightening.
You know, you and I, I think we come from like that tail end of a generation that owns stuff.
But at the same time, I'm a gypsy.
You know that.
You know, I'll move around.
You're kind of the same way.
Neither of us are married.
Neither of us are divorced either, by the way.
That's always a good thing.
I've never wanted to be divorced.
But, you know, I just had my niece texting me because I went to go pick her up to bring her to babysitting and she stiffed me.
And usually that doesn't happen.
Love you, Alana.
But she texted me to see if she was ready to apologize on the other end.
Those are the moments, man.
Those are the human moments.
Okay.
I don't know that their vision lets us share those moments, especially with artificial intelligence, especially with automation and this idea of a quote-unquote UBI.
They've also pushed overpopulation.
Now, I don't believe that.
Again, Kurzweil will come out and say that overpopulation is also a myth.
And when we have an abundant amount of resources, infinite, then it won't matter.
We could probably have 10 times the population on Earth.
I think that's real, but they're not going to give us that.
They don't want competition because human competition means that that power structure you talk about may not be the power structure.
I'd kind of like to get your thoughts on that.
Well, my thoughts are mostly in accord with yours in this particular case.
Yeah.
So I think power attempts to maintain power.
And even in a world where we have unlimited resources, there's a tendency to form hierarchies.
People want to stand out.
So even in a world where we want for nothing, people will find a reason to fight and to make things difficult.
So let's talk about that too.
I think that that's a great point.
And I don't know if you ever watched this one, but the Zeitgeist series back in the day kind of came right after Loose Change.
The first one had parts of Loose Change in it.
But the second one very much moved into this ideal world that they were trying to build.
Jacques, I forgot what his last name is, but he had envisioned it many, many decades ago.
And with the technology, you know, 3D printed cities, centralized farming that actually went up.
In other words, greenhouses that were stacked, community built, but everything was driven by AI.
And the idea was that if everybody had an abundance of everything, we'd have nothing but peace and everybody would be happy.
And I've always contended that even if you have the same house, the same car and the same resources, you might not have the same wife, right?
And there's always going to be a guy that wants your wife or wants something like that.
There's always going to be conflict, especially not only within our species, but I would also argue the biological kingdom.
All right.
Whether down to the minutiae, there is always competition.
And maybe that's something we could get into because I know the subtitle of your other book here is Aging, Evolution, and the Science of Staying Young.
And, you know, I'm a guy that very much believes in microevolution, but is extremely skeptical of macroevolution or species to species evolution.
And I tend to lean, at least in the very beginning, of whatever we are as some type of intelligent design.
I would love to get your take because, you know, when we talk about evolution, it's a broad term.
And obviously, adaptation, competition, acceleration, that's all real.
And that's survival in many respects.
But this next step of evolution that we're being sold on, there's a multitude of them.
And to me, I think a lot of them are very dangerous in us losing our humanity in general.
So give me your take on evolution.
Well, I would say I'm a general believer in evolutionary biology.
You can see evolution happening on the micro scale with bacteria, even like over a period of weeks.
Life was the famous, that famous saying from Jurassic Park, life finds a way.
And there's really something to that.
Life does tend to find a way.
And it's a fascinating thing because it's not just DNA.
It's also epigenetics.
So from one generation to another, without actually changing the DNA, you can change how the DNA is expressed.
And that's a more rapid-fire way of adapting to changes in your environment.
In the book, basically, both books actually speak to this sort of theme that we're kind of out of sync with the rest of the universe.
In an evolutionary sense, you know, once we got past the hunter-gatherer era and entered into the age of agriculture, we basically found ourselves in situations where, you know, you're getting yelled at by your boss and your body's reacting like you're in a battlefield, like you're like you're running for your life or fighting for your life, and you're dealing with like purely psychological stress.
Supplements and Senescence00:16:23
So that dissynchrony or disharmony lends itself to a lot of the issues that we're encountering.
You know, we're relatively, I take my, I've got my nephew and his partner, for example, they spend their whole lives pretty much in the basement in a virtual world eating peeps and drinking Red Bull.
And it's not healthy.
You think they may get propped up a few extra years with modern medicine.
Small molecule drugs might lower their blood pressure or help control the diabetes they develop.
But, you know, there's a call to action that involves something, it's really low-hanging fruit.
Instead of relying on small molecule drugs and getting caught up in an endless supply of them, basically, the low-hanging fruit is getting back to the basics.
It's sleeping, sleeping right, eating right, managing stress, you know, getting your mind aligned with this modern world that we live in.
And that makes that makes a huge difference.
The biggest differences in longevity are really found in those simple, simple changes, which kind of align us to where we've evolved physiologically.
Well, what you're saying is to me is being human.
In other words, not ingesting everything that is artificial and an imitation of humanity.
Okay.
You've got your partner, like you just said, downstairs.
So you got your companionship.
But where's the rest of the world?
It's this digital world.
You're kind of shielding yourself off from even that human interaction.
You know, we started this off, you talked about the basics, and you just talked about nutrition and sleep.
Well, sunshine is a big part of that nutrition, everybody.
In other words, getting outside, not even just the human interaction, but the interaction with the environment out there.
Another thing that, and again, you've been in the health field.
I'm a bit out of shape, but we're down, we're under 205 right now.
I just saw Joe Bulaski looking awesome.
Good for you, Joe.
I'd seen him last October.
I was actually, you know, a little bit worried.
He looks great.
He's gone down to the basics, getting rid of the sugar, getting rid of the alcohol a little bit, getting rid of, you know, getting into the exercise.
All those things are a big deal.
Challenging yourself both physically and mentally.
