1014: Jamie Metzl | AI Solutions for Hunger, Health, & Habitat Part One

24:12And that doesn't mean everything is going to advance at this rate, but anything that can be digitized, anything that's connected to these kinds of scientific and technological capabilities is going to accelerate. And that's why, again, it's the central point of the book. If we think this is a conversation about technology, we're going to get lost. This is a conversation about humanity, and it's a conversation about values. It's about who are we as we guide these revolutions? What are the values that we seek to infuse into every decision about how these technologies are or aren't used so that we can try to, again, co-evolve with our technology to build the kind of future that we own?

24:56That doesn't mean there aren't going to be twists and turns and problems. There certainly will. But we need to know what we're trying to achieve as individuals and as a community. And that needs to guide us going forward. And this is probably going to be the clip for YouTube or whatever, or TikTok or whatever the kids use. The whole 21st century, we'll see progress equivalent to 20 ,000 years. That's a pretty bold claim, man. You know, it's just the rate of acceleration is just unbelievable. And acceleration begets acceleration. When people think about AI, most people I speak, oh, AI, I just did AI.

25:33I went to chat GBT and I did AI. That's how most people think. Yeah. And then what I say is, tell me, how did electricity influence your life today? And people take a step and think, well, I guess I woke up with an alarm clock, but I was in my house and we had air conditioning and there was a car and I guess there was food and my clothes. And then you think, geez, electricity is in everything. It's in my haircut insofar as I have hair. It's everywhere. And that's the thing. AI isn't, oh, I'm going to go do AI. AI is going to be just part of everything. It's going to be an accelerant for everything.

26:09It's going to be woven into everything. We have these new things, self-driving laboratories. So we have the pace of scientific changes. It has been regulated just by what scientists can do. But now we have new programs like Google DeepMind's AlphaFold3, which just came out, that by my calculations that I described in the book, it saved 645 potential, 645 million years of human researcher time. So it would take just a decade ago, three years for a human scientist to characterize a single protein, which means to understand a protein, you need to understand the string of amino acids, and you need to understand the shape.

26:51So to characterize one, to match those two things using the older approach called X-ray crystallography or even electron microscopy would take about three years. So there's 200, roughly 215 million proteins known to science. So if you say that 215 million times three years, 645 million years to characterize every protein. Now we have this program that they can do it in a couple of days. And so that's 645 million years that scientists and researchers can - It'll be done by Tuesday. By lunch. By lunch. I've got a lunch. Right. No, but they can redeploy, rather than spending your entire career saying, how do we characterize a protein?

27:33It's, what do we do with a characterized protein? And it's not just that. Well, what are all of the other problems in the world that are at this or a lower level of complexity where there's certain ingredients you need to have a solvable problem, you need to have a data set for the AI systems to train on and some other things. But there are a lot of problems at that or lower levels of complexity. And so let's say now we're putting 200 million years of innovation time back into the pot. What are the things that we're going to do? And every problem, like I was saying before, resets the baseline so that somebody who might have spent their whole life trying to solve this problem, they show up to work the next day.

28:17Oh, this problem is already solved. What's the next problem that I'm going to solve? And so that's where we are. People think this is about technology. We are unleashing one of the greatest powers in the known universe, and that is human imagination. Yeah, it's wild, man. Somebody in 1900, right? They'd be amazed by the television. They would just go, wow, look at that flat color picture. And they'd be looking behind it like, I just can't believe it. But AI, even chat GPT, in high-speed internet, imagine showing that to somebody in the Stone Age who's on the ground in the dirt, banging one rock against another one and sees a spark and is suddenly like, whoa.

28:56Exactly. Or is banging this out and you're like, what are you doing? He's making a spearhead out of a stone so he can throw it at a woolly mammoth. And you're trying to show him chat GPT and you're like, no, what you do is you ask this thing and he's looking behind it. He literally can't even, what are these things that are appearing, right? This written language. And you're like, oh crap, I got to back up the truck. You know, so your listeners won't know this, but you and I are in this studio, which is appropriately called WTF Studio. That's right. And the thing is, how many, for this Stone Age guy, how many WTFs would they say as you tried to explain television to this Stone Age person?

