0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Nick Lane, a biochemist at University College London, and author of some of my favorite books on biology, science, and life ever written, including his two most recent titled, Transformer, The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death, and The Vital Question, Why Is Life The Way It Is?
0
SPEAKER_00
Now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We got Backbone for gaming, new sponsor, by the way, new amazing sponsor, Notion for startups, BetterHelp for mental health, and Blinkist for nonfiction.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by a new sponsor called Backbone.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a controller for the ultimate gaming experience on your phone.
0
SPEAKER_00
They just released an officially licensed controller for PlayStation, the Backbone One PlayStation Edition.
0
SPEAKER_00
They collaborated with the PlayStation design team.
0
SPEAKER_00
Materials, colors, and finishes are all inspired by the PS5 DualSense controller.
0
SPEAKER_00
By the way, I now also have a PlayStation.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you want to be a little bit more mobile while maintaining the incredible haptic interface that we love about gaming, I mean, especially console gaming, Backbone is the way to go.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to playback.com slash Lex to order your controller.
0
SPEAKER_00
And for a limited time, you can get free access to over 350 console games and perks, and maybe friends who can play each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just two introverts sitting on a park bench
0
SPEAKER_00
with backbone controllers attached to our smartphones, not making any eye contact.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just kidding.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love eye contact.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s like a running joke, but people are beautiful.
0
SPEAKER_00
Why not look at them?
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Notion, a note-taking and team collaboration tool.
0
SPEAKER_00
I use Notion a lot for a lot of things because it s the most awesome, advanced, feature-full.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you go to those productivity forums or on Stack Exchange, the note-taking app they recommend, the cool kids recommend, the cutting-edge productivity gurus recommend is Notion.
0
SPEAKER_00
but they also want you to know that it s great for team stuff, especially in the business setting for startups.
0
SPEAKER_00
They provide a full-on operating system for running every aspect of your company.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think that s probably how they make money.
0
SPEAKER_00
They just provide this incredible note-taking tool for the masses, but they provide it to businesses, especially small businesses and startups, to sort of actually help them get real stuff done and provide value, and then they can pay for that value.
0
SPEAKER_00
So if you re a startup, you should definitely check them out and get started for free at Notion.com.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp, spelled H-E-L-P, help.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think they re a sponsor on a lot of my favorite podcasts, which is awesome, because it makes me feel like we re in this together.
0
SPEAKER_00
So it s great that BetterHelp is supporting all of these amazing podcasts.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, I m a huge fan of Talk Therapy, which is what they do.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can connect online with a licensed professional therapist in under 48 hours.
0
SPEAKER_00
Conversation is a great way of opening up your mind without resistance and just seeing what comes out.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it s fun to see whatever lurks there in your shadow, in the darkness of your shadow, in the subconscious, the unconscious mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s great for you, it s good to do talk therapy.
0
SPEAKER_00
To help a little bit, at least bring the beautiful puzzle of it to the light.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out at betterhelp.com slash Lex and save on your first month.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Blinkist, my favorite app for learning new things they got.
0
SPEAKER_00
Non-fiction books, thousands of them.
0
SPEAKER_00
and they condense them down into 15-minute chunks you can read or listen to.
0
SPEAKER_00
By the way, this isn t to save time.
0
SPEAKER_00
I guess you save time.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s this obsession in this world of being in a hurry.
0
SPEAKER_00
A lot of people listen to podcasts at incredibly high speeds.
0
SPEAKER_00
I admire those people, I give them props, but I m just not that person.
0
SPEAKER_00
I like to sit on a sentence, on a word, sometimes on a silence for a long time and think.
0
SPEAKER_00
And in that way, Blinkist isn t about, at least to me, about saving time.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s about actually revealing something powerful about a nonfiction book that you may otherwise miss.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I think even if you read the book, it s just a good supplement to the book reading experience.
0
SPEAKER_00
Before,
0
SPEAKER_00
after to remind yourself, to preview it, to select which books you want to read in full, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can claim a special offer now for savings at blinkist.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Nick Lane.
0
SPEAKER_00
Let s start with perhaps the most mysterious, the most interesting question that we little humans can ask of ourselves.
0
SPEAKER_00
How did life originate on Earth?
0
SPEAKER_01
You could ask anybody working on the subject, and you ll get a different answer from all of them.