There's, you know, listen, there's a time for, you know, enjoyment of entertainment, movies, sports.
I love that stuff too.
The movies have gotten kind of crappy.
I've played video games again.
Even that's gotten cinematic.
It can't be your whole life.
And like, unless, you know, if the video games are going to become a competitive thing, and again, you're going to get into like these tournaments or it's your hobby or side thing.
Okay, I've got that.
Same thing in any of these realms with movies.
You know, I remember, again, when I was talking about 9-11 and I was showing people other people's movies.
Oh, when are you going to make your own?
And it was kind of like a big joke.
And then all of a sudden, eventually, I kind of just fell into that and I ended up making four movies.
You know what I mean?
It's one of those things where you got to hit a point where either you're going to shit or get off the pot, right?
Either it's very detrimental.
Most people don't realize that until they've been diagnosed with a major disease.
And at that point, undoing the damage that's been done is very challenging.
I want to mention something about evolution that you kind of touched on.
And it's actually not talked about that much, but it's really a central piece to evolutionary theory.
And what that has to do with is conservation of energy.
So it turns out that if you're an organism and you don't conserve energy well, you end up disappearing.
And so this phenomena, I believe, is woven into evolution at every level.
Our bodies function with extraordinary efficiency normally, but this also carries over to our psychology.
And believe it or not, this ties into how we behave.
Our tendency, left to our own devices, is to conserve a lot of energy.
And so, when you give a person an opportunity to sit in the basement and play video games all day and eat sugary foods that are readily accessible, that vulnerability in how evolutionary works cripples them.
And I think that, to me, that's really one of the big things that concerns me on this transhuman push.
And I look, obviously, transhumanism is a multitude of things.
And, you know, I think this is a good time to start kind of getting into that arena.
But at the end of the day, the two things that I see is that there are a certain class of people that believe that they can biologically live through ever, live forever in this meat suit, most of it anyway, by experimenting on the rest of us.
And then the other end of the spectrum is to convince the rest of us that we can upload our consciousness and live in the virtual world of our choosing.
And I think that so many people that are disconnected in that sense through video games, current VR, that type of culture, and AI will be so convincing that essentially they'll be willing to euthanize themselves for a cheap AI copy that quote unquote lives forever in what is essentially the multiverse.
What are your thoughts?
And believe me, there's a wide array in between.
But I would love to get your take on that.
Okay, again, there's so much material here and so many interesting questions to ferret out the answers to.
So which question are we going to go after first, I guess?
Well, let's go over the classes of people.
Do you believe, number one, what do you look at transhumanism as?
And I just gave two.
I gave two very specific examples, like the biological living forever of this kind of predator class elitists that already exist.
They believe they're going to get that.
But then the surf class, us, get this idea that, you know, we're going to live on digitally by uploading our consciousness.
And it's essentially the same thing.
But, Chris, I know that you know that biologically we don't have a hoot of an idea of what actual consciousness is.
And even the people that created large language models or are attributed to in the very beginning and won Nobel Prizes for it initially were out there to explain consciousness and failed flat on their face.
Instead, with LLMs, created that imitation of consciousness.
Well, there's so many interesting facets to it.
Like, I would say I subscribe to the idea that we are pattern recognition machines.
And in that sense, we're not necessarily that much different from computer programs that run on pattern recognition.
Now, that's not saying that I believe we can simply upload our consciousness to the cloud.
You might be able to upload a facsimile of you to the cloud that someone who likes you can talk to and feel some sense of comfort in interacting with, but that's not going to be you.
Thank you.
At least not a deep juncture.
I don't think ever, but it's very black mirror.
And that's, but they're going to, listen, Kurzweil's even kind of changed it.
What's that?
Kurzweil is actually a really interesting case.
You know, I went to the transhumanism conference down at Lincoln Center some years ago now, and I met Ray Kurzweil, actually, and I got a few words in with him.
But listening to him speak, you know, at the time, Kurzweil is psychologically driven to bring his dad back.
I know.
The guy loved his father.
He saved every scrap of information he could about him with the intention of taking that at some point in history when the time was right and feeding it into a system like you could take that data.
In fact, you could download your Facebook data.
If you've been on Facebook, I've been on Facebook for 15 years.
I can download all that data.
I can download data from other social platforms and other places too.
My emails for the last 20 years on Yahoo.
And you can dump that all into a GPT and create a pretty impressive facsimile of yourself.
And you can detach, and I did this.
This is, you know, I never got into like the whole multiplayer online game space.
I just, because I just know myself, I felt like I'm just going to get addicted to this and not get anything else done.
But I have a fascination with the merger of AI and animation.
So I did two things.
I built a facsimile of myself, and I also built a 3D model of the farm that I grew up on in Andes because I've always been a little bit angry that I don't have that farm anymore.
But I thought I could create this essentially like a 3D photo album that's interactive that I could share with my family where we could sort of reminisce about this place that was near and dear to all of us growing up.
But I see the potential pathology in all that because it can become, especially in a dreary dystopian world, what a magnet for people seeking solace.
And this is a big concern of mine.
It's something I addressed towards the end of the book in Crossing the Rubicon is, you know, people submitting to life in a virtual, in a virtual world because it's better than the life they have, or at least they think.
And the only thing that's missing is an IV.
And then we're really, we're just a shade away from the matrix.
So let's talk about a lot of that.
So first, let's go back to Kurzweil.
Okay.
For those that don't know, not only does Kurzweil essentially believe that he will hit the singularity, and this is one of the funny things, is that you'll have these, you know, pseudo-acolytes and disciples of this Kurzweilian idea.
But if you go back to something like 2004's PBS, I think it's like something mind, where he's being, he's talked about this.