29:33Who doesn't have spoken language. And you'd be like, let's say WTF in that is like, urgh. It's like, you'd say, oh, here's this. And it's like, urgh. It's a lot of grunts. And then it's like, and here's another thing. Urgh. and you would have to say like what does that even mean how is that even possible and now we're more accustomed to internalizing oh impossible things and then they just become normal like people for one day or so oh my god chat gpt is really cool and then it's like what an idiot it doesn't recognize that you can't have five eggs in chocolate chip cookie recipes i'm so disappointed yeah like look it made a picture where the person has six fingers this thing sucks exactly it's like wait they just generated out of nowhere something that you told it to exactly a rembrandt style painting because you mentioned that and it's like but the guy has six fingers this thing is useless man i gotta fix that exactly yeah it's really the exponential rate of progress is really something i mean we are basically nomadic hunter-gatherers in comparison to our grandkids it's crazy yeah no until i write about this in the in the book that's why the first chapter of the book, it's called The Nature of Change, because you can't understand anything about the second order questions, about what are the things that are going to change?

30:45What are the dangers? How do we build the best possible world? If you haven't internalized the process of change, I write about in the 1970s, I grew up in Kansas City, and in our basement, we had this old black and white television, and somebody in our family hooked it up. We had this game Pong, which was And it was like, you had two dials and there was like a little bar and there was a little dot. It was like a tennis, I guess. And it just went ping. It's a square ball. Yeah. And then it was the coolest thing ever. It's like, we would like literally stay up all night playing Pong. And it was like, it's never going to get any better than this.

31:22Right. Pong. And so now obviously there's Grand Theft Auto, there's ChatGPT, there are all these kinds of things. But ChatGPT, GPT-4, GPT-4-0, every technology that we have now is Pong. 10 years ago. Remember when we thought GBT4 was so cool? It was so basic. And it's always going to be, this is going to get better and better, faster and faster. I think that's the thing. Everybody always thinks, oh my God, like people thought a hundred years ago, this is the height of progress. And that doesn't mean things can't go wrong and things don't twist and turn. And we had two world wars, but we are beginning this process of acceleration and that really changes everything you mentioned we'll be able to solve ai will not only solve problems that are complex but we're going to solve new ways to solve new problems faster and then the results will be distributed immediately across the globe you gave in the book you talk about is it mendel and or mendel and darwin yeah they would have figured out not only that evolution exists but also how natural selection works right neither of them had both of those things solved yeah they were they pieces.

32:30And so that's what is kind of incredible. So Mendel and Darwin, Darwin actually had a book in his library that included Mendel's famous paper, which Darwin never read. And Mendel's paper, it took more than 30, you know, but Mendel was unrecognized during his lifetime. It was about 30 years after his death. He should watch us do Punnett squares in biology classes. Exactly. He'd be like, wow, you guys. He was rediscovering. It's the point I was making earlier, when we were all kind of not connected, when people were discovering, like, the difference between when the Bronze Age started in different civilizations.

33:04It was thousands of years apart. So if you're in a place that didn't have the recipe for bronze, it's 2 ,000 years. You're just doing stuff in another way. You're making tools in another way, making weapons in another way, doing all those kinds of things. And you're not contributing your knowledge to the universe of, hey, what's the cool stuff that we can do with bronze? Now everything is, you have an innovation, it's shared the next day. And so you don't have this problem. So we have just collective problem solving. So these drivers of evolution. So Darwin, which it was really kind of incredible how he figured out that random mutation and natural selection are driving evolution forward, but he didn't really understand what could be the mechanism generating that random mutation.

33:51And that's what Mendel was studying with his pea plants. and that was saying, well, there's genetic inheritance and it gets kind of shuffled up and the part comes from the father and part comes from the mother. And so I think that's, I think, again, it's the same story of humans learning. We're understanding these natural systems. It's not, there's a term synthetic biology, which I don't really like. There's two terms that I really don't like. One is synthetic biology and the other is artificial general intelligence. And the thing that I don't like about synthetic biology, the word, even though I was just at the SynBio conference in San Jose.

