Lex Fridman Podcast - #283 – Chris Mason: Space Travel, Colonization, and Long-Term Survival in Space

Episode Date: May 9, 2022

Chris Mason is a professor of genomics, physiology, and biophysics at Cornell, doing research on the long-term effects of space on the human body. He is the author of The Next 500 Years: Engineering Life to Reach New Worlds. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off - Grammarly: https://grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium - Magic Spoon: https://magicspoon.com/lex - Blinkist: https://blinkist.com/lex - Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex EPISODE LINKS: Chris's Twitter: https://twitter.com/mason_lab Chris's Website: http://masonlab.net/ Chris's Company: https://onegevity.com/ The Next 500 Years (book): https://amzn.to/3k9ab4S Reasons and Persons (book): https://amzn.to/3Lrm6a5 PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (0:00) - Introduction (7:43) - Human extinction awareness (16:29) - Heat death of the universe (22:05) - Alone in the universe (25:41) - Aliens (33:50) - Entropy goggles (48:04) - Genetics (56:14) - Scott Kelly (1:02:12) - Adapting to space (1:12:13) - Sex in space (1:14:46) - Colonizing planets (1:21:25) - Culture on Mars (1:25:51) - Commercial space flights (1:33:09) - Podcast in space (1:40:43) - Axiom Space (1:42:59) - Designing space experiments (1:49:49) - Robots in space (1:52:30) - Space exploration (1:56:28) - War in space (2:00:05) - Launch toward the Second Sun (2:06:14) - Chlorohumans (2:11:50) - Extreme microbiome project (2:18:17) - Space travel breakthroughs (2:30:15) - Clones (2:36:08) - AI age prediction (2:41:38) - Advice for young people (2:47:56) - Dark times (2:52:19) - Mortality (2:56:37) - Visiting ISS and deep space (2:57:46) - Meaning of life

The following is a conversation with Chris Mason, Professor Genomics, Physiology, and Biophysics at Cornell. He and colleagues do some of their research out in space, experiments on space missions that seek to discern the molecular basis of changes in the human body during long-term human space travel. On this topic, he also wrote an epic book titled The Next 500 Years Engineering Life to Reach New World that boldly looks at what it takes to colonize space far beyond our planet and even journey out towards livable worlds beyond our solar system.

And now a quick few second mention of his sponsor. Check them out in the description, it's the best way to support this podcast. We got better help from mental health, grandmily for writing, magic spoon for cereal, blink us for books, and a sleep for her naps, choose wisely my friends. And now onto the full adreads. As always, no ads in the middle, I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, Maybe you will too.

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. It's spelled H-E-L-P-H-H-H-BetterHelp helps you figure out what you need and match it with a licensed professional therapist in under 48 hours. I recently had a conversation with Carl Diceroth, really a psychiatrist. He, at least in part, reinvigorated my curiosity, maybe passionate about psychiatry, about talk therapy, about exploring the human mind to conversation, especially when that human mind has fallen off the beaten path. One of the most moving things to me is when folks happen to run into me in the street, they'll sometimes say that, you know, me talking about love and just in general, having optimism about the future gave them strength, but I also hear

about the struggle. And I see the pain, even just a few seconds of interaction. I don't know, it makes me feel like we're together in this thing. So if you're struggling, just know we're in this together. I'm with you, brother and sister. Anyway, BetterHelp is easy, private, affordable, and available worldwide. Check them out at betterhelp.com slashlex. That's betterhelp.com slashlex.

This show is also brought to you by Grammarly, a writing assistant tool that checks spelling, grammar, set and structure, and readability. Grammarly premium, the version you pay for, offers a bunch of extra features. My favorite is the clarity check, which helps detect rambling, over complicated chaos that many of us descend into in conversation, in writing and authorize. Again, let me bring up Carl Dyseroth, who references James Joyce quite a bit in his book, Projections. This is like a long ad-read for Carl, who is awesome.

He references James Joyce, the author of Eulisys, considered one of the great novels of the 20th century, and Definington's Wake, which is complete rambling chaos, which is the kind of thing that might be good for an epic novel that explores schizophrenia, but it might not be good for like emails and tweets and all that kind of stuff. If you want to not do that kind of thing, Grammarly will help you, and it's available on any platform, major sites and apps like Gmail and Twitter and so on. It doesn't just do spell check, it helps you get your point across effectively and you

can do that with Grammarly Premium. You can get 20% off Grammarly Premium by signing up at Grammarly.com slashlex. That's 20% off at Grammarly.com slashlex. This episode is brought to you by Magic Spoon, low carb keto friendly cereal. It has zero grams of sugar, 13 to 40 grams of protein, only 4 and 9 grams of carbs and 140 calories in each serving. I think I'm having way too much fun to use that reads. And there are like much less about whatever the product is,

much more about me just talking. It's like personal therapy by myself, but also with my friends. Back to magic, you can build your own box and get a variety pack with available flavors, cocoa, fruity, frosted peanut butter, blueberry and cinnamon, but I return time and time and time again to cocoa. The flavor of champions. It reminds me of childhood. It reminds me of happiness. It just reminds me of that joy of morning cereal without the deeply unhealthy excessive amounts of sugar. Anyway, magic spoon have a 100% happiness guarantee now we're back to happiness.

If you don't like it, they refund it. Go to MagicSpoon.com slash Lex. Use code Lex. I check out to say five bucks off your order. That's MagicSpoon.com slash Lex and use code Lex. This show is brought to you by Blinkist. My favorite app for learning new things. Blinkist takes the key ideas from thousands of nonfiction books and condenses them down

to just 15 minutes that you can read or listen to. I can recommend a ton of books, Sapiens, Meditations by Marcus Rillius, Beginning of Infinity by David Doge, Snowden book, and so on. They don't have the rise and fall of the Third Reich, I don't believe, I have to check again. But they have a lot of the most important, most impactful nonfiction books ever written. If you don't have the time to read all of them, which nobody does, you should definitely use blinches to catch up on the ones that are not at the top of your stack to read. I use it both to summarize books I'll never read, but also to summarize books I've already read to remind myself to

the key insights. You can go to Blinkist.com slash Lex to start your free seven day trial and get 25% off of a Blinkist Premium membership as Blinkist.com slash Lex spelled B-L-I-N-K-I-S-D blinkist.com slash lex. This episode is brought to you by 8th sleep and it's pod pro mattress. You control temperature with an app, it's packed with sensors, you can cool down to as low as 55 degrees and each side of the bed separately. There are very few things in life, my friends, that are as pleasant as a good power nap. Sometimes I'll even drink a coffee beforehand, which I don't know how that works.

Andrew Huberman probably knows how that works, but it works. I'll drink a coffee and I'll just pass out. Now sometimes I pass out on the floor and that also works. But if I want to really enjoy the power nap, it's not just about function, it's about happiness. And if I want to enjoy happiness, there's nothing better than a cool bed with a warm blanket for 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, and then I wake up 100% refreshed. I do that because I'm in a 8-sleep Pod Pro cover that you can add to your mattress.

I add it to my mattress. You can go to a sleep.com slash Lex to check out the aforementioned Pod Pro cover and save $200 at checkout. A sleep currently ships within the USA, Canada and the UK. That's 8-Sleep.com slash Lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast and here is my conversation with Chris Mason. Your order book called the next 500 years engineering Life to Reach New Worlds, and you dedicated

to quote, to all humans in any extinction-aware sentience. How fundamental is awareness of death and extinction to the human condition? I think this is actually one of the most human-specific traits and features that we have. It's actually maybe one of the few things that only we have and no one else has. So it sounds scary. It sounds like what people often don't like to think about their death except now and again, or at funerals, or to recognize their mortality. But if you do it at a species-wide level, it's something that is actually an exemplary human-specific

trait that you're exhibiting. You think about something that is the loss of not just your life or your family or everyone you see, but everyone like you. And that is dedicated because I think we might not be the last sentience to have this awareness. I'm actually hoping we'll just be the first, but as far as we know we're the only. And I think this is the part of the moral thrust for the book is that we're the only ones that have this awareness that gives us a duty That only we can exercise so far. So we definitely contemplate our own mortality at the individual level

It is true when you wrote it It was really powerful to realize for me That we do contemplate our extinction. And that is a creative force. So at the individual level, contemplating your own death is a creative force. Like I have a deadline. But the contemplating the extinction of the whole species, I suppose that stretches through human history. That's many of the sort of through human history.

That's many of the sort of Subtext of religious ideas is that like if we screw this up is gonna be over Revelation and every religious text as some view of either the birth or the death of the world as they know it but it was very abstract. It was Fiction almost in some cases complete fiction of what you hope or think might happen. But it's become much more quantified and much more real, I think, in the past several hundred years, and especially in the past few decades, where we can see, you know, a sense of responsibility in a planetary scale. So when we think about, like, say, terraforming Mars, that would just be the second planet we've engineered at a planetary scale. We're

already doing it for this one, just not that well. Well, yeah, that's right. So we're like a bunch of ants, extinction aware sentience ants that are busy trying to terraform this planet to make it habitable so we can flourish and then you say that it's our duty to Expand beyond earth to expand to other planets To find a good backup off-site backup solution Why the word duty? It's an interesting word duty something that usually puts people to sleep I'll say this.

Duty is a bit like death. People don't often like to really think, what? Wake up in the morning. What is my duty today? Most people. There are some people that think about it every day. People in the active military service wake up. It's a very concrete sense of duty to country.

Sometimes you can think about it though in terms of family. You feel a duty towards your spouse, your kids, your parents. You feel a real duty to them because you want them to flourish and to be safe. So we do have the sense of duty, but you don't, you know, I'm very much like death. You don't think about it actively, usually, it's something it just becomes embedded in your day-to-day existence. But I think about duty because this is a, people think about duties for themselves, but there has never been a real overarching duty that we all feel as a species for each other and for generations that haven't yet been born. And I think I want people to have a sense of the same love and compassion and fighting even to the tooth and nail with the way you protect your family, the way you fight for a country, for example, to feel the same way towards the rarity and preciousness of life and feel that sense of duty towards, particularly extinction of our life, which is just us so far,

the stability that we have this awareness of not only our own frailty, which of course has often talked about and climate change and people think about pandemics, but other species that we sometimes have caused extinction, but very soon will be even de-extinctifying species like the woolly mammoth. Colossals are recent start-up that's doing that on their advisory board, and it might happen in three or four years. So, the interesting point in history where we can actually think about preventing death at a species by level and even resurrecting things that we have killed or that have gone away, which brings its own series of questions of just as when you delete something

from an ecosystem, adding something can be completely catastrophic. And so there are no real guidelines yet on how to do that, but the technology now exists, which is pretty extraordinary. Yeah, I've just been working on backup and restoring databases quite a bit recently. And you can do quite a lot of damage when you restore it properly. When we bring back the madness, it might be, you have to be careful bringing that back. Like the best of science,

the best of engineering is both dangerous and exciting. And that's why you have to have the best people, but also the most morally grounded people, pushing us forward. But on the point of duty, there's a kind of sense that there's something special to humanity, to human beings, that we want to preserve. And if that little flame, whatever that is, dies, that will be a real shame for the universe. What is that? What is special about human beings? What is special

about the human condition that we want to preserve? That's why do we matter? There are some people who think we don't. There are some people say, well, humans take it or leave it. They think they're misenthropes. So the book is on the one sense, a call to misenthropes to hopefully shake them out of their slumber. But some people would miss and throw it mean. Oh, just people that dislike humanity there. They're just again, they're all just, they're called Nile is Donny. That's a shout out for Bigelbock fans. Bigelbock fans.

They're like, nothing matters. And why does any, they can, and they just apply it more particularly to humans. But there are endless reasons, I think, to cherish and celebrate what humans have done. At the same time, many things we've done awfully, and genocide and nuclear weapons testing on unsuspecting citizens and remote islands. There are definitely things we've done bad, but the poetry, the music, the engineering feats, the getting to the moon and and eventually rovers on Mars, these extraordinary feats

that humans have already accomplished, and just a really a sense of beauty, I think, is something that is, you know, you can't ask ants or cockroaches about their favorite paintings, or maybe if you could, it would be very different from ours, but in either case, there's a unique perspective It would be very different from ours, but in either case, there's a unique perspective that we carry. And I think, so that's something, even just the old, it's an ageal question in biology. I'm a geneticist, so this comes up a lot of what makes humans unique. And so is it, by a pettelism, is it our intelligence, is it tool-making, is it language, all those things I just listed, other species have some degree of those.

So it's a question of degree, not of type of trait that defines humans a little bit. But I think for the extinction awareness, that is a uniquely human trait. That is, to our knowledge, no other species or entity or AI or sentience that carries that awareness of the frailty of life, of our own life, but all life. And maybe it is that awareness of the frailty of life that allows us to be so urgently creative, create beauty, create innovation. It just seems like if you just measure, humans are able to create some sort of subjectively beautiful things.

And I see science that way, I see engineering that way. And ants are less efficient at that. They also create beautiful things, but less aggressively, less innovation, less building, like standing on the shoulders of giants, building on top of each other over and over and over, where you're getting like these hierarchical systems. We create and create a level of abstraction, then you use ideas to communicate those ideas and you share those ideas and all of a sudden you have the rockets going on in the space. Yeah.

Which ants have been building the same structures for millions and millions of years with no real change. And so that is the key difference here. Yet. Yeah. That's right. We've got an experiment going right now and maybe they'll change. But.

Well, yeah. We will bring up some extreme organisms. Another thing you're interested in. Okay. One interesting thing that comes up much later in your book is something I also haven't thought of, and it's quite inspiring, which is the heat death in the universe. It's something worth fighting against. Like that's also an engineering problem.

Yes. You know, you kind of, I mean, you seriously look at the next 500 years. And this is such a beautiful thing. Seriously, we'll talk about like the uncertainty involved with that and all the different trajectories, but to seriously look at that and then to seriously look at like, what happens when the sun runs out? What happens when the universe comes to an end? Like we have an opportunity and a kind of duty, like you said, to fight against that. And that was so inspiring to me to think, wait, maybe we'll actually, that's a worthy

thing to think about. Like we can prevent it actually. Right. The come up with the best known understanding current of how things end. We kind of are building an intuition and data and models of the way the universe is, the way it started, the way it's going to end. So our best model of the end, let's start thinking about how that could be prevented, how that could be avoided, how that could be channeled and misdirected and you can pivot it somehow. That's really inspiring. That's really powerful. I never really thought about it. I thought that eventually all things end. And that was the kind of melancholic notion behind all of it. None of this matters in a way. To me, that's also inspiring to enjoy the moment, to really live in the moment. That is truly where beauty exists in the moment. But there is a

long-lasting aspect to beauty that is part of the engineering ethic, which is like, tell me what the problem is, and we're going to solve it. So what do you think about that, the long scale, beyond 500 years? Do humans have a chance? Absolutely. I think we have the best chance of any species and actually the best chance that humanity's ever had. I think a lot of people fear that we can or will kill ourselves. Actually, my favorite question, I ask at the end of every interview for every potential

graduate student, medical student, faculty, whoever I'm interviewing for whatever reason, yes, the last question is, well, how long do you think that humans or our evolutionary derivatives will last? And the answers are shockingly wide ranging. Some people say, I think we've only got 100 years left or some people say billion. Some people say as long as the universe lasts, but to the person who once said it was a medical student applicant who said, I think we've only got 100 years left. And I was like, really, for all of humanity, everything will be gone in 100 years.

And he said, yes. And I said, well, sweet Jesus, man, why go to med school? What do you, why not go sell bananas on the beach? And then he said, I really want to make the last, you know, a few hundred years count, really matter. And I said, oh, well, that's actually kind of sort of hopeful and a really dark way. But I think we've never been better situated to actually last for the long term. We have, even though we've also never been at the greater risk of being able to destroy ourselves ever since really the first nuclear test, where they Tony Orba is a great book about this called The

Presipus, where the precipice for humanity is at one point we made technologies that we weren't sure whether or not they would destroy the Earth or the entire universe, so the math was incomplete and there was too much air, but they tested the bomb anyway. But it's an extraordinary place as a species, you think. We now have something in our hands that may destroy the Earth and possibly exchange reaction that destroys the universe. Let's try it anyway. It's a stage that we're at as a species.

With that power comes an ability to get to other planets to survive long term. And when you think about the heat depth, that just becomes, that's an ad infinitum question. If you keep thinking, well, we go to the next sun, and then you go to the next sun, eventually the question will be, well, if you just keep doing that forever, at some point, the universe either continues to expand or could collapse by Ken of itself, and that heat death is more likely at this point where it just keeps expanding and expanding everything is too far away. But even in that case, I think if we had a fundamental knowledge of physics and space time that you could try and restructure it quite literally the shape of the universe to prevent

it, I think we would. I think we would want to survive. I think, you know, unless we had done the math and we think that there's a greater chance that the next universe would form and make more life, maybe we would want to survive. I think, you know, unless we had done the math and we think that there's a greater chance that the next universe would form and make more life maybe we would, but even then. I think humans have always wanted to survive and you could argue maybe should survive because. And are able to engineer systems that help us survive. Yeah, yeah, and always have you. So what is this though? The Zarbam, yeah, the hydrogen. So what is this though, the Zarbam, yeah, the hydrogen,

yeah, there's nothing more terrifying and somehow inspiring than watching the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. It's like humans are capable of this. They're capable of leveraging the power of nature. To completely obliterate everything and to create propulsion. I mean, most of the void space craft are nuclear powered because it's still in many ways the most efficient way to get a tiny amount of visible material and make power out of it.

So they're still slowly drifting their path to heliosphere. They're now into interstellar space and they're nuclear powered. So it's like any tool or technology. It's a tool or a weapon depending on how you hold it. Are we alone in the universe, Chris Mason? What do you think? So the presumption that you've just mentioned is let's just focus on our thing. For now.

