Episode 115 - Interview with neuroscientist and author Dr Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston

Transcript

Jen (00:00:17)

Well hello everybody. What a delight to welcome you to another episode of Let's Talk SciComm. Where as ever, I am joined by my most excellent friend and compatriot, Michael Wheeler. G'day, Michael.

Michael (00:00:32)

G'day, Jen. How are you doing?

Jen (00:00:34)

Well, you know I'm always better when I can convince you to say g'day. So clearly today is an excellent day. And I feel like your g'day just keeps getting better, you crazy Irishman.

Michael (00:00:43)

Well, thank you. I have been practicing, so I'm very glad you noticed.

Jen (00:00:47)

Ooh. I did. I definitely noticed.

So Michael, we are in for a definite treat today. I'm pretty much willing to guarantee you this is going to be a fascinating conversation. And I know that's a difficult thing to guarantee, but I'm putting myself on the line by doing that.

Because today we are going to have the great pleasure of chatting with someone that I recently had the honour of interviewing at a festival event. And we had a really excellent conversation that night. I think the video should be up now, so we'll put that into our show notes.

But yes. So our guest is Dr. Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston, and he's a neuroscientist. And I mean you, probably everyone has some stereotypical ideas of what neuroscientists do. But Ariel's work really sits, it's absolutely cutting edge. And it kind of sits in this area of consciousness science, longevity, and these big philosophical and moral questions about what life and death could mean and could look like in the future.

So Ariel is a research fellow at Monash University here in Melbourne. And he works there at the Monash Neuroscience of Consciousness Lab. And from what I can gather looking at his work, his main interest is in developing new ways to characterise consciousness, not just in healthy brains, but also in brains that are declining, suffering disease. And he's really interested in brain preservation.

So Ariel's PhD was from where we hang out, at the University of Melbourne. And his PhD was looking at how genetic and environmental factors interact to affect cognition. And he's published lots. So he's published on areas of cognitive decline and the rescue of cognitive function over the lifespan. And also interesting specific things. I'm pretty sure I saw something about how people experience colour.

But what I mostly want to talk about today, what I was interviewing Ariel about is this new book that he's published, which I will hold up for everybody to see. It's very pretty. And I noticed Ariel has some copies behind him as well.

And the book is called "The Future Loves You: How and Why We Should Abolish Death", which you know, we teach people how to come up with good hooks Michael. I think that is a pretty good, that's pretty provocative, right?

And the book is about arguing that recent advances in neuroscience and preservation technology and theory suggest that maybe death isn't inevitable, that it might be possible to preserve our brains at a structure or at a high enough quality to allow revival in some future in which medical tools exist that we don't yet have.

So, as you can imagine, I had a lot of questions for Ariel about the content of the book, as did the audience. We had a lot of audience questions. But I didn't really get the opportunity to ask him very much about, you know, how he went about communicating these really technical and difficult, confronting ideas in this book.

Because I you know, I wanted to put my science communicator hat on, but I knew my job was really there to get Ariel to be able to talk about the content of the book. So that's why I'm really excited that he said yes to coming back and being on the podcast so we can delve into that a bit more.

So thank you Ariel. Welcome. We're so rapt that you've made time to join us today on Let's Talk SciComm. I'm very excited.

Ariel (00:04:17)

It's a pleasure to be here with you guys.

Michael (00:04:20)

Yeah, it's absolute pleasure. I'm very excited to get into some of these questions, Ariel.

I've been thinking about some of these ideas. Probably, you know, a lot from sci-fi books, to be honest, that I've read. But I think sometimes sci-fi can be accurate or maybe an accurate picture of the future. So I really look forward to our discussion.

Ariel (00:04:42)

Yeah. I mean, that's in part where, you know, I think a lot of people encounter these ideas for the first time. So like the premise of the book is asking, you know, is it possible in principle to take someone who's dying and somehow preserve them, put them in stasis, keep them in some way where they're unconscious, unaging, unchanging for a period of time, and then maybe once future technology develops, bring them out at some point in the future?