34:25Did you tell them about how you hated the name? I'll tell you a third thing that I'll say in a sec. But what's happening is not humans generating biology from scratch. I think a better term, which I didn't coin, is nature co-design. There's a natural world. And certainly for at least 10 ,000 years since the dawn of agriculture, but even longer, humans have been tweaking the natural world in order to drive the kinds of outcomes that we want. So getting plants that We don't have where we don't have to hunt to go and gather them from the wild or doing all. So you're planting the strawberries that you liked near you.

35:01Yeah, near you. So you don't have to go. Yeah. And most of these things, our ancestors wouldn't have even known what they were. Because if you just go into Whole Foods, pretty much the entire sustainable organic section is all shit that we humans have essentially invented. If you said, like, show me this. Show me broccoli. Yeah. 20 ,000 years ago. Like, you could look around the world. You would never find broccoli. You'd never find corn. You'd never find any of these things. Somebody gave me a natural strawberry, and I was like, oh, why are they so small? Yeah, yeah. I was like, this is what a strawberry looks like.

35:32I'm like, no, a strawberry fits in my, it's like a baseball. Exactly. And I take a bite out of it. That's why I think when French people come here, it's like, what the hell is that? It doesn't taste good, but it looks good. What did you inject this thing with? No, they grow like that. Exactly. So the basic point is science is a team sport. It requires a lot of people coming together. And because of that, as our ability to come together increases, as our technologies become better, we're just able to do better things. So I don't like the term synthetic biology. I don't like the terms artificial and general intelligence because we're not, when I ask people what it is, well, it's like AIs that can do everything that humans can do.

36:08If we create AIs that can do everything that humans do, we are screwed. Humans, like we have an evolved embodied intelligence. It's 3.8 billion years. You and I are here, like we've done, this is our third podcast interview that we've done. Oh, I'm glad you know that. Cause I was like, he's been on once before. Third, no third. Wow, that's great. Yeah, this is our first one in person. So it's the first time that we've met in person, although we've been in touch for years. There's something different about being in person. And it's not just intelligence. Like our bodies are covered in all of these sensors.

36:42We have all these perceptions, some of which get to the point of, oh, I'm analyzing why this is happening. And some of them are just like, Ed Yong had a great book called An Immense World, where he talks about every animal is covered with all these sensors. And these sensors are survival mechanisms where you're just figuring out, what foods am I comfortable eating? What person am I comfortable trusting? Is this a safe environment? All these things, questions that we know to ask, questions that we don't know how to ask. So if we made an AI that was just an AI human, I'd actually be terrified. Well, it's brain only with all the sensors ripped out, right?

37:16Exactly. Yeah. without the everything. And so what we're doing is not creating an AGI, which again, I don't know what that is. We are creating a machine intelligence. No one looks at a dog and say, oh, my dog is a really dumb human, or that dolphin is a dumb human. A dog has just dog intelligence. There's better and worse dog intelligence. There's better and worse dolphin intelligence. I'm sure, although it's hard for us to decipher what that is, we're creating that new thing. And that's the conversation that we should have. We're making... And then the third thing it's apropos of nothing, but I just, I said it last night and then these people got really pissed off.

37:51Don't invite him back again. Exactly, exactly. Well, no, I was talking about how we're entering this new age of technological, rapid technological innovation. It's going to create all these opportunities and all these challenges. And we have to really think about how do we govern these, how do we use these powers wisely? Because if we use them wisely, we unlock this amazing future. We can cure all of these cancers and feed everybody and clothe everybody and change our models for living. We can do it much more sustainably, even rewild big parts of the planet. If we get it wrong, we're massively screwed in all sorts of ways.