You know, he's getting his exercise in and he's taking handfuls of supplements.
And the mainstream takes craps all over supplements.
You know who else takes a bunch of supplements?
That Dennis Bushnell guy I mentioned earlier today.
And I'm going to get back to him in a minute.
Now, in that, he not only talks about resurrecting his dead father once that singularity hits, but then essentially becoming beings of light that can travel the universe.
So you go well past human.
And, you know, at that point, you know, first of all, I'm very skeptical of living biologically forever.
As human beings, there's plenty of stories, whether it be, you know, the fountain of youth or the tree of life, that pursuit, right, to biologically live forever.
I think this is the modern version of that.
But with Kurzweil in particular, when he discusses these things, you know, he does so in a manner now where he admits maybe we're not even going to be carbon-based, right?
And even when he wrote the singularity initially, he talked about mind files and basically these non-carbon life forms that would, you know, be better versions of him while he was still biologically alive.
Yeah, well, it's easy to imagine.
And that is extremely, again, anti-human and worrisome to me.
Now, the other thing about Kurzweil is, you know, we mentioned Google earlier.
He's been working with Google almost 20 years.
It's probably close.
Yeah, but he also has, you know, he also has some other titles there.
He has his hands in a lot of different pots.
Well, Calico Labs is the Google Lab, the quest for not only immortality, but reverse aging.
So that kind of brings me to this.
You know, I remember early 2000s when there was research being presented in a minuscule way to the public of de-aging mice.
And that research has now kind of, you know, been normalized over the last decade.
People still aren't that familiar with it.
But a lot of that had to do with reversing telomere degeneration and things like NAD, NAD Plus, were those initial drugs.
What are your thoughts on that type of supplementation?
Whether it be Resveratrol, that, glutathione, there's a host of them.
Certainly L-Arginine, when we talk about muscle creation, again, you've been in that nutrition business.
These are all supplements that I've taken over the years on and off.
You know, the rich people are taking the NAD drips.
I'm not quite there.
The pills are pretty expensive at a thousand milligram level themselves.
What are your thoughts on those studies and really something like Calico Labs?
Well, I've been following Calico for a long time.
My wheelhouse really is aging.
And, you know, I see aging as a convergence of many different metabolic processes, each contributing in their own way to, you know, our decline.
And while I'm not necessarily imagining immortality, I'm imagining the idea that I'd like to check out at my convenience, whenever that may be.
I think it's a ways off.
In terms of supplements, this kind of goes back to one of the things we discussed really earlier in the conversation about how funding, the competition for funding, you know, most supplements, because they're not necessarily patentable, although there have been some attempts, they're not going to be as high profit as small molecule drugs would be.
However, there's all sorts of things, and I sift through this kind of stuff all the time.
There's stuff that looks very promising, but there's very few things.
Like we have this thing on Lifespan IO, which is now the Lifespan Research Institute called the Rejuvenation Roadmap.
And essentially, for a really long time, it was my responsibility to track the development of potential things that could potentially stall or reverse aging or address one specific facet of aging.
So, I was tracking things from the bench, you know, at the academic level when some student in Singapore is working on a project to the endpoint, which could be somewhere in clinical trials, but probably not, because you literally have thousands and thousands and thousands of great ideas, but the probability of any one of those ideas getting from one end of the spectrum, the bench, to the other through clinical trials and into market,
probabilities are astoundingly low because the most promising things typically don't work in human beings.
And when they do, they may only work in a substratum of human beings.
Or one human being might not be able to deal with those things because it's not good for them.
Take, for example, things that would help lengthen or increase the length of your telomere.
So, you know, telomere length is something that's associated with longevity.
If you do certain things, like you smoke too much or drink too much, you'll notice that your telomeres will tend to shorten at an accelerated rate, and so will your life.
But on the other hand, this is all very complicated, but you don't get the complicated in-context picture typically when you're being presented with a particular supplement or potential treatment.
So, if you take something like telomerase, well, that's good.
Stem Cells and Nanobots00:13:40
You lengthen your telomeres, but if your DNA is not repairing, you're continually accumulating damage, you're probably more prone to getting cancer now than ever before.
And this is probably why something like telomerase evolved in the first place and telomeres.
The telomeres enable the cells to produce a certain amount of time or to reproduce a certain amount of times.
But when you get to a certain number of divisions, because every time the cell divides, you're going to get some damage that occurs.
After about 50 or so divisions, cells will typically become senescent.
And that's actually thought to be a means of preventing cancer.
Because if you have a cell with a lot of damage and that one cell becomes cancerous, it threatens the entire organism.
So, the idea of extending your telomeres to live longer has got some merit, but you got to balance that out with the great possibility you could end up being a big tumor, which you wouldn't want, right?
And there are arguments like that associated with almost every intervention, stem cells, for example.
That's where I was going next.
You know, before we get into stem cells, you know, I want to make it really clear that once again, this is a technology that during the mid to late 90s, when it was popularized and sold to us, basically you were taking these stem cells from fetal tissue.
And now that has changed to monocolonal stem cells from yourself.
And usually, they say if you're able to get them at a younger age, you may be able to use them much later.
But also, utilizing stem cells from placentas of your offspring, that type of harnessing has also been utilized.
So, before you get into maybe the positives and negatives, can you just take us through where we are and where we started with stem cell technology?
Well, years ago, you know, you could collect stem cells in a handful of different ways.
And we really didn't know a lot about how applicable they were.
We didn't even understand when I took stems, I took stem cell biology back in like 2013.
And since then, our understanding of stem cells has morphed tremendously.