And it's mostly an idea that's historically been explored in science fiction. Whether it's ideas of like keeping people at cold temperatures for long times. Or whether it's like, you know, traveling between the stars, ideas of people in stasis pods.

And I'd always had this question of like, you know, is that forever just like a science fiction trope that like you know, it doesn't really make sense? It's like time travel, like it doesn't work, but it makes for a good story.

Or is it like, no! Like in principle, if done right, under the right conditions, maybe something like that could be done. That was sort of like the starting impetus for my interest in this. But anyway...

Michael (00:05:43)

Maybe we've read some of the same sci-fi.

Ariel (00:05:46)

Seems quite likely.

Jen (00:05:49)

Yeah, I do recall checking in with you when we were chatting that night Ariel, about whether you were a sci-fi nerd. And I'm pretty sure you said yes, you're a sci-fi nerd. So you're going to fit right in. Michael and I are really happy to have you here.

I do want to talk heaps more about the book and what you're arguing and how you argue it in a little bit. But first of all, on this podcast, we really like to always start by going back a little bit and getting some sense of what led you to science in the first place. Can you pinpoint any experience or book or teacher or anything that really ignited your passion for science?

Ariel (00:06:25)

So at one point, I was looking through like a trove of stuff that had been kept about my like preschool, kindergarten, primary school, like all those old school reports and documents.

And I found this like collection of like little kindergarten, kinder three, kinder four projects that people had been doing that were like science projects. And it was mostly like, you know, somebody had drawn a rocket.

But I found that my account was apparently, I'd been really interested in like how the temperature was different inside the kinder and out in the playground. And I tried to like track the temperature over like a day or two or something to look at it. And I was like, Wow, I was actually doing empirical things from like back when I was four.

So this is a prelude to like, I don't know? I've just always found science very interesting. Asking "why" in that annoying toddler sense and like really asking again and again and again and again and again, like something about that really appeals to me. So in the most fundamental sense, I just really like science.

Jen (00:07:21)

You are such a nerd. You are such a nerd in the best possible way. I just love this little three year old going, just need to [check] the temperature and keep some good data records here. Oh, that's so good.

Michael (00:07:34)

I'd love to know a little bit more about your journey into neuroscience then Ariel. When did you discover your fascination for the human brain?

Ariel (00:07:41)

Yeah, I guess, so to jump forward a few years. When I was really little, I think I initially wanted to be an astronaut 'cause like I wanted to go to space and do all those cool things. I realised being an Australian astronaut was quite difficult. And also being an astronaut anywhere is quite difficult.

And I was like, Oh, what else do I find really fascinating? And I think I wanted... At one point, I considered being a marine biologist 'cause then you get to go diving and go look at all the cool animals.

But as I got a little bit older, I was like,Well, what I really do find interesting is like both biology, like how do these squishy cells work? How do they actually make up what we are? How do you go from these cool little chemical interactions and things up to a full, you know, organism?

I was really interested in like the philosophical questions of like, In fact, what are we? Like, what is it to be a mind, to be conscious, to have memories, to be able to imagine?

And then I was also interested in like, you know, the medical applications of like how do we actually use the science to do things that help people? And I think neuroscience was like the really, the intersection of all those things in a way that I found very fascinating.

Michael (00:08:51)

Yeah, it resonates with me. I love the line, "the brain is the only organ that named itself".

Jen (00:08:59)

Okay, so I want to jump into talking specifically about the book then. So just as a reminder, it's called "The Future Loves You: How and Why We Should Abolish Death", which I think is a seriously provocative title, but it's in no way clickbait. So this book actually talks about those topics.

So as a quick kind of recap for anyone who hasn't yet read the book, although I highly highly recommend that you do. In the book, you argue among many things that a person's identity, so the essence of who a person is, is encoded in the connectome, which is basically a high resolution map of all of our brain connections.

