Key Points:
- In a spirited debate, Tucker Carlson challenges Bryan Johnson’s innovative longevity practices and ethical use of AI to defy aging and extend human life.
- Johnson defends his “Don’t Die” philosophy in the face of skepticism, emphasizing his goal to utilize AI and technology to enhance human health and longevity rather than achieve immortality.
- While exploring the integration of AI into society, Johnson and Carlson discuss the potential benefits and risks, questioning whether technology or human judgment will best ensure the future survival of humanity.
In a recent thought-provoking podcast released on X, the polarizing media figure Tucker Carlson interviewed longevity tech mogul Bryan Johnson, a man who spent millions of dollars meticulously crafting a longevity protocol called Blueprint. In the episode, the two delve into the complex implications of advanced technology on human life, aging, and the ethical boundaries of artificial intelligence (AI).
Debating Longevity and the Ethics of Biohacking
Johnson, an advocate for using technology to extend human healthspan, begins by highlighting key components to his health regimen, which includes his strict Blueprint diet free from processed foods, and weight/cardiovascular training for 1-hour per day. He goes on to share the details behind his efforts to track and improve his biological age, which he has managed to decrease significantly.
Maintaining his confrontational interviewing style, Carlson hones in on Johnson’s efforts to slow his speed of aging by injecting himself with his son’s plasma. Johnson explains that the framework behind this approach is very similar to organ transplants and donating blood.
But Carlson fires back by saying he would not endorse this and that “there is a frame, to use your word, on the internet of like ‘Super Rich Tech Billionaires Living Forever on the Blood of Children.’ Not a super appealing frame, I would say.”
Johnson was unphased by Carlson’s criticism. He replied by saying he was very transparent with the whole process and will continue to share all of the data with regard to the longevity interventions he incorporates into his biohacking routine.
Don’t Die
Despite recent technological advancements in the longevity space, Johnson acknowledges that we are never going to fully arrest aging. But he believes that we can definitely slow its pace. And with AI developing quickly, Johnson strongly believes that, for the first time in history, it is reasonable and rational to think we can defeat death.
Carlson questions the moral implications behind Johnson’s ambitions, asking, “When you say ‘I can defeat death,’ aren’t you saying you’re God?”
Johnson responds with a philosophical reflection of human existence and our creation narratives, stating, “The universe speaks in irony and that the story we’ve told is that God created us and the actual story is that we’re going to create God.” Johnson proceeds to say that “this is not about me trying to live forever. This is about me trying to answer the most pressing question in human existence: What do we do as a species?”
Within the broader discussion about defeating death, Johnson elaborates on his ‘Don’t Die’ philosophy, which again, is not about immortality. Rather, it is a mission to enhance human health, longevity, and quality of life through the use of technology like AI.
“It’s time to rally around this ‘Don’t Die’ concept. Don’t die individually, don’t kill each other, don’t kill the planet, and align AI with ‘Don’t Die.’ That’s our singular objective as a species, even though this sounds unimaginable right now,” states Johnson.
Technological Integration and Human Identity
Johnson suggests that AI’s integration into society will provide insight into life’s existential questions; however, Carlson expresses concern about the implications of surrendering too much control to AI. Notably, when Carlson was asked if he would follow an AI algorithm’s suggestions if it was capable of enhancing his mental, physical, and spiritual health, Carlson responded with a resounding “No.” He questioned how a machine could even improve spirituality without acknowledging spiritual forces itself.
Carlson also points out that following such an algorithm eliminates self-autonomy, which he believes is a pivotal component of being human. Moreover, he calls for careful consideration of how AI is integrated into society and states that AI could potentially cause global chaos, with which Johnson surprisingly agrees.
Uniquely, in response to these concerns and to facilitate deeper conversations of life’s pressing questions, Johnson hosts monthly dinners with 10-12 prominent figures to discuss the intersection of AI and human values. Accordingly, these dinners are designed to create a shared space for open dialogue, where participants can challenge, debate, and refine their ideas about how AI can be ethically integrated into society. Collectively, this demonstrates Johnson’s commitment to understanding what it means to intermingle with advanced technologies for the betterment of society.
Embracing Technology for Survival
Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking segments of this interview is when Johnson discusses humanity’s self-destructive tendencies. He points out that humans frequently overlook long-term repercussions for immediate gratification, citing examples like smoking and poor dietary habits. Johnson admits that he himself succumbed to destructive behaviors in his past. And because of this, Johnson claims that he does not trust himself when it comes to maintaining health. Thus, he poses the question of whether AI may offer a more reliable path to enhancing human survival.
Johnson asks Carlson, “What path do you think creates a higher probability of survival? Do we think that technology, or we humans are a better path for survival? Do we really think that humans are trustworthy enough to chart a path where we survive ourselves?”
Carlson responds by saying that he doesn’t know and even agrees with Johnson’s stance on human behavior, saying that he also doesn’t inherently trust himself for survival. That being said, he claims that souls give him and humans the edge and “moral advantage” over machines.
Contentiously, Carlson revisits Johnson’s earlier point about the potential chaotic impact of AI, emphasizing that it could inevitably result in the death of millions.
“There’s no way you can look into the camera and say AI is not likely to kill millions of people. The displacement that you described…That chaos that you described correctly…millions will die because of that. So why wouldn’t you just take your money and try to blow it up in the name of saving millions?”
Johnson responds by saying he does not accept the premise behind Carlson’s argument and still believes our chances of survival are greater with AI.
“Millions are dying because of the food industry. Millions are dying because of environmental toxins. Death is happening at a societal scale for a lot of things that we humans are doing,” says Johnson.
Expanding on this, Johnson adds, “There’s more to reality than we can see. There’s forces which we can’t identify, and we should address those…The whole objective of this endeavor is to identify what we cannot see and reconcile with and eliminate the forces that deteriorate our life experience in all this capacity – spiritual, physical, all of it.” This statement underlies Johnson’s belief that understanding and leveraging technology can lead to better management of the invisible forces that affect our lives, ultimately enhancing our collective survival.
Moving Forward
This conversation between Tucker Carlson and Bryan Johnson sheds light on the pivotal role technology, particularly AI, may play in addressing some of the most pressing challenges of human existence. What’s more, their exchange emphasizes the necessity of ethical considerations and moral responsibility as we harness technological advances to extend life and improve its quality.
Furthermore, their conversation demonstrates the importance of engaging in these types of discussions to ensure that our journey forward not only advances our physical and mental capabilities but also nurtures the spiritual and social elements that hold society together. Through open dialogues and careful reflection, we can strive to use technology to optimize life responsibly, making decisions that protect and promote humanity’s well-being.
Comments