38:27And I write about that in the book. And so I said, and so if all we're doing is saying, hey, this is about consciousness raising, we're going to be screwed. And then I said the thing that pissed people off. I said, and that's why I think that Greta Thunberg has been a net negative contributor to the world. Oh, you threw shade on Greta Thunberg? I threw shade. People got really pissed off. That doesn't work. And the reason was in the beginning when she was saying, hey, we need to be aware of climate change. That was actually really important. She got all these kids around the world and we need these kids.

38:56And I certainly work with lots of kids on idealistic ventures, like my global interdependence movement, which you can maybe talk about later. But then everybody becomes an effing Kardashian. So Donald Trump realized, hey, it's an attention economy. If you get attention, you can translate attention into power and money. So he realized, I'm just going to be the most outrageous on every issue. And Greta Thunberg is like Greta Thunberg Kardashian. It's like first she was climate and outrage climate, then don't go to school. And now it's like, well, it's about Hamas. So she still have climate in education.

39:34But the thing is, when it's an attention economy, you have to be the Kardashian. You have to be at the far end of extremism. You have to be so outrageous that you are capturing that attention. Because if you don't, someone else is going to be more outrageous than you. And so rather than people saying, hey, what's the North Star? What am I trying to actually achieve? People, and it's on all sides, it's Trump, it's AOC, it's Greta Thunberg, are saying, how can I be the most outrageous person? Because then I'm going to get that attention and money. And instead, and again, the reason I've written the book is what we should be saying is, what's our North Star?

40:13So if you're an ancient sailor, you say, I'm trying to get from here to there. There's where I'm going. There are going to be winds blowing in all different directions. I'm going to have to attack this way. I don't have to attack this. I'm going to have to learn. I'm going to have to adapt. But I know that's where I'm going. If we don't have that conversation about values and goals. And this is just a, hey, there's a bunch of technology. Let's look at the technology. If it's not about where are we going and how do we get there, we're going to get lost in a really dangerous way. Speaking of growing new appendages, it's time for a word from our sponsors.

40:44We'll be right back. If you like this episode of the show, I invite you to do what other smart and considerate listeners do, which is take a moment and support our amazing sponsors. All the deals, discount codes, and ways to support the show are searchable and clickable over at jordanharbinger.com slash deals. If you can't remember the name of a sponsor, you can't find a code, please just email me, jordan at jordanharbinger.com. I am more than happy to surface that code for you. It is that important that you support those who support the show. Now for the rest of part one with Jamie Metzl. Yeah, there are activists that do not go into the extreme zone, and they're still doing a good job.

41:20And look at Malala Yousafzai. She doesn't go, she's not on TikTok screwing around with other causes. And she's saying, here's what I'm trying to achieve. right it's not like oh my god the camera is there i'm going there it's like it's like there and that's why she's amazing it's like there are all these women and girls who are being oppressed i have my personal story and my courage which gives me this platform and i'm going to really focus on what are all of the things that i can do so i'm not saying don't be in front of the camera obviously say that straight to the camera sorry i don't know which one we have there's a lot Three, four.

41:56Take your pay. Sorry, I looked at camera four. What I'm saying is this is about values. It's not about attention. It's about values. And sometimes getting, I'm here with you on this podcast, obviously. So fighting for your values, you have to fight for them in the place where their fate is being determined. But we have to say, well, here's what we're fighting for. We're not fighting for outrage. We're not fighting for attention. We're fighting for desired outcomes. You mentioned in the book about these Chinese engineered babies, or maybe I just took that note based on something you wrote. both this stuff is amazing and it's a little worrisome right so essentially children are being bred is kind of a creepy word but whatever with super high iqs well can you explain this i can tell by your face i've already blown it no no it's a few different things woven together so i'll even go back the first time you and i spoke was around the time i think it was 2019 for the launch of my then book hacking darwin and that book was on the future of human genetic engineering, when a big piece of that was human-assisted reproduction.

42:56So in the late 2018, when that book was on its way to being printed, I called my publisher and I said, we need to pull this book out of production. And I've got bad news and good news. And so the bad news is that in the book, I write, it's about the future of human genetic engineering. And we can't publish a book about human genetic engineering after the first CRISPR babies have been born. And those were genome-edited babies that were born in China. The good news is that in the book, I predicted that this would happen. I predicted it would happen in China and explained why I thought it was going to happen in China.