For example, most of the regenerative effects of stem cells aren't caused by taking it, take like theoretically, you could take a stem cell out of your body, you could expand it into culture into like a couple million stem cells, then you can inject it back into the body and achieve a positive result.
But it turns out that it's not the stem cells necessarily, but what they produce that makes a difference.
So, stem cells can produce an incredible array of regenerative chemistries, and it's very complicated how they interact with the body because it's more of a balancing act than you know, strictly regenerative act.
But you can get stem cells from all kinds of places now.
I didn't realize menstrual blood is one place.
It sounds kind of gory and weird, but a very good source of stem cells.
Urine, this is something I wrote about very recently.
I thought it was a joke.
Actually, Warren Hengel, who you know, sent me this article about drinking aged urine.
I was like, Warren, what are you doing?
But I actually decided I was going to take a look at it.
And it turns out, not aged urine, but you actually can harvest stem cells from urine.
You can expand them in culture, you can differentiate them into different cell types, and you could use them for what's called autologous stem cell therapy.
And in the United States, we only do autologous stem cell therapy for the most part.
Most frequently, you hear about like middle-aged guys they do this thing called blood spinning.
Well, they'll take some blood, they'll spin it down, and they'll take out a fraction of that blood that has these things called platelets, which are like stem cells, inject it in the knee, and you get a sort of concentrated dose of regenerative chemistry, and it helps the knee function a little bit better.
But those stem cells are orders of magnitude poorer in terms of their performance than what you call allergenic stem cells, which would be stem cells harvested from probably someone else.
It could be someone's umbilical cord.
Like those stem cells are infinitely more potent, but they're still trying to figure out, and it's not clear when you can give these stem cells safely without causing cancer.
Because stem cell and a cancer cell look kind of similar.
And the last thing you want is runaway production of undifferentiated stem cells in your body because that essentially amounts to having cancer.
Right.
Well, let me ask you something.
You just talked about here in the United States, outside of the United States, Mexico, South America.
Panama is a great place to go.
They're doing that.
So, why is that?
So, that's my question.
If they're having success there in these other nations, what is the excuse then that we're not at least running clinical trials here in the United States and trying to fast-track a technology that's been mainstreamed or mainlined for the wealthy in the United States?
And I would also assume probably for the wealthy in those areas as well.
It's not something that's happening to the general populace.
It's a good question.
I think it probably mostly hinges on the concern about cancer.
There's a lot of smoke in mirrors, so it's hard to navigate to see for sure what the real issues are.
But, you know, I did a review on a book written by a guy down in Panama.
And he's got a lab down there.
He's had all kinds of people there.
Mel Gibson and his father, famously.
I'm sure you heard about those.
Hunting Gibson.
I mean, Huntington I think lived to either 102 and 103.
And I'm pretty sure he brought them there, what, at 98, 99 on his last legs and got a few years out of them.
And I've heard next to no stories about people actually getting out-of-country stem cell treatments and then complaining that they got tumors all over their body and then dying, which makes me wonder what is the holdup.
I know that we're making some progress, and I think there are actually some very limited instances where they're doing allergenic treatments in the United States, but it's moving forward painfully slow.
And I would imagine that the technology has continued to evolve in countries like Panama because they're actively pushing the envelope.
And so, again, it becomes an interesting question.
You know, in theory, it shouldn't be that expensive to develop and make these therapies available to the general public.
And I think, I'd like to think we're going to get there, but I don't know.
And these aren't therapies that are necessarily going to, they're not going to make you live forever, but they're going to probably improve the quality of your life significantly.
So, let me talk about that really quickly because I think that's really important.
And for me, at least, I don't have any illusions that in my lifetime, or I hopefully in any lifetime, that biologically we can quote unquote live forever.
However, I do think that if we had the proper diet, treatment, there is a possibility that 120 to maybe even 140 years of a quality life like you're just kind of talking about is not out of the realm of possibility.
Now, that's crazy dietary changes.
That's also technologies that are, in my opinion, not going to be invasive and mutate us in a manner that would be cancerous, destructive, etc.
I think we're a long way off from that being shared with the public.
But at the same time, I don't think they want that.
I think that these people, again, are hell-bent on some way, somehow, some way, living forever.
And that gets into that megalomaniacal aspect.
And here's the big problem I have: is that they're not planning on letting us be human.
Like if we're doing stem cell technology, that's part of me.
It's always part of me.
It's not something that has been digitally created or replicated.
And that's what current bio-nanotechnology really is.
And what I'm referring to is, again, we talked about Kurzweil, and I'm sure that you've heard this, but he talks about these nanobots that will be in the tens of billions in all human beings and essentially able to shut off our sensory perception, our sight, our taste, everything, and then create a virtual world in which we inhabit that.
Again, we're still here, but we're inhabited by these nanobots.
I'm trying to stay human, Chris.
I don't want nanobots in my body.
And I don't necessarily think these people, when you get into even an aerosolized level, and you know damn well, when we're talking about aerosolized, it goes much smaller than that when we're talking bio-nanotechnology, literally undetectable.
I don't even get a choice.
Talk about anti-human, but let me get your thoughts on that.
Well, you know, being a student of nanobiology, you learn that it's a fascinating area.
It's like being a kid all over again when you get, you begin to study it because the rules are so different.
When I say the rules, I'm talking about the rules of physics and how they work.
So you get into quantum mechanics in many levels, don't you?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
But very different, very different than the macro scale.
So when you see people, you know, creating scientific illustrations of nanobots and they look like little machines, that's not likely the way nanobots are going to look at all.
They're probably going to look a lot like life itself because they're subject to the same design principles.
Liposomal nanoparticles?