And you argue that new preservation techniques may soon, where soon is kind of up in the air, actually allow us to store our minds, the essence of ourselves, offering future generations this possibility of reviving us and you know, meaning that death isn't inevitable.

And so this book is full of really... There's a lot of technical stuff in there for you to mount that argument in a serious, credible way. It's a lot of challenging questions. You know, cognition, consciousness, death, brain preservation. What is the essence of a person? You know, there's a lot in there.

So I just want to know what on earth convinced you to try and take these ideas and write a book suitable for a general broad audience rather than staying within the academic world, which I'm guessing would have been a much easier way for you to explore your ideas.

Ariel (00:10:31)

Yeah. I mean, it's ultimately because I really do think there's a good chance that something like this could work. But I think it's currently being explored only in very small ways in very niche communities without broad application to most of society and to the medical community generally.

And that's despite the fact that although I think the scientific case for preservation has gotten a lot stronger in the last 10 years or so, the ideas have been explored by philosophers and scientists for many decades now.

And there are people who write papers on these topics in terms of the neuroscience, in terms of the philosophy, in terms of even potential medical applications. But it's not very widely discussed, and it certainly hasn't led to policy discussions or a broad questioning of like "is this something we should be pursuing"?

And when I was looking at that, I think in part it's because... One is discussing these ideas requires going through a lot of topics at once. It's like questions of: What is a person? How do we store memories and our personality in these sorts of things? It requires discussing the ethics of like, what are we actually trying to do with our healthcare systems, with medical research, with end of life care? All these sorts of things. And it also brings up like, social issues of like, how should we be distributing new potentially expensive treatments or what do we want to be working towards in the future?

And I did think that like one of the barriers to discussing the overall picture was just that there wasn't a like central point that made the arguments in a total case, that would be something that someone could update themselves on and also something that a proponent of these ideas could take and be like, "Look, this will bring you up to speed". And so I guess that was my main impetus to be like, I really care about this. I think this is something we should be discussing. That was my starting point for putting this forward.

Michael (00:12:30)

Sounds like a real challenge, you know. You're trying to bring together neuroscience, the social element, the philosophical perspective and bring all these ideas together I guess, in a way that you couldn't necessarily do in, you know, a scientific research paper. And you're trying to make it applicable to a broad audience while also you know, having that level of scientific rigor and detail. Yeah, I'd love to know how you approach that.

I mean, maybe one way to ask about that is what's the reception been like, say from both sides? So you know, people who are in the science and they have expertise in these areas, and then also people who are outside the science. And I guess you're trying to appeal to both. Would that be fair?

Ariel (00:13:17)

Yeah, the idea is to have it be useful to neuroscientists, to doctors, and also to the general community. So maybe I'll start with each of those, where with neuroscientists... Like certainly when you speak to, or when I've spoken to colleagues at conferences or at seminars or at the pub after work, I ran into a lot of people who are like, quite sympathetic to the idea of like, Oh yeah, I think someday, like if you preserve the brain well enough, it does seem like, you know, probably at some point we'd be able to upload a brain.

And then we get into these questions of is that the same person? Is it not the same person? Technical feasibility, timelines. But there's certainly not a lot of people I've spoken to are like, "Absolutely not. In principle, I never think something like this could work".

But at the same time, it's not like these people were previously like plugging the idea out to the public. I think for a variety of reasons, 'cause it's like really weird. It's socially challenging to discuss. It's all these questions about death and mortality and future predictions.

So in part, I wrote the book 'cause I wanted to give them something where, you know, they wouldn't have to be pushing the ideas themselves. They could just be like, "Look, I think this is worth looking into".

Subsequently to having written the book, I have both spoken to quite a number of neuroscientists who are like, "Yes, this is something that's interesting, something I would be, consider like writing papers on or pursuing." But it's not like the entire field has immediately come out in favor.