Well, I think we, as far as we know, with the other sentient life on the universe that we've found yet. And I think there's probably bacteria life out there, just because we've found it everywhere we've looked on Earth. There's Halo-Philic organisms that can survive in extreme salts. There are cyclophiles that can be in extreme cold. There's basically organisms that can survive in really almost any possible environment you

can adapt and find a way to live. But as far as we know, we're the only sentient ones. And I think this is the famous the Drake equation or how many, where is everyone? Is that what Enrico Fermi said is that why have we heard from anyone, there are all these other life forms? I actually think the question is wrong to phrase it that way because the earth has only been here for 4.5 billion years. And life may be only for a few billion of those years, complex life only for several hundred years, a hundred million years of life we've actually had,

humans only in the past few million years since our last common ancestor. So it's not that much time. But even further back, the universe hasn't had that much time itself to cool and create atoms and have them spread around the universe. So the current estimates, 13.8 billion years of just the whole universe, but it's spent the first five or six of those billion years really just like cooling and making enough of the stars to then make the atoms that would come from supernova.

So I actually think we might be the first, or sit one of the very few, or one of the early life forms, but the universe itself hasn't had that much time to make life in a galactic and a galactic and universal time frame. You needed billions of years for the elements to be created and then distributed. And we're only really in the last few billion years where I think even life could have been made. So I think the question of where ever is everyone is the wrong question.

I think the question is, I think we're the first ones at the party. Let's set up the liquor. let's set up the food. We, I just think we're the first ones at the party of life, but more people are coming. One of the early attendees to the party. Yeah, maybe the first, as far as we know the first, but maybe we'll find the local pocket of the universe. Cause the party's then expand and it overflows.

Yeah, and then there's a mosh pit and then bump into the other galaxy. I think the question should be, when else is everyone getting here instead of where is everyone? I think we've just started on the genesis of life in the universe. Yeah, so not worry, have they or not more about when and who and how do we set up the party. Right. And then how do we help them? I think it's an interesting other moral question is do we, you know, the a lot of start to work out, but so is you the prime director, is you do not interfere with another planet if you could pass by a planet. I think it's time to also revisit that because what if what if you go by a planet and we think that with as far as we can tell,

with another certain day that they would never be able to leave their planet. And then the Sun eventually would engulf that planet, wherever that planet might be in some solar system. But if we had a way to help them, their culture, their science, their technology, everything about a different species to survive, would we not interfere?

Interfer, I think that would actually be wrong to say, well, we can save this life here, and we decide not to. We decide, after built millions and billions of years past, and we know the sun will engulf that planet. Like, what will happen with our planet? And we don't interfere. That's, you know, watching a train hits someone on the tracks and not moving the train. So, I mean, in terms of the effort of humans becoming multi-puntary species, in terms of priorities, how much would you allocate to trying to make contact with aliens and getting their help? And if we look at the next 500 beyond years, and just versus option number two,

really just focusing on setting up the party on our own engineering, on our own, the genome, the biology of humanity, the AI collaborating with humans, just that all the engineering challenges and opportunities that we're exploring. I'm focused in my lab, of course, a lot on the engineering of genomes, the monitoring

of astronauts' long missions. Reaching out to other aliens, we've been doing reach out to aliens since the first radio waves have been broadcast, so we're doing some of it, but to do them real. Made it sound like your lab is mostly focused on the biology, but you also reach out occasionally to aliens. Occasionally, when they visit, they bring their whiskey, and we have a drink. But the, I think we can do, we've been broadcasting into space for, you know, at this point, almost a century, getting close to, and, you know, so, but it's not been structured.

So I think it's very cheap and easy to send out structured messages, like Carl Sagan wrote about in contact during prime numbers and sending those out to indicate intelligence. So this thing we can do that I think are very cheap and very easy. So we should do some of that. We can walk in to go with the same time. This is one of the biggest critiques people often say of space research and even space flight in general. It's too expensive. Shouldn't we solve poverty? Shouldn't we cure diseases? And the answer is always, as it always has been, is that you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can pass the Civil Rights Act and go to the moon in the same decade. You can improve and get rid of structural inequality while getting to the moon and Mars in this decade. So I think we can do both.

Yeah, they kind of help each other. There's sometimes criticism of like ridiculous science, like studying penguins or something, or studying the patterns of birds or fish and so on. Some congressman stands up and says, this is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and then we, for example, CRISPR was pure research for 25 years. Now it's a household word and students are editing

genomes in high school, but it was just pure research on weird bacteria, living actually in salt, hyper saline lakes and rivers for decades, and then eventually became a massive therapeutic, which is like the curing of diseases in this past year. And there's stuff that you discover as part of the research that you didn't anticipate.

They have nothing to do with the actual research. Like oceanography is one of the interesting things about that whole field is that it's a huge amount of data in your science, too, actually. So you could discover computer science things, like machine learning things, or even data storage manipulation distributed compute things by having to forcing yourself to get something done about on the oceanography side. That's how you invent the internet and all those kinds of things. So to me, aliens, looking for aliens out there in the universe is a motivator that just inspires, inspires everybody, young people, old people, scientists, artists, engineers, entrepreneurs, everybody.

Somehow, that line between fear and beauty, because we're... Aliens are like perfectly merged basically. Because we don't know. I mean, for you, let's start talking about primitive alien life. Are you excited by it or are you terrified? I want to make a lotion out of it. I think it'd be great if it's alien life, assuming it's safe, but I'm very excited. It doesn't have to be a little bit.

You just said a half sentence, presuming it's safe. That's the fundamental question. I'm trying to get it. So if you could, you're presuming it's safe. So I think, you know, we have this, this beginning of some planetary protection is happening now. We're going to send, we're bringing rocks back

from Mars in 2033, if all goes according to plan. But there's always a danger of what if you bring this back and what if it's alive, what if it will kill all of humanity or Michael Crater and wrote a book, The Andromeda Strang about this very idea. And we could, but it hopefully won't. And the only way you can really gauge that is the same way

we do with any infectious agent here on Earth, if it's a new pathogen, a new organism, you do it slowly, carefully, you often do it with levels of containment. So, you know, and it's going to be probably have to be where some pioneers go and be, for example, on Mars. There might be other organisms there

that only get activated once there's an ambient temperature and more humidity than suddenly the first settlers on Mars are encountering a strange new fungus or something that's not even like a fungus because it might be a different clade of life, different branch of life, and could be very dangerous. Or it could be very inert. I mean, most of life on Earth on Earth is not really dangerous or harmful. Let me go back to that. Most of life on earth is neither harmful nor beneficial to you.

It's just they're making its own way in the universe, just trying to survive. It's when it's inside of you and replicating in your cells and destroying your cells like a virus like COVID, XRCV2, that becomes a big problem of course. But it just doesn't really have agency, it's just trying to get by.

And so, for example, most of the bacteria on the table on your skin in the subway are pretty inert. They're just, you know, people hanging around for the ride. And actually, just because we're talking so much trash about viruses, most viruses are, don't bother humans. They're phages, almost all the vast majority of viruses are phages.

There's this battle in the biology that is really dorky. Is that bacteria think that they're the most, people study bacteria, think the bacteria are the most important, because there's trillions and trillions of them. They run a lot of our own biology in our body. But then people who study phages, they say, well, there's 10 times more phages in their bacteria, which can attack the bacteria and destroy them as well.

So phage people think that they run the world, but we need them both. What do you think about viruses? So, because you said alien organisms, wouldn't we encounter something like bacteria, something like viruses, as the first alien life form? Are they, first of all, are viruses alive or not? So by the book definition, if you pick up a biology textbook, they'd say technically no, because they don't have the ability to self-replicate independently. But I would think if you restructure how you view what life is, as there's just autonomously aggregating and replicating of information,

for example, AI at some point, what if there's an AI platform that we could consider alive? At what point would you allow it to say it's alive? And I think we have the same definitional challenge there, is that if it can continually propagate instructions for its own existence, then it is a version of living. I think viruses don't get that category because they can't do it on their own, but they are a version of life, I'd say, but probably not alive. Well, they are expressing themselves and doing so on occasion quite powerfully in human At which point are AI systems allowed to say more life? We are allowed Humans must allow them and the viruses didn't ask for permission to express themselves the humans

They just kind of they just kind of did yeah, we didn't have to allow them Are they overall though exciting or terrifying to you as somebody who has studied viruses? Whenever given two options, there's always two more. I can do both or neither. So here I'll say they're both terrifying and exciting, I think, to me. More exciting than terrifying, I think. If I had to make that sandwich and how many layers are meat versus cheese, there's a lot more cheese of excitement.

And meat isn't... Meat is the fear of... Is the fear in this metaphor for the sandwich. Well, I love both. So it's a hell of a delicious sandwich. You quote, President Dwight D Eisenhower in your book, quote, plans are useless, but planning is essential. And you provide a thought experiment called entropy goggles. He described this thought experiment called entropy goggles. He can describe this thought experiment.

Happily, I do this almost every day somewhere when I'm sitting in a given room, I will cook, I'm gonna about that quote, actually for all the NASA planning meetings for the Twin Study and other missions that was often the quote that goes put up on the wall before we sit down for the data plan, the mission. It was that quote, which I was-

Clantous. Clantous, the book planning center, which I thought was hilarious for official NASA meeting, but it was because you need to have a plan, but you have to know that plan might change. And so I think that's just a quick context for that quote. I'd like Craig Kundro, who's a leader at NASA, his headquarters now. I would always put that first slide up and I'm like, hmm, this meeting, you're going to go really well, I really bad. I don't know what's about to happen, but, but it's an inspiring quote because it's very true.

In any case, the Entry Peak goggles is a thought experiment. I detail in my book, which is if you just sit in a room, any room, wherever you are, and imagine what it will look like in 10 years, 100 years, 500 years, or even thousands of years, it is a wonderfully terrifying and exciting exercise against, definitely both, because he realized the transience of everything that you think of what might survive. Almost everything that you're looking at will probably not be there in hundreds of years. It will be, it will be at least degraded or might be changed, altered, completely different

moved. It is just, in that trait though of humans, they just sit there and project into the future. It's easily, really seamlessly with whatever you're doing and previously is powerful because it shows what can change and what should change in some cases, but also that it's own devices, the universe would contribute, come takeover

and really things would decay, things would be destroyed, but the only thing really preventing, I think some of the entropy is really humans. These sort of sentient creatures that are aware of extinction like ourselves is really one of the only forces in the universe that's counteracting the second law of thermodynamics, this entropy that's always increasing. Technically, we're actually still increasing it because we emit heat and we never have perfect capture

of all of energy, but we're the only increasing it because we emit heat and we never have perfect capture of all energy But we're the only things really actively and consciously Resisting it really you could say life in general does this like ants do this when they build their big homes They're rearranging the universe to make a nice place themselves and they're you know counteracting entropy But we could actually do it in a way that would be at a large scale and for long term So but the entropy goggles is just a way to realize how transient everything is and just imagine everything that will decay or change in the room around you. So anyone listening, if they're listening on a train or they're driving on their car

or someone is listening right now, looking around, everything can and will change. And so you, but at first it's terrifying to see that, oh my gosh, everything will decay and go away. But then I think it's terrifying to see that oh my gosh everything will decay and go away But then I think it's actually liberating. I think wait. I can affect this change I can prevent it or I can affect it or I can improve the change that may occur all by itself say naturally And so I think it is but is that awareness again of like another frailty of life the ever Insistence and increase in entropy that you can address, though. And actually, I say the same thing to first your medical students. I teach them genetics.

I say, I point early in the course, I say, here's all these charts of how the human body decays over time. And I call it the inexorable march towards molecular oblivion, which the students often find that kind of laugh at all, I know the charts are 22 years old but older people do not laugh as much of the thought of molecular oblivion but we're all marching towards it to a large degree. So this is both a great thought experiment for the environment around you so just looking at all the objects around you that they will dissipate they'll disappear with time that they will dissipate, they will disappear with time.

But then it's also the thing you mentioned, which is how can I affect any of the world? Like you're one little creature, and it's like your life is kind of, you get dropped into this ocean and you make a little splash. And how do I make it so the splash lasts for a little bit longer? Because it ultimately will, I suppose the wave will continue indefinitely, but it would be such a small impact that it's almost intetectable. And so how do I have that impact at all? On so many levels, I get to experience this as a human.

Like I recently had my cold storage hacked to where I was locked, essentially it wasn't hacked, it was locked. And so you get to lose all your data. So for example, if you lose all your data, if you lose all your online presence, your social media, your emails, if you, like your online presence, your social media, your emails, if you like think of all the things you could lose in a fire, there's been a lot of fires in the United States. If you lose your home, and it makes you realize, wait a minute, this is exactly a nice simulation of what will happen anyway eventually, and that eventually comes pretty quickly. And so it allows you to focus on,

you know, how can I actually affect what matters, what lasts. And what brings me joy? I suppose that the ultimate answer is nothing lasts. So you have to focus on the things in the moment that bring your joy and that have a positive impact on those around you. Focusing on something that's long lasting is perhaps, I don't know, it's complicated, right? Because like, it used to be foolhardy to say, I want to think, like, legacy is often what people think of as they approach the end of their life. What is my legacy? What have I done? Even younger in life. But it used to be really foolhardy to say I could affect something that would, people would build the building,

architectures, I've had my name on this building and there I have some sense of immortality. But that's a, it's a fleeting dream, it's not, you can't reach immortality. And if you could, it would be resource, you know, a taxing on everyone else if you really really were. But I think it's, it's okay. I mean, the books of the next 500 years, but I presume will be dead for the vast majority of that time. And I, I, but that is, that is actually the liberating state of mortality is you know that you don't have

forever. So it means what can you do that is the most impactful, but you can build things that you said, I want to pass this on to the next generation again, the most obvious thing we do with this is if people have kids, but they don't think of this as a intergenerational responsibility to think of as well. I was at the bar one night and that there's hot girl and then things happen. Sometimes it's more planned than that, but the the there's no overarching sense of weight. I could have something that three or four generations from novel said someone will receive this gift that was planned for them long before they were born or just dating. And I think we have that capacity and that that can be a version of legacy, but it's even okay if if no one knows exactly who started it, but that the benefit was was brought by people, you know, again hundreds or even thousands of years after you got it started. So I think this is, you can, something that is only really people that are economically secure, can even begin to do this,

where you can say, you know, think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where you need to satisfy your physical needs, all your structural needs, and have shelter. And so, you know, I'm sitting from a position of great privilege to be able to pontificate about what I hope I could do for things for people that come to an introduction now. But nonetheless, more and more people can do that. Humanities have never been in a better state quantifiably to be able to start to think about these intergenerational responsibilities. Yeah, this is an interesting balance.

Cause like, it seems that if you let the eagle flare up a little bit, that's good for productivity. Like saying, I can somehow achieve a mortality if what I do is going to be pretty good. But then that's actually being kind of dishonest with yourself, because it won't, in the long-arguifistory, it won't matter in terms of your own ego, but it will have a small piece to play in a larger puzzle. And it helped me. Yeah. I mean, people made generations from now.

And that they said, there are all these people who were looking after me before I was ever born. And I think it's because it's a bit of just, even just know what if, when you go to a campsite, there's a camping rule that you always leave the campsite better than you found it. So if the fire pit was somewhat damaged and you got that you fix it, if there was no wood, you leave a few bits of logs for the next person who comes. And this ethos is something that just picked up from camping. And so I think if we did that as people, the world would be a better place and the world

coming ahead would also be. That said, with these entropy glasses, how can you see through the fog? 500 years is a long time. First of all, why 500 years? Most people, this is so refreshing. Because most colleagues and friends I talk to don't have the guts to think even like 10 years out. They start doing wishy-washy kind of statements about,

well, you don't know, but it's so refreshing to say, all right, I know there's so many trajectories that this world can take, but I'm going to pick a few and think through them and think what it's the, well, it's the quote, right, plans are useless, but planning is essential. So why 500 years? So 500 was a little bit of what I felt like I could see

clearly through the entropy goggles. I feel like I can't just the contradiction in terms of it. Right, right, right. I can see. I mean, for example, if you said Chris, what's going to happen in a million years? Well, I'll start to describe, you know, what happens to the moon will be farther away because it moves several inches away every year. And so then eventually you can't have a full lunar eclipse after a while. I think about structures of the continental change and things that I could say to describe some things. But it starts to become so vague. It's just not a useful exercise. I think if it's too far out, if it's too soon, that's not that much different

from what people just do with the news and say, I think this is what the economy might look like over the next year or two years, economists are notoriously not held accountable when they have really bad predictions. You can make really awful predictions. No one seems to carry. You can just make another one next week. So, too short is, I think, not necessarily as helpful. But 500, actually when I was first working on the book and thinking about time, I thought, well, do I do a thousand or two? I kept thinking about the main idea was if I were to pick this up 500 years from now, what would it look like? I changed the number.

If I pick up a thousand years from now or a hundred, and I kept trying to think of, what are some time frames were really large-scale changes have happened? And so, in some sense, you could argue that humans been mostly the same for about three or 4,000 years. And the best examples is, you looked at some of the Homer's poems or the Greek tragedies and

Eta Pist for example, the humans are really almost identical. We're still petty and people, you know, have affairs and people do things They shouldn't and people it's it's a saying though all those things like it's bad It's just me you like you read that it's it's astounding and in some sense soothing that the Greek tragedies of 2300 years ago are very relatable to what happens in like in every high school, right? So like, you know, people that's why you read them in high school like oh, that's really a clear part of the human condition So on that sense some things are really permanent But I want to think of a few reasons I chose 500 is that it's a time frame where I could foresee Clear development of some buyer technology that will get us to a new place,

including missions to Mars that are planned that will be there in that we'd start to have settlements there on the moon and Mars. And I could see also that by that time I think we would have enough knowledge of biology and technology and space medicine to start to prepare for an interstellar mission, to actually send people on a craft that would have what's called a generation ship, people live and die on the same spacecraft on the way towards a destination. But I think we need that much time to actually perfect the technology and to learn enough about physiology to be able to make it for that distance. And the book is kind of focused on the human story. It says a specific slice of the possible futures. Yes. There could

be sort of AI systems, there could be other technologies that kind of build up the world. So much of the world might be lived in virtual reality. So you're not touching any of that. You're sticking to biology or not. You're you're touching a little bit, but focus on what the cells that make up the human body. How do they change? How do we design technologies to repair them? And how do we protect them? And as they travel out into the cosmos.