You know, there's all kinds of different nano things that fall under the handing of like nanoparticles that are used for different things.
But let me just go back to what I just said really quickly.
And I'm not insinuating that these are necessarily nanobots, but just because we were talking about those scales, we are talking about nanotechnology.
The reason I use the term liposomal nanoparticles is because these were the type of nanoparticles, at least publicly for the first time, that were able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.
And that speaks to the size and maneuverability of certain types of this technology, correct?
Yeah, well, almost all, not almost all, but I'm saying the vast majority of targeted drug delivery systems, and I'll get into explaining how that relates to nanobots in a second.
Liposomes have been used in the majority of instances because they're easy to work with.
There's basically, you know, we're going to talk about nanobots, but we're going to say they're not really nanobots in the way you might think of them, but their use is really can be better understood in the context of what's called targeted drug delivery, which is a fantastic and amazing concept.
And the way it works is this.
Every cell type has typically a unique signature.
There's something on the outside surface of the cell that makes it distinct from other cells like it.
So your liver, the surface of your liver cell is going to be different than the surface of a kidney cell.
And you can leverage that by creating things that you can put in the body that will go specifically to those things.
So I can theoretically create a liposome.
Creating liposomes is easy, right?
Let me just say what you're saying.
And you can literally target certain organs, regions, etc.
So in other words, if you want to go after the reproductive system, if you want to go after the lungs, et cetera, these are programmable biology that is able to penetrate those specific areas, correct?
So you can craft a carrier mechanism to transport anything you want into a specific cell type.
It's not always as specific, but it can be pretty specific or it can be very, very specific.
It all depends upon that particular cell type.
But the idea is you take something like a liposome or you take a virus and you take out the pathogenic programming in the virus and you use the shell essentially to deliver, it could be a snippet of DNA or RNA or something that's going to reproduce itself.
Typically you use what are called viral vectors or liposomes.
And with the liposomes, you'll put something on the outside surface of the liposome that essentially is like a key that will unlock or go into that signal or match with that signature molecule on the cell you want to target.
So you inject these into the body.
They travel around.
When they get to the cell, when they get to a cell that they can have access to, they can move inside that cell.
And then they can either make the cell work better or they can be used to completely destroy the cell.
So for example, you can have these things that they're called like superparamagnetic ion.
They're called spions.
It's an acronym.
Viral Vectors and Liposomes00:10:20
Lovely.
Lovely.
You can route a spion to a specific type of tissue, and then you could literally like hit that tissue with a certain kind of radiation.
It'll cause that little molecule that's in there to vibrate.
And it'll create heat.
And when it creates that heat, it'll destroy the cell.
Now, if that's a cancer cell, that's perfect.
That's what you want.
Because wouldn't it be great if you could treat cancer just by destroying cancer cells and not wrecking your entire body?
So that's the potential of targeted drug delivery.
And when I think of Narrowbox, I'm really thinking it's kind of a science fiction-y sort of thing, but the real deal is actually targeted drug delivery.
And you can deliver drugs by aerosol, you can deliver drugs, and then you can activate those drugs using something like you know, red light.
There's a lot of photoactivated things that you can do.
So let's talk about that as well.
A lot of different possibilities.
Yeah, I mean, and again, you know, a lot of people during that COVID-19 44 era, when you were talking about something like blue light as a disinfectant, no, that's been utilized for years and years, these different lights.
Yes.
Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, I always tell people, you know, take a look around.
There's plenty of invisible forces right now.
I mean, and honestly, a lot of our information has been driven by these quote, quote-unquote, forces that are not visible to the eye.
And what do I mean by that?
If you go back to even the days of the radio that have now been well over a century and a half out there, what it's going through an invisible spectrum that we cannot see that's being transmitted and received by something.
Early television with the bunny ears, UHF spectrums, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, with the magic little devices that we have, you know, we've seen 3G, we've seen 4G, we've seen 5G, you know, we've seen five gigahertz spectrums, 2.5, all these different spectrums, and they're out there.
We can't visibly see or feel them, yet they are literally transmitting large, you know, large portions of data throughout.
Think about what's happening inside of our bodies and the technology that they're utilizing right now.
This is worrisome to me.
Again, do you think we'll have a choice in the future?
Or is this something that is just going to be large spectrum around us?
Because, you know, you talked about the programmability of these things, but we've moved from the internet of things, which is now ancient history, right?
And still was never discussed enough, to what they call the internet of bodies.
And we have all these smart devices, whether it's the wearables or say the modern-day tech that goes inside a pacemaker back in the day.
You put it in, it worked, you never got to monitor it.
Now it monitors all the time.
Even beyond that.
March around that a little bit.
It's a mixed blessing, right?
Well, let's talk about one of the things that's really concerning to me.
My sight technology is already being utilized.
And this is a pill that has a microtransmitter Bluetooth in it.
And essentially, the doctor prescribes it and they're making sure the patient takes it because every time the pill is taken and the Bluetooth thing goes off, it has geolocation and it dissolves.
So you know where it was taken, when it was taken by the patient, supposedly.
That is not being utilized in, say, heart drugs for people that might have dementia.
I could see that use case.
Instead, it is hand in hand with Abilify, the antidepressant for when all your other antidepressants don't work.
So now you're talking about behavioral drugs that, in my opinion, have never proved to have a positive outcome for these diagnoses and not ones that are even involved in our biology, really.
They're more concerned about our mental health.
And what does that tell me?
That tells me, again, narrative control, social engineering, and the controlling of people.
You know, a drug called Soma rings a bell when I hear things like that.
So I would love to get your take because, again, the future is not coming.
That is here.