But it did also help in like, now we've run a survey of neuroscientists for example, about their opinions on this and found that like, there is some non-negligible level of support for these ideas. We can get into that more if we want, but I'll jump on.

In terms of the general public, I feel like the most common response I get from people is, "Look, before I've read or engaged with this at all, I thought this just was like weird sci-fi craziness". Now that I've spoken to you for a while, I'm like, "It's very weird, but I see the argument and like maybe it makes sense in principle". Where they often find it very uncomfortable and disturbing, but also like interesting and worth thinking more seriously about, which is all I could hope for as like an initial starting point. But it's only been out a year, so ask me again in a few years.

Jen (00:15:46)

Yeah. I mean that's super high praise though, right? To have members of the public say you've... "Your work has led me to think and reflect and engage with ideas in a serious way that otherwise I just never would have because I didn't think it was worth my time or worth my effort. I think that's... I think yeah, I mean, I just think that's a huge credit to you, Ariel.

And it was interesting. I had... So the night that we were chatting at the Wheeler Center, I had some friends in the audience and the first thing they said to me afterwards was, "Geez, he's a good communicator, isn't he?"

And I wonder if you kind of broke this stereotype that people expect this you know, someone who would write such a serious book and someone who's a neuroscientist and has a PhD in neuroscience must be very very serious, and that maybe you wouldn't be so great at explaining your ideas in an engaging and effective and accessible way. And I think that's a huge credit to you that you've had that public response.

And I'd love to ask you, can you share one example of a metaphor or an analogy that you found really useful when you're talking about these ideas? 'Cause I think you used a few when we were chatting and I remember reflecting and thinking, Oh, geez, he's really thought about how to communicate these ideas in a way that's gonna land with people. Do you have any particular kind of metaphor that you think [has] been worth using?

Ariel (00:17:08)

Yeah, I think the strongest analogy that I use pretty often is -- prior to the 1840s and the invention and widespread deployment of anesthesia, it was quite common for surgeons to tell patients who required surgery, let's say an amputation of an infected limb, that the pain that would be part of this surgical procedure was actually both necessary and good for the patients. That it was part of the healing process and that it would, you know, if somehow it could be gotten rid of, they would have more complications or more problems.

And it kind of made sense that this is what the surgeons believed, because these patients really did need these procedures, like it's not good to have these infected limbs. But obviously you can't just tell them like, or it's hard to just say like, "Look, this is really going to hurt and I'm sorry, that's just like, that's just how it is". It's better to have some sort of belief that you're doing a good thing and it's necessary and it's helpful.

And I saw a strong analogy there with what I see in terms of life extension, where I think if we could extend people's lives in that future, people would be like, "Yeah, obviously that's something. We wanna give people more time and more health and those sorts of things".

Michael (00:18:23)

Yeah, it'd be really great to be able to just you know, have a window into the future to see you know, would people think that? I'm so glad we have you know, anesthetics. I had my wisdom teeth out recently and I can't imagine a world without it really.

And I suppose that's what you're saying, you know. People in the future probably... You know, if we do invent this technology, they will think I can't imagine a world without it. Is that kind of what you think? The world won't be divided?

Ariel (00:18:51)

Yeah, I do think that is the case. And there's all sorts of these historical examples if you go hunting for them. I mean, there's famously like Lord Kelvin saying in 1903, that no plane would ever cost... Nobody would ever develop an aeroplane that could cross the Atlantic is another funny one.

People saying things like physics is complete. There's all these sorts of historical analogies where things that were like too weird and too wild, they'll never happen. And then within like five years, it's like they're already happening.

Michael (00:19:23)

Okay, can you? Can we put a timeframe on it? I mean, how far away is this? Because I suppose you're dealing with possibilities rather than certainties.

Yeah, is there, have you found that difficult, to kind of communicate uncertainty in an honest way?

Ariel (00:19:42)

Yeah, I do find it tricky. And in particular, because what I'm proposing is sort of a two part technology and that I find complicated to describe.