Absolutely. And it's something that is part of the duty. If your duty is to keep life safe, and you have to consider all means to do so, and engineering life to save itself is definitely on that list. I think we can imagine in that time frame, 500 years that we would, you know, there will be AI that is continuing the advancing. And I actually say that I'm matter agnostic towards cognition. So if your matter is carbon atoms and cells and tissues and you have cognition,

bravo, good for you. If you're silicon based and you're in chips and you're in AI, that's all virtual. But we reach a state of, you know, well beyond the touring test and really clearly intelligent. Congratulations to you too. So I feel like this sense of duty is applicable regardless of what the state of matter your cognition is based in. So I would imagine that AI platforms that are really intelligent might also get a sense of the study, or I hope that what I wrote the books that I'm doing, that can carry that flame of whatever makes human special. So, but why nevertheless is so much of your focus on this human meat vehicle? Do you think is it essential? It doesn't have to be meat.

No, it definitely does not. It could be, I'm hoping that the AI platforms that we've built or that would become, that would start to build themselves, would also carry the sense of duty. Because at that point, they would be life. And so whichever means that life, whatever form life takes, it should have this duty I think. Will it have the lessons of genetics genomics DNA and RNA and proteins and the squishy stuff that mixes.

Human are those lessons a temporary thing that will discard or it will those lessons be carried forward. I mean like if the machines completely take over, let's say, and it's all, not necessarily completely take over, but either completely take over or merge with humans in some interesting way, where we, as opposed to figuring out how to repair cells and protect cells, we start having some cyborg cells. We could, I think we will, they'll definitely be a blending,

and blending's already happened. There's prosthetic limbs, there's cybernetic limbs. There's neural link, progress being made to blend the biology and cybernetics and machines for sure. But I think the long-term, we'll see that they are fairly, the biology would be useful because it's a manufacturing system. All of life is a way to create copies of things or to replicate information, including storage of information.

Actually, the hard drives are probably one of the worst ways for long-term storage. DNA might end up being the best way to have millennia or even longer-est-scale storage where you want some data has redundancy that's built in and it can store and can be put at really cold temperatures and survive even cosmic rays. That's more. So I think it, DNA might be the best hard drive of the future potentially.

This is really interesting. OK, what is DNA? What is RNA? And what are genes? Yes, we should go, because most, I presume the audience knows it, but something might just be first time listeners come. There's a person right now who's like in Brazil smoking a joint sitting on the beach and just wants to learn about DNA.

So please, please, please explain it to me. DNA, the DXI ribonucleic acid is the recipe for life. It is what carries the instructions in almost all of your cells. You have a copy of your genome. It's actually the reason I became a geneticist is because the day I learned, as an embryo, we started this as a single cell, but all the instructions there to make every single type

of cell in your body, I was and still am endlessly fascinated by that, that is extraordinary. That is, to me, the most beautiful thing in the entire universe. That is a complete, from one single embryo, everything is there to make the entire body. Which aspect of that is most beautiful thing in the entire universe. That is a complete from one single embryo, everything is there to make the entire body. Which aspect of that is most beautiful. So is it that there is this information within

DNA that store efficiently and it also stores information on how to build, not just what to build. And so from all of that is what's the sexiest, what's the most beautiful aspect? Does the entire machinery or is it just the information is there? It's the effect of the machinery is the information, like that they basically, it becomes its own manufacturer is what is extraordinary. I imagine if you took a one, two by four and you threw it on the ground and you said,

I'll be back in a day and then a whole house was made when you came back. I mean, we would all lose our minds. A lot of people would poop their pants. People would have to wear adult diapers. It would be a big scene if that happened. And then we're not actually getting close to that if people are having autonomous house building.

It's not quite there yet, but there are people trying to make robots that won't build entire houses. But you need much more than the block of wood. Right, right. That's the extraordinary thing. Is it just one piece of wood there in sale? Just leave it there for a few days, and I'll come back.

That's basically what embryos do. Okay, it takes nine months a little bit longer, but still that is nothing short of magic, right? So I think that's what I love about, the fact that DNA carries that information. Now, the information is static, so to actually read that information and to actually put into motion is where RNA comes in.

So this ribonucleic acid, so it just has one other oxygen added to it versus DNA, So to actually read that information and to actually put into motion is where RNA comes in. So this ribonucleic acid, so it just has one other oxygen added to it versus DNA, but it is the transcribed version. It's like, if you look at a book and you say, you can have it in your hands, but then you start to read it aloud. It becomes the active form of the recipe for life is the RNA. And then as RNA is also then, you get translated become proteins, to become active forms like enzymes, you think of like your hair,

or you think of other ways you digest food, there's always active proteins going around that are copying your DNA, making RNA, making sure your DNA is safe. This is all these built-in systems to keep your cells in check and working, and these are often in protein form. And so genes are the really these constructs, basically, what are the instruction sets?

I come many versions of instructions do you have in your genome. So the genome is the collection of all the DNA of a person for humans, about 3 billion letters of genetic code. So just 3 billion ACs, Gs, and Ts, these nucleotides that are the recipe for life, and that's it. That is the entire instruction set to go from that one embryo up to a full human, which is pretty efficient to say. It's that section, not that much information.

And in that 3 billion letters are snippets of the genes, which are independently regulated autonomous instruction sets, if you will. These really active forms of the instructions from your DNA to say, make a protein, make this RNA, or turn off some other part of a cell. All those instructions are there in our DNA and there's about 60,000 of these genes that are in our genome. So how do those all lead up to you having a personality, good memory and bad memory?

Some of the functional characteristics that we at the human level are able to interpret the way your face looked, the way you smile, you're good at running or jumping, whether you're good at math and all those kinds of things. There's an age-old debate of nature versus nurture, so like most things, if given two options, you can of course have both. Almost every trait that we know of in humanity has mixtures of nurture and nature. Some of them are purely nurture.

So most people probably familiar with twin studies, but twin studies are one of the best ways to gauge how much is something nurture versus nature. How much of it is really ingrained and has probably less ability to change versus how much can you really train. So height, for example, is one of the most obvious and heritable traits, but it doesn't have one gene.

It probably has at least 50 or 60 genes that contribute to height. So there's not like a gene for height. Some people think of like the gene for cystic fibrosis. Now that's, in that case, that's true. There is one gene that if you have mutations, you get cystic fibrosis as a disease. But for other traits, they're much more complicated.

They can have dozens or even hundreds of genes that influence your risk and what appears. But from twins studies, you take monols, I got a twin twins that are identical. And you can clearly tell they look to have the same facial structure, similar intonation, similar even likes. And you compare them to dyes, I got a twins. Or when you have fraternal twins, you can have a male and female, for example, in the same uterus. And are, you know, dyes that got twins or two sigots. So in that case, they're 50% or 50% of their DNA, but they share the same womb. And then what you can look at is they, you know, what's the difference between identical twins versus fraternal twins and calculate that difference for any trait, and that gives

you an estimate of the heritability or what's called H squared. So that's what we've been doing for almost every trait in humanity for the past, you know, a hundred years have been trying to measure this. And religion is one that's a negative control. So if you separate people and see what religion they become, there's no gene for religion or what religion you choose. So that often is their correlation there is zero because it should be. It's a nurture trait of what religion you end up taking is not encoded in your DNA. Religion, meaning Islam, Judaism, Christianity, but there could be aspects of religions that... There is a good question.

There is a religiosity as a trait in which it's been studied in twins. And that has a heritable component to some degree. So, and things like boredom susceptibility is a trait one of my favorite papers is looked at, how likely is it that people could board? And they looked at identical twins and general twins, and there's a heritability about 30% so it's not, it's mostly not heritable it's like mostly environmental but that means the some degree whether

not your board you can say well it's a little bit of my genes you could not a lot but you know most have some degree and they're probably overlapping with other traits like your boredom susceptibility versus risk seeking behavior are interrelated. So how likely are you to say, I want to go, you know, a cliff jumping or I want to go, I'm going to do free-basing or I want to do some else that's risky behavior. So speaking of twin studies,

Scott Kelly spent 340 consecutive days out in space. You analyzed this molecular data DNA, RNA protein, small molecules, what did you learn about the effect of space on the human body from Scott? We learn that space is rough on the human body, but that the human body is amazingly and monstrously responsive to adapt to that challenge, it can rise to the occasion.

So we can see their, Scott had, as almost all astronauts do, a bit of puffiness and spikes in his bloodstream of these, what are called cytokines, these inflammation markers of the body is clearly saying to itself, holy crap, I'm in space. And leaders of fluid moved to the upper torso and they get a puffy face, what's called the,

and the astronaut face that is very common, but it goes away after a few days. And some astronauts maintain high levels of stress for their whole mission, as mentioned by cortisol or some of these other inflammation markers, whereas Scott actually had a little spike, but then he was cool as a cucumber for most of the mission. But he had spent at that time, it was the longest ever mission for a US astronaut. A few cosmonauts have gone a little bit longer, but there'd never been a deep molecular analysis of what happens to the body after about a year in space.

So it was the first study of this kind. And what we found is when he got back, we saw all the same markers of stress on the body and changes spiked up to levels we'd never seen for any other astronaut before. So it seemed like going to space for a year wasn't so hard as much as returning to space for a year wasn't so hard as much as returning to gravity after a year.

It was much harder on the body. He notoriously had, you know, broke out in a rational over his body. And really, even the weight of clothing on his skin was too heavy. It created all this irritation because his body had not felt the weight of just a simple t-shirt. It wasn't really, had zero weight, of course, right?

So in opt in space. So that led to all this inflammation on these changes. He had to, you know, it was much more comfortable just to walk around nude. In that case, it was for medical reasons. Some people do this, you know, recreationally, he was doing it for medical purposes. I do it for medical reasons. I made you a strong strength all the time. I mean, people say prescription doctors told me. So he was allergic to earth. Yeah, I think that's fascinating to think about actually how quick it is body adapt there. So there was about three to four days, he got back to normal, at least in terms of the inflammation. But what's extraordinary is that we measured a lot of other molecules, genes, structural changes, tissue, look at his eyeballs, look at his vascular, it took him even six months after the mission, a lot of the genes that had become activated in response to spaceflight were still active.

So things like we could see his body repairing DNA. He was being irradiated by cosmic rays and by the radiation. It's the equivalent of giving a three or four chest x rays every day just in space. And we could see his body working hard at the molecular level to repair itself. And even in his urine, we could see bits of what's called eight oxo-guana zines, a form of damaged DNA that you could see coming out. And we see it for other astronauts as well. So it's very common. You can see damaged DNA, the response of the body to repair the DNA.

But even though he'd been back on Earth for six months, that was still happening even six months later. How do you explain that? So some of this has to do with, when you have a gene get activated, you might think, oh, it's like a light switch. I look at my wall, just flip a light on or off. And sometimes turning a gene on or off is that simple. Sometimes you just flip it on

because the gene is already ready to go. Other cases that you have to reprogram even the structure of how your DNA is packaged, just called an epigenetic rearrangement. And that case, we could see in it that a lot of these genes had been, in their cells had changed the structure of our DNA was packaged, and it remained open even months after the mission. Now, after about a year, it was actually almost all back to normal 99% of all

the genes were back to where they were in pre-flight levels. So it means that, you know, eventually you'll adapt, but there was almost a leg time, kind of like jet leg for the body, but jet leg for your cells to repair all the DNA. What was the most surprising thing that you found in that study? There are several surprises. One is just that the repair, as I just mentioned, the repair took so long. I thought maybe a week or a few days, it'll be back to normal. But to see this molecular echo in his cells of his time and space, still occurring, was interesting. This telomeres was one of those surprising. The caps and the ends of your chromosomes, which keep all your DNA packaged, and you could have your chromosomes from your mother and half from her father, and then you go on and

make all your cells. Normally the shrink as you get older, and telomeres, just like this, just an overall sign of aging, getting shorter, his telomeres got longer in space. And it was really surprising because we thought the opposite would happen. So he that was genetically one surprise and also some of the mutations we found in his blood, he had less mutations in blood. As if his body was almost being like a low dose of radiation was sort of cleansing his body, maybe the cells that were about to die as one of our main theories on what's happening. And of course, you can't really, you have theories, but you can't. The number of subjects in the study is small.

Right. It's notoriously one of the lowest-powered studies in human history, yes. But you lack in subjects you can make up for in the number of sampling times. So we did basically 260 samples collected over the course of three years. So we really, almost every few weeks, had a full workup, including in space. So that was the way we tried to make up for it. But we've tried another model organisms. In mice we've seen this, we've looked now in 59 other astronauts.

And in every astronaut that we've looked at, their telomeres get longer in space. Does that indicate anything about lifespan and all those kinds of things? Or no, you can't make any of those kinds of jumps. Yeah, I want to make that jump yet, but it does indicate that there is a version of cleansing, if you will, that's happening in space.

Make sure, we see this actually clinically at our hospital, you can do a low dose of radiation with some targeted therapies to kind of activate your immune cells is even tried clinically. So this idea of just a little bit of stress on the body or what's called hormesis might prime you into active of cleansing things that we're about to die. And that includes stress caused by space.

Yes, yeah, apparently. So how do we adapt the human body to stress of this kind for periods of multiple years? What lessons do you draw from that study and other experiments in space that give you an indication of how we can survive for multiple years? I think we know that the radiation is one of the biggest risk factors and this has been well described by NASA and many other astronauts and researchers. And so there we don't have to just measure the radiation or just look at DNA being damaged. We can actually actively repair it.

This happens naturally in all of our cells. There's little enzymes, little protein, and really many machines that go around and scan DNA for nicks and breaks and repair it. We could improve them, we could add more of them or you can even activate them before you go into space. So we have one set of cells in my lab where you activate them before we already at them to actually prepare them

for the dose of radiation. And now that is what's called epigenetic CRISPR therapies where you can actually, instead of adding or taking away a gene or modifying a cell, you just change kind of how it's packaged, like I was describing with the DNA. The genes are still there. We're just changing how they get used. And so you can actually preemptively activate the DNA repair genes. And we've done this for cells. We haven't done this yet for astronauts, but we've done it

for cells. And a similar idea to this is being used to treat sickle cell disease and beta-thelophthenium. You can reactivate a gene that was dormant as a therapy. So should we make human genes resilient to harsh conditions or should we get good at repairing them? I wanna get good at, okay, start to interrupt. I think every time I ask this question, you'll have taught me that there's always a third option. That's the same both. I will say both. I know, you know, for copy,

it's good to just have one big statement, but you wanted to do both, or a third option, I would want to, you's good to just have one big statement, but you want to do both a good or a third option. I would want to do the electromagnetic shielding. I would want to do a fourth option of maybe some other kind of physical defenses. Outside of the human body. Yeah, so we're taking the same passion to keep astronauts safe that's outside them and just putting it in their cells is what I propose.

And I was a bit radical today because we're just starting this in clinical trials to treat diseases on Earth. So it's not ready, I think, to do an astronauts, but in the book I proposed by about the year 2040. That's when we'd reach this next phase where I think we'll have known enough about the clinical response. We'll have the technology ironed out. That's about when it's time I think to try it.

So what are some interesting early milestones? So you said 2040, what do we have to look forward to in the next 10, 20 years? According to your book, according to your thoughts. A lot of really exciting developments where if you really want to activate genes like I was just describing or repair a specific disease gene, you can actually crisper it out and modify it. This has been already published and well documented. But as I was alluding to, more and more, we'll see people that you just want to temporarily

change your genes functions and change their activity. So the best example, this is for beta thylacemia. We all have hemoglobin in our blood that carries oxygen around. And we are an adult, it's a different version. It's a different gene. You have one gene when your feet is called fetal hemoglobin when you're adult, it's a different version. It's a different gene. You have one gene when you're a fetus called fetus fetal hemoglobin when you're adult. You have a different gene, but they're both

are making a protein that carries oxygen. When you after you're born, the fetal hemoglobin gene gets just turned off, just goes away and you replace it with adult hemoglobin. But if you're a gene for hemoglobin is bad as an adult, then one of the therapies is, well, let's turn back on the gene that you had when you were a fetus. And it's actually already led to cures for sickle cell and beta thelcemia in this past

year. So it's this extraordinary idea of like, well, you already have some of the genetic solutions in your body. Why don't we just reactivate them and see if you can live and indeed you can. So I think we'll see more of that. That's for severe disease, but eventually you can see it for more, I think, work-related purposes. Like if you're working in a dangerous mind or in a high radiation environment,

you could basically start to prime it for, work safety basically. We need to genetically protect you. Now, it would have to be shown that that genetic option is safe, reliable, that it's better, that at least as good or if not better than other shielding methods. But I think we'll start to see that more in the next 10, 20 years.

And eventually, as I described in the book, you could get to recreational genetics. You could say, well, I want to turn some genes on just for this weekend because I'm going to a high altitude. So I'd like to prepare for that. And so instead of having to take weeks and weeks for acclimation, you could just do some quick average genetic therapies and have a good time in the mountains

and then come back and turn them back off. So this is stuff to do on Earth. thousands of humans and then you start getting good data about what the effects in the human body are. How do we make humans survive across the entire lifetime for, let's say several decades in space? If it's just in space, it'll be hard because you'll need basically some gravity at some point. I think you need orbital platforms that give you at least some partial gravity, if not 1G. If you're on Mars, it's actually,

even though the gravity is 38% of Earth's, just having that gravity would be enough. If you could get under the surface into some of the lava tubes where you have some protection above you from the radiation, I think that would be, you probably could survive quite well there. So I think it's just in space parts, that's hard. You'd need some gravity. You need some additional protection from the radiation. Can you linger on the lava tubes? That Mars?

What are the lava tubes? Mars? Yes, so they are a bit like what they sound. Like there were large masses of lava at one point on the planet, pushing really quickly through the environment. And they created these, these, these, these, basically, these small caverns, which you could go in and build a small habitat and then puff it up kind of like blowing up a balloon and ever protect a habitat. Basically, it's a little bit underground.

So one of the next helicopter missions being planned at the Jet Propulsion Lab is to see if you can get a helicopter to go into the lava tube. And which is just, like as it sounds, kind of like take out a big worm that has burrowed into the landscape and leave out the hollow column that's left, and that's what your tubes look like. So one of the future helicopters might even go explore one of them as a mission being planned right now. So they're accessible without significant amount of drilling? Yeah, that's the other advantage.