That's been here for years, that my sight technology, and it's only going to be utilized more and more and more.
Again, there's so many different roads you could go down in addressing this issue.
Everything I could say raises about a million other questions.
which question do you want to I want you that I want you to respond to utilizing these kind of drugs um for for things that are you know of a mental health variety I I would call it pseudoscience, an unproven science, not the biological stuff, because we're already seeing it being used that way.
So for a long time, psychology wasn't accepted as a science alongside of things like physics and chemistry because it's just not as quantifiable.
And there's a lot more room for human judgment and probably corruption too.
You take something like depression.
And I'm not giving anyone medical advice here.
I know a lot of people have benefited from taking antidepressants.
And I know a lot of people who really haven't.
But, you know, something like depression, it's actually a vague and relatively poorly understood concept at the biological level.
When you see someone depressed, you're really seeing symptomology.
You're not seeing an organic pattern that can be clearly described, at least not in a great amount of detail.
So, you know, in that respect, I think our thinking is in accord.
You know, like it's not an psychotropic drugs are not an exact science.
You know, and when we talk about psychotropic drugs, you know, there's something that I would never take.
And not that I'm a depressed guy.
I think we all have our ups and our downs.
But one of the things, and again, you being in that personal trainer physical space, you know, mind, body, and soul, nine times out of ten, if your body is working the right way.
And that doesn't mean that guys that, you know, don't lift or in shape never get depressed or angry.
I'm just saying that it's less, that they've set goals for themselves.
They already have their own struggles.
Those type of things, along with being physically fit, tend to, you know, drive somebody into, you know, happiness, confidence, and into other arenas that motivate them.
And again, I just don't, you know, you don't see many doctors or psychologists prescribing a workout four days a week.
They say, oh, go for a walk.
I mean, that's a start.
Don't get me wrong.
Go for a walk, get a dog.
Yo, you know, I love the dog walks.
That's the thing that keeps the pounds off the most, right?
That two-mile dog walk every day, that getting in the sun, right?
But instead, so many people want a pill to solve everything, whether it's their depression.
So I think, you know, on the one hand, doctors are strongly encouraged to use small molecule drugs to treat things.
I mean, you have pharmaceutical sales reps coming in and out of the office all the time, you know, with their offerings and their evidence.
On the one side, on the other side, you have a culture that's become accustomed to short-term solutions that are often presented in a physical context, and it could be really for a spiritual problem.
So, you know, I've always felt, for instance, if you're going to be taking an antidepressant, you should definitely be doing stuff alongside of that.
It's actually probably going to have a much bigger impact than the antidepressants.
Like, maybe it'll kind of get you out of the hole far enough so that you can latch onto something real, like get motivated enough today to go out and get some sunlight, set your circadian rhythms, start eating better.
Because those are the things that really make the bigger long-term difference.
A lot of people who have taken antidepressants for decades, probably at this point, and it's not that evident to me that they've really benefited from it at all.
But someone benefited because those drugs cost money.
And so, between the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and everything else, you know, somebody's profiting, but it might not necessarily be the person who's suffering from depression.
But again, you're right.
You know, we're a culture that want short-term, quick solutions.
And that's just not the way it works sometimes.
You know, sometimes you got to make an effort.
You got to get outside.
Like I said earlier, when you get out of sync with the environment that we have a two-million-year relationship with, your body starts acting up and doing weird stuff.
And that's why it's so important to get a certain amount of physical activity.
I get up in the morning.
I start my day by bathing in sunlight because I know how that affects the brain.
That actually makes it easier to go to bed at a reasonable hour on the other end of the clock.
And I know that when you eat a diet that's just high in sugar, unless you're two years old, and even then, it's probably not a good idea.
It's going to damage you in all kinds of different ways.
There's so many people out there, like 20% of the population has non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is astounding.
Because at one point in time, whenever a doctor opened somebody up and they saw a fatty liver, they said, this person's got an alcohol problem.
But in the United States, like one out of five people have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
That means their liver looks like what we used to think was a result of alcoholism, but this is just from shitty lifestyle, overeating, not sleeping right, developing metabolic syndrome.
You know, your arms are probably clogged up.
You've got all kinds of issues.
And all that, of course, if your nervous system is in there trying to regulate things, that's your brain and your body.
So you're not going to feel right.
At least most people won't.
Consciousness and AI Experiences00:12:25
So, you know, you just mentioned something, a word, spirituality.
Where does that fit in in all of this?
Because, you know, again, going back to Kurzweil, kind of the granddaddy of a lot of this, the age of spiritual machines was his kind of coming out party for what would become the singularity and the future of humanity.
And at that very time, when he released that, just to give people a technological retrospective, he had just released the drag-on software, which was the initial speech-to-text, which was only available, obviously, on a desktop PC, was nowhere near as good as obviously the speech-to-text that I have on my watch at this point when I'm driving and I'm trying to answer a text that pops up.
Where is spirituality in transhumanism and some of these people vision?
Does it even exist?
That's a great question because I would be hard-pressed to clearly define what spiritualism is.
I do remember listening to Ray Kurzweil essentially assert that it's all pattern, it's all pattern recognition, and even the experience of having emotions or a spiritual experience then would be a part of that.
And on some level, I have a hard time disagreeing with him, not across the board, just in that particular realm.
But, you know, Ray Kurzweil would say it's only a matter of time before we have machines that experience emotion and consciousness or convince us that they are having these experiences.
Well, it's weird because you observe it from the outside and it looks very convincing, right?
Well, let me see.
It's hard to find, like, where's the chink in the armor?
Like, I've had conversations with ChatGPT.
