Curiosity and Why Old Ideas Have To Die

Dakotah and Justin revisit the original idea behind Curiosity Theory: curiosity as a North Star. That quickly turns into an argument over whether wanting to know what is in someone’s fridge counts as curiosity or just being nosy.

The conversation eventually gets more serious. They talk about the courage required to question beliefs, why scientific progress often threatens ideas people consider sacred, and the difference between an old belief being useful and actually understanding why it works.

Then they get into aging, genetic engineering, designer babies, and immortality. If we eventually learn how to extend human life dramatically, who gets access first? And would society become better, or would the most powerful people simply hold power for even longer?

Visit our Merch Store
https://www.curiositytheorypod.com/merch

Join our Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/c/CuriosityTheory

Follow the show @curiositytheorypod

Hosted by Dr. Dakotah Tyler and Justin Shaifer

Stay curious.

Transcript

0:00

Welcome back. If we were to do episode one of Curiosity Theory, how would it be different today than it would have been? That's a good question. I think that that episode, first of all, that's one of our highest viewed episodes. Down downloaded. Highest downloaded episodes. I also think it is one of the our best episodes. I also think that the title is our best at best episode. Yeah. I got you. I got you. That's a actually ableist what you just did. Oh. Well, yeah, I was just I was just repeating what I heard. Yeah. Yeah. Now you're gaslighting me. That's also ableist because I'm media illiterate. Right. You're taking advantage of my contextual illiteracy. So I actually like well, the name of that first episode before we get too uh far down the rabbit hole, Rabbit Hole. Um, not the rabbit hole. Uh is Curiosity as a North Star. Uh-huh. Oh, I'm gonna get that tattooed on my body. Okay. Curiosity as a North Star. All right. And it was like, so we had this episode with uh with Hank Green recently that was posted, and he, you know, he started talking about curiosity and like interest. He's you know, so we're sort of using curiosity and interest interchangeably, and that you know, interest, a lack of interest is one way that you could describe feeling depressed, having like uh sort of a fog of depression. You know, there's there are different things that people can be depressed about, but usually it's like a there's a real apathy that sets in. It can be. And that sometimes, like in our lives, if uh if otherwise things seem like they should be okay, if you just there's just not a lot of stuff that you're interested in. It just, you know, the colors are dimmer, it just doesn't feel as good. There's like this haze sitting over you. And I really liked that because that is exactly the experience that I think I've had at times in my life, and that is exactly the role that curiosity and interest play. And a phrase, a title for that phenomena could be curiosity as a North Star, like a thing that that guides you, and that is what we named the first episode, yeah, which was fire. I always think it's you know, when you talk a lot, you forget what you said. I feel like you ever seen the videos of Lil' Wayne? They'll like read him lyrics that he rapped. He'd be like, damn, that's fire. Who said that? Yeah, and he was like, Oh, that was me. And it's kind of like a meme. Um, but that was a that was a fire episode. I don't know what we would change. I wouldn't do it at that same studio. Yeah, yeah. I mean, but I think I would because we had to get it out the mud, man. And uh Well, so if your thing is like, would you change your experiences because they made you who you are, then no. Right. Then why'd you ask the question if you were gonna do this gotcha journalism on me and be like, oh well, I don't know if it was a gotcha. I think it's maybe a difference in opinion. Like maybe you like the air-conditioned fancy studio, and I'm just more of like a you know, like a greedy guy. Yeah, but I will say that your chair was catching the only AC that existed in that. It was. That's a fair point. Yeah, that's a fair point. Um, but no, I think curiosity is a really interesting word that we've dissected from a lot of angles. I always have felt this way. I feel like you're like this too. I think there's a difference between being curious and being nosy. I don't think I'm very nosy, but I think I'm very curious. Hmm. Well, how would you differentiate uh so I think nosy tends to be uh and and this is like a slang term, right? So I'm just defining it colloquially, like sticking your nose in people's business. Like, oh, I want to know, like, oh, I don't, I don't, like I didn't get the full story about this. I want to dive into this person's backstory on my own and like try to figure it out, you know? Um not so interested in that personally. Is that not just a thing that you're not curious about though? Correct. I think it's a so you're are you just labeling things that you don't find curious as something I guess I'm curious, but just not about other people's business. Because I guess nosy is a form of curiosity, right? Like a sub-genre of curiosity. You think it's a subgenre and not just a specific thing like somebody like a sign, you know, an astronomer maybe is nosy about that star system over there. Like shit. I'm trying to figure out these stars. Trying to figure out what they got going on over there. Sticking his nose in all the stars. I don't know if I would use the word nosy there. Because nosy implies that you're cu you're trying to get another, you're you're curious about somebody else's business. Yeah, nosy implies interpersonal curiosity. Um, which I do think I have some curiosity about. But if it's like a person is not really comfortable sharing or they just don't feel like well, okay. So you're on a, let's say you're on a uh you're on a date or something like that. Are you not nosy about this person's background? I mean, we're making this a dating show now. All right. Well, uh, since you asked, uh, I think, no, I think I think if I'm on a date, um I would be interested in the person, but not I feel like nosy implies a degree of boundary pushing as well. You think so? So, like to be nosy about a person's business as as opposed to being curious about a person's business, although you can conflate the two. I would say like I'm curious about your life, but I'm not nosy about your personal business in a way that's like, well, you have this boundary, or perhaps there's an implied boundary about I don't really want to share this yet, we're not at that place. And I'm like, uh what you got going on there? You know, sticking my nose in it, and I'm trying to figure out what it is before you're ready. You know, like why does it have to be before, like before they're ready? Yeah, I guess I guess nosiness doesn't necessarily necessitate that. Yeah. But yeah, I just I don't know, I just don't identify with the word as much. Clearly identify with curiosity. Like, would you say you're a nosy person? I think that you could, yeah. I mean, yeah. I think that I'm a pretty nosy guy. I'm like, I want to understand things, I want to understand lots of things. I'm curious, I'm curious about life. I don't think that I like gossip a lot. If you're talking about, is it specifically like, oh, we're like gossiping about something? Is that what nosy means? If that's what it means, then yeah, but uh if nosy just means that you're very curious about like social dynamics and like what the dynamics are of like a relationship or something, I mean I think that that's curious. I think that that's a application of curiosity. I don't know if that's necessarily like the things that I tend to be curious about, but I'm definitely curious about people. Yeah, and if I and I'm definitely like if I go to like I feel like if I go somewhere new, I want to like see what's in like if I went, if I like if I went over to your house for the first time, I'm gonna look, I wanna like look around and like see what's in the pantry. I'm gonna see like what is like what's behind these doors, what's in this closet? Is that nosy? Perhaps I guess it depends. So I've done that before where I've walked, I've like, you know, I got invited. I didn't even like break in to someone's house, and I like look around. Yeah, like I want to see what's in closets and cabinets and drawers, and yeah, like I want to see what's in here. I'm very I'm interested, like I wanna understand. It is curiosity. This is usually and usually