So basically there's the question of can we preserve people who are dying now in a way that gives them a chance of being revived at some point in the future? And then there's like how would we actually go about reviving them and when would we be able to do that?

So it's sort of like -- if we could put someone into anesthesia now but we couldn't take them out yet. And then you [are] asking questions about, does the anesthesia work? Or is it just killing them or what's happening?

And so, it is frustrating... Important, but frustrating to have to discuss those two separately instead of just being able to demonstrate this is when I think the entire technology stack is complete.

So, I mean, very briefly without getting too technical, I do think the preservation methods we have now are good enough that we could be rolling this out today. I don't think revival is going to happen anytime soon, where the earliest and most optimistic estimates would be something like you can create an artificial reconstruction of someone's brain. Maybe late this century, and let's say the 2080s?

Although in the survey I had of neuroscientists which I mentioned, they're like most likely median probability was in 2125 or so. But if you're imagining some other revival techniques, it may take much longer. But it's hard to guess there.

Jen (00:21:13)

How fascinating for you to be... You know, this is the definition of legacy, right? You're deeply invested in something that sorry, chances are you're never gonna get to see.

Ariel (00:21:23)

Well I, the whole point is I want to see it.

Jen (00:21:26)

I know. But what if it doesn't pan out that way?

Ariel (00:21:28)

I mean, that's for most things, right? Like where people don't know what's going to happen and how things will go.

But yeah I mean, I think it's important. I think it's worth working on, even if it doesn't pan out for me or others or society generally.

Michael (00:21:43)

Kind of picking up on some interesting things you said there, you know, talking about surveying neuroscientists and you know, maybe a consensus opinion being you know, late this century. But it sounds like you've also thought about history as well.

Like, do you have a sense of say people in the past? Like if you were to say, when do you think we're going to invent a machine that can fly across the Atlantic? Do people tend to overestimate or underestimate you know, our ability to have these big leaps in technology?

Ariel (00:22:16)

That's a great question. Which I don't have a good answer to because I'm not actually a historian of science. I... My sense is it's very variable. And it like, it depends on like... I mean, there's famously the, I think it's like the Dartmouth conference in the 1950s when you know, it was the start of computer science and people were wondering about image recognition.

And I think famously someone was like, "Oh, we'll be able to do that within like a year or two or a summer with a couple of like interns working on it". And it wasn't until like 2015 or something that people actually managed to get that to work.

And then in other circumstances, it's yeah, it's examples of things being much easier than people had initially thought of. I guess it's like, even famously experts in fields can be quite bad at predicting technology, particularly when there's like exponentials involved. So I don't have a good sense of like what people's track records are like.

Jen (00:23:14)

Presumably it partly comes down to personality, right? Like some of us are naturally more optimistic and some of us are naturally more pessimistic. I would think personality would play a big role.

Ariel (00:23:24)

I'm sure it does, yeah.

Jen (00:23:28)

So I want to ask Ariel. You know, you're communicating about things that are pretty confronting to a lot of people. You're talking about life and death and an uncertain future. And I have no doubt what you've kind of shared with us, you know, of course there's going to be skepticism.

But have you had to face any hostility? 'Cause I know you've done a lot of interviews. You've done a lot of public events. The books really raised a lot of interest. I'm guessing you've had some pretty challenging conversations.

What can you share with our listeners who you know, are going to be doing quite different work, but might also be talking about work that other people find confronting and maybe they really wanna challenge and push back hard on it.

Ariel (00:24:07)

Yeah. I... So the vast majority of people who I've gotten questions from have been very polite and very lovely. And then there are two different kinds of things that I think is quite confronting or challenging.

One is when people are asking very genuine questions that are reasonable and polite questions, but they're just inherently like sad or confronting. So things like, "I have a dying relative or I had a relative who was dying or I'm facing these issues". Like, "What do you think I should do? What do you think's happening in that circumstance?" That's one kind.