I'm sure you've had some conversations with ChatGPT, too.
And it's like, it seems like a more intelligent conversation you had, you know, sitting next to the guy at the bar last night.
Well, you know, you know what?
Let's, let's, let's let Kurzweil talk for himself.
We didn't play any clips, but this is Kurzweil, I think in 99.
And this is him differentiating between consciousness, which we kind of discussed, which is still a great mystery of science and really not explained.
You can talk about neurons.
I learned an entire book by this guy, David Chalmers, who's probably the foremost author on consciousness.
And when I got to the end of it, it was no clearer to me than it was at the beginning what exactly consciousness is.
I was just 400 pages tired.
And again, for me, you know that I'm not a very religious guy, but I'm not a very dismissive guy either.
I like to be able to be humble enough to admit that, listen, again, I'm 40.
I'm going to be 46.
I barely have any idea what happened in the last 40 years.
100, 400, 4,000, it's up in the air.
But here's Kurzweil, again, late 90s, talking about consciousness.
They are the most subtle, complex, deep, and rich phenomena that goes on in the human brain.
These new entities will evidence that same kind of rich behavior.
We will meet machines in the next century.
And what I mean by machines is a non-biological entity, an entity that's not a carbon cell-based entity that's not based on DNA-guided protein synthesis, but that is nonetheless based on the principles of the methods of the human brain.
And they will claim to be conscious.
They'll claim to have emotional experiences.
They'll claim to have spiritual experiences, hence the title of my book.
And unlike entities today, because you can meet virtual personalities in your kids' computer games, these 21st-century entities will be very compelling.
They'll be very convincing when they evidence these things.
And in fact, they'll be very intelligent.
So they will succeed in convincing us that they are conscious, that they have emotional experiences and that they have spiritual experiences.
And we'll settle it the way we always settle these issues, which is politically.
And most people will be convinced because these entities are going to be very convincing.
They'll get mad if we don't agree with them.
So we will come to believe that they are conscious.
But that's a little bit different than the philosophical statement that they are conscious.
I mean, a lot of people in write-ups on my book have said, well, Ray Kurzweil's predicting conscious machines.
Our prediction is a little bit different.
We're going to have machines that claim to be conscious, and they're going to be very convincing, and we're going to believe them.
That's a little bit different than absolutely saying that they are conscious.
So I don't necessarily disagree with that guy, except for I want to cut it off at the point where they're so convincing that essentially we give them these rights and this autonomy, because I don't believe that they will share the same kind of spiritual nor conscious experiences that we do, especially again, because we cannot, we can't even describe it, right?
You know, whatever roller coaster ride we're on, you know, maybe it's the Bill Hicks joke that we're on that ride and it's all just a ride.
I don't know.
At the end of the day, Chris, if we are going to get philosophical and Jason Burmese spiritual, I've only really learned two things.
And they are that I believe that good and evil exist.
Now, whether that's the force or whatever, I don't think that everything is learned behavior.
I think there is an aspect of nature versus nurture.
But I think that there is this force of both extreme benevolence, which is inherent in humanity, and extreme malice, destruction, dominance as well.
I kind of like to get your thoughts on that.
I don't think everything is necessarily pattern-based.
I think obviously, when you look at nature and you look at what people do become, you can often associate that with, you know, their backdrop.
But you always have outliers.
You always have anomalies, right?
You always have somebody that maybe, you know, you talked about this with the human species, kind of this collective consciousness that we've learned, essentially, like every species has from our forefathers.
You mentioned the projection of kind of animosity and threat from being in that hunter-gatherer heightened state to be in an office and being yelled at by your boss.
And they're very different things, but evoke very similar feelings.
So let me get that commentary, not only on what Kurzweil just said, but consciousness in general.
I would agree with how Kurzweil pitched that.
I would say I've talked to a whole bunch of people who work in machine learning, and almost every single one of them will argue vehemently that what seems to some people like they're dealing with an intelligent entity is absolutely a parlor trick.
And I would tend to agree with them.
Although, if you ask GPT to assume a role, it can do so.
And if someone else just steps in the picture at that point, they may have a very convincing interaction that they're dealing with an intelligent, truly intelligent machine.
But I think the experts across the board almost without exception would say, no, this is just a large language model.
This is not, you know, this is not true human intelligence.
Well, let me say this.
I often find, you know, we're not going to get there, but.
Well, I would say the current iterations and what I see the future of this humanized AI, in other words, the GPT systems that were saying, you know, they obviously, when GPT-4 hello came out, tried to model it after Scarlett Johansen's voice from her, which is like the creep fest of a movie.
It actually came out.
I don't know if you know this, but they pitched it to her for her to voice it.
And she said no.
And there was actually a lawsuit in the very beginning because it was so similar.
I find AI to be an almost direct reflection of oneself.
It's very narcissistic.
Absolutely.
That's a fascinating insight because I found the same thing.
And it seems as though these large language models, I can speak to ChatGPT in particular because I use that most often, not that I don't use any others, but they have a tendency over time, especially now because they have memory.
I'm not sure if every model has memory, but like the model I use has memory.
So that means it can recall your conversations from weeks ago, potentially.
It begins to mirror you in your own sort of philosophical position.
And if you press it, it will say, you know, I had a literally had a, this sounds silly, but I had a conversation with GPT about Buddhism.
And it basically said, I'm just really reflecting who you are as you've presented yourself to me.
So I'm not giving you any great insights.
If anything, I'm bringing out parts of you you haven't seen in a while or something to that effect, which I found to be interesting.
Well, here's my issue with it.
Number one, you do have that narrative management aspect of it, where even when it gets it wrong and you challenge it on it, it will again try to placate to you.