people do say something like, yo, like bro, what are you doing? But you're like, this is just me being a curious guy. I'm curious. Man, I'm just like curious of like what's in here, like what and what this is a new environment. I want to explore the environment. Like a cat, like a you gotta sniff out everything that you I'm just curious. All right. It's my favorite quality about myself is my curiosity. I feel equally curious, but just I feel like when I go to someone's house, I'm like, uh, let me watch out for the things that seem private or sacred. Because I it's probably not I don't really need I don't really need that in my brain. So some would say that you're just not all that serious about your curiosity. Yeah, I would say I'm precise with my curiosity. Like I I tend to be selective about the things that I allow into my brain, or at least I try to be, you know, we can't control that fully, but yeah, but that's not what I feel like you were just describing right there. I think it is. I think I'm I'm Well, you're it's not that you were saying that you didn't want to cross all these boundaries. I'm deciding not to take a course of action that will create a situation where there are things in my brain that don't necessarily need to be in there. For example, a person's personal belongings that may allow me to form new beliefs about them that I don't necessarily need to form. You don't just want to know what's behind that door. Not necessarily. I do. I want to know what's behind a lot of doors, but it sounds like you're the type of person in a scary movie that would probably be first to die. I don't know. I um I don't know. I don't think so. I mean, that's exactly how the people die. Yeah, it's a scary movie. This is made up, it's not real. Yeah, but I feel like it's based on reality. You feel like scary movies are based on reality. Well, the idea of group dynamics. You feel like the scary movies horror films are based on reality. I feel like if we isolate this concept of like, oh, what's behind that door? Like, those people don't survive and reproduce. Um, I disagree. Sometimes they discover a new continent or a new country. Disagree. And sometimes they die. It's like would say, and I would even put, I think that we have a mission statement for our podcast, which is literally that our ancestors evolved to be vigorously and wildly curious. Yeah. And so I do I just disagree that they would die. I mean, ooh, maybe sometimes what happens if I walk up to this tiger, you know? Like, you want to know that? I I know what happens if you walk up to a tiger. How can you be 100% sure? How can you be 100% sure of anything? Exactly. So if that's the case, you know, why why not let your curiosity extend into that direction? I'm not curious about what would happen if you walk up to a tiger. I'm curious about what's in your fridge. Not to judge not I'm just curious. It's like you're getting it's like you're getting to know somebody. It's like a question that you ask. Like I'm not gonna ask a super invasive question, but I may ask a kind of invasive question because I'm curious. This guy's a villain. This guy's a villain, and I'm fine with also I'm I'm fine with also answering questions that you know on that level. Invasive. That's good. If you can take a dose of your own medicine, that's good. Okay, so it's like, you know, at what point do you can you stop doing like a polite, you know, uh surface level conversation, like small talk? Because you're not learning anything about anybody during small talk. I mean, you can be like good at small talk, and there can be like an exchange there, but if I'm trying to understand you and like understand how you think and like get to know you better, you're gonna have to be invasive. You think that's the one route to understanding a person? No, it's not the one route to understanding a person, it's a way to get to understand what's in there. And you're saying inv you know, invasive sounds bad. I think invasive has a connotation. But um like invasive species, for example. Invasive species. Yeah, we want to get rid of those. Yeah, true. So maybe invasive is not the right word. Maybe the word is because we easily could just frame it differently. I could say it's just very exploratory. Yeah. Which is like walking somewhere new and looking around. Yeah, like in some like a new fridge that you found. Yeah, well, you know, it's uh I guess it's a framing thing. To some animals in the environment, uh explorers showing up are an invasive species. However, to some other environment uh animals, maybe not. If you are finding yourself inside of my mind and I want you there, that's not invasive. Yeah. If you're if I'm enjoying it, if you're enjoying my penetration of your mind, that's not invasive. Yeah, you may not want me to leave. Where's consent? I may want to get out of here and you may not want me to leave. Where's consent involved in this interaction? Is it this is a conversation that you're enjoying? Oh, I'm enjoying this conversation. I can tell that you like when I'm in here. Yeah. Like this. Okay. Okay. And if you like it and I like it, right? Then we're both, you know. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, so no consent necessary. Is that what you're saying? For a conversation where you're exploring an area? Well, if it's yeah, like it could potentially be invasive. What does that mean? It's a conversation. You can stop it at any point. You can get up and leave right now, but you won't because you like it. I mean, that could be separate from consent in some context. Well, I mean, you sat down here. Uh we we we've uh recorded countless, countless hours of this. You push record on all the things, you're still sitting here and talking to me. This seems like Seems like I'm I I like it. It seems it seems like something that we're both consenting on. Is it not? Yeah, no, yeah, yeah. We are both consenting at this point to doing this. Yeah, I would say so. All right then. So what's your bit what's your problem? But I think it's consenting to the degree of invasiveness that could be up for debate in any given situation. Yeah, I don't know. I feel like I'm courageous. I hear what what I hear from you is that you that you like operate with a lot of fear. I don't. I'm not scared to like I'm not scared to trek. I do think that is a flavor of audacity. I do think that I am similarly audacious, but just in a different direction. Oh, how so? I would say my audacity is going after things that like are above my whatever I'm supposed to be entitled to. And what are you s saying that I'm being audacious about? Um, people's personal business. How? Because I said that I want to know what's in your fridge. Well, you're courageously, you know, it's audacious. It's like, look, man. I want to know. Like I'm in the fridge. I'm here. I'm like curious. What are you gonna do about it? That's not like that. I wouldn't say that it's like that. Um, I do think that I'm curious about people. I don't think I think that I'm like to explore new things, new ideas, new topics, new sciences. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think, you know, um, yeah, but I do think it is important to challenge our ideas and sharpen them in this way. Yeah, I agree. And that's I think something we do with everything. Yeah, yeah. Very important to be um like courageous with because I feel like you have to be if if courage is facing a fear, then I think that to be open-minded and to be a critical thinker, by definition, you have to be courageous because you have to be ready to let go of ideas which may be bolstering your ego or your um identity. That takes courage. The scary thing to do is to hold on tight to it and try to fight off anybody around, right? It's like courageous to open yourself up to that like vulnerability or like the uncertainty of you know, yeah. I would say that that's courageous, but I also think that there's like a potential area where certain things are sacred that they maybe want to remain untainted by other perspectives. Sure. You know? So I think like it can be an act of courage to protect that which is sacred in that regard as well. Um, yeah, I guess it all depends on framing, but if it's an idea, what's the problem with critiquing it? I don't think that's courageous at all. You can critique an idea. I mean, I yeah, I actually disagree. You disagree that um that that there that it's not it can't be an act of courage. I don't think that there's anything courageous about being afraid to critique an idea that you have. I think that that's the opposite of courage. I