The second kind is when people have just been outrightly hostile to me. Like, I think I've gotten questions like, "Oh, what you're saying just sounds like Theranos style, like scammy behavior or something", or "There's no merit to what you're saying" or "It's complete pseudoscience", which actually I find easier to deal with.

Maybe that's my personality where I just like, then I just try and if it's possible to respectfully answer their question, I do. And I just acknowledge that some people don't engage properly or they have complete preconceptions. And whenever you're giving public talks or events, you... It's the role of the scientist, the speaker, to be polite and respectful and just do your best at answering.

Michael (00:25:22)

Yeah, it sounds like you're doing a really good job there. And actually probably the fact that you do have these strong reactions sometimes probably means you know, you're hitting on an impactful idea.

Ariel (00:25:35)

Yep.

Michael (00:25:37)

So yeah, I think it's, maybe it could be seen as a good thing in a way.

Ariel (00:25:41)

Yeah. I mean, like obviously every presenter's worst nightmare is actually nobody turning up and caring about their science or anything they're doing. So a small number of hostile reactions in exchange for a lot of interest is definitely a trade that I would take.

Michael (00:25:57)

Yeah, we, I'm just noticing the time here. This has been such a fascinating chat. And I just want to ask one quick question before we have to switch gears a little bit and move to our quick questions. When are you going to step into the cryo chamber and preserve yourself, Ariel?

Ariel (00:26:15)

So, I mean, as late as possible because I certainly don't have a guarantee that I'm like, this technology definitely works 100% of the time. Preservation will always work. The revival will always work. There's no uncertainty. There's massive uncertainty, even with like well-established medical procedures that have like 98% success rates. Sometimes things go wrong and people die.

And this is an even more speculative sort of technology where I think the risks are greater. And even outside of the actual medical technology itself, there's risks of like, you don't know how the future's going to go. You don't know what's going to happen. So certainly I'd like to be healthy and in my own natural state for as absolutely long as possible.

With that being said, if tomorrow I found out I had a terminal diagnosis and I only had a short period of time to live, I would indeed get myself over to one of the small number of facilities already doing this and get myself preserved.

Michael (00:27:13)

Wow, that's fascinating. Yeah, I mean, I guess you do have to accept some level of uncertainty. And right now we're gonna ask you to step into something a bit uncertain because we're moving to our quick questions. These are going to be the real hard hitting questions. You don't know what they are, so I hope you're ready.

Ariel (00:27:35)

Let's do it.

Michael (00:27:36)

Okay, the first question that I would like to ask you is: which emoji do you use the most?

Ariel (00:27:45)

Probably the laughing face emoji, just in a lot of group chats.

Michael (00:27:51)

Okay.

Jen (00:27:53)

Such a good emoji. Apparently it really ages us though. My teenagers tell me that no one their age would ever use the laughing face emoji and that shows how old we are.

Ariel (00:28:01)

Yeah, they use the... They use the skull right, these days? For like dead? Means like yeah, I don't know what the kids are up to these days.

Jen (00:28:07)

Yeah.

Michael (00:28:08)

I have no idea. Yeah, I thought laughing face was very cool.

So right, we consider it everything.

Jen (00:28:14)

No. No, it shows how very uncool we are. But you know, I can live with that. That's fine.

Ariel, do you have any daily habits that you feel improve the way you work?

Ariel (00:28:27)

This is boring, but like doing exercise when I get grumpy or tired or have, you know, don't want to do my work anymore.

Michael (00:28:37)

Yeah, that completely resonates with me. Sometimes I'm feeling a bit grumpy and I'll just have to do, you know, pump out a few pushups then. So I hear you.

Okay Ariel, if you could instantly become an expert in any other field, what would it be?

Ariel (00:28:54)

Mathematics. Every time I've had an issue understanding some scientific field, I feel like it's almost always because I find the maths hard to really wrap my head around. I've always been someone who's bad at maths for someone who's good at maths, I feel is how I would describe it.