Yeah, you can get to them because some of them are exposed. You can do a little bit of drilling and then see essentially this entire pattern. And that texts you a little bit from the radiation because you have some soil above you basically which would be a regolith which would be nice. What about source of food? What's a good, so that's part of biology. How do you power this whole thing? What about source of food across decades? In space we have space. Plants have been grown in flight, and you can get some nutrients, but right now it is very reliant on all the up mass being sent up, all the freeze-dried fruit that I think it's rehydrated, which doesn't taste awful, but is not self-reliant.

So I think those that have to be small bio-reactors, it have to be a lot of work on fermentation, a lot of work on, you know, potentially proto-trophic organisms, the organisms that can make all of the 20 amino acids that you would need to eat. I describe a little bit in the book, what if we did a proto-trophic human, where you could have, like, right now we need to, we need to get some of our amino acids because we can't make them all, which I think is kind of sad. So what if we could make all of our amino acids or all of our own vitamins? I also, you know, I think that's one case where another adaptation could be to activate the vitamin C gene.

Right now you'd have to have limes or some other source of vitamin C in space. But we actually carry the gene inside of our genome to make vitamin C. Look at dogs and cats, for example, they have these kind of wet noses. You don't see them going out and getting margaritas. The doldo dogs can drink beer and get drunk.

They don't need vitamin C, they have no risk of scurvy because they can make the vitamin C all by themselves. So can other wet nose primates, called strepsorienes, but we are dry nose primates and we lost this ability. Sometimes 10 or 20 million years ago,

we no longer make our own vitamin C, but the gene for it is called gulo, is still in our DNA, it's what's called a pseudogenesis broken down. It's like having an, like in our genome, we have these functional genes, like nice BMW and nice car that works well, but we also have this like, wrecking,

this junkyard of cold cars, old genes, old functions, in our DNA that we could bring back. And so vitamin C is one of them that would be very easy to do. So then you could activate the gene repair it basically, repair it so we can make our own vitamin C. Now we have to do it again carefully because what if we lost vitamin C, the production of vitamin C?

As a species, what if it was a good reason that we lost it, maybe it was helping in some other way that we can't see now. But you'd start slowly do it in cells, then do it potentially in animal models and primate other primates and then try it in humans. But that's something else I'd like to see. So we wouldn't have to make as much food in orbit.

You could actually start to make as much of your own food in your own cells. So the input to the system in terms of energy could be much more restricted. There's no doubt that the diversity would currently need us humans. But I don't want to be a robot. Humans love, as I do, texture,

I've had realized that made me sound like I wasn't human, but humans love food and flavors and textures and smells. All that is actually attenuated in flight. So you'd want to not forget our humanity and this love of all the benefits and wonder of food and cooking and smell. Well, speak for yourself. Because for me, I eat the same thing every single day and I find beauty and everything and some beauty is more easily accessible outside

of earth and food is not one of those things. I think what about insects? The people bring that up basically food that has sex with itself and multiplies. So cockroaches and so on, there's source of a lot of protein and a lot of the amino acids. And bed bugs is a guy at the American Steven natural history in New York. He loves bed bugs, loose organ. And he has a monthly meeting where he talks about

which insects would be the best for eating. And one month he gave a whole talk about bed bugs that they're pretty gross, but in terms of the value of what you can get for protein, they're really good. So they're a good candidate. I think you'd have to, if you could deep fry them, if you deep fry anything, you can pretty much eat it. So maybe you need to fry up in space, but they're a candidate. All right. What technical question? What are the major challenges of sex and space asking for a friend for reproduction purposes? So like when we're looking about survival,

the human species across generations. Do we need gravity, essentially? For sex and space, we know that gestation can happen in space where the babies can develop, at least in mice, we know that it's possible for worms to replicate and fly. So it's possible for other invertebrates to show they can make babies in space.

But for humans, NASA's official stance on this is that there has never been sex in space officially. I think, you know, if we all wonder about that, I think humans are very predictable in that regard. Going back to the Greek tragedies, I think that there's probably someone did something close to at some point. And so I think we know that sperm can be sent into space and brought back and be used for fertilization, for in vitro fertilization for humans, but sex itself in space

you know would be, I think when we start to get bigger structures that have a bit more privacy, I think that I think there'll be a lot of it. And you have to be, you know, this is a big question of who goes up into space. It's now becoming more of, you know, regular in, quote, people who have prosthetic limbs or cancer survivors like Haley Arsena who just went up on the inspiration for mission. So she's been a great researcher in helping with a lot of the science from that mission. We are doing the same analysis on them as we're doing for the twin study and for other astronauts who are doing basically all the same molecular profile before, during an IFS space flight. So there, we now know that other people can go into space.

So there's more and more regular Jo's and Janes go up. I think we'll see a lot more of it. But so far, we'd have no data. We have no video of it either. We have no real knowledge other than it would be. It would need a lot of Velcro. I think it's my only real answer there. Well, I'm a fan of Velcro and duct tape. I think that's gonna be. So it's too essential for any kind of engineering out and anywhere, honestly, in all kinds of harsh conditions. But that is, I mean, on the topic of sex in general, just social interaction with humans is fascinating.

The current missions are very focused on science and very technical engineering things, but they're still a human element that seeps in. And the more we travel out the space, the more the humans, the natural human drama, the love, the hate that merges is all going to be right there. The Greek tragedy just in space basically. I think it's going to be. Or a reality show. So what about the colonization of other planets? If you look at Mars, when you first of all, do you think it's a worthy effort looking at this particular one planet to put humans on Mars and to start thinking about colonizing Mars.

It's one of the closest options. It's not the best option though by far. We put in the book, measures of Earth similarity index or something called ESI is, how close is the gravity, the temperature, the solar incidence on the surface, how close is it to Earth? Is the calculation many astronomers make when they look for exoplanets?

In Mars is pretty far away from an ESI of about 0.7. I mean, Earth is one. So the best you can get is one. Earth is just like Earth. You get the score of one. Anything above, you know, some of the best exoplanets are in the habitable zone where there's liquid water that could be there.

Start to get above 0.8 or 0.9, but their most planets are very low. They're 0.1, 0. low. They're point one point two They're either way too big and we have crushing gravity or way too small too close to a sun But Mars is even though it's not that great on the ESI scale. It is still very relatively close You know galactically and and Venus is just too hot and right now So I think Venus would also be a great candidate, but it is much easier to survive in a place where it's very cold, but you can be sealed and survived. We're going on, we've probably just have no technology to survive anywhere except in the cloud's

Venus. So it's just currently our best option, but it's not the best option, for sure. So over time, the ESI changes across millennia. And it does. So the Venus is going to cool and cooler. Okay. But what are the big challenges to you in colonizing Mars? From a biology perspective, from a human perspective, from an engineering perspective? There's several big challenges to Mars. Even the first one is even just the word colonized. I think there's even a social challenge. Like a lot of people, Daniel Wood actually studies this at MIT, is we shouldn't even use the word colonized, but

then we probably shouldn't use the word settle either because there's settlements that have some other baggage to that word as well. And maybe we should use the word explorer, but at some point you didn't say we're going there to survive there. And so colonization still is the word most people use, but I try to say go explore and build or settle. But I think the first challenge is social. I think getting people to think that

this will not be like the colonization efforts of the past. The hope is that this will be a very different version of humanity exploring. That's my hope. History has, you could say has proved me wrong every single time, like every time humans have gone somewhere. It's usually been a tale of exploitation, strife, and drama again, and then often murder genocide. It's actually a pretty dark history, even think of just all the colonization efforts. But I think most of it was done in a really dark area of humanity where there was average life expectancy was more than half less than it was today. It was life was British and short as many of hisbes as famously said. So it was a rough existence.

So I think some of the the the ugliness of humanity in prior colonization times was was a consequence of the time. And at least that's my hope. I think that now we would have it be much more I think inclusive, much more responsible, much more much less evil, frankly, like we go there and you would need commercialization, you need efforts to do mining, for example, bring things back, but it have to be some degree over there are some areas that are viewed as as commons or that are untouchable, like places that are parks. We do this today, even if there's a lake, for example, the first, you know, several

hundred feet of a lake are all for public property and everything, you can own property, but just not certain areas. So I think we'd have to make sure we do that so that it's not completely exploited. So that's on the social, the human side. The technological we've talked a little bit about where you'd have to live. You want to be underground, with engineering and modifying even human cells to make sure you survive. The soil does have a lot of perchlorides, which is a problem for growing them, but there's ways to extract them.

There's a fair amount of water. There's actually a beautiful image of all the known water on Mars that NASA posted about a year ago. And there's water everywhere. Not lots of it everywhere, but almost everywhere you look. There's at least a little bit of water, just a few feet under the surface, and by the caps, there's a lot. So I think we could get some water, and we could also do self-generating reactors, machines that could make food, start to even make beer. If you go long enough down the path, but the technical challenges are definitely, the engineering and the manufacturing are going to be hard because you have to build

the buildings basically out of the soil that's there. So you have to really go there and try and build with whatever you can. So that has to be perfected still. But then once you're in those buildings, those structures, you need to create all the biology that will feed the populace feed them. So which we don't have the technology for yet, we have bits of it, but I think that's going to be the biggest

challenges making Mars really truly independent. But that'll probably take the most I say in the book several hundred years before I think we'd get there. It's interesting because we're also exploring ways to motivate society to take on this challenge. It's the JFK thing and then the Cold War that inspired the race, the space. And I think as a human species we're actually trying to figure out different ideas

for how to motivate everybody to work on the same project together. But you have competed at the same time. Well, that's one idea and that's worked well. Competition. Competition. It's not necessarily the only idea, but it's one that worked all so far. So maybe the only way to truly build a colony on Mars or a successful sort of human civilization on Mars is to get like China to get like competitive about it. And they are, they've announced they wanna have boots

on the red planet by 2033, which is two to four years earlier than when NASA's supposed to do it. So we'll see if they get the first, but I think it's a space race 2.0, but it's not just the US and Russia this time, it's China, it's India, it's the UAE, it's Europe, the USA, Jack says that Japanese-based agency, and there's the US and now it went from just a two-person race to a whole field. The whole field of runners, if you will, on the track trying to get to Mars first. I mean, it's going to be like anything. If you start

to have settlements and construction projects in place to visit on Mars, I think, I mean, it's gonna be like anything. If you start to have settlements and construction projects in place to visit on Mars, I think the true mark of some place being actually settles when you start to be able to pick, you're like, well, I wanna go to this destination, not this one because they have better Martian cocktails here, but this one's not as good. So then this idea of innovating and competing will continue to drive, I think, humans as it always has.

You write this fascinating thing which is, quote, people living on Mars will have developed entirely new cultures, dialects, products, and even new religions, or variations of current religions. For example, a Martian Muslim will need to pray up toward the dusty sky. I love that you've thought through the geometry of this. For example, Martian Muslim will need to pray upward toward the dusty sky since earth, and therefore Mecca will sometimes be overhead. Or, when Mecca is below the Martian's feet, the prayer direction to allow will stay downward toward the 38% gravity floor. Perhaps a second mecha will be built on the new planet and quote, that's another interesting question.

How will culture be different on Mars in the early days and beyond? Yeah, it'll be, as we've seen with all human history, I think even just when people migrate and they move, even the dialects change, even just going to the south in the United States, there's a y'all come on down out here, you know, and that's not even that far away, or even just people on Long Island versus New York City, and now it's a big nasally accent, no, yeah, and the people just get, or even Wisconsin, I'm from Wisconsin, which is a big nasally tone, welcome to Wisconsin, I'm from Wisconsin, which will be of his big naezyly tone. Welcome to Wisconsin and Minnesota. I wonder who defines that culture because it's very likely

that the early humans on Mars will be very technically savvy. Yeah, they have to be for engineering challenges. Well, actually, I don't know, it could be the, this has to do with your extreme microbiome is like, is it going to be the extreme survivalists or is it going to be the engineers and scientists or is it going to be both? Because my experience as scientists, they're, you know, they like the comfort of their, the lab. Yeah, they don't. Well, no, there's some, I keep contradicting myself, not stop. There's some bad ass scientists that travel to like I'm tired of going and all that kind of stuff. So it says evolutionary selection for humans who

can stare at a screen for eight hours at a time or pipette for 12 hours at a time and not talk to anybody. So it's not surprising when our scientists are a little bit awkward in social situations, but we can get that we can train them out of that. We can get them to engage other humans, not all of them, but hopefully most of them. So I think, you know, I think the culture will definitely be different. They'll be different dialects, different foods, they'll be different values. They'll very likely be a different religion. Kim Stanley Robbins, and wrote a lot about this in his books, the new Martian religion

that was created. I think this idea has been discussed in science fiction. It's almost unavoidable because there's been, I mean, just think of all the religions that have happened on Earth with's been, I mean, just think of all the religions that have happened on Earth with very little, I think, drumming, there's just terrestrial drama, but suddenly you have a different planet, and you do not need a deity that would span multiple planets, and I don't even know how you do that, but I think someone will think of a way and make up something.

Yeah, that's look for ways to draw meaning. So religion for a lot of people myths, common ideas or a source of meaning. And when you're on another planet, boy, does the sense of what is meaningful change? Because it's humbling. The harshness of the conditions is humbling. The very practical fact that earth from which you came is not so special. Because you're clearly not unearth currently and you're doing fine and you made it.

At some point, I mean, it'll be pretty harsh like what Shackleton did doing this exploration, exploration of Antarctica and going was very dangerous mission, barely made it, people died. Actually, he didn't believe in Skervia at the time, so he didn't take enough vitamin C and some of his people died from not having vitamin C. So if we had had their genes active, the pseudo gene, they'd be okay. But there, I think the early settlers will be, it'll be very different crew. But once it's comfort, most people are comfortable there, I think they're going to, I hope they'll draw more

meaning because more planets should be more meaning. I feel like it's like, more hands is a better massage. I don't know if that's the best analogy here, but I think Aristotle said that. Yeah. I should mention that your book has incredible quotes. It's great writing, but also just incredible quotes at the beginning of chapters, really. Thanks. It's basically my favorite quotes. I'm like, well, I'm running a book. I'm going to put my favorite quotes in. What are your thoughts about the efforts of you all, mosques and SpaceX and pushing this commercial spaceflight and I mean, other companies, Axiom space as well. What are your thoughts on their efforts? It's like a gold rush.

Space race 2.0, there's a lot of terms for it, the new space race, I think it's fabulous. I think it's moving at a pace that is unprecedented and also there's a lot of investment from the commercial and private sector pushing it forward. So Elon most notoriously doing a lot of it just himself with SpaceX. So we've worked really closely with the SpaceX, ops teams and medical team planning the inspiration

for a mission. And now some of the Polaris missions which are happening and Jared Isaacman is been a fabulous colleague collaborator pilot for the missions. You know, we're doing the same deep profiling and molecular characterization of these astronauts as we've done for that. Scott Kelly and other astronauts from NASA. And we're seeing so far, actually, there'll be a lot of this presented later this year. It seems like it's pretty safe. Again, there's dangers. We can see real stress on the body, very obvious changes, some of the same changes that

Scott Kelly experienced. But for the most part, they returned back to normal, even for a short three day mission, I remember chatting with Jared and we were presenting the data to them actually just a few weeks ago, kind of a briefing to the crew, and because they went to 590 kilometers, they went basically several hundred kilometers higher than the space station or the Hubble, you normally wrestle more radiation to the farther you get from Earth, there's more radiation. He was worried, you know, did we get cooked? This kind of his question for me in the briefing, I said, well, actually it looks like you can go back into the microwave, You didn't get fully cooked.

You can go a little bit farther. So for the Polaris mission, they're going to go even farther. And then also open the hatch and go out in these new spacesuits that space actually designing. That'll be much nimble, not as much of a giant, Dr. Octagon kind of spacesuit, but really looks like just a nice spacesuit.

They're going to go out into the vacuum of space. And so, you know, pushing all the engineering for these missions, which are privately funded. So it's people who just say, I wanna go up in space and see if I can push the limits, it's been fabulous, but I think the most fabulous part is Jared in particular, but others, other commercial space flight drivers,

like John Schofner, Peggy Wittsen, for the Axiom missions, are coming to us to scientist research saying, I don't just want to go up into space just to hang out. How much science can I get done? What I'm up there? What can I do? What experiments can I do? Give me blood tissue urine, semen tears. I'll give you any bio fluid. And I was emailing back and say, listen,

every one of your cells is worthy of study. I sent me, so I have this really kind of creepy geneticist email response, like, I want all of your cells, worthy of study. I've sent me, you know, so I have this really kind of creepy geneticist email response, like I want all of your cells, you know, but it's true because there's so much we don't know. I want to learn as much as we can about every, every time I go up, anyone, so we're doing it, you know, with NASA astronauts, but it's been sudden this influx of new crews that are willing to do almost anything, right?

So including we did skin biopsies for the in-sperson forker before and after space flight. And that's never been done before. We've never seen the structure of the skin and how it changes in response to microgravity and also the microbes that change. And so these beautiful images of even the structure of skin changing and the inflammation that we've seen in like for Scott Kelly, for example, we now have a molecule by molecule map of what happens to skin, which is never been done before. So what are interesting surprises there? So one of the things we can see, part of what's to skin, which is never been done before. So what are the things that surprise us there?

So one of the things we can see, part of what's driving information is we can actually see macrophages and there's other dendritic cells, like cells that are part of the immune system, kind of creeping along towards the surface of the skin, which is now we know it's actually physically driving the immune system, as these cells going and creating this inflammation, which is what leads to some of the rashes. But we didn't see as much in them as we saw, for example, some of the signatures of Scott Kelly. So we can see within the crew who's getting more of a rash or not or who didn't experience any rash. And some people had changes in vision. Some people had other GI problems,

even looking at what happens to the gut and looking at the microbiome of the gut. Other people didn't. So we were able to see, and start to get a little bit predictive with our medicine. Right now we're just diagnosing, but it'd be good to say, if you're going into space, here's exactly what you need for each bacteria in your body, here's what you can maybe take to get rid of nausea,

or other ways we can monitor you to keep the inflammation down. What does it take to prepare for one of these missions? Because you mentioned some of the folks are not necessarily lifelong astronauts. You're talking about more and more regular civilians. What does it take physiologically and psychologically to prepare for these? They have to do a lot of the same training that most astronauts do. A lot of it's done in Hawthornex-based excite course, which if you can ever get a chance to do tours, fabulous, you can see all these giant rockets being built and then we're drawing blood over there right next to them. So it's a really cool place. But the training, they have to go through a lot of the ops, a lot of the programming.