don't think that I don't think that I would frame that as courageous. Perhaps maybe being afraid to critique is not the direction that I would take it in, but more so um willing to uphold this idea in the face of criticism. And I think like, you know, there are some examples of that that probably are like non-scientific. Um, but like a principle, like um, I think everybody should be treated equally, for example, right? Like in the face of uh, you know, like slavery or uh civil rights movements, that seems like a controversial thing that kind of doesn't seem right at the time. Like the general consensus doesn't really agree with you, but it's like, no, I want to protect this idea. Yeah, but that's not because you're afraid to critique it. We could sit here right now and you would be totally fine to be like, well, I haven't revisited that in a while. Let's critique it. Do I really think everybody should be treated equally? Do I really think that everybody deserves right? That like, do I really think women should be able to have bank accounts? Do I really think that black people should be able to not, you know, be slaves or whatever? I feel like you you could like critique all those and you'd probably just land in the same place. But it's it's not because you're like unwilling to critique that idea that you, you know, were unwilling to critique, I would say you know, is is a little bit different than like upholding something that you think absolutely stands up to right, upholding a sacred value in the face of criticism. And in that vein, I would agree with you if you feel if you can like sufficiently critique something, and then especially if it's something that other people disagree with, right? Like we could do just we could do like a science example about this. Um, Galileo finding that the sun is at the center of the solar system. That's something that you know he was like critiquing a whole bunch of ideas. He probably critiqued his own that idea himself a lot. And he was like, No, it looks like Jupiter has moons that orbit it. Yeah, I can tell that Venus is orbiting the sun in the same way that the moon is orbiting the earth, and then it takes courage to like stand on those stand on the business. Yeah, um, but I would say that that, you know, it's only courageous after having gone through a critical, you know, that belief going through a critical process. And then in that, you sort of like demonstrated that you're not scary holding on to ideas that you're afraid are wrong. Yeah. You're actually, it's the opposite, it's like building strength. Right. You're kind of then presenting the idea and opening the forum of public mass criticism, uh, as opposed to protecting it from criticism. Yeah. But you're still like, no, I think this is right. Like, I hear all of these points and even give me more points that I didn't consider. I still think this is probably right. Yeah. And there are a lot of times in science, early science, I think that um in environments where you know perhaps church and state weren't so separate that scientists had to be audacious in their and and even were murdered as a result of you know these like scientific principles that they had tested, that they, you know, stood for. Yeah. Totally. Of somebody that was like persecuted for uh was Galileo persecuted? Yeah, I think you could, I mean, he was kind of a dickhead. Uh and so he would regularly like ruffle the feathers of the people in power. Um, but yeah, you know, the saying that the sun was at the center of things attacked what the church, the Catholic Church at the time held sacred, which was that the earth was at the center of everything, which feet which you know arises, I think, naturally from this perspective that God created the entire universe centered around us. And so it like challenges that, which you can I can sort of like see from a a narrative perspective that that's actually kind of a big problem. Yeah. If everything is centered around, no, like the whole of existence is about us accepting that Jesus died for our sins, this is all that matters. God created humans, this is this is what it's all about. Um, and then you're like, well, this is actually not the center center of anything. This is there is no center of anything. Like, who first of all, who the hell is this guy? And let's get rid of him because like he's messing up the he's messing up the show. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Um now, you know, it's not I don't think that the sun being at the center of our solar system is an argument against Christianity or religion or any religion. Right. But um, that was like a part of the conventional thinking at the time. You know, this is like the work of I've heard people make the argument that um fossils that show that evolution happened were placed there by the devil to trick people or even by God to test people's faith, which is a crazy argument to me because you know I guess anytime that your your argument for like an omniscient, all knowing, all loving creator that cares about me and you, and cares about all of us and our well being, anytime that you have to make him a Bigger and bigger dick. I just can't get on board with that. He created, he knows that it's hard to know anything as a person. We have all these emotions and feelings. We all believe crazy shit. I used to believe that the tooth fairy was real. You know, when I was like three or four or whatever, you believe anything. People believe anything. And so you're gonna put hard physical evidence that we evolved from uh you know more ape-like creatures, or that you know, I guess technically that us and all the other great apes share an ancestor. Why would you do that if that was not true? And in fact, in that case, how can I ever know anything? All I can do is trust whatever's in this book and just assume that's true and everything else is false or lie. Now, whoever was in control of that book, I think benefits greatly from that. Yeah. And but I whoever, yeah, but like, and I and I think that that's that's sort of like why somebody who comes along and says, Well, you know, it says that you know that the the earth was created, everything was created around it, that isn't true. If one thing in this book isn't true, and this is supposed to be a sacred thing and everything's right, calls everything into question, sort of like collapse the the house of cards. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and uh I think the process of science advancing over time, like that's occurred several times throughout the course of science. Like new discoveries collapse entire fields of study and have to have them like rethought. Yeah. Uh and that's something You think so? Like, what is uh do you have like a something that comes to mind? What I'm thinking about is I mean, even if you think of that just discovery of heliocentrism, like this idea that we revolve around the sun, like so many like a field like astrology that predates astronomy, right? And uh and actually is kind of the foundation that astronomy was built on, yeah, was I wouldn't argue like a hard science field, but it kind of had to collapse in the face of this scientific evidence, at least if one is to make empirical claims about the universe. Yeah, yeah. I guess we could sort of consider um a body of knowledge, like cultures, societies, humans have always had bodies of knowledge. Now, that body of knowledge could include things that we know now are scientifically true, could also include things that are not possibly true, could include uh like other philosophical things, but they are like bodies of knowledge. Yeah. Here's another example that I that just comes to mind the discovery of microbial life. Like I feel like so for so long we thought that sickness was caused by, you know, like demons or uh, you know, like ill will or like the bad vibes that you got from other people. There's probably some people that still kind of believe that that's why you get sick. But yeah, there are the you know, we discovered microbes, and then we discovered things like soap where you could like physically rinse off the microbes, and they dramatically reduced like the amount of deaths in like medical environments, right? And so like entire fields had to shift after we've realized that there's living little tiny things uh you know that that that affect all of us, and we actually are a build up, like we actually are just a bunch of those. Yeah, you know, like yeah, that's uh and then it gets super complicated and and complex because then as we we realize that yeah, it's not the evil eye that