Jen (00:29:11)

Yeah, I can totally relate to that. I think that's yeah, maths is amazing, but it's not how my brain works, sadly.

Ariel, what's one piece of advice that you would give your younger self at an early career stage?

Ariel (00:29:25)

Try and learn more general skills and keep one's options open while also exploring a whole bunch of different things. So really try and do internships, try and do lab placements, try and get involved in things,sample what's out there.

Jen (00:29:40)

Yeah, that's great advice.

Michael (00:29:43)

Good advice.

Okay, Ariel, final question. What is your very top tip for effectively communicating about science?

Ariel (00:29:52)

Practice speaking to people and noticing when they don't understand what you're saying and then trying to get better at clearly communicating it. But just like practicing that a bunch of times and like going to your friends, going to family, bribing them, giving them dinner, giving them a massage, whatever it takes to like let them try on you.

I think one of the things I found the most interesting is when I've gotten contradictory advice where like someone's told me to expand on something or change an analogy and someone else has told me to change it back. And what I find from that circumstance is it means not that they've necessarily told me how to fix it, but just that there is a problem there, that something's not clear and needs to be reworked.

And I guess like trying to get advice from people, not taking it as like gospel, that like that's the change that needs to be made. But at least noticing where things are working well and where they're not.

Jen (00:30:46)

Yeah, that's an excellent way of thinking about it, isn't it? 'Cause I often feel with what we all try and do, which is to make science accessible to different audiences, it is quite subjective. And that's why we always talk about, you need to really think carefully about who's in your audience and what's going to be meaningful and land with them.

And so you do get feedback that can be quite subjective and quite individual, but I think that's a great way of thinking about it. That it doesn't matter if people don't agree on exactly how to fix something, but they've identified somewhere where you need to do a bit more work in thinking about your, you know, explanation or your approach. Yeah.

Well Ariel, I am so thrilled that you came onto the podcast today because yeah, I did really feel quite itchy that night, that like, we've done this great job of exploring this amazing book. And even then of course, we didn't have much time together and I could have asked a million more questions, but I so wanted to explore some of the things that we asked today.

So for anyone who's listening, who's like, Wow, that book is amazing. (a) Read the book. So again, it's called "The Future Loves You" and we'll obviously put that in our show notes.

But (b) if you're interested in a conversation where Ariel talks a bit more about you know, everything from identity and you know, what makes you you, and how this proposal might impact grief. And this idea of how abolishing death might change how we feel about life and the ethics, and equity. You know, we talked about a lot of things. So I'm hoping that the recording is available and we can also share that in our show notes.

But Ariel, huge thanks again for making time to talk with us today. I'm incredibly grateful. And yeah, I mean, who knows? Maybe in a hundred years, our brains in some form will be chatting again about how you made these incredible predictions.

Ariel (00:32:26)

I sure hope so.

Michael (00:32:28)

Yeah. In a hundred or two hundred years after we get revived, then let's have you back on the podcast and we can talk about it.

Ariel (00:32:36)

Sounds delightful. Looking forward to it.

Jen (00:32:40)

Thanks so much, Ariel. Great to see you again.

Ariel (00:32:41)

Thanks.

Michael (00:32:57)

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the episode, we'd love you to tell a friend about the podcast or leave us a review. And you can reach out to us on social media.

And we're very excited to announce that we're launching a new newsletter called the ChitChat. So if you are interested in receiving some hot tips, or advice on science communication, or to know what Jen and I have been reading or watching or interested in lately, or to just hear about some interesting science communication events that are happening, then this is a newsletter for you and we would love you to subscribe to it.

So check out the link in the show notes or our posts on Instagram. And thank you so much to Ben, Dave, Restia and Wahyu for helping us get this newsletter set up and established.

And also a big thank you to our production team, Steven Tang and Madeleine Kelly.