Just in case, most of the systems are automated on the dragon and other spacecraft, but just in case. So they have to go through all the majority of the training. If you want to go to the space station as the axiomissions are, including John Schroffner, you have to do training for some of the Russian modules. And if you don't do that training, then you're not allowed to go to that Russian part of the space station apparently. So right now, John Schroffner, for example, unless he completes this additional training all in Russian,

he's not allowed. All in Russian? The best to learn enough Russian to be just fun. Wow. So it's not just technical, he also has to learn. Enough, enough Russian. Enough, enough Russian. And so if he doesn't learn, he can't go to that part

of the space station. So interesting things like that. But you'll be you know, it's not that far You like oh, I can see it right there. I can't float over to that that capsule But technically he can't go so you know is there a Chinese component of the the international space station is their collaboration there sadly not they're building their own space station I'm glad they're building a space station actually eventually, there'll be probably four space stations in orbit by 2028, some from the orbital reef, some from Lockheed Martin. Of course, Axiom is far ahead right now. They're probably going to be done first. But

the extraordinary thing is there's unfortunately there's no collaboration between the UC that is a negative that's not the positive kind of competition. It's good question. So maybe, for example, when we get different NASA grants, you apply for a grant, you get to the lab, it goes through Cornell, the grants office, I have to sign it as a scientist, as the PI on the mission, say, I promise I will move no funds or resources or any staff to anyone in China or work with anyone in China with these dollars that you're giving to the lab for this mission. And so every other grant I get from the NASA, DOD, or sorry, let me go back to that.

Every other grant I get from say the NIH or the NSFs, even sometimes DOD, you don't have to promise that you won't talk to anybody in China about it, but for NASA alone, it's congressional mandated. You have to promise and sign all those papers that I can't do anything with anyone in China about this. And what if you have said about that is all those papers that I can't do anything with anyone trying about this. And what if you had said about that, is I wanna at least be able to chat with them about it and know what they're up to,

but we can't even go to a conference in China technically with NASA funds about, say, Space Medicine or engineering a new rocket. I can't go, I can go with personal funds, but I can't use those funds. Like you should be able to go to a conference and a friendly way to talk shit, yeah, see if we're doing, like the way scientists do really well, but I can't use those funds. Like you should be able to go to a conference and a friendly way to talk shit to you as a scientist.

Like we're doing, like the way scientists do really well, which is like they compliment, but it's a backhand and compliment. Like you're doing really good job here and then you kind of imply that you're doing much better job. That's the core of competition. You get jealous and then you get everybody

starting to prove. But you're ultimately talking, you're ultimately collaborating closely, you're competing closely as opposed to in your own silos. Well let me ask, in terms of preparing for space flight, you know, I tweeted about this and I joked about it and I talked to Elon quite a lot these days. What I tweeted was I'd like to do a podcast in space one day.

And it was a silly thing because I was thinking, for some reason, my mind was thinking 10, 20 years from now. And then I realized like, wait, why not? Like now There's no, just even seeing what axiom is doing, what inspiration for is doing, say regular civilians could start going up. So let me ask you this question. When do you think, we saw Jeff Bezos go on to orbit? When do you think Elon goes up to space? So he is thinking about this,

is it's partially responsible until it's safe because he has such a Direct engineering roles in the running of multiple companies. Yeah, so at which point do you think what's your prediction for the year that Elon will go up? I think you probably go up by 20 26 I say because the number of missions planned, there will be several missions per year through multiple space agencies and companies that are really making low-worth or a bit very routine. By go up, I think it might also be, for example, the inspiration for a mission just went up for three days in flight.

You know, and there was enough time to get up there, do some experiments, enjoy the view, and then you came back. The axiomissions are a bit more complicated. They're just docking you up in the space station to share the atmosphere. So you have to follow all the ISS protocols. What's interesting about the Dragon capsule and the Inspiration IV and some of these

are what are called free flyer missions, you can just launch into space. You basically have your own little mini space station for a few days. It's not that big, right? But I think that's what we'd probably see him do first because we're going to see a lot more tests of those in the next three to three years. But they're already been demonstrated to be safe.

And then you're not trying to go for 10 to 20 days or months or years at a time. It's just up in space for a few days, but you're in proper space. It's an orbital flight. It's not just a suborbital flight. You could do the podcast from there. And I think 2026, I wonder how the audio works. See, also, can you comment on 2026? I'll start getting ready. I'll start pushing them on this. I'm quite serious. It's a fascinating kind of, Axiom 2 still has room. You could go on that mission if you wanted to. So I'll ask you about Axiom. What? How strict are these?

So this seems surreal that civilians are traveling up. So how many, how much bureaucracies there's still in your experience for the scientific? I mean, I know it's a difficult question to ask a scientist because you get to, you know, you don't want to complain too much, right? But how much, you know, there's sometimes bureaucracy within a self-indeed, and the funding and all those kinds of things that kind of prevent you from being as free as you might sometimes like to do all kinds of wild experiments, crazy experiments.

Now, the benefit of that is that you don't do any wild and crazy experiments that hurt people. Right, right. And so it's very important to put safety first, but it's like a dance. A little too much restrictions of bureaucracy can hamper the flourishing of science. A little too little of that can get some crazy scientists to start doing a nethical experiments. Okay. That said, NASA and just space flight in general is sort of famously very, very risk averse. So what's your sense currently about like even like doing a podcast? Right. Podcasts, you know, unless it's a, you know, I think with mixed martial arts is a pretty safe activity unless you're doing a the octagon version of your podcast.

I mean, just getting there and back is the only real risky part, which is still risky. But I think, you're not asking to do open heart surgery in space, you're just saying, what if I do a podcast? And I think, Well, fun. You're trying to ask to have fun.

Yes. And I feel like fun sounds dangerous, and any kind of fun. Well, that's what's been extraordinary is that traditionally, yes, I think most of the space agencies have been very, by definition, bureaucratic because they're coming from the government. And but they've been bent that way for a really good reason is that safety, you know, in the early 60s, we know almost nothing about the body in space, except for, you know,

some of the work that pilots had done at really high altitude. So we really didn't know what it all to expect. So it's good that there were decades of resolute focus on just safety. But now we know it's pretty safe. We know this physiological response is, we know what to expect. We can also treat some of it. We hopefully, hopefully, soon will treat a lot more of it. But if you just want to go up there, it's actually not just a question of cost. Like, imagine, I think the way you can view a lot of the commercial spaceflight companies

is that if you have the funds, you can basically plan the mission. All the training they'll do is to help you get prepared for how you run some of the instrumentation, how you can fly the rocket, the limited degree, and how to use some of the equipment. But fundamentally, it's no longer a question of years and years of training and selection that's impossible odds task of becoming astronaut It's frankly just a question of funds expensive plane rides. So how much how much you mentioned axiom? Well, is it known how much the it costs for the plane ride?

There is no official number and it depends on the mission of course So they if you ask them well often they'll say well how serious you? They really want, they don't just want to give out random numbers to people. Right. But the numbers, because for example, we proposed one mission, we want a new twin study where someone goes up and stays up there for 500 to 550 days. But it's basically going to be up there for the longest time ever. To similar the time I would take to get to Mars and back for the shortest possible duration, about 550 days, because if you went there and immediately turned around, you could maybe make that mission.

Otherwise, it's a three-year mission. And there, you're looking at the ranges of, it's $50 to $100 million in that ballpark range. But the reason it's so variable is it depends. What are you doing up there? If you're up there, for example, for two years, basically, almost two years, that's a long time. Just being in one spot right. So could you be doing some things where you're up there, for example, for two years, basically, almost two years, that's a long time just being in one spot right.

So could you be doing some things where you're, you can, your time is valuable. So you can do experiments and people pay for those and that defrays the cost or you could build something or you could do podcasts and maybe, you know, fund raise on the podcast. And so as long as you, the reason the cost is variable is because it depends well, do you have all the money and you say, I want to go and just sit in space for two years and do nothing. Well, then you have to pay for all that time there up there if you want to do things. Yeah, I see the official X1 mission was 55 million for a trip to the ISS. It could be worse.

Wait, Sergei just posted a $35,000 price tag per night per person on the ISS. Is that real? I don't know. No, it sounds about right, that's why. That's like a real hotel site, so to stay all so interesting. And then I'm sure there's costs with the docking and all those kinds of things. That's from the perspective of XM, the private company, or SpaceX, or whoever is paying the cost in the short term and the long term.

And then thinking about a lot of that cost is the rocket fuel. A lot of it is the ride. So I've been on calls where Axiom's like, hey, SpaceX, give us a little cheaper, we can make a cheaper and the cost is the rocket. So SpaceX is giving Axiom a ride. Right, right. In this case, what is Axiom space? Can you speak to this particular private company?

What's their mission? What's their goal? And what is the Axiom one mission that just won over? Yeah, it's a, so the Axiom space is a private space flight company that's building the first private space station. They actually have seen the videos and footage and hardware being put together. So they're in the process of constructing it. The hope is that by 2024, one of the first modules will be up and connected to the ISS.

And eventually, it'll be expanded and then by 2028, the plan is it'll be completely detached in free-floating. And it will be maybe even a little bit sooner, depending on how fast it goes. But they're building the world's first private space station. So if you wanna have a wedding up there, you just have to multiply the number of guests times a number of nights, and you could have a wedding up there.

It'd be very expensive, but if you wanna do it, you can do it. It's like, you can have a lab up there. If you wanna do experiments, you can do experiments, you can figure out the cost. You wanna have a beer up there. You can make your own brewery or a beer, and so this is the first beer made in space.

For some reason you wanna do it, you can pay for it. So it's opened up this space where if you can find the funds for it, you can propose it. You can probably just do it. Okay. Cool. So what is the Axiom 1 mission that just went up? Can you tell me what happened? Axiom 1 is the first private, the first commercial crew to go to the space station. So in version 4 was the first commercial private crew go to the space station. So in version four, the first commercial private crew to just go into space, they went into space and actually an orbital mission for just about three days.

But actually, one is the first, you know, again, on the space, like rockets, but launched up, docked to the space station, and they're up there for about 10 days to do experiments, to work with staff, actually just take some pictures. But it's a mission, actually doing a lot of experiments, doing almost 80 different experiments.

So it's a lot of it's very science-heavy, which I love as a scientist. But it's the ability to show that you can fund rays and launch up a crew that's all privately funded and then go to the space station. It's four people. Yeah, four people. And the Axiom 2 will also, likely before people,

the two that have been announced are John Schroffner and Peggy Wittson. Peggy Wittson's a already NASA astronaut who has been at many times the many experiments. She knows the space station, like our own house. And we recently did a training with Peggy and John in my lab at Cornell to get ready for some other genomics experiments that we'll do on that mission. So they're doing the experiments too. What does it take to design an experiment and to run a design experiment here on earth that runs up there and then also to

actually do the running of the experiment what are the constraints what are the opportunities all that kind of stuff there are the biggest concern is is what is it what do you need for reagents or materials the liquids that you might use for any experiment what if it floats away what if it gets in someone's eye because things always float away in space. There's notoriously panels in the space station where you don't want to look behind because it got a little fungus or food has gotten stuck there

and sometimes found months and months or years later. So things float around. So the little things. It just, and so if you have anything you need to do your experiment, that's a liquid or a solid. Whatever that is has to go through toxicity testing. And the big question is, if this thing, whatever you want to use, gets in someone's eye, will they lose their vision or be really injured?

And if the answer is yes, it doesn't mean you can't use it. It just means if the answer is yes, you have to think through multiple levels of containment. There's a glove box on the space station where you can actually do experiments that have triple layers of containment. So you can still use some harsh reagents, but you have to do them in that glove box. And so you can propose almost anything. The biggest challenge is the weight. If it's a heavy, it's $10,000 per kilogram

to get something up in the space. So if you have a big, heavy object, this is some cost you have to consider. And that includes not just the materials, but the equipment you used to analyze the materials. One of the ones we worked on, actually with Kate Rubens, was putting the first DNA sequencer in space called the biomolecular analyze the materials. One of the ones we worked on actually with Kate Rubens was putting the first DNA sequencer in space called the biomolecular sequencer mission,

also with Aaron Burton and Sarah Castor Wallace. But there, the interesting thing is, we had to prepare this tiny little sequencer. It sequences the DNA, you can do it really quickly within really minutes. And what's extraordinary is, if you want to get a piece of machinery up there, you have to do destructive testing, so you have to destroy it and see what happens. How does it destroy?

Do pieces of glass break everywhere? If so, that's a problem. So you have to redesign it. And do fire testing? How does it burn? How does your device explode in a fire or doesn't it? You have to test that and then you do vibration testing. So you have to basically, if you want to fly one thing into space, you need to make four of them in destroy at least three of them to know how they die, how they destroy destructive destructive fire fire and then vibration testing It's kind of like asking for a friend. How how do you from a scientific perspective do destructive testing and How do you do fire testing and how do you do vibration testing vibration?

Like just large shakers. So that's The version is just large shakers. So that's actually mostly to simulate launch. They have a lot of machinery at NASA and its base X to just make sure what does the complete fall part of it as a high vibrational, I mean, essentially force attached to it. So it's just like a big shaker. Fire testing is just to simulate what would happen

if there was a normal fire. That's something that gets up to, you know, the fire temperature is several hundred degrees Celsius. And does the fire or are we talking like you put in a toaster? No, it's more of a heat or is it a flame? It's a flame, then heat, but it's not like a kiln or anything like that.

You don't wanna know how does it burn into kiln? It's more, is it flammables? The first big question, like does it just start on fire? If it gets a little bit of flammable, does it just light up like a Christmas tree? There's a YouTube video of this. Oh, you know, you guys, did you film any of this?

Not, not, Aaron Burton might still have some of the videos. We're in the middle of doing some testing for the new sequencer called the Mark 1C. So I will make videos of that. I would, I would love to see that for anything for my private collection. And this is very exciting. And the instructor testing is just,

often it can be something as simple as a hammer. It's really how does it shatter? You want a question? Is it other glass components? So as simple as a hammer. It's really how does it shatter? You want a question? Is it other glass components? So it's like office space. It's like that scene. With the backspitch. With the threads.

With the threads. With blow, yeah, into the damage feels good to be a gangster soundtrack. Yeah, that's great scene. That's so, that's so excited. That's the best of engineering is like that kind of testing. What else about designing experiments? Like what kind of stuff do you want to get in there?

You said 80 different experiments. So we're staying in the realm of biology and genetics. Yeah, for now. But we also want to do some of the experiments that have been discussed in the lab have been, and some of them are being planned as well. But I think the most controversial one that's come up in our planning, it gets back to sex in space,

is can human embryos divide and actually begin to develop in space? But then if we do that experiment, that means you're taking viable human embryos, watching them develop in space, then you could freeze them and bring them down in characterism to see, but to answer that question, because we actually don't know, can the human embryo actually develop well in zero gravity, which you don't know? But to find that out, that means we'd have to literally sacrifice embryos probably. Which itself has, of course, a lot of complications,

ethical considerations, some people just, it's a non-starter for lots of people. But we do know that the sperm survive. The sperm is zero layer set. Yes, and nobody cares about sperm. Yeah, sperm. We're doing several studies on autism risk for fathers and sperm.

And it's really easy to get sperm. I'll just tell you, it's people say, you're helping us out here. That's right, so we'll read that somewhere. And we'll repeat it. Asking for a render. Okay, cool. Are you involved in axiom 1, axiom 2 experiments?

Like what, is your lab directly, or indirectly involved in terms of experiments and what do you excited about different experiments that are happening out there? Some of them were doing a lot of the direct training for the crews, just really saying, how do you do a modern genetics experiment? So for the Inspection IV and Axiom IV,

we're also collaborating with Trish, which is the Translational Research Arm for NASA, that's in Houston, and there it's a lot of sharing of samples and data for all these missions, one, we're also collaborating with Trish, which is the translational research arm for NASA at Sin Houston. And there, it's a lot of sharing of samples and data for all these missions, basically, for all the commercial spaceflight missions, there'll be a repository where you can look at the data from the astronauts. You can look at some of the genetic information, some of the molecular changes. So that's being built up with Trish, which has been fabulous collaboration between Cornell

and Trish. But the other thing we're doing is for Axiom too, is training them. How do you, for example, if you want to look at a virus, you can take a swab of something, extract it, sequence it, and say, do I have Omacron or do I have a different virus? And we're using the exact same work in flight, but we're having the astronauts do the extraction, the sequencing and the analysis of all the molecules. And so one of the common occurrences herpes is reactivated often into space flight,

oral herpes. So you can see that viral reactivation is one of the biggest mysteries in space flight, where the immune system seems to be responding a lot as active. The body's really perturbed, but the virus just starts shedding again. And it's really, and this happens clinically. Again, we see this for like, for example, hepatitis C or hepatitis B, you can get infected with it and it can stain your body for decades and still kind of be hiding in the body. And in this case, we see it in space flight, herpes comes back.

So we want to figure out, is it there? First of all, and then when is it happening and to characterize it better, but have the astronauts do it themselves, rather than collecting it and bring it back to Earth and figuring out later, we could see in real time how it's happening, and then also look at their blood. We'll see what is changing in their blood

in real time with these new sequins. So I'm excited about the genomics and space, if you will. So clearly, somebody that loves robots, how many robots are up there in space that help with the experiments? Like, what, how much technology is there? Would you say, is it really a manual activity or is there a lot of robots helping out? Good questions. So far it's almost all manual,

because the robots have to all undergo the destructive fire and vibrational testing. So if you have a million dollars on the robot. This is so exciting. So if you can get, that thing is a lot less than a million. But we can definitely gonna test it out for the, and I guess in which order,

you know, it has to a separate for each one yet yes vibration fire uh... note note to self do fire testing for the leg of robots and the destructive testing that would be fascinating i wonder if uh... any of the folks i'm working with did that kind of testing on the materials like what breaks first

with the robot question and also the big question So what's interesting about this for Axi and Philies less commercial spaceflight areas if you can fund it You could fly it right so if you have to say like I want to fly these series of robots up because I think they could help build something Or they could help measure or repair the spacecraft. Oh, you have to come up with a good reason Yeah, well for NASA you guys are good, but I think for private space flight, you could have the reason is I'm curious, and that could just be exactly like an analysis.