made you sick, and it's not even like bad air. They kind of thought that that was another early idea, and they're on the right track though that there's like ah, there's something wrong with that air. And it's like, well, there can be airborne pathogens, but it's not necessarily that the bad is air, the air is bad, right? Because I guess if you breathe in something, it is because you breathed in bad air, what we're gonna call bad air. Uh but and then you you start to realize that wait a second, but like your interactions with other people, you know, what we could colloquially refer to as the bad energy actually can impact you, you know. If you're in like a bad relationship or you have a bad family dynamic, it can be very stressful. That that added stress is like the more we learn about science, it's like, oh, well, that you know, being in a stressed-out state can actually um dampen your immune response. And maybe it does become easier for you to get sick. Again, you know, that may be it's from a virus, right? It's not necessarily or a bacteria. Um, but it could also just be like that being stressed out is weighing you down. You don't have to get sick, but you do feel worse. And that also is like an energy thing. And, you know, whenever the science comes out and says something like that, this is that's just an example, but we could be more rigorous and come up with um like concrete examples. I think a thing that you'll always hear people say is like, oh, science is finally catching up to what the mystics have known for thousands of years. Yeah, and it's like that tweet, you can pretty much tweet that and it'll go viral. It feels like that's like a copy paste that I see a lot every few months, and it's like a bunch of people just like you don't even have to give it context. Yeah, people is like, yeah, it's obvious, that's obviously true. And I think that it's interesting because like there is a there's a that's has a certain percentage of accuracy. I don't know what it is. That is like 15% true that science, like over time, may oftentimes confirm something that that was like known, but it's but it was not really known for the right. It's almost like sometimes you can be right, but for the wrong reason. Yeah, it wasn't known empirically, you might say. Like that you don't know the underpinning reasons behind why you were correct. You can't show your work. Yeah, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you know, I think that that's interesting. Like the sort of things like that are are or like the placebo effect, right? Which is like that um the like you your attitude, weirdly, your attitude can impact your your health. Yeah, and your experience of a drug or a stimulus, or yeah, yeah, but that's something that the mystics have known for thousands of years, right? If you have a good attitude and you approach things with the right attitude, you can have a positive outcome. Yeah, and that's uh but I mean that's like a weird thing that is it's true, is that your outlook, your perspective, right? Yeah, and I think that that's uh that's like one of the cool things I think um, you know, not to you don't necessarily wanna I I I think that I naturally am resistant to any sort of this is what like old the like old knowledge being like sacred because it's old. Like there can obviously be true like truth in that. I don't know. We you think about maybe um some uh tribe a long time ago maybe knew that they would like do something with a plant and they would um like mash up a couple different plants and I don't know, do a ceremony and that this stuff was supposed to help you feel better. And then we realize now that like a lot of the medicine that we get comes from plants because they have medicinal properties. And so it's like for that tribe, and I mean, you know, this is I wish I had a concrete example, but I think that we could find one if if we looked it up. And you're like, well, it wasn't necessarily that they conjured the a particular god or spirit, but it was that there was actually something going on going on that was that was helpful. Uh but it, you know, if part of that spiritual cleansing uh involved or in that ceremony involved the whole community like praying and feeling like you were gonna get better and you believing that you were because of that, then you've got like multiple things happening. Right. That there's like this application of medicine, that you know, whatever the property is in the plant, but there's also this like communal uplifting of your attitude and your spirits, and you think you're gonna get better, and everybody else does, and that like rubs off on you. And so, you know, they were they were they got there was a lot of things right in that. And so, like that body of knowledge had lots of what we could confirm to be scientifically accurate. Yeah, yeah. We also have talked about um, or we actually, yeah, we talked before with an interview uh with Sue. Uh she taught she does stem cell research, right? Cardiomyocytes. And we talked about uh, and she really like I remember her face lighting up when I said this about how we're starting to re-approach this idea of aging as this microengineering, series of microengineering challenges, right? Um, and you know, it it it fascinates me the prospect of the next generation of biological sciences where we can lift up the hood and see the underpinnings of how some of these things work, like the placebo effect. Like I'm really curious. I think the next generation of neuroscience might be able to shed more light on some of those things. But also, uh, we were just talking about this clip from Ildegrass Tyson about um how basically, like, and again, I I don't know how he's able to support this research, but he said that I think cavemen, you know, like half of people died before the age of 30 in the time of the cavemen. And then in the 1980s, that age became 35. And then just recently, like we've had people as a result of medical advancements and our understanding of aging and some of these other things, we've had the life expectancy of an average human double just in the past about 150 years, but throughout the thousands of years uh before wait. I thought you said, hold up. Uh could you say that again? What did you say? I thought you said 1980s. It was 35. That can't be right. It was like in the 1800s. I didn't say night. Did I say 1980? I said 1800. I meant 1800s. Okay. All right, so all right, so it was the like roughly cavemen, whatever, thousands of years ago, the average age was 30. But it's like like half peop half of the population lived to the age of 30. Which like drags down the average age of a human because it's like a lot of people are dying as babies or as kids. And then in the 1850s or so, I think he said in the clip, half of people live to the age of 35. And now, I mean, I don't know what the modern stat is. We can we can look that up too. Um, but a significantly higher percentage of people. Yeah. Whatever the numbers are, it's obvious that right now people on average live longer than they did hundreds of years ago. Yeah, ever in the past. And so uh it feels like more and more of these discoveries are going to be uncovered over time. Yeah. And things are gonna seem less vibey. I mean, you know, but think so? Perhaps, but but but then I feel like it's usually a moving goalpost with the with the vibes. You know, well, the because like washing your hands becomes something that probably could have saved hundreds of millions of people that have ever lived. Um, and so or like, you know, learning uh like OBGYNs, people that are that are like versed in the health of mothers and and babies. This sort of like wipes out all these deaths that used to happen from childbirth, which is uh, you know, how every life how every human life starts. And so you uh you can like, yeah, we start to extend life, but then there are like all these things that we also do that are um like worse for our health or something. So we sort of have like these much longer lives, but sometimes the lives are not as high quality, and maybe that's not even true at all. Maybe it's not that the light like we eat worse food now. We eat more processed food, but we still stay alive for a long time. On average, yeah. And I would think that again, based on a lot of the frontier aging research that's occurring right now, people are trying to extend both the quantity and quality of our lives in the in the longer term future. Yeah. I wonder what that limit is of um like I hear people throw around there that I would think that there is a number of years where