43:37And I included a list of five specific genes that I thought were going to be the first targets of this genetic manipulation in China. And CCR5, which was that gene, was one of the genes on my list. And so for this, which was the hardback version, all we need to do is I just need to add a couple of sentences saying, and this thing that I've exactly predicted has happened. It's easier to change an unborn child's genes than it is to pull a book out of print and add something, by the way, which I'm sure you found out. Here's where we're potentially going. And that is just a week and a half ago, I was in Lisbon.

44:16I was the keynote speaker for the International Embryologists Association, which actually, in my mind, is an endly fascinating field. Lisbon, Ohio is really nice this time of year. What's that? Yeah, exactly. Lisbon, Ohio is great this time of year. I think we're traveling to all the same places. So we are moving to a world because of all of our new capabilities, including genome sequencing. We're able to understand, process and understand these vast amounts of data. Right now, actually yesterday, the Southern Baptists had a vote. They saw that. Yeah, they're voting against IVF, which is, in my mind, deeply unfortunate because so much beautiful life has been brought into the world in IVF.

44:58And so with IVF, in vitro fertilization, which has now been around for 45 years, the mother's eggs are extracted from her body, fertilized with the biological father's sperm, grown for a certain number of days, and then put back into the mother. And that's why I'm sure there are lots of people who are actually listening to this podcast who are IVF babies. And IVF is a wonderful miracle for life. There's a more recent tool called preimplantation genetic testing. And what that means is, so when you have this fertilized egg, you first, you have to grow it in a laboratory environment. And so everybody knows this from high school biology or even before, is you start from one cell and then you're two cells, then you're four cells, then you're eight cells.

45:44And so after about five days of that kind of replication, you extract a few cells from that little zygote, that little ball of cells, and then you can sequence them. And so because essentially the genetic recipe for us is in every cell, then you can understand something about that future, what it would be a future child. So right now that's used to say, all right, this child is going to have some deadly single gene mutation disorder. There's some kind of diseases and disorders where it's just one letters off, and then you could have a deadly disorder as a result of that. And so if you're doing IVF and you're choosing between 10 embryos, you could say, well, I'm not going to pick one of a kid that's going to die when they're three years old.

46:31I'm going to pick one of a kid who's not going to die when they're three or five or whatever years old. But because there's so much potential information in that cell when you sequence it, well, what can you learn from that extracted and sequenced cell? Well, the question is, what can you learn from human genetics? And the answer is a lot. And so we're moving up the complexity scale of being able to say, all right, in addition to these single gene mutation or simple genetic patterns for things like eye color, how complex of traits can we predict? I'm actually on the advisory board of a company, Genomic Prediction, that's doing that, but there's, it's called polygenic risk scoring, but really it's just going to be polygenic analysis where you say, all right, so we have these 10, we can now order them roughly from likely tallest to likely shortest.

47:20Maybe we can rank order them likely highest genetic component of IQ to lowest genetic component of IQ, which would have big implications for all sorts of things. And then there's a newer technology, and it was not so long ago in Kyoto, which Kyoto, of course, is in Pennsylvania. And I went to the laboratory where there are pioneers in a thing called in vitro gametogenesis. But basically what it means is you take an adult cell, like a skin cell. So you do a skin graft. You have millions of cells just from a little scrape of your skin. You use a thing, you induce those adult cells into stem cells.

48:04So it's called induced pluripotent stem cells. You're taking a cell backward. You can reverse it. Backward in evolutionary time. So now you have a stem cell. Then you take it forward in time by inducing those skin cells into stem cells, or stem cells are cells that can become anything, and then to egg precursor cells, and then to egg cells. So now you have a million egg cells. Like I talked about those 10. This is real? This exists right now? It exists not yet for human applications. I see. This is in mice. This is incredible. It's incredible. So now you have a million eggs. Instead of like the 12 that got taken out of the surgery.

