 Ik ben heel interessant, want we hebben hier al een extrem populair boek van Harari, Homo Deus, zoals je hier, Natasja, en ik heb deologiën zoals Miroslav. Ik ben heel interessant om te zien wat, aangezien de twee van jouw, de verschil tussen de mensvrouw en de mensvrouw, Jesus Christ, en de mensvrouw, die appareend op Harari, en een paar andere, we kunnen creëren door onze technologische dingen, en die is een van de redenen waarom, en misschien kun je met dat starten, Natasja, je bent ook literally in de business van suspending leven en met de idee dat er op een certain moment technologie zal zijn op dat niveau, dat mensen langer kunnen leven, of zelfs altijd, en de vraag is dan related aan dit, wat is de connectie tussen onze mortaaliteit en onze moraaliteit? Ik gebruik niet de term mortaaliteit, want ik denk dat het een misnomer is. Ik denk dat het hevig is equestreerd naar de mythen van de oude proto-scientisten, de Taoist. En het is ook, denk ook, de Satra, geen exet, je kan het niet uit, je bent er altijd gestuurd, dus ik denk dat de mortaaliteit niet alleen een prijpdream is, maar het is een mogelijkheid, onze zoldersysteem heeft een lifespan, de zon heeft een lifespan, dus ik denk alternatief van een limitere lifespan voor een persoon die langs hij of zij willen leven, en als niet, dan is Cryonics een alternatief, tot later de medicin kan ketten met de disease. Maar bekijken naar deze post-humane eeuw, ik denk niet dat we daar nog niet zijn, ik denk dat dat ons op de academics en postmodernisme is. En ik denk dat ze voor de post-humanist eeuw ontdekten, want ze hadden geen sensibiliteit binnen academics en in de mainstream over technologie en de avances in artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, nanomedicin, nanotechnology, CRISPR-liked genetic engineering, gene therapy, et cetera, et al. Dus ik denk dat er een leap is. Ik denk dat we in de transhumane eeuw zijn, waar de transhumanist eeuw is om een mens in transition te worden iets andere. Wat is dat andere dat zou kunnen zijn, een evolved mens, het zou een mens merken met artificial intelligence, het zou een mens zijn dat in mijn geval meer humeen zou worden. Dat is hoe ik het bekijk in dat geval. Immortality, geen limiterlijspanje, redefinding dood, we hebben dat voor eons gedaan, wanneer iemand dood en dan vinden we dat we dat zou kunnen kuren. We hadden een oorlog op een manier naar iemand's neus, we hadden ze aan de hart. We kunnen brengen mensen terug naar leven dat 100, 200 jaar geleden, zelfs 50 jaar geleden, we dood waren. Dat transition te worden een post-human, maar niet biologisch, geen avontuur, geen automa uit daar, maar een hume dat in de stage van post-biologisch, dat betekent niet een schuffelheid, niet limiteerd door de genetische maak. Maar als ik het wel begrijp, jij en je husband, Max, in waar je leeft, Scottsville, Arizona, je hebt deze autocentrum, die in mijn lay-languid is, je vrees je body. Oh, oké, het is called Outcore Life Extension Foundation, my husband is CEO. Ik ben een membeur, maar ik ga er niet op, ik ben een academisch, ik geef, etc. Maar ik deed een scientific breakthrough daar waar ik voelde dat twee neurones in een simpel dier zijn met stand, vitrification, rather than freezing. Freezing is misnomer, het is de wrong term, it's vitrification because you don't want crystallization of the cells, which will cracken. So vitrification is the methodology that's used now in cryonics for suspension. My scientific research, the scientist part of me, proved that long-term memory does exist in simple animals after cryopreservation or vitrification. It's a growing business, people will opt for it. Doctors are more interested in it now than ever. We just suspended our beloved animal companion, who is like my son, he died of old age. But the thing about cryonics, it picks up where today's medicine leaves off. It's not some science fiction dream, it's based on evidence-based science, it works, we brought back C. elegans, and that is a fact, so it's not worldly science fiction. But just from my own imagination, it's a center, and the bodies there are no longer alive, but they're also not dead. Yeah, and that's another one of the problems with today's FDA and all the rules and regulations. You have to physically die before the team, the suspension team, which is on standby, takes you for the surgery. But we've seen people who are pronounced dead come back to life with beating of the heart, using different medical equipment to bring them back. So that doesn't bother me so much, but the facility outcours a large facility, it has several operating rooms, it has doers there, it has neuroscientists there, it has neurosurgeons there, it's a highly reputable company, and some of our leading thought leaders globally are signed up for cronics, because it is the best safety net for those who want to live a longer life. Yeah, because at a certain moment when the technology is there, they can get out of this, and wonderful things happen. In your transhumanist reader, you write transhumanism is a non-religious philosophy of life that rejects faith, worship, and emphasizes a meaningful approval to living informed by reason and science and progress. What do you mean? I think that that can be taken in two different ways. Number one, it can be taken that it's agnostic or atheistic, and that any type of faith is verboten. But I don't agree with that at all. I have very strong faith in spirituality. I've always been a spiritual person. I was born a Episcopalian, a Christian. I went through confirmation. And as a teenager in my early life and through teenager and all through my life I've donated more of my time helping others and volunteering for causes around the world than I have in making money. So it's like you're bad if you don't believe in God, I'm not religious and nor do I believe in God, but that doesn't make me an evil person because I've volunteered most of my life in saving other people's lives. Right, no fair enough. I'm interested by the fact that you have this faith in reason, science and progress being the fundament of our culture to create a better society. I think we need a better society. At the first round table we went over good and evil and took a look at some of the problems around the world and we had heard incredible narratives about people overcoming odds and how are we going to deal with this and what is it and what does it mean. But the bottom line in my view is that the human mind, the introspection, the creativity, the ability to explore, discover new planets, discover... No one discovered America was already here, but let's say Columbus so to speak discovered America, which he did not. We are explorers as a species, as homo sapiens sapiens and we have the ability now through