you you really can't like get farther than it without um like fundamentally changing your DNA and changing every CNN, like every cell in your body. Okay. I mean right, like people live older now, but it's not because but you're you're just like extending the biology, right? But I mean I think there's a lot of things that impose changes on our DNA, like getting a viral infection, you know? Like I don't know if a change to our DNA is that like big of a deal. Uh no, I well I would say that it absolutely is for if you're talking about genetic engineering. I think Yeah, I mean I I do think that that's probably the next generation of anti-aging like treatments. Uh they're gonna be because you know, a lot of times what what aging actually is is this buildup of senescent cells in the body. Like these, um we learned this in biology class and like college about this this notion of apoptosis. It's like programmed cell death. And it's basically when a cell kind of becomes dysfunctional and old, it is like destroyed by the body. The rest of the body identifies it as not productive and kills it. And as you get older, the body's immune system becomes and and other parts of the body become less proficient at recognizing aging cells and therefore um because yeah, therefore are unable to like reduce the overall amount of senescent cells in the body. And so there was some research that came out, I think in like 2016, about um senescent cells in mice, and that they were genetically programmed to remove uh senescent cells well into their later stages of their lives, and they lived up to like one-third to two-thirds longer. Uh, I believe there's like a paper that that cited that. And that's that's yet to be translated into you know, like profound and productive research for human outcomes, to my knowledge. But like that's kind of the um, yeah, but uh yeah, it it it would require genetic alteration. Yeah, yeah, that's super interesting. So it's like I guess in my head, I think of extending human lives in a couple different tiers. Um, I guess one of the tiers is like the first tier is like removing whatever things kill people early on. So lifestyle lifestyle changes. Uh well, I mean, yeah, the difference in your tribe's lifestyle is trying not to get eaten by wolves, and your lifestyle is that you know, you're not gonna get eaten by a wolf as a baby, or you're not gonna die when you're born because your mother loses too much blood. So it's like removing the things that are like um like I guess what we would see as now is completely preventable deaths. So you kind of do that by or like starving at a young age. So, in like, I guess in the US, you kind of do that by having a society. Uh, you kind of like remove some of these things, and then modern medicine comes along and you like now you can like remove a lot of the pathogen, like you know, people still die from disease, but we got those numbers way down. And then you introduce something like vaccines and you're like you're able to like eradicate some of those things that wiped out a lot of people. And then if you are, you know, having like a relatively healthy and there's a lot you know research about this all the time of that you need to be physically active, you need to try and keep your legs strong and have good cardiovascular health, try to stay away from processed foods, then you can kind of like extend to what to your biological limits, right? There's like nothing coming in and like uh cutting your your legs out figuratively and literally is like you know, like a tiger cutting your legs out. Yeah, also that. Yeah. And so now you have like a l a number where most people without being sick or having something that was preventable happen will live to be whatever that age is. I think the average age in the US is maybe like high 70s. I know it's older for women than men. Yeah, but I think it's high 70s. The average is like high 70s, maybe low 80s. So I don't think that we're even there yet, because I think that we do a lot of unhealthy things still. And if we could like remove all those things and cut out carcinogen and stuff to the extent that we could, like maybe that I don't know, maybe that number's a hundred or a hundred and ten or something. So here's another one that the mystics may have figured out before the scientists. Uh like we we referred a little bit to the that uh blue zones documentary about like the places on earth that have a high percentage of the population that's lived over a hundred. Highly debunked. Uh, every time we talk about this, we get comments that that's been debunked. So the the the what what is the nature by which it's been debunked? I think so. I'd have to refresh my memory, but I think one of them is that there's no documentation for any of those people being the age that they say that they are. Okay. They're in like, you know, they're not they're not like checking their birth certificates. Right. Well, okay, perhaps let's not talk about it in in such a scientific way then, and more in like a philosophical way. So I think this is uh something that's kind of intangible and non-scientific that seems like it would, you know, it stands to reason that it would have a positive effect on lifespans, right? This idea of having a community, right? Something that we don't have a lot in America because of our hyper-individualism. Uh, like especially as we get older. Um, you know, there are other cultures that rely on their elders. One, so to give the elders a sense of community, but two, to give them a sense of purpose, right? It feels like a lot of people, as they get older, they retire, right? That's like one of the things that happens like right before a lot of people die. It's like they die first from lack of purpose, you know, like on a on a metaphorical level. Yeah, you know. They also set the retirement age at like a decade before most people die. Right. So, I mean, but but this idea of retirement itself for a lot of people is like I work so hard, I just don't want to work anymore. Yeah. Right. As opposed to uh I, you know, worked so hard to make money, now let me do something that I feel like is purposeful. You know? Um, and I think a person that is both devoid of community and purpose doesn't have a lot of reasons to live. In the same way that this, you know, what we described as this placebo effect of just believing that you can overcome, believing that you can get better, it's like, well, I have this like reason to live. Um, I imagine that it stands to reason that that can be an intangible thing that could support extension extension of a lifespan when you look at like a large sample size. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, yeah, philosophically, totally, I totally agree with that. That seems like something that that makes sense and would also be um like useful and would, I guess, you know, in my tier system, would go towards pushing the biological limit. Like if you're if we're hitting all of our P's and Q's on all the ways and we're being healthy and you're doing everything right and you've got the right community and the right perspective, I would say that there's still some biological limit that's like a DNA-based thing. Sure. Right. And it's like, you know, it's interesting how different animals um do immunity. So, like rats, oftentimes they don't have their immune uh system is not one that is like really good at fighting off a bunch of diseases. They kind of get sick and they just um sort of evolve ways to deal with being sick. I mean, they're gonna like die soon anyways, right? Like small, you're a small rodent, they don't live that long. They probably get eaten a lot, anyways. Um, you know, and so you sort of see in their lifestyle this is reflected. They have lots of babies, they can have them relatively close, right? You could have some and then you could have some again a few months later, you could have some again, and they don't live that long. And so you don't need like a great immune system that's really um focused on keeping each one alive. Maybe you get sick and you get a disease, and it's just like, well, let's just make this not feel that bad to, you know, it's not gonna stop me from reproducing. Right? Uh and you but then you compare that to um I don't know, something like an elephant, where an elephant actually needs to like each each elephant life is you know exponentially more important than each rat's life. Uh it takes they're pregnant for like multiple years, right? So this is like a this huge investment. And so an animal like that, um, or like you know, also whales come to