I've got a private funder, I've got your own money. And they pay a par kilogram, essentially. And I mean, there are some things you can't say, I wanna send a nuclear bomb up there. I'm curious, I don't think that would fly, but. And there's probably rules in terms of free floating robots, right? They're probably have to be attached. They have to like it's an orchestra that plays together all the experiments that are up there There's probably it's not silos. It's not separate. That's separate kind of things

But you're saying it's all mostly manual how much electronics is there in terms of data collection terms of all that kind of stuff a lot of electronics So a lot of its tablets, there's laptops up there. The whole space station is running and it's humming on electronics. One of the biggest complaints astronauts have is sleeping up there is hard, not only because you're in zero gravity, but there's a consistent loud hum of the space station. There's so many things active and humming and moving that are keeping the station a lot of the CO2 scrubbers, all the instrumentation, it's loud. So I think it is a very well powered lab basically in flight, but it want the future space stations I think will be very different because they're being built more for pleasure than business or a little bit of both, but they're built for, we want people to, you know,

at least when you talk to Aksan, when you talk to the other industry partners, they want to make it, you know, space more fun and engaging and open to new ideas. So that's looking at the fun stuff going on in the next few years. But if we zoom out once again, how and when do we get outside of the solar system? You mentioned this before. Or maybe you can mention the other hops we might take. You know what, let's step back a little and where are some of the fun places

we might visit first in a semi-permanent way inside the solar system that you think are worth visiting? Yeah, at the end of 500 years I'm hoping we make the big launch towards another solar system, really driven by the fact that we now actually have exoplanets that we know we might be able to get to and survive on. Whereas 20 years ago, we really had almost none. Certainly none that we knew were habitable.

And exoplanets even just discovered and started to happen until 89 and really early 90s for the real validated ones. So, you know, I'm hoping over the next five hundred years, we go from thousands of possible habitable plants to hundreds of thousands or millions, especially with some of the recent telescopes launch we'll find them. But before we get there, I have a whole section, I really describe it the magic of Titan

because it has all this methane, which is a great hydrocarbon you can use to make fuel. You can use it, it's cold as all, but Jesus on Titan. But if you can... Ice. Yes, it's what's a Titan made up of. What is Titan? Oh, everybody loves Titan.

Yeah, it is. It's a favorite, it's this kind of eerie, green, huge moon that's around Saturn that is, to our knowledge, you know, this lard has so cold that has these methane lakes, where the methane normally is a gas, but they're actually so cold, it's like a lake of methane. You could go swimming in it potentially. There might be some degree of rocks or mountains there, but they might also be made of frozen

methane. No one's ever, no person's obviously been there, but it is, you know, have enough satellite imagery and some data that you could actually potentially survive on Titan. So I think that would be one place where I'm hoping that we would at least have a bit of an outpost. It might not be a luxurious retreat,

because it's really cold. Is there a left-hand Titan, you think, underneath the surface somewhere? Maybe. Well, actually, with all that carbon and all those hydrocarbons, it is very possible that some microbial life could be there and then hang out, waiting for us to dip our toes into the methane and find it. But we don't know yet, but I think that's one place I'd like to see now.

I would like to see other, I would post near Jupiter, but Jupiter has extremely high radiation, actually. So even places like IO, which are volcanically active and quite amazing, we probably couldn't survive that long, that close to Jupiter, though it has because it brings it such a giant planet, it myths back out a lot of radiation that it's collecting from other parts of the universe and it juts back out. So if you get too close to Jupiter, it actually almost certainly not be able to survive. It depending on which part of it, but that's one risk about Jupiter.

But it'd be cool to see the giant red spot up close. Maybe we have some spots there. At Mars, it's the top one. Then you get to pick Titan or Io. So ice, fire and ice, the rockboard frost poem close to my mouth. And then Europa is that. You'll be cool too.

And insolatists, which is a big ocean. It might be there like an alien ocean that's under the, it might be even water ice that's there and water, even liquid water potentially there under the surface. So that'd be a great candidate. The asteroids of series would be good or aeros or big enough you get a little bit of gravity. It would be interesting and you could you know have it maybe a habitable place there. And they just might be big enough that you could get there and survive and even have a tiny bit of gravity, but not much. Why do you like asteroids?

No. We're just listing vacations. Oh, yeah, vacations, but I'd say that they probably have a lot of rare earth minerals that you could use for manufacturing, which is why part of the space economy that's being built up now is people really wanted to go and holl about the asteroids and bring back all the resources from it. This legally is very possible because even though the Space Act prevents people from militarizing space or owning all of it, if you get the resources out of an asteroid but you don't actually say you own it, that's perfectly legal.

What's the space act? Space basically was 1967 was the first large scale agreement between major international parties, particularly the US and Russia, but also many others to say that space should be a place for humanities to not have militarize it, to not weaponize it, not militarize it, also establish some of the basic sharing principles between countries who are going into space. And there was a plan to make an additional act in the 90s, the lunar, actually I'm blank on the name of what, but there hasn't been any significant legislation that has been universally accepted since the Space Act.

So but the primary focus was on the militarization. The militarization, which was in theory not allowed which goal which so far is Stay true, but but there's no is there any legal framework for who owns? space and space Like different geographical regions of space both out in space and on Astroids and planets and moons. The currently you can't own, you're not supposed to be able to own, I mean people have tried to sell bits of the moon for example or sell names of stars which is pretty harmless, but you're not

supposed to be able to own any part of the moon or an asteroid for that matter, but you're allowed to mine the resources from it. So in theory, you could go catch an asteroid, hollow out the whole thing like you eat an orange and leave the shell and say, okay, I'm done. I never owned it, but I just extracted everything inside of it and now I'm done with it. And then, of course, you see there's going to be some contentious battles, even wars over those resources.

Hopefully at a very small scale, some contentious battles, even wars over those resources. Hopefully at a very small scale, it's more like conflict or like human tension, but oh boy, it's like war makes for human flourishing, like after the war somehow. Sometimes there's just this explosion of conflict and afterwards for a long while there's a flourishing and again conflict and flourishing and hopefully over a stretch of millennia the rate of conflict and the destructiveness of conflict decreases. It has at least in the past 100 years the number of wars, number of military actions, casualties have all decreased.

I don't know if it's gonna stay that way for humanity. Going, I think, you know, the trajectory is there. I think the war mongering is less tolerated by the international community. The, you know, it's more scrutinized. It still happens, like, you know, right now is an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.

And I've spoken a lot about it. And it's, you know, but it's, you know, right now, it's an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. And I've spoken a lot about it. And it's, you know, but it's, you know, there, there are sometimes to be small military actions, but I think the, you know, even there, it's isn't, you know, a large military action across most of the country, but not all of it, actually. So it's, I think it would be less over time of large scale, multi-country invasions like, like we've seen in the past. I think maybe that won't happen ever again, but you might see country-to-country battles happening, which has always happened, I think,

but hopefully less of that as well. And yet the destructiveness of our weapons increases, so it's a complicated race in both directions. We become more peaceful and more destructive at the same time. It's fascinating. How do we get outside of the Solar System? You write an epic line, I believe it's the title of one of the sections, launched toward the second sun, that journey of saying, we're going to somehow the Solar System feels like home. The earth is home, but the solar system is home. It's our son. The sun is a source of life. And going towards the second sun, leaving this home behind, that's one health journey. So what does that journey look like?

When is it happen and what's required to make it happen? To get to that state, we have to actually have a describe a number of options either We have to all have people survive and multiple generations live and die on the same spacecraft towards another star Propulsion technology you need to have that in place. I assume we don't have dramatic Improvements I describe ways it could happen like anti-mat drives, or things that could make it possible to go faster. But since it's a book of nonfiction, I just make no big leaps other than what we know of today that's possible.

And if that's the case, you'd need probably 20 generations to live and die on one spacecraft to make it towards what is our known closest habitable exoplanet. Now, that sounds, you know, students have the life support, self-reliance, self-sustainability, all in that one, it'd be a large spacecraft. You'd have to grow your own food, probably still have some areas with gravity.

It would be complicated, but I think after 500 years, we could actually have the technology and the means and the understanding of biology to enable that. And so with that as a backdrop, you could have people hibernate to talk about, like maybe you need to hibernation instead of just people living their normal life, but I think the hibernate to talk about, maybe you need to hibernate instead of just people

living their normal life, but I think the hibernation technology doesn't work that well yet. I don't know if it might pan out and maybe in 200 years it gets really good and then people are gonna all just sleep in pods. Great. So I think this is the minimum viable product

with everything that we have today and nothing else, right? So if that's the case, which of course I'm sure more than 500 years, but basically what we know today, you have people living, die on the spacecraft, and that sounds almost like a prison sentence. You say, if you were born into a spacecraft,

and when you got old Navejah said, yes, you can tell we're on a spacecraft, you will live your whole life on this, let's say something the size of a building, and this is everyone you'll ever know, and then you'll die, and then your children will also care on the mission. Would those people feel proud and excited to say,

we are the vanguard and hope of humanity? We're going towards a new sun, and maybe they'd love it, or would they, after 10 generations, maybe they would rebel and say, to hell with this, I'm tired of being in this prison, this is a bad idea. We're turning around, or we're going somewhere else, a mutiny happens and they kill each other, right? So we would have to really make sure that the mental health, the structure of the society is built so they could sustain that mission, that's a crazy mission. But it's not that much different from spaceship Earth, right? Here we are stuck on one planet. We don't have planetary liberty. We can't go to another planet

right now. We can't even really go to another moon that easily. So we and we, I love Earth, there's lots of wonderful things here, but it's still just this one planet and we're stuck on it. So everyone that you know and love and live with here will be dead someday and that's all you'll ever know too. So I think it's a difference of scale, not a difference of type in terms of an experience. It's still a spaceship traveling out in space earth is still a spaceship traveling out in space so It is a kind of prison It's always everybody lives in a prison. It well it says a limited planetary experience. We'll say it's like that like it Yeah, prison is not so dark, but

Just yeah, just like prison is a is a Is a limited geographic and culinary experience. But I don't want it to be viewed that way. I want to think, wait, this is one extraordinary gift. And we wouldn't probably just launch one generation ship. We'd want probably launch 10 or 20 of them to the best candidates and hopefully get there. And yeah, I mean, the fact is limitations and constraints

make life fascinating because the human mind somehow struggles against those constraints and that's how beauty is created. So there is kind of a threshold, you know, being stuck in one room is different than being stuck in a building and being stuck in a city, being stuck in it. Like I wonder what threshold of people like I lived for a long time in a city, being stuck in it. I wonder what threshold of people, like I lived for a long time in a studio, and then I upgraded gloriously to one bedroom apartment. And the power to be able to close the door.

It's just magnificent, right? It's just like, wow, you can speak volumes. It's like, you can escape. That feels like freedom. That's the definition of freedom. Having a door where you could close it and now you're alone with your thoughts. And then you can open it and you enter and now there's other humans as freedom. So the threshold of what freedom, the experience of freedom is like is really fascinating.

And like you said, there could be technologies in terms of hibernation. VR, ultra-ally, virtual, like, because you know, 30 years ago, they sounded awful. I think you'd be stuck in this bass grip, but now you could bring the totality of all of human history, culture, every every bit of music song, every movie, every book, can all be in one tablet, basically, right? So, and I'll see you still get up to updates from Netflix if you're on the way towards another star. You could still get downloads. And so, but eventually, maybe the crew would start to make their own shows. I'd be like, well, I don't want the rest shows. I want to talk about, I'm going to make a drama on this spacecraft. But I think it would have to be big enough so it feels like at least the size of a building. I think people's

intuitions about quarantining have really become very immediate because we've all had to experience it to some degree in the past two years. And we've survived, but definitely we've learned that you need a really good internet connection. You need some ability to go somewhere sometimes. And you know, that might just be as simple as people leaving the space, craft to go to something else, another thing connected to it, or just go out into the vacuum of space for an afternoon to experience it. So people need recreation, people need games,

people need toys, people love to play. What are chloro-humans? Chloro-humans is a description of how you can embed chloroplasts into human skin, or the thing that makes plant screen, so they can absorb light from the sun, and then get all their energy that way. And of course, humans don't do this, but I describe in the book in the far future,

maybe 300, 400 years from now, if we could work on the ways that animals and plants work together, you could embed chloroplast into human skin, and then if you're hungry, you go outside, and you lay out your skin, and then you absorb sunlight, and then skin. And then if you're hungry, you go outside and you lay out your skin and then you absorb some light and then you go back in when you get full.

If you only wanted to lay outside for just a one hour to get your days fully, you know, your days fully value of energy, you'd need about two tennis courts worth of skin that you could lay out. And maybe your friends would plan or something. But if they plan it, then they're shadows with blockers on some. Maybe you leave your skin out there and you could roll up your skin, go back inside after about one hour and that's how much skin you would need to have exposed

with some reasonable assumptions about the light capture and efficiency of the chloroplast. So it's just kind of a fun concept in the book of green humans going around absorbing light from the sun. Something I've dreamed about since I was a kid. Is there engineering ways of like having that much skin and being able to lay it out efficiently? Like is there sounds absurd, but

you could roll it up. I mean, or you could just lay outside longer. I wanted to think if you just need to head one hour and how much came a journey. But if you just went out there for four hours, you need something that's smaller, but you know, you know, it says, it says a half a tennis court. So you could make a- It could be like wings. It could be like wings. And you lay them out there and- But also, if you- That's if you need all your energy only from your skin.

So if you just get a little bit of it, your energy, of course, you could just walk around with your skin as is, and you still have to eat, but not as much. And I described that because we'd need other ways to think about making your own energy. If you're on a really long mission that's far from stars, you could turn out a lamp that would give you some of that, you know, essentially exact wavelength of light you need

for your chloroplast and your skin. But that's something I'm hoping would happen in three to 400 years, but it would be hard because you're taking a plant organelle and putting it in the animal cell, which sounds weird, but we have mitochondria inside of us, which basically are cells captured in bacteria, and now it walks around with us all the time. So there's precedent for it, an evolution. How much, by the way, is speaking of which, this evolution helped us here.

So we talked a lot about engineering, building genetically modifying humans to make them more resilient or having mechanisms for repairing parts of humans. What about evolving humans or evolving organisms that live on humans? Sort of the thing you mentioned, which you've already learned, is that humans are pretty adaptable. Now, what does that mean? You also, somewhere I wrote that there's trillions of cells that make up the human body. And those are all organisms, and they're also very adaptable. So can we leverage the natural process of evolution of the slaughter, the selection, the mutation,

and the adaptation that is all in, sorry, to throw slaughter into there, just acknowledging that a lot of organisms have to die in evolution. Can we use that for long term space travel or colonization occupation? Is there a good word for this of planets? To terraform the planet? To adjust the human body to the planet. Oh, it's not really a term for that yet, I guess, to adapt to the new vacation spot.

Yeah, I call it just directed evolution in the book is that you guide the evolution towards what you want. In this case, sometimes you can engineer yourselves to make exact sure what, but other times you put people on planets and see how they change. Actually, later in the book, I imagine if you have humans on multiple planets, you could have this virtuous cycle, or as people adapt and evolve here, you'd sequence their DNC how they change and then send the information back to the other planet and then study them with more resources. So you'd be able to then have a continual exchange of what's evolving in which way and different planets.

And then each planet would learn from the changes that they see at the other planet. Does the evolution happen at the scale of human or do we need the individual like, or is it more efficient to do like bacteria? Bacteria cheaper and faster and easier, but we also have a lot of bacteria in us on us and all around us. And even the bacteria on the space station are continually evolving.

So. Would you study that by the way? Like non-human cells. Like what the microbiomes? Yep. So we've seen that for the astronauts, we can actually see their immune system respond to the microbiome of the space station.

So as soon as you get into that aluminum tube, there's a whole ecosystem that's already up there. And we can actually see, we saw this with Scott Kelly, we've seen this with LaRose Nourts, you can see the T cells in their body, they actually are responding to little peptides, a little, the molecules of the bacteria, the immune system is looking for a specific bacteria. And then once it sees new ones, it remembers it. And you can see the body looking for the microbes that are only on the space station,

that you don't see on Earth. And then once it got came back, he actually had more of those microbes embedded in his skin and in his mouth and stool that weren't there before. So he like picked up new hitchhikers in the space station and brought some of them back down with them. So there's like long term ecosystems. Up until 20 years.

They've been up to 20 years. There's some like Chuck Norris, like we're back to here, up there. You're part of the Extreme Microbiome Project. What is that involved? What kind of fun organisms have you learned about? Have you gotten to explore? We have a really fun project, XMP, the Extreme Micro-Bion, which is as it sounds like. We look for really odd places, like heavy radiation environments, high salt, higher low temperature, strange area,

the space station, for example, lots of radiation and microgravity. Places where organisms can evolve for interesting adaptations, and some of them have been organisms we've seen, like a candy pink lake in Australia called Lake Hillier, which we just published a paper on this where it was a pink. So it's actually Danelia Salinas, one of these organisms, there's a mixture of bacteria and some algae there there that make it bright pink. So they actually make caratenoids, these are very kind of orangy and kind of pink molecules when you look at them in the light. So, if you get out of the bacteria, it becomes pink. And it's not just pink. It's like a bubble gum pink

the link. And so, that's just an odd, it's a halo file being said, it grows in 30% salt. And if you go below 10, 15% salt, it doesn't even grow. You actually kills it. Oh, wow. Yeah, there it is, like, here. As it talks, like, here. I said toxic to humans or no. So when you walk in the pink lake, actually, it's so hypotonic, meaning it's so salty, you can feel it licing and killing yourselves on your foot. So it actually hurts to walk in because it's so salty. So yeah, but it won't kill. It'll, it'll, listen, you have to suffer for art. And that's right. Great. Our requires self-right. I mean, so it is a beautiful lake. You have to get permits to go sample there,

but we actually just got an email last week. There's pilots who fly over this in Australia because they love the color. So he emailed us one of the pilots and he said, hey guys, I saw you publish this paper. It's not as pink as it used to be because he loves flying over it. And it was like a little bit less pink

because they had a bunch of rain in the past few weeks. So it was just a little bit diluted. So we reassured him it'll get more pink as they grow again. But basically, yeah, it's a beautiful pink lake. And so that is gorgeous. It's almost like a doctor's Facebook or something. It's like, it doesn't look hard to get to. Yeah, there's no road. You have to basically fly land nearby and then paddle in. So it's not next to anything. So it's hard to get to. but once you get there, it's beautiful. If anyone knows how to get there, let me know. I want to go there.