the use of ethical technology and evidence-based science to carve what I consider a more apt, a more intelligent, a more ethical, a more humane society and that's the whole reason behind transhumanism. Yes, it is to extend life to be sure, but not as we are, not as the humans that we are with our reptilian brain and our fight-or-flight instinct that brings about the first panel degree, the money making, but I agree with that Amazon is fine, it's not a bad guy. So, Mio, come on. May I ask how much does it cost? Do I actually free someone? Yeah, when I signed up in 1990 it cost 40,000 dollars and it's vitrification. So I am a neuro because I want a different body. I think that whole body prosthetics is sensible. We've seen that great advances in robotics and narrow AI and haptic systems interfacing with neurology to form robotic limbs for people who have gone to war and suffered and been injured and they now have prosthetic legs and arms, et cetera. So I think that we'll be designing new bodies. I think it's going to be a major field in design and building innovation. So 40,000 dollars when I was in the 1990s back then, but now it's more, but things cost. But you get a life insurance policy and I pay, what, $100 a month in life insurance. Well, rich people had been trying to live forever for a very long time and I think giving them this kind of technology is going to be extremely dangerous. But why do you think it's rich people? I wasn't rich and I'm not rich. I don't have 40,000 dollars. Oh, well, listen, I didn't either. I got a life insurance policy. And I was back in the 90s. Now, I don't know how much does it cost. I actually got admitted to Columbia University, but I didn't have the money to actually pay for my college. I didn't get a scholarship. So I'm currently, or I used to actually, work in DHL, I just carry boxes. So when I look at how some people are, you know, spending their money or the way they plan for their lives, everyone got a free choice, everything. It's their own hard earned money. But I think there's a lot more important and very urgent problems that the world should look at. And the very first example should be starvation. When we think about, you know, solving the future problems and everything. Do you think that transhumanism has considered that? I just got through saying, I spent most of my life volunteering and helping others, including working for the home for our curables, feeding people on the street. So don't put words in my mouth, sir. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think it's important, I think it's important that we consider, we step back and consider what the larger problem is here. And I think the larger problem is what should be our attitude towards human limits, towards human finitude. Now there are some people who despise limits and live to transgress them. And there are other people who respect limits because they view them as not just an obstacle to certain aspirations, but as actually constitutive of the meaning of our lives. And I think that the most obvious case of a human limit without which human life would have no meaning, at least by my pretranshumanist lights, is time, is time. The idea of living forever seems like hell on earth to me. I agree. And not only because some of the people I know might live as long as I do. It's not just that I agree. But I think that, you know, there is a sense in which the urgency of our values and of moral values, of our aesthetic experiences, of our religious experiences, the urgency of all this is premised on the limitation of time. And I think it's very important, you know, before we learn to be posthuman or transhuman, I think we have to learn to be human. And so I am very suspicious of the transhumanist enterprise, firstly because it's conceived and enacted by humans. And somebody has to make the judgments. There you say it. The judgments, we will never transcend that kind of finitude. Transhumanism is another human project. You know, I'll just stop with this now. We talked about this last night. There was a 17th century Jewish philosopher who lived in Prague. And he once wrote in an essay. He began his observation. He said that the human being is a being that aspires to perfection. It's a very standard medieval formulation. But then he did something so wicked and smart. He turned the screw in again and he said, en in a being that is defined by the aspiration to perfection, perfection itself would have to be regarded as a flaw and a shortcoming. I agree. And that, if we don't learn to live with that, then I don't see anything but destruction. Yeah, I think I want to echo what has just been said. I'm very ambivalent about the idea of not just posthumanism, but transhumanism as well. I kind of think that it's beautiful to be human and discovering the beauty of what it means to be human. So whatever we want to do in terms of extension of life, whatever we want to do in terms of curing the ills that before humanity and God knows much suffering is inflicted upon human beings by illness, by all sorts of other ways. But it would seem to me that nonetheless the beauty of our humanity ought to be preserved. I think a great challenge before us is to say why is it important for us to be human, to remain human. And I think you mentioned, and I think that was in your question as well, that somehow science should help us answer this question. I have difficulty with that. I think science is an incredibly important marvels tool. I think technology is absolutely marvelous science, not just tool, but also explaining reality to us. Technology, enhancing various aspects of our lives, it's absolutely fantastic. But one thing it cannot do, it cannot tell me what ought to be. It cannot tell me what I ought to want. I want something, I desire something, but what is worth desiring? What kind of human being is worth being? That question, I think, is the fundamental to the nature of our humanity. I think we all don't understand the philosophy of transhumanism because the main core, tenet, is more humanity, more humaneness. But let's formulate the question differently. The question would then be, what am I being frozen for? The minute you ask that question. You're using the wrong term, it's not frozen. What am I being vitrified for? What am I being exed for? Whatever you do. Okay, it's the same. Wait one second, but that assessment of goals and purposes returns us to the traditional humanist ways of reasoning with all their strengths and weaknesses. Do you like life? I generally do, yeah. Okay, well, if you love life, if you like life, and if you love life, do you want to stop it? Do you want to end it? Well, I love chocolate and I don't want to eat it all the time. Well, you don't want life all the time.