mind, which can leave to be like what hundreds of years old or something like that. It's like it's actually very critical for them to be able to fight off all so there's like a different type of immunity that that they sort of evolve. Um and they would would or would not develop the abil like a rat, you wouldn't imagine that a rat um could have a heart that would be able to survive for 200 years. It just wouldn't make any sense. Yeah. If you kept a rat completely healthy um and made everything perfect in its body so that it never aged but didn't do anything to its heart, it would eventually die because its heart went bad. Right. Right. And then uh, you know, you sort of think that think of any given animal having a body that something will start to fail at some point in time. And if that thing didn't start to fail, something else would. Yeah. Right? Like if it's you know, humans, like if my heart stays healthy, eventually like my kidneys won't start will stop working as well, or like some. You know, my brain will start to deteriorate. Yeah, we we were not historically under any selective evolutionary pressure to survive in well into like into our hundreds. So nothing incentivizing that, nor do the people that successfully reproduce actually have a prerequisite that they survive that long. Exactly. So yeah, exactly. So, you know, eventually our bodies give out. I just had a crazy idea though. Like I'm like, what if imagine this is kind of sci-fi. So imagine an alien civilization that like had super long lifespans that was trying to like turn like genetically engineer humans, but just through breeding, not through uh modifying our genome. And they just took the ones that could breed the oldest and kept breeding them for thousands of years. Yeah. Like how far could we extend? Well, you know what you would do? What you would do is you would um retain uh specimens from it, doesn't actually matter how old they can breed. If you just get their reproductive material when they're young, like keep it in a spur bank and know are gonna live long. Is that what you're saying? Doesn't matter. Then you see who lives the longest, and you only fertilize the you only use the eggs of the longest women that live the longest. Yeah. And so it actually doesn't matter who can continue to like breed the longest. Yeah, don't try to sit at home, by the way. It only matters who so this would be like a long, a long sort of thing. And then you would take the so that I mean, you know, this would take you said these are long-lived aliens. Yeah, it'd take tens of thousands of years to do that. This would be yeah, but what you you know, maybe you and you could like push it so that um humans could live longer and longer, but it would take an extremely long time to do like a selective thing. I guess the quick way to do it would just see well, what are the specific gene variants that the oldest people had, and then you could like select for those and kind of like do it faster. Yeah. And yeah, that's uh that's pretty interesting. But like either way, it's it seems like there is some limit that each animal has for like where it's by it doesn't, it just doesn't make sense for your body to have uh keep to keep your liver in great shape if your lungs are going bad, you know, or if your if your brain's deteriorating, like it doesn't make sense to keep your brain tip top if your heart's giving out. Uh and so there's like whatever that number is, who know I don't know what that number is for people, but a hundred, hundred and ten, uh maybe it's like 120 or something. Maybe we're like leaving some money on the table because we're not as healthy as as we should be. Uh but and at that point, I just think the only thing that you can do to extend that is to get into the DNA and like on the cellular level change, you know, uh yeah, like your D yeah, your DNA. That I agree with. That I think is is already about to start happening. I think so. I think there's gonna be a I think I think it's gonna start. Um, I mean, yeah, we've talked before about CRISPR and kind of the applications of it and that kind of being a relatively low-cost approach. Um, but you know, like we were talking with uh first principal guys about this, and this might have came out already or not. But um we were talking to them about this ad that one of them saw on the subway for this organization that provides um basically their tagline was have your best baby. And so they select certain eggs and and sperm cells from both mates that you know have these desirable, like they understand what uh genes link to specific genotypic or phenotypic traits, and they're able to basically say, okay, well, you can select for these things, and then you can select for these things of the range of possible you know genetic combinations that your sperm and egg cells can have. I think that's like the first low-hanging fruit step of it. But I think it's gonna evolve into more granular genetic engineering like CRISPR as well. Yeah, yeah. It's uh always good to see eugenics making a return. Oh, Jesus. Uh that's yeah, I mean, that's a crazy, that's like a crazy emerging phenomenon. Emerging phenomenon, but you know, um, you know, I I think about it this way, and you know, I don't want this to come off as me, you know, like saying that I'm necessarily for this at all. But I just think of this as again, if we take a philosophical step back and think about human nature, right? As a parent, you want to provide the best possible life for your child, right? Like that's kind of a fundamental thing. Yeah. Get your kid in the best school you can get them in, yeah. Give them the best food you can give them. If I know that there's uh people out here whose kids are superhuman that have like all the best, whatever all the best genes are for whatever the thing is that you think that whatever it is, it doesn't matter. If I can afford it, it makes no sense for me. It makes no sense for you to roll out you know, your backup unit to go play against the uh you know the superhuman. It's like this doesn't make sense. You're putting your kid at a disadvantage. Now, one of the first things to overcome is how socially taboo this all sounds, right? Because, well, that just sounds like you're playing God or you're toying with genetics, and you know, there's still this whole uh, you know, um series of preconceived notions that the culture has about GMOs already. So, like a genetically modified human, that doesn't sound good. If GMOs are bad, genetically modified humans are terrible, right? But if you start to realize that there is this subsect of rich people that are all doing this and putting their kids at these huge disadvantages and now are gonna be generationally poised to be ahead, it stands to reason that the next generation of parents are gonna be like, nah, if I can afford to, I'm gonna give my kid this opportunity. Just like I would give my kid the best school I can and the best food that they can eat, you know? Yeah, you're this is now the literal creation of like this is like a divergence, it like an evolutionary divergence between I guess what humans are now, in the future, maybe what they were, and like this different sect of humans that you know are genetically, I want to say superior, uh, but not as a moral, not as like a moral judgment from me, but like literally if you wiped out all of the things that like congenital like diseases and defects, if you're literally making you know, p them have stronger tendons and stronger, then that feels like genetic superiority. I think that's when we step into eugenics territory when we label it as superior. I think it's oh well just say they're just genetically different. Genetically selected, I would say, is probably don't see how that's not genetics. I mean, you could call it whatever you want, you could call it Yeah, but I mean like because superior implies that they're objectively superior. And perhaps, you know, in some cases, having a stronger tendon is like isn't it? How is that not superior? Right. I think that's a fair point. But I think again, there's other traits that we might describe, such as pigmentation of your skin, that some people who practice eugenics in the past would be like that's certain pigmentation is genetically superior, you know. Well, I think that that's the difference, is that like superiority, like based on on race, I think that almost always did come down to a moral judgment. If you literally have cells that don't age and you're gonna live to be 500, and you are as strong as the strongest human that's ever lived, and you've got all