48:46Exactly. You know, we all have friends. I mean, I'm older than you, but we all have these friends. So I went and I had my egg extract and I had three eggs and I'm so depressed or whatever. Now you've got three million. You've got a million or three. It literally, the sky's the limit. And there's trillions of cells in your body. So now you have a million cells and you have an automated system in this. This is still a hypothetical, but you have an automated system. You grow those million cells for five days. In an automated way, you extract a few cells from each of those million. You sequence each one of those.

49:16And now you're choosing from a million options. So forget genome editing that happened with these CRISPR babies. You're choosing from a million options just within the random mutation that is just part of biology. That's how we evolve. You say, what am I selecting for? What are my priorities? I want to have high, whatever, genetic component of IQ. I want tall. I want short. I want somebody who's more likely to be an Olympic sprinter than somebody else. There's a lot of choice. Our ancestors took chickens, wild chickens laying one egg a month, and knowing nothing about the science of genetics, just with using the power of reproduction and push reproduction, turn those into domesticated chickens laying one egg a day.

50:05How far can we go? Who knows? But certainly if we decide that selecting for the genetic component of IQ, and there's a whole debate on what is IQ and whether it's valuable or biased or anything like that, but we'll leave that aside for now, we can really, really push evolution. And then on top of that, we already have this capability, which has already been applied unethically, in my view, to humans, of then going into the genome. Let's say you pick that one in a million embryos, pre-implanted embryos that you hope to implant. Then you can go in and do genome editing on that to say, all right, here are some number of changes.

50:46And again, everything is moving up the complexity scale. So five years ago, we'd say, well, you could go in and make one change, like change one letter to another letter. But now there are growing capacities to make multiple changes at the same time. Obviously, these are very complex, evolved biological systems. It's 3.8 billion years of trade-offs. We don't even close to fully understand how these systems work. But these are capabilities that we already have. And as we were saying before, these capabilities are getting better and better every single day. So our biology is about as complex as it's been for millions of years.

51:24This is wild. But our capabilities are increasing at this exponential rate. So eventually, do you think most people will be born like this? Because it'll be like, look, you can take your chances, and maybe like super conservative religious people will be like, look, I'm going to let God choose. Fine. But for the rest of us, it might be like, nope, 6 '4", no diseases, no degeneration over time, super long lifespan. And just, I mean, pick, I like light green, blue-ish eyes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, like you could pick everything. No leg hair on the female. Like you could just pick anything you want.

51:59Yeah, yeah. So my partner, my girlfriend is younger than I am. And so that is the only exposure that I have to TikTok, that TikTok exists. And so she had this thing where she was showing me that it was like this meme. I'm looking for a man in finance, 6 '5 with blue eyes. And apparently it's like young people around the world are like doing versions of this. So in my last book, Hacking Darwin, I have a chapter called The End of Sex, which is exactly about this, that nature has an error rate. When somebody, and I hope this happens to nobody, but when somebody says, oh, I'm having this child and this child has a deadly genetic disorder, you don't say, wow, that's Darwinism at work.

52:41that disorder, that's just part of being a human being. Right, natural selection didn't work out for you. Sorry about that. It's like, but that's just the thing, because we're always mutating. Some help, some hurt, and some do nothing. And so it's a distribution. And so you showed up here on the distribution. No, we say, F that. We're going to do everything we can to fight it. We're going to do everything we can to save your child, which is the right answer. So nature has a built-in error rate. And so if and when we get to the point where having a child, through the application of science, IVF, pre-implantation, genetic testing, and if appropriate, genome editing of pre-implanted embryos.

53:18If people come to see that as a safer option than reproducing the quote-unquote old fashion way, and the old fashion way isn't even the old fashion way. I mean, like when you say the old fashion way, it's like all of these technological interventions and ultrasound and going to a hospital and the incubator and all those kinds, like that's not the old fashion way, that's the new fashion way. That's true. If it gets to the point, which I think is already happening in some parts of the world where people perceive that doing this through science is better and safer than people are going to do it. And then when we have this optionality of like picking embryos, maybe picking from more embryos, maybe making a small number of edits, people are going to do it and people are going to do it more.