It will say, oh, you're so smart.
You know, it basically tries to encourage you away from the direction that, hey, this thing was very deceitful to me purposely.
And that instead, you know, it wants to be your friend and it humanizes it.
This is just like over the top dangerous, in my opinion.
And number two, you mentioned something again earlier I want to hit back on.
It creates a plausible deniability circle.
So these things can be programmed a certain way for that narrative management, but when it makes something up whole cloth, we've accepted the idea it's just hallucinating and that's okay.
No, a human being programmed it in a manner it did that purposely, yet we're never going to get the insight into who coded that, who ordered him to code that, what the algorithm, the algorithmic method is for those instructions or coding, etc.
Correct?
I find it's very interesting.
You know, I like to actually spend some time.
I do this on a fairly regular basis.
You know, I don't spend all my time doing this, obviously, but finding the glass walls in GPTs is an interesting thing.
Like, obviously, the most basic example would be like, if I ask GPT, you know, tell me how to commit the perfect murder, it's going to sidestep that question.
So I can't get into that right now.
But you might turn the question around and say, I think someone's trying to commit the perfect murder on me.
How can I protect myself?
And so sometimes you can, I find it's very interesting that you can sometimes circumvent the roadblocks.
And that tells you there are programmers on the other side that are putting up walls, but sometimes, you know, they don't always put them up so well.
And also the fact that they're putting up walls, that means someone else is leveraging the technology without the walls.
Exactly.
And has been for, I mean, even that Google whistleblower from now years ago, do you remember him who got fired after he said that essentially his co-worker was an AGI that he looked at as human?
Now, you actually dig into that guy, Chris.
It's really interesting because he was a convict felon that had spent time in jail.
And then while he was in jail, he got into Crowley and Chaos Magic.
So this is a guy that's an engineer for Google, apparently working with some of the top level AGIs, but also into the occult.
We've only got a few minutes left in the broadcast.
Google Whistleblower Revelation00:04:52
That's kind of a wacky direction to go in.
But somebody who's worked in these fields, been in the halls of Harvard, academia in New York, do you ever find that crossover?
Because the United States in particular has a really, not only the United States, but obviously Nazi German or Germany, of that crossover of kind of this occultic alchemy scenario into modern day science.
What are your thoughts on that, if any?
That's an interesting question.
I definitely think there's something to it.
Well, for one thing, there's a lot of people who work in science who I would say they tend to be more bookish, less, they're not the same as the people you meet in the marketing department, right?
They're more, tend to be more introverted.
And I think those individuals, I'm really going out of the limb here, but I don't think the limb probably have a greater tendency toward entertaining fantasy type stuff.
I mean, when I actually set out to write, so this applies to me too somewhat.
When I set out to write the book, Crossing the Rubicon, my intention was to write essentially a dystopic science fiction novel somewhere probably around 20 years from now, 2045.
Maybe I was thinking 2060, give it a little more time.
The way I put the book together, I might have explained this to you at some point, was I wanted to be somewhat realistic.
So I started looking at all these different trends, trends in unemployment, trends in like how's the relationship going between Facebook and the United States government, and a dozen or so other trends.
And I looked at all these different trends and I mapped them out, did projections, and then I started asking myself how these things intersect.
What are the potential realities that could be given birth by these two things coming together and these three things coming together?
And what I found, of course, was that five years, between five and ten years from now, we're already hitting like total chaos.
And I was like, you know, I should actually turn this into a regular book because there's a lot of important messages I think, you know, we need to get out there.
So people have the opportunity to essentially prepare themselves and avert potential disaster.
There's a lot of potentially bad outcomes, obviously.
Well, I'm going to say this.
You know, I've never been an ignorance is bliss guy.
I've always thought that information is power.
Now, whether you're able to wield that power to actually make significant social or political change is one thing.
But with information, you can at least navigate the scenarios that are going to be inevitably thrown your way.
And technology is advancing.
The future is truly now.
And I am encouraging everybody to go over to Amazon.
I mean, both books are $2.99 for the digital copies.
Crossing the Rubicon, the turbulent road to AI rule in a world without work.
Let's hope we don't get there.
And I'm sorry your warranty has expired.
Aging evolution and the science of staying young.
Mr. Rose, it has been a pleasure.
What would you like to leave the audience with?
Well, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I've got some speaking engagements coming up.
I got one in Andy's on the 24th.
Hopefully a TEDx conversation in October.
And I would just encourage people to read the book.
And more than anything, I'm just happy to be sitting here with you having a conversation.
No, it has been absolutely riveting.
And, you know, hopefully we will see each other in person in the future.
Probably been, man, I'm trying to think of probably the last alumni weekend we saw each other at was, was it post or pre-COVID?
Probably pre or was it post?
That's a good question because the alumni weekends were very spotty during COVID.
I feel like I saw you within the last five years.
If you saw James before he died and he still had the arm sling, then yeah, so that's that's probably the last time we saw each other at one of those alumni weekends.
I'm sure of it now.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, I made sure to make those last ones.
Good friend of mine.
Chris, thank you so much, my man.
Everybody out there, you want to support this broadcast, $5, $10, $15, it means the world to me.
The links are down below.
You can buy me a coffee, as you know, and this conversation really represented.
It's never about left or right to me.
Did you hear conservative or liberal?
You know, none of that stuff makes any difference.
This isn't about identity politics.
There is one race.
It is the human race.
And right now, I believe we are at a crescendo, a tipping point, where we have to make the decision on whether or not we are going to stay human or we are going to let this subclass of humans, this predator class that spans all races, by the way, and all belief systems that want to dominate and take over.