of you know whatever genetics go to make you be able to have a super plastic brain that can process stuff faster. Like I don't, you know, I don't know what those things are, but you would I just don't see how that's not that's literally those are selected genes. Well, what did you select? You selected the superior or the like the better or the worst ones? Well, you said you selected like the best ones. That is to me, that is like literally it's still eugenics. If you call if you didn't say that that was genetic superiority because we were just being nice, it's still eugenics, even if you don't call it that, in my opinion. I I would think it's yeah, I guess when I say selected, I think of selection in the turn in the same context as I think of natural selection, where it's like being short can be a you can be a superior member of your species as a short member of your species because you know you are able to scamper across the forest floor faster. Thinking about like the uh homo floresiensis where people evolved to be smor s smaller, right? And so s and and so that you know they were selected for that, not because it was intrinsically superior, but because it fitness it was best fit. It it made them more fit for the circumstance. And so I feel like, you know, that's a good point. That's a good point. So I think like that caveat is important. Although again, I think that this is an if we have the technology to do this, and there are places in the world where this is legally okay, I think it's inevitable that it's going to happen across humanity. Yeah, you think so? I just I guess I think it stands to reason. Yeah, I guess it's like if it's pop I'm still not even convinced. I'm not convinced on the longevity thing. I guess like I understand that like the designer baby thing. I understand like what things seem pop, but I guess it just feels to me like there's just no way that and this maybe is like a lack of my understanding or imagination that you can't that we know enough about the human genome to be able to go in and fix the things that would allow us to be able to live way longer. I guess, and I it just literally could be my own ignorance. It seems like such a complicated, like literally, we need all of your DNA, your cells need to all be different. Yeah, I mean, I I'd say the human genome is more complicated than the rat or mice genome, right? But the fact that there have been these emergent discoveries and the destruction of senescent cells in mice suggests that there may be a relatively simple answer, you know, where it's like you program cells in your entire body to just kill off senescent cells sooner, right? And so all the only cells that are in your body are fresh cells, you know, and like the overall efficiency of the system stays high, and then that can extend lifespan. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, it does make sense. Yeah, so I I mean I I could see it being possible. Again, I also am not a genealogist or a genetic researcher. So yeah, you know, maybe we should uh we should try to get like a somebody who does this like aging research on because I'm curious about I just yeah, I mean, I don't I don't know anything, anything about it. Yeah. Um I remember we taught so you from a previous show, we the colour collab with um Science in the City. You were saying, you and uh Kalpana were saying that you y'all both would choose immortality if you could. I think that it's maddening. I think it would be maddening to live forever. I also think it would be somewhat maddening to live, truly live forever. Um to be biologically immortal is an interesting concept to me. Um I don't feel like, you know, just just turning, just hitting my early 30s. I feel like I'm starting to hit experience some of the early effects of aging, and I'm like, I don't really like what it's early stuff, man. You know, just it's a little stuff. You still got a healthy hairline? Yeah, but you all right. I think the first thing that that really hit me, I was like, okay, I might be getting a little older, is like my ability to digest things. Like when I was like a teenager or even in my early 20s, I would just eat incredible amounts of food, super fast metabolism, yeah, and even like I think dairy products, you know, like just nothing would like bother, it would just stuff would just go through me. Nothing would like bother me or nothing. Like it wasn't, I didn't have to get particular about like my diet as much. And now it's like I feel everything I eat. And that's like oh everyone was always talking like that when I was younger. And then I was like, I don't know what you guys are talking about. Like, it's just food, eat the food. And now I'm like, oh, that's what y'all meant. Okay, yeah. Um, so I was just like, oh, okay, it's more of this coming down the pipe. Yeah. I uh something that I remember um is uh when I started like with my the way that I was respond to alcohol changed a lot. When I was younger, you could like I would like could drink uh at a at a party or something like when I was in college and practice in the morning and like go hard and like be okay. And now something which is why I've like scaled way back on uh on drinking, I'll drink and then I'll I would feel like shit for like multiple days and not even like hung over, you know. I don't like it's not like I'm like pout throwing back shot after shot, but I just feel it was just like a haze. It just doesn't, I just don't feel like you're working the same. And yeah, it was like I'll put put this body this poison, I guess, in my body. And technically as you get older, you're just not as good as you're like past your prime. And so we have to do the we have to do these things like redefine socially what a prime is, and people have to like be like, I don't know why you think you're old at 35 when literally it's the number that we know that half the people died before for most of humanity. It's like I don't know why you think you're old, even though you've like outlived most humans that have ever lived already. Uh, but it's important because it's like well, because it's different now, like the rules, the rules have changed. Yeah, it's weird, man. I think that so you know, one challenge that uh you put for aging is these like microengineering challenges. Like, how do we come up with these things? But like another challenge is that we've never have ever had a selection pressure for aging healthily, for you know what psychologically is the bet the thing, the challenges that that people have to go through. And that's gonna, you know, that's a problem. And I think we already see that that it's a problem in a ch in a society that has a quick turnover. Why the I would say it's maladaptive that people last as long as they do now. The reason why I say that is because our government, you know, social socially humans accrue power over time. This is something I guess that's always been true. Well, our you know, Congress is the people who are making the laws, they're all otous shit, they're all boomers, and they are in my opinion, are all wrecking the country through like just normal human things like greed, um, you know, ignorance, whatever. They they you know do insider shit. They do, they just like do all these things, but society is like changing really fast, and they're just slow and cumbersome, they're like changing, so it's like we you need them to die, right? So I think we've talked about this before. It's like we all just want to live forever, yeah. Um, but a society cannot progress, you know, when there's a bunch of oh the when the old guard is running it. I think that is true as we understand old people today who have brains that lose neuroplasticity over time. But if you can imagine a person at 75 who has a brain with the neuroplasticity of a 20-year-old, I don't know if that would be the same. Hmm. You think so? I don't know. I I just can't say with certainty that a 70-year-old whose mind is as flexible and open, can learn new things, can pick up stuff as quick, you know? Yeah, but like that's like a fundamental trait that defines older people. Like they just can't pick up on things. But is that the is that the the issue with old people that their brains aren't plastic enough? Like, is it is it the is the reason why um boomer, well, you know, and this is just me thinking out loud and like asking myself the question is the reason why I'm saying a bunch of boomers running Congress is making the country worse, is it because their brains aren't plastic enough? Or is it because the exact people who um will desperately grasp for