53:59And as people perceive benefits, they're going to want to do that. And that doesn't mean this should be unrestricted. Actually, I think that societies should restrict some of these things because not everybody understands what's good for them. We talked about in the beginning of our conversation, we talked about all these interventions where people are so desperate to slow the aging process. You could read something in Men's Health Magazine and they go, I'm going to do that systemic life-changing intervention because I read something in Men's Health. So I think we're going to get there, but we need to be cautious.

54:31You're about to hear a preview of the Jordan Harbinger Show about junk science. There is this anti-establishment sentiment that leads to blanket science denial, which is enormously problematic and seems to be growing. There is so much false information on the internet, it's very easy to just baselessly claim that legitimate information is false. We're having to reckon with the fact that the internet is doing this to us. It's very much a double-edged sword. It's giving us all the information, and so it's very hard to, like, censor things. But then also we have all of these, you know, lies and charlatans, and this stuff propagates like wildfire, and it's an enormous problem.

55:09It's just such an alluring narrative. It's so easy to peddle. We want it to be true so bad, but it's not real. You need to be equipped with some ability, some set of skills, to be able to discern the validity of information, particularly scientific. Platforms like YouTube have had to make adjustments to their algorithm because they have come to understand how much they have been facilitating this destruction of our sociological fabric by allowing people to travel down these rabbit holes. It's a very attractive narrative, right? It gives you a sense of purpose. It's a big problem. That's why we're in the post-truth era.

55:43Whatever you want to find on the Internet, it's there. All the truth and all the lies. When you wrap your identity around a false cause, you're eliminating yourself from some other possible contribution that you could be making. I'm crusading against this thing. Yeah, we should remain driven and encourage others to do the same. I think it's the biggest problem facing mankind. If you want to increase your scientific literacy and not get suckered into believing weaponized hogwash and passing it off to your friends and family's fact, check out episode 745 with Dave Farina on The Jordan Harbinger Show.

56:19All right, that's it for part one. We're going to be back in a few days with part two. All Things Jamie Metzl will be in the show notes at jordanharbinger.com. Advertisers, deals, discount codes, ways to support the show, all at jordanharbinger.com slash deals. Please consider supporting those who support the show. Also, we've revamped our newsletter, We Bit Wiser. Every week, we give you something specific, something practical, something that'll have an immediate impact on your decisions, your psychology, your relationships in under two minutes. If you haven't signed up yet, I invite you to come check it out.

56:47It's a great companion to the show, jordanharbinger.com slash news is where you can find it. Don't forget about Six Minute Networking as well over at sixminutenetworking.com. I'm at Jordan Harbinger on Twitter and Instagram. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn. This show is created in association with Podcast One. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jace Sanderson, Robert Fogerty, Ian Baird, and Gabriel Mizrahi. Remember, we rise by lifting others. The fee for the show is you share it with friends when you find something useful or interesting. The greatest compliment you can give us is to share the show with those you care about.

57:17If you know somebody who's interested in AI, medical innovation, or just wants to live forever, definitely share this episode with them. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show so you can live what you learn. And we'll see you next time.

57:34This episode is sponsored in part by the Something You Should Know podcast. Finding a great new podcast can feel like searching for a needle in a haystack. Let me save you some hassle. Check out Something You Should Know with my friend Mike Carruthers. Every episode is packed with fascinating insights that you can actually use. Mike interviews top experts on topics that shape your life, like how to optimize your brain chemistry, the best and worst ways to apologize, probably could have used that recently, why couples hate to talk about money. No matter the topic, Mike asks the questions you'd want to ask, getting straight to the good stuff, and the conversations are always engaging, always insightful, guaranteed to leave you a little smarter than before.

58:06They've got thousands of five-star reviews, but do you even need that? I'm recommending it. You don't need other people's opinion, right, at this point, I would hope. Anyway, give it a listen. Just search for something you should know wherever you get your podcasts. Look for the bright yellow light bulb and start listening to something you should know.