Okay, cool. What are some other extreme organisms that you study? Other ones, there's some organisms we studied in the space station called a synidobacter pitii, which is a, we often found in human skin, but we found hundreds of strains in the space station that we brought down and curated and then sequenced. And this is with Katsuri Venkatswaran, who's at Jet Propulsion Laboratory working with him. And they have evolved.

They no longer look like any Earth-based as synidivactor. They don't look like, now basically, a new species. So actually, there's a different species of bacteria and fungi that have now mutated so much on the space station. They're literally a new species. And so we've found some of those that are evolving as life is always evolving.

And we can see it also on the space station. An entirely new species born on the space station. Yeah, that's completely different. So we find one species actually that we named after a donor to Cornell, someone who's donated funds to the research. So we named a different species of fungus after him on Naganysia Totsinskya, because he's eager to Totsinsky. So as a thank you to him donating to Cornell, we said we've named this fungus that we found

on the space station for you. Was he grateful? Or did he stop funding all of our research? He was very grateful. And then, and I told him I said, if you have an ex-girlfriend, we could try and name a genital fungus after her. So I think if you want, and he said, maybe.

But he invented me some. He stopped answering the most after that. Okay, what about in extreme conditions, in ice, in heat, is that something of interest to you and the things that survive, and where most things can't? Yes, of keen interest. I think that will be the road map for some of the potential adaptations we could think of for human cells, or certainly for the microbiome, like they just all the microorganisms in and on and around us. So we've seen, you know, even there's this one crater,

it's called the Lake of Fire. It's in Turkmenistan where it's been on fire because of oil that had been set on fire decades ago and it's still burning. So we collected some samples from there and those were some pseudomonas putitas, some species we found there that can... So there's stuff alive there.

It seems to be surviving there by this large pit of fire. Oh yeah, there it is. The desert has been just on fire for decades. What the? So this is the place. It's just the lake of fire. Yeah. And they said scientists had set up a drilling rig here for extraction of natural gas.

Of course, it would be in this part of the world that you would get something like this, but the rig collapsed and methane gas is being released from the crater. Yeah, so for those just listening, we're looking at a lake full of fire and there's something alive there, allegedly. And pseudomers are known to be some of the most tough organisms. They actually can clean toxic waste from, you know, any years of super fun sites where there's so much waste that's been deposited. You'll find them there as well. Actually, there's one place in the Guanas Canal, or something it's called, in New York

City in Brooklyn, and it is a complete toxic waste dump that was where a lot of waste in the 1700s was dumped. And so the gate way to hell is what it's called, but the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the Goannas canals also a place that has been fun to sequence and, and see, so to me, so to me, a, so to me, a, species that can survive that are basically pulling toxins from the environment. So it is, if you create this toxic landscape and then evolution comes in and says,

I'll find, I'll make things that can survive here. And when you look at the biochemistry of those species, what they've created is their own salvation. Basically, the selection has made them survivors. And suddenly you can use that to remediate other polluted sites, for example. So that explains Twitter perfectly. The toxicity creates adaptation for the psychological microbiome that is social media. Okay, beautiful, but you just actually jump back to the interstellar travel, assuming the

technology of today, yes, what are some wild innovations that might happen in the space of physics or biology? By the way, where do you think is the most exciting breakthroughs for interstellar travel that will happen in the next 500 years? Is it physics? Is it biology? Is it computer science? So information or DNA, like some kind of informational type of thing, is it biological, like physiological making the body resilient,

live longer, and resilient to the harsh conditions of space, or is it the actual vehicle of transport which would be applied physics? As you can probably guess, I'll say all the above the question. But to break those down though, I think the AI, I hope in the book later that we would have really good machine companions that the AI, I really hope the AI is that we build, like realistically we are the programmers are making them, I would feel it a colossal failure if we didn't make AI that was embedded with the sense of duty and caretaking and

Friendship and even creativity like we have the opportunity. We're I've coded algorithms myself like I Were building them so it would it's incumbent upon us to actually make them Not assholes, you know, I think frankly so just be Air actually on that point just linger on the AI front Can you steal me man the case that Hal 9000 from Space Odyssey was doing the right thing? So for people who haven't seen 2001 Space Odyssey, Hal 9000 is very focused on the mission, cares a lot about the mission, and wants to hurt the astronauts that try to get in the way the mission.

I think he was doing his program to do, which was just to follow the mission, but didn't have a sense of you know, a broader duty, you could, I mean, you, what's the broader duty exactly? maintaining the well-being of astronauts? Yeah, or giving them another option. I think you viewed them as like completely do the exactly, maintaining the well-being of astronauts. Yeah, or giving them another option. I think you viewed them as completely expendable,

rather than say, not completely, it's a trade-off. Oh. So a doctor has to make decisions like this too. Oh, that. You're restricted on the resources, you have to make life and death decisions. So maybe Hal 9000 had a long term vision

of what is good for the civilization back at home. Maybe a deontogenic vision of what was the best duty for the genetics, you could say. What's deontogenic for me? It's a word I made up in the book. It's like, what is your genetic duties? When you think of your DNA, what are you supposed to do with it, which is kind of the value of life.

But if Hal was a Silicon based version of genetics, which is just his own maintenance of himself and self-survival, you get argues doing the right thing for himself. But I think a human in that circumstance might have tried to find a way to, even if the astronauts don't agree with the mission, to figure out somebody to get them on a different spacecraft to go away or something. Versus just say, well, you're in the way of the mission, I'll just, you have to die, is I think, but accommodation can always be made to your appointment doctors. Sometimes you'd like to save three people, but you can only save two, and you have to at some point pick. But I think that's in the default dichotomy. I think how

didn't, wasn't programmed to and didn't try to find a third solution. Perhaps this next two, Russell proposes this idea that AI systems should have self-doubt. It should be always uncertain in their final decision. And that would help how sort of get out of the local optimum of the, this is the mission, like always be a little bit like, hmm, not sure this is the right thing. And then you're forced to kind of contend with other humans, with other entities,

on what is the right decision. So the worst thing about decisions from that perspective is if you're extremely confident and you're stubborn and immovable. Right. But programming doubt, that sounds complicated. That sounds like... Go wrong.

Yes, so many ways. You can go wrong either way. If you're too confident, you won't see the other options. If you have too much doubt, you won't move. You'll be paralyzed by the options. So you need some middle ground, which I think of it. Most people experience every day is we all love the concept of being a stead ground, which I think of it. Most people experience every day is we all love the concept of being a steadfast, resolute leader, making big decisions quickly and without question.

But at the same time, we know people can be blinded to things they're missing if they're too strong. So how would you improve hell in that thousand? I think I would include other because hell is one program. Much like we do for humans, you get feedback from other humans before you make a decision that affects all of them. So I think Hal could have gotten feedback from other AI systems that said, well, there are other options here and done it probably very quickly. Are you giving embedded programming system where the AI has a primary function, but at times of uncertainty queries a series of other program,

AI is to ask for a consensus almost. I'm like a democracy of the AI, but since it's all a program, you can bring it all together and say there's a primary, but it only activates the parliament, if you will, for a decision when needed. Not on how you program dramatically different AI's all on one system that are different enough,

but conceptually it's possible. Of course, that can lead to log jam and government and parliament doesn't do anything or Congress doesn't do anything. So there's trade-offs, but that's one idea. I, you know, I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. That, I'm really, I find really compelling the idea. I'd love to set that up in my own life at some point,

is you're stuck there on a spaceship. Yeah, well an AI system. It's just the two of you. You have to figure it out. I love that Challenge, I love that Almost a really deep human conflict of Through conversation have to arrive at something. You you really try to understand what survival is a stake. You have to try to understand the other being. Now you think it's just a robot. We keep saying like it's just programmed to the, but you know what? When you talk to another human, it's just a bag of meat. And then you disagree and you're like, you know, everybody starts

using terms like how dumb can you be, how ignorant can you be? Come on, this is the right way. What are you talking about? This is where you're talking about, it's insane. And when the stakes go up, when it's life and death, you have to convince another person. First you have to understand another person. And this case, you have to understand the machine without knowing how it was programmed because as a programmer, even, I mean, this is

very much true for these LEGO robots. I really make sure that everything that's programmed is sufficiently large and has a sufficient degree of uncertainty where I'm constantly surprised. I don't know how it works. I kind of know how it works, but I'm surprised constantly and there there's a human component of trying to figure each other out and if it's high stakes Life and death through conversation. I mean to me that's actually what makes a great companion out in space is like You're both in charge of each other's life and you both don't quite know how each other works and also you don't treat each other as a servant so I don't know how was treated that way a little bit where you're like a servant as opposed to a friend, a companion, a teammate,

you know, because I think the worst part about treating an AI system or another human being as a servant is what it does to you. If you treat them as a means to an end rather than end of itself, then you've debased them. And like lessened the humanity in yourself at the same time. Which is, I mean, that's why they talked about kids have to be polite to Alexa because they find if they're, you know, if people are, if kids are rude to AI systems, they actually that's a bad sign, right? It's a bad sign and it develops the wrong thing in terms of how they treat other human beings.

So that's AI. So what about physics? Can we do, in terms of, can we travel close to the speed of light? Can we travel faster than the speed of light? I would love to fold space. We know wormholes are technically possible, but we have no way to do it. I love to see advanced and more more technology. Antimatter drives, antimatter is notoriously missing for most of the universe. So we-

What is antimatter drive? Antimatter would be we used purified bits of antimatter. Basically, there was the opposite of matter. So if you can have an anti-electron to the electron, you could have even the complete atoms. It would be anti- atoms. And when you put them together, there would be pure energy released in theory, and that could drive the most powerful possible engine for space travel. But the only place you can make anti-matter

is in large particle accelerators, and only very briefly. So that is hard, but if that could work, that would be extraordinary. Fusion drives would be great. Just getting a nuclear fusion well controlled, and that would actually give you a pretty good proportion. So, I think that's the most likely thing we'll see as fusion drives. Fusion technology

is getting better and better over your, or it's at old saying fusion is always 10 years away every year. It's always 10 years away, but it's getting better. And I think that saying is something that is a century old, or less than a century old over multiple centuries that same might might actually because the fusion might actually become a reality for propulsion. So that would be I think very likely to see in the next few centuries and then biology was the other part or any else physics. I mean physics you could imagine ways to have electromagnetic shielding so it could be you could deflect all the cosmic rays that are coming at your spacecraft with a large, almost like force field, quite frankly, that takes some development to do, but that would be good to see.

And uploading human memories and consciousness into digital form? Yeah, that's kind of blends the machine and physics with the biology developments. And I think, you know, there's a lot of great work being done in longevity. I have one of my companies itself works on longevity. It's called longevity. And so I'm working on myself on ways to improve how we monitor health and wellness now and live longer, live better. Many people are doing this is what the whole purpose of medicine is to a large degree.

But I don't think we'll live in the book. I propose we might get to live to 150 years. I think that's reasonable. But say humans are going to live to be two, three, four, or 500 years, or some people, I meet people like this every week because I think I'm not going to die, to which I always say, I hope you're right, but I think you should plan that you're not going to be right.

But I want people, also as we mentioned earlier, being immortal would really fundamentally change the social contract and how you plan and how you allocate resources. Not necessarily bad, but it would just be different. But I also just think we don't know yet of any way to undo the ravages to the human body that occur over time. We can repair some of it, replace some of it, but you know, it's okay to assume that you're gonna die.

And I just assume, no, you're gonna die, because then you have a bit of liberty about what you can do quickly and do next. But I think we will get better. I think we could see people live potentially to 115 with some of the tools and methods and living longer. But upload, you know, living might, and living on brain, like in the,

the curts will singularity where we all have this rapture like moment and we go up and upload into the cloud and live forever. Um, I don't know if it would still be the same as what we consider that view of self in this flesh form. If we could really get a complete representation of it in person's entire personality up into digital form, and that would be immortality basically. Or a loose representation. I go to the thought experiment of, I like thinking about clones. Like, twins, twins are clones, basically.

Basically, the ability to generate, I mean, you're stuck with those clones. The twins is a fixed number of clones, so that's a genetic clone. I mean, a philosophical clone where you can keep generating them, versions. And then the reason I really like that construction, thinking about that, like for me personally, is it nicely encapsulates how I feel about being human because why do I matter? If I'm, how would I, if I do another copy of me, how would I defend why I matter as a human being?

And I don't think I can because that clone, if it's just fine, it's not even a perfect like a reasonable clone. Like most people I know that love me and who I love, they'll be just fine with the clone. They'll be like, and some, they'll be surprised. Like, oh, you're like, you're, you're move kind of weird, but like overall, but otherwise I'll take it. And if that's possible to do that kind of copying,

and no, I don't want to say perfect clone, because I think perfect clone is very difficult and engineering wise. I mean, like a pretty crappy copy would still be okay for both of us. Just like wears suits a lot, has a weird way of talking. I mean, I think there's a lot of elements there, like in the digital space, especially with the metaverse.

Yeah. You can clone, I think, you know, in the digital space, especially with the metaverse, you can clone, I think, you know, in the next few decades, you'll be able to clone people's behavioral patterns pretty well. And visual, at least in the virtual reality in a digital representation, if you are. And then you have to really contend, it's like, why do I matter? Is maybe what matters isn't the individual person, but what matters are the ideas that that person plays with.

So it doesn't matter if there's a thousand clones, what matters is that I'm currently thinking about X or some kind of problem that I'm trying to solve and those ideas and I'm sharing those ideas. Maybe ideas of the organisms and not the I'm sharing those ideas. Maybe ideas of the organisms and not the meat vehicles of the organism. Maybe that's a cultural shift where we won't necessarily treat any one body as fundamentally unique or important, but the sort of the ideas that those bodies play with.

I mean, that sounds crazy. No, abstract, abstract, but very well. Derek Parfied wrote this great book called Reasons and Persons about how you really define an individual is not just your own thoughts and your own self-reflection, but we're almost, he argues, more defined by how other people have seen it. He's like, if you walked out into the world and say, suddenly, nobody knew who you were recognized you, you would be in some regards disease, straight. If no one, if everyone just suddenly

had massive amnesia and you just didn't know who you are, and never remember no memory of anything you'd ever done together, you'd be very alone. You'd be basically, you know, starting from scratch, like, has even just been born basically. So you'd be, and also you'd write a thought experiment, it's like, what if half of your neurons get replaced with half of someone else or a quarter or 60 percent? What point do you stop being you and become that other person? And the argument he makes is it's more than just what percentage of your neurons are swapped out. It's also the relationships you have with so many people that partly define you. No, not completely, but they're a

key component of how you view yourself, how to view you, what you are in the world. And you know, he actually goes so far to say that they're probably more important than even what's in your head. Like if you swap out, you swap out all of your thoughts, but when you walk out into the world, everyone still treats you in talking the same way as memory of what you are. That is an entity that's defined you, even if all of your, there's even movies like a trading space is about this, without you, Murphy. These are people who can swap bodies. The reason those are comedies is because they're fish out of water comedies.

But they go to the point of what defines you is not just you, but also your viewed well you as an entity exists in the memories of other of other beings and so that yeah the The entities as they exist in their form in those memories perhaps are more important to who you are than what's in your head and that that clones then are, how do they do they lesson? Not really, they just distribute, they just scale the unists that can be experienced by other humans. Like if I could be doing five podcasts right now at the same time, then theory, but I'd have to have somebody transmit the memory

of which one I did, which would be hard. But not impossible, if it's all digitally, you could aggregate in a creek more and more of the memories into one entity. Oh, I see. But I thought at the moment of cloning, it's like cloning a Git repository, then you're no longer is branched. You share the version, view one of Chris, that a lot of people have experienced, like your high school

friends, college friends, colleagues and so on. But now you moved on to your music career and that one of your clones did. And then that's fundamentally new experiences that you still, your colleagues can still experience the memories of the old person. But the new one is totally you're going to have new communities experiencing connecting to those and then you can just Propagate and the ones that don't get a lot of likes on social media we can Like quietly this pose of we want to maximize is the clones of Chris that can get a lot of likes on Facebook. Okay On just returning briefly to the topic of AI, are you working on AI stuff too?

A little machine learning tools for jungle mix. Yeah, for jungle mix. For jungle mix. I was seeing this interspersed because it's such a biology, I mean, I guess it's supposed computational biology person. But what about the, are you working on Asia prediction? Oh, yes, yeah. Like, so you've heard about the book, I guess, yeah. Yeah. That's actually written with the philanthropist I mentioned who we named the fungus after

the space station. So that's coming out next year, actually. What's the effort there? What's your interest in sort of the more narrow AI tools of prediction and machine learning, all that kind of stuff? I think the age of prediction, so the next book that's coming is all the ways where machine learning tools, predictive algorithms, have fundamentally changed our lives. So some of them are obvious to me where, for example, when we sequence cancer patients DNA, and we have predictions of exactly which drug

will work with it, that's actually a very simple algorithm. But other ones involve predicting, say, the age of blood that's left at the scene of a crime, which uses computational tools to look at each piece of DNA and what it might reveal for its epigenetic state, and then predicting essentially how old you are at any given moment. And that's also gets to longevity,

because sometimes you can see if you're getting, if you're aging faster or slower than you should be. So some tools are in medicine or even forensics. But my favorite part, a lot of the book is, where does this show up in economics, as well as in medicine? So predictive tools, I mean, I think the most notorious when people thought of us during 2012 election, in 2016 election especially,

we were seeing these really big differences of how Facebook was monitoring feeds And so prediction is not just better medicine or and finance and economics people think about stock traders people doing predictive algorithms but how you what you view in your feed how you what your vote is and and what you saw Facebook did experiments They call it social contagion experiments to see, can we restructure what people see and then how they respond, actually kind of be really predictive and manipulative, frankly, with what happens. And then can that change how they vote? And the answer seemed to be yes for a good amount of the populous in 2016 in the US.