attention, power, and control will find themselves in the most powerful, most high status and um, you know, leverage controlled positions by the end of their lives. And they're not giving that up. And I don't know if that has anything to do with the like neuroplasticity, like the way that they feel about the changing attitudes uh to towards like LGBTQ community or something like that, I think is not why they're screwing up the country. I think it has a lot more to do with they're probably like they're probably like narcissistic psychopath uh psychopaths that are you you you see what I'm saying? Like, and we like select it's like this a accrual of social power, and you have all that and you're living like longer and longer, and it's like if you were if they were more plastic, they would just be doing they would be like doing exploitation better. Yeah, okay. Now, I um before I say this, I want to like I'm I'm not 100% sure about the actual data that supports this, but my understanding is that a lot of these psychological disorders that we've classified actually rear their heads in like our 30s or like later on in life. Like a lot of them, like um, what do you mean? Like some of these personality disorders, I think, um, you know, like borderline personality disorder, or again, I I don't want to speak with conviction about this because this is outside of my domain of expertise. But um, I believe that, yeah, like most of these things like are not as present in younger-minded people. You think younger-minded people are not more narcissistic? I would say that social media has made everybody more narcissistic. Self-centered, yeah. Yeah. Um I, yeah. I don't, yeah, I just and it's not that I guess it's just like at the there's like this a huge selection pressure by the end of people's lives, you know, the most powerful people are probably the people who are the most hungry for power there over that entire time. Sure. And that is never who you want running something that's dynamic. They're trying to get more power. Right. They're not trying to be agile, flexible, and adaptable. They're trying to include accumulate more power for themselves. Right. It's a control thing. It's very hard to control something that's like new and dynamic. And if anything, all they you know, they're gonna want to guide that thing into a way that can be more powerful for them. So it's like we need, we need people. Like that's a question that that doesn't come up. Like, we need people to die. We need people to not live forever. I don't want Elon Musk and Sam Altman and all the tech CEOs. I don't want them to live forever. I don't want them to be to like I don't want us to like figure out aging and then them they just might. I don't want that. I think that and it's not not like personally, you know, I don't think that they've I don't have like ill feelings toward them. I don't think that or I don't think that society ever pro progresses, ever, if the old people and the old ideas don't die. I think I definitely think the old ideas have to evolve. I guess death of those ideas. I feel like death and evolution can be used interchangeably in this context. There's uh I'm gonna look up this quote. It's a quote about um old physicists. Uh yeah. So just give me a second. There's a there's this quote from Max Planck, uh sort of a famous physicist, um, highly influential, very, very important in uh the foundation of our physics understanding. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that's familiar with it. And this is, you know, you think about this sort of what I'll call the golden era of physics, where all these discoveries and all these foundational realizations and um equations are being derived that like sort of bolster up everything that we know about physics now. And it's like you don't, you know, it's not it's not the hard scientific evidence that ushers in um you know, like this new understanding and acceptance of things, it's that old people die. And like obviously people accept new scientific evidence, and so you know, it's there's a little hyp hyperbole there, but even you know, a physicist. This is a guy who's going up against other scientists, and he's like, no, it's not that these are the most eloquent things, it's that these old people are dying, new people are coming up, and they learn the new ideas. And I just feel like that's there's something, yeah, like there's something about the way that we live now, and I think the way that probably humans lived for so long that you know, as you got older, things weren't always drastically changing, and you needed to conserve when you figure when you figure out something that works, you need to conserve it. And we were just like in this crazy dynamic environment. And no, like now you need to not conserve anything because things are changing so fast. You need to, you know, we have these old laws, and it's weird. Like we we like can't get rid of old laws usually, but you can like add amendment, you can like you like add things on to fix longer and longer laws, so you just get this like longer and longer and longer list of laws, and it's where. You have some things that are just completely bastardized at this point, like the right to bear arms. It's like that was for they just wanted people to be able to have guns at a time where everybody had muskets. And it was like, well, the government's just not gonna come in with their muskets and take control of everything. The people have their muskets, it's fair. But you know, the government now has nuclear bombs, the government has drones, the government has things that you and I cannot have and cannot get. So if they wanted to turn that on us, what do we, you know, how am I gonna fight back? You're gonna fight back with like a gun that you bought at Walmart or something, and so it's like it's just not it's not relevant anymore. Um, and you know, the laws are sort of like a a concrete example of this, but I think the same thing just happens with with people, like the new like we probably need to redo our our bill of rights. Yeah, yeah, I 100% agree with that. Um, I think that perhaps the next generation of tools and people can actually address these things more efficiently, because you're right. Yeah, if we die, we have to die. But we don't specifically You said the next generation of tools and people, yeah. Meaning us, we're not in like by and large, we're not in those positions to make decisions. Yeah, because we keep extending the age that we were extending. You're extending their lifespans, they need to die. Yeah, is that what you're saying? I'm saying that I think that we all think that we're so clever, and you and I think that when we get older, we'll be different than the old people. Oh, yeah, I don't think I don't necessarily think so. Right. Well, you yeah, you know, I'm I guess I'm like, I'm kind of like I'm speaking for everybody, right? Like we all think that we have the right ideas and that old people don't get it, and that's what the old people thought when they were young about the old people before them. And the only reason that things kind of get to progress is because the old people fall out of power. But we as we keep extending that that age, right? And people are accrue accrue more and more social power and financial power and influence and all these things, then you you like you hold back society. And I feel like people feel like that, you know. Um, other like our system is not working for a lot of people, and people feel that. People understand that people know that it's like what back in the day, a man that didn't even go to college could have a job, just a normal job at a factory, right? Do do like honest work and then live this super dishonest lifestyle where like you had a family in this town and this town off of like a milkman's salary, and you had all these families, you can't do that. You go to you if you get a I mean, you get a degree now and you're in debt from getting the degree, and you can't even find a job that could like pay that back quickly. It's like something that happens over a super long time. So it's like we live in a it's just super unrealistic. Yeah. I agree, I agree, but I think this is actually all supporting evidence that we should definitely stay curious and not nosy. You think so? No, I just I just made that up. Oh, okay. Yeah. I would say I don't know. I definitely agree that we should stay curious. I don't know how I don't know if that was in support of staying curious, though. Well, I think on that note, we should let everybody know that, as always, stay curious. Peace. Peace.