So I think we're seeing more and more of these algorithms show up all over the place. And so the book is about where they appear, where they're good, for example, in medicine, they're phenomenal. They have fundamentally changed how we treat cancer patients, but were they risky, like if someone's trying to steal your vote or manipulate your thoughts potentially negatively? So in medicine, you're hopeful about prediction. Yeah, most of the AI and medicine, the machine learning tools for image recognition, for example, for pathology samples, we normally think of, oh, someone takes a bit of tissue and then puts it on to a slide. Normally, there's pathologists that have been training for years to look at a chunk of your tissue and say, okay, is this cancer? What kind of cancer? What treatment should I do?

But there's an old joke about pathologists that you can give 10 slides to 10 different pathologists and get 11 different diagnoses, which is as awful as it sounds, because you're having someone squint at a stained microscope slide. But instead of use a lot of the AI tools where you can actually segment the image, high resolution characterization with multiple probes, it's what AI was built to do. You get a large training data set, and then you have test samples afterward. You can do far better than almost every pathologist on the planet and get a much more accurate diagnostic. So that's for breast cancer, for prostate cancer,

for leukemia, we've seen the diagnostic tools explode with AI power. Is it currently mostly empowering doctors or gonna replace doctors? Watson, when notoriously was made by IBM to try and replace doctors, I actually was. I love IBM so much. I was in the room when we got a tour of Watson for the first time with the Dean of our medical

school. And these programmers came out and said, listen, here's this example of a patient. And watch Watson diagnose the patient and recommend the right treatment. And then at one point in the conversation, remember, there's the room of, I'm a PhDs like a geneticist and programmers, some MDs, leaders of the medical school, the Dean is there. And it says, you could imagine someday this could replace doctors in a room full of doctors, right? So it was a really poor choice, of course, because everyone's like, no, you want to help

the doctors, but I think the view from the programmers is often a bit naive that they could fundamentally replace doctors. Now, in some cases, they can't, for the pathology description, I just mentioned, I think the AI tools already do a better job, and we've only really been doing this for about five years. So you imagine another five years of optimization and data, they're gonna take over, right? So, and they should,

because staring and squinting at screens for hours on day is not the best use of human ingenuity. So I think, in some cases, they'll take over. Other cases, they'll augment, they'll help. Yeah, that human ingenuity, actually, especially for AI people, sometimes difficult to character as I have this debate all the time about autonomous driving.

There it's a lot more difficult than people realize. You're an expert. Are you focused a lot on that for your research right? I'm an expert in nothing except in not being an expert, I think. Or asking stupid questions, but the answer is both. Okay. But if there is some ingenuity that's hard to kind of encapsulate, that is human for doctor, the decision-making, it's the how-minded thousand. You can have a perfect system that has able to know the optimal answer, but there's some human element that's missing. And sometimes the suboptimal answer in the long term is the right one.

It's the self-doubt that is essential for human progress. It's weird to it. I'm not, let's share what that is. If I can, let me ask you to be the wise old sage and give advice to young people today. Sure. In high school, in college, about how to have a career, they can be proud of, or maybe a life that can be proud of, on this planet or others. I think for the padwons out there and young ones, younglings looking up at the stars, you have to know that this day that you're alive is quantifiably the best day that's ever happened.

And that tomorrow will be even better than this day in terms of the capacity for discovery, the amount of data that exists. They can, it's not my opinion, that's just an empirical fact of the state of genetics, research, knowledge, accretion of humanities, acumen for many disciplines. So with that ability to do so many things, it can be sometimes just terrifying. Well, what do I pick?

If I could do everything and this is the most possibility ever in human history, how do you pick one thing to do? And that's just the thing, what do you find yourself daydreaming about? What's the thing that keeps you up at night? And if you don't have anything that keeps you up at night sometimes, you go find something that keeps you up at night because that is kind of this, sometimes I feel like if I'm, I could walk it up by the someone on the inside of my skull who's knocking,

trying to get out. And that kind of that almost haunting feeling of, I need to wake up those things that have to be done. There are questions I, I don't know the answer to. And there's a lot of times as simple as, how do we engineer cells to survive more radiation? But I read a paper and then it came back to me a week later as I was able to use some of these tools or these genes or these methods really, being pleasantly haunted by something

is a wonderful place to be and find that thing that bothers you because they'll be good days and they'll be bad days, but you wanna have even on the worst possible days working on the thing that you that bothers you. Because there'll be good days and there'll be bad days, but you wanna have, even on the worst possible days, working on the thing that you love the most. And then all the usual, normal phrases apply. Then you never work a day in your life if you have a job you love, usual phrases,

but it's true, and it's actually really hard to find. I think a lot of times you'll have to do work for random jobs that you maybe you don't like for five or even 10 years. Right, we may have to go to school for 10 to fifteen to twenty years to finally get to the red spot where you have the knowledge the experience and even frankly just reputation that people trust you you've done enough good work. And only then can you really do the thing you love most but so you have to be a little bit patient and impatient at the same time you have to do both. And the interesting thing is when you're trying to find that thing that excites you, you have to, especially in this modern world, I think, silence the distractions. Because once you find that thing, you hear that little voice in your head, there's still Instagram and TikTok, video games,

and other exciting dopamine rushes that can pull you away. It makes it seem like they're the same thing, but they're not really. There's some little flame there that's longer lasting. I think you have to silence everything else to let that flame become a fire. So it's interesting because so much of the internet is designed to convert that natural

predisposition that humans have to get excited about stuff, convert that into like attention and money and ads. Yeah, I'm so on. Yeah, definitely. But like we have to be conscious of that. I think a lot of that is full of fun and it's awesome. I think TikTok and Instagram that's full of fun. Amazing, yeah. And creativity leads to people making amazing videos, or even doing people, my daughter loves TikTok.

And you know, people who do makeup art on TikTok of things that are mind-blowing. In fact, they made that video just to put it on TikTok and practice their art and share it with the world's fabulous. But then if my daughter watches TikTok for like three hours straight, I'm like, what are you doing exactly? And she's like, well, you know, so it's art, because when I was a kid, I'm like, I played Nintendo.

I sometimes would play for like 10 hours a day, even in grad school, I'd sometimes play like counterstrike or half life, like 12 hours straight. And I'm like, what was I? So at one point, I built a new computer. I just didn't install some of the games I had I'm for. I was like, I'm just going to not install them because otherwise, I'll play them for too long. Yeah, I would love to, I get in props from the team, I would love to lay out all the things I've ever done in my life to myself. Because I think I would be less judgmental of others

and less understanding, more patient. Because the amount of hours that's been playing like Diablo and like, it's insane. I'm sure it adds up to like weeks, maybe months of my life that it was just, you know, but I feel like I was probably, I tell myself at least I was problem solving. Right. It could say hand-eye coordination or that's an old, I don't know if that really is even remotely true.

But some of the games like Final Fantasy things are things we actually had to solve problems and think and they were some degree of strategy. But they were actually just expanding the diversity of human character that makes up you. It's like you can't just focus on that night you can't, but perhaps it's more beneficial to focus, to not focus on a singular thing for many, many years at the time. That could be one of the downsides of PhD. If you're not careful, is that you become too singularly focused, not just on the problem, but on a particular community. You don't do wild stuff. You don't do interdisciplinary stuff.

You don't go out painting or getting drunk or dancing, whatever injects variety to the years of difficult reading, research paper, after research paper, that whole process, you have to be very careful to add variety into it. And maybe that involves playing a little bit of Counter-Strike or Diablo, whatever floats your boat. We're dancing a little. New York City is a great place for this. There's Sunrise rooftop dancing. The party that does this. That's the thing.

It's the thing. So you go there, ask some people from my lab that go, I've only been once, but like, at Sunrise, and you see the see the sunrise over the city and it's huge house music And you play and you dance like crazy and then you go to work You know you go to lab you go to wherever you go But you can it's good to squeeze in some weird crazy sun sunrise rooftop dancing or things like that when you can If we can if we may do some difficult dark places I'll bring a flashlight maybe something dark places. I'll bring a flash line. Maybe something, find something they can warm your soul or

inspires others. Is there a dark period, dark times in your life that you had to overcome? Yeah, like many people had friends I've lost. I had a friend when I was a young girl who committed suicide. And that was actually, I remember being so struck of I couldn't understand it. I didn't understand mental illness at the time. I was very young. I was only think 11 at the time. And I really was confused more than anything else about how to someone take their life. And actually, once I got over the grief of it all, I really it cemented in my head that I would never commit suicide. I could tell this to my wife is that,

you know, if it looks like I hung myself, go find my killer because I would never do it. It's gotta be staged. And, you know, but at the same time, it began to appreciate there are times where the suffering is so great and diseases can be so awful that sometime, you know, euthanasia is an actual exit. But I, just have friends I've lost along the way or

but that's not too different. Everyone has people they've lost along the way, but actually was never too dark of a childhood or a dark place. I mean, the hardest things have been really weird relationship breakups where I felt like, love falling in love and then losing that person, just breaking up, not like they died. But where you felt like, you know, you just could barely move and like you literally felt like your heart was moved in your body to a different location. And that sort of scraping sense of existence of, but, but also at the same time, that's been where I've, in some

way, has been the most alive where I lost the, what I thought at the time was the love of my life. where I've, in some ways been the most alive, where I lost the, what I thought at the time was the love of my life. And but then was able to actually, I think, carve a deeper trench into my heart, which then could be filled more with joy, I would say, is what Pablo Neroot wrote about this and Khalil Gaboron is that the deepest, deepest sorrows, I think, later have translated into my life as two places that can be filled with greater amounts of joy. I love thinking of sorrows as a digging of a ditch that can then be filled with more good stuff. Eventually. Not at the time, but for a while it's just to join empty cavernful of blood and tears and pain, but then there comes later. There is an element to life where this too shall pass. Yeah. So any moment of sorrow or joy, it's going to be over.

And like, treasure it, no matter what. I mean, I do definitely think about losing love. That's like a celebration of love. And even any living, I think, is better. That's why I just add in a late on the get ever really commit suicide. Because anything I take is better than nothing. Like so the worst kiss scenario said there's no heaven. There's no hell.

That's just it. Like if you just die and that's really just it, then anything that you have in living is by definition infinitely better than the zero. I think because it's at least it's something. And so I appreciate set. I've been enjoy sadness, which sounds like an oxymoron but I sometimes even long for a good sadness like a rainy day and I'm staring out a window squinting and like drinking some underpriced whiskey and then you know and and just moping

and like what are you doing? I'm just moping today and I just but I want at least one day right now that or something. I actually had a conversation offline with Rick Rubin, he's a music producer about this. And he's, he told me, um, his way of speaking that's old like sage like, and you says, be careful that you, um, spend some time appreciating that sadness, but don't become addicted. That there's a line you can cross, and then you actually push away the joy. Because the sadness can be all-encompassing and therefore even more real than what might seem like fleeting happiness. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. You can sadden us if you let it can be a thing that stays with you longer and stick here. But you, but just witnessing suicide made you appreciate life more. Yeah. And just an appreciation of death is actually an appreciation of life at the same time. Are you afraid of your death? No, you think about it.

I think it's like being afraid of the sunrise. It doesn't make sense. So you're part of this fabric that is humanity. And then you just think generationally. Yeah, I think I want to do as much as I can. I feel like I would die. I feel like I've lived a full life already. I actually believe that since age 17 onward, I feel like even then, I mean, then the bar

was lower. I feel like, well, I had at least sex once. I had had good friends. What else is there? That's right. But then I had also really read a lot of philosophy. I had traveled a bit. I felt like I had started to at least see the philosophy, had traveled a bit, felt like I had started to at least see the world and had lived a somewhat of a life. But from then on I felt like

that I wouldn't feel like I was cheated if I had died from that day forward. That I had gotten at least enough of life to feel like that I wouldn't, I would be not okay with dying, but that I feel like I knew I was going to die, I wasn't afraid I was going to die. I made it, actually, it was very liberating. And was going to die, I wasn't afraid I was going to die. It actually was very liberating. And it's only gotten better since then. So I think some of that may or may not have been drug-related euphoria, but nonetheless, the joy stuck.

And I think it's just gotten more true ever since, is that the default state is one of very rich appreciation because it's so fleeting. And so any, I know I would die. I know I would die happy. I guess even at age 17, but now my metrics have changed a little bit. It's not, I've had sex more than one time now. So that's really big. And graduation.

Very exciting. It's at least four times. But the multiples and professionally accomplished things like actually actually do some of the genetic dreams I had when I was 16 or 17 I'm not actually making them in my lab. I actually like to say my my scientific goals and statements have really been the same since I've been 17. It's just now everyone takes me seriously because I'm a professor and actually I've done. Are you mentoring people? You're into the next generation. Yeah. And so patients. Yeah. and helping patients live longer and seeing the hope in their eyes when they went from a, even my own grandfather, went from a two-month diagnosis of living from metastatic cancer to living for more than two years.

Eventually succumb to it, but knowing can use the tools of predictive medicine to save people. And so now, looking at ahead, I feel like it's, I would die very happy if I saw boots on the red planet and people there. And the other advice to the younglings, I'd say is the first time I proposed a twin study to NASA, they said, no, several times. And no, we're not on a plan for a mission like that. It's not going to happen.

So, don't, you know, just persevere as old. But you were, I didn't know. I knew you were part of leading the NASA Twin Study, but you were also part of the failure to do so early. So the first, actually, because when you start a lab in academia, they say, here's a pile of money. Yes. Write grants and bring in more money and train people and start a lab.

But so I actually wrote NASA and said, I'm not requesting any funds. I have funds that just gave me a bunch of money. I would like to, though, do a deep genetic profile of astronauts before and after space flight and do it ideally if we have some twins or do genetics and epigenetics and microbiome. But John Charles was the director of the Human Rights Research Program, so we don't have those samples that you would want for their old samples and we don't have any plans for missions like that right now. So we can't do it.

And it was the first time I, you know, it's like, it's like, it's like, thing to someone at listen, I'll buy a house for you. I just have this mile by and they're like, uh, no, no, thanks. Because it felt like I was offering a really unique research opportunity. But then that, you know, failure of saying that we're not ready yet. It's not time. But then once they have the solicitation, then he'd reached out and said, oh, actually, I think we've got something along the lines of what you were thinking

a few years ago. So sometimes when some things get rejected or someone says, said, oh, actually, I think we've got something along the lines of what you were thinking a few years ago so sometimes when something's get rejected or someone says no, so okay, maybe it's just too early, but don't don't give up I think it's a No, so to me when someone says no, not right now. I'll be like, okay, I'll just I'll come back in a year No, it just means no for now then so If I think it's sometimes no means you have a crappy idea that is true. I do have crappy ideas and so does everybody but If I really believe in it, I just say okay, I'll be back Yeah, this two shall pass the no Do you hope to go out to ISS out to deep space one day?

I would love to go. I want to be a little bit older so that if I die, it's not as traumatic for my daughter and family. But yeah, I feel like if I'm a little bit older, I definitely would even potentially do a one way trip to Mars later in life. So would you like to do think you will step foot on Mars? I would love to and I think I might.

I think that maybe that one way trip, if they, because I think they'll need settlers who would want to go and stay there and build and be there for the long term, knowing it's high risk, knowing it's... And your resume fits. So you will have a lot of cool stuff to do there. Yeah, at least on the surface,, to be able to sell yourself well. Resilience, experience, motivation. Would that make you sad to die, Mars? Looking back at the planet, you were born on. No, I think it would be actually, in some ways, maybe the best way to die, knowing that you're in the first wave of people expanding the reaching to the stars.

It'd be an honor. Why do you think we're here? What's the meaning of life? The service, the guardians of life itself. That is the duty for our species is to recognize and manifest this unique responsibility that we have, and only we have so far. So I think, to me, the meaning of life is for life to, in its simplest form is to be able to survive,

but to leverage the frailty of life into its ability to protect itself. And quite literally the guardians of the galaxy is basically what we are regarding ourselves and also life. I mean, life is just so precious as far as we know, it is completely rare in the universe. And I do think a lot of well, what if this is the only universe that's ever come in and it won't come back again and like this is it.

And if that's true, we have to serve as its chepherds. Leverage the frailty of life to protect it. And this is all life. So we get the opportunity, we humans get the opportunity to be smart enough, to be clever enough, to be motivated enough to actually protect the other life that's on this. Including, yeah, including life that's to come that might be very different from what we imagine today. And that would make you sad if we were replaced by the kinder, the kinder smarter, yeah?

Nope. I think about that in the book a bit of that. I think I would be okay with it if they carry some echo of that's duty and they bring that with them. It would be real. I'd be sad if they like to help with everyone. We're going to destroy everything we come across and become like nanobots that make everything gray goo. That seems, but that would still be a version of life. Just not one that is, as I think is pretty, but technically it'd be alive. So, you know, I feel soft, I think, could I object? It's borderline. Yeah, but romantically, no. Romantic. They need to carry the duty. There's some, yes. It's a bit of a romance to the philosophy. It's in there. And you also end the book with a universe that creates new universes. So if this isn't the only universe,

do you think that's in our future that we might launch new universe? New offspring universes. It's very possible. I mean, multiverse is a controversial field because it's very much hypothetical, but with this universe has been created, the one we're in now. And so it's happened before. It certainly could happen again. Some of them might be happening in

parallel. I think, you know, if you look at billions of years, trillions of years in the future of technological development, it's certainly possible. We could start to have a little baby universes grow them like cabbage, get them out, saute them, make them have flavor. grow them like cabbage, get them saute them, make them have flavor. Yeah, create something delicious. Well, it sounds difficult, but it's our human duty to try. As you said, Chris, this is an incredible conversation. You're an incredible person. A scientist explorer. I can't wait to see what you're doing this world. And I hope to be there with you on Mars. I would like to also breathe my last breath on that sexy red planet that's our neighbor. Podcasts from Mars, at least space.

I think space should be coming. Space is pretty good. Space is pretty good. But Mars next. Chris, thanks so much for talking to me. Thanks for having me. It's really an honor to pleasure to be here. Thanks.

Thanks for listening to this conversation with Chris Mason. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you some words from Stanislav Lem and Salaris. Man has gone out to explore other worlds and other civilizations without having explored his own labyrinth of dark passages and secret chambers and without finding what lies behind doorways that he himself has sealed. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. you.