0
SPEAKER_01
They will be pretty passionately held opinions, and they re opinions grounded in science.
0
SPEAKER_01
But they re still really at this point, their opinions, because there s so much stuff to know that all we can ever do is get a kind of a small slice of it, and it s the context which matters.
0
SPEAKER_01
So I can give you my answer.
0
SPEAKER_01
My answer is, from a biologist s point of view, that has been missing from the equation over decades.
0
SPEAKER_01
which is, well, what does life do on Earth?
0
SPEAKER_01
Why is it this way?
0
SPEAKER_01
Why is it made of cells?
0
SPEAKER_01
Why is it made of carbon?
0
SPEAKER_01
Why is it powered by electrical charges on membranes?
0
SPEAKER_01
There s all these interesting questions about cells that if you then look to see, well, is there an environment on the early Earth four billion years ago?
0
SPEAKER_01
It kind of matches the requirements of cells.
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, there is one.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s a very obvious one.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s basically created by whenever you have a wet rocky planet, you get these hydrothermal vents, which generate hydrogen gas in bucket loads and electrical charges on kind of cell-like pores.
0
SPEAKER_01
that can drive the kind of chemistry that life does.
0
SPEAKER_01
So it seems so beautiful and so obvious that I ve spent the last 10 years or more trying to do experiments.
0
SPEAKER_01
It turns out to be difficult, of course.
0
SPEAKER_01
Everything s more difficult than you ever thought it was going to be.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it looks, I would say, more true rather than less true over that 10-year period.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think I have to take a step back every now and then and think, hang on a minute, where s this going?
0
SPEAKER_01
I m happy it s going in a sensible direction.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think then you have these other interesting dilemmas.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I m often accused of being too focused on life on earth to kind of
0
SPEAKER_01
narrow-minded and inward-looking, you might say.
0
SPEAKER_01
I m talking about carbon.
0
SPEAKER_01
I m talking about cells.
0
SPEAKER_01
Maybe you or plenty of people can say to me, ah, yeah, but life can be anything.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have no imagination.
0
SPEAKER_01
Maybe they re right.
0
SPEAKER_01
But unless we can say why life here is this way and if those reasons are fundamental reasons or if they re just trivial reasons, then we can t answer that question.
0
SPEAKER_01
So I think they re fundamental reasons and I think we need to worry about them.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, there might be some deep truth to the puzzle here on Earth that will resonate with other puzzles elsewhere that will, solving this particular puzzle will give us that deeper truth.
0
SPEAKER_00
So what, to this puzzle, you said vents, hydrogen, wet, so chemically, what is the potion here?
0
SPEAKER_00
How important is oxygen?
0
SPEAKER_00
You wrote a book about this.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and I actually just came straight here from a conference where I was chairing a session on whether oxygen matters or not in the history of life.
0
SPEAKER_01
Of course, it matters.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it matters most to the origin of life to be not there.
0
SPEAKER_01
As I see it, we have this… I mean, life is made of carbon, basically, primarily organic molecules with carbon-carbon bonds.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the building block, the Lego brick that we take out of the air or take out of the oceans is carbon dioxide.
0
SPEAKER_01
And to turn carbon dioxide into organic molecules, we need to strap on hydrogen.
0
SPEAKER_01
And this is basically what life is doing.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s hydrogenating carbon dioxide.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s taking the hydrogen that bubbles out of the earth in these hydrothermal vents and it sticks it on CO2.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it s kind of really as simple as that.
0
SPEAKER_01
And actually, thermodynamically, the thing that I find most troubling is that if you do these experiments in the lab, the molecules you get are exactly the molecules that we see at the heart of biochemistry, in the heart of life.
0
SPEAKER_00
Is there something to be said about the earliest origins of that little,
0
SPEAKER_00
potion, that chemical process, what really is the spark there?
0
SPEAKER_01
There isn t a spark.
0
SPEAKER_01
There is a continuous chemical reaction.
0
SPEAKER_01
And there is kind of a spark, but it s a continuous electrical charge which helps drive that reaction.
0
SPEAKER_01
So literally spark?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, the charge at least, but yes.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, a spark in that sense is, we tend to think of, in terms of Frankenstein, we tend to think in terms of electricity and one moment you zap something and it comes alive.
0
SPEAKER_01
And what does that really mean?
0
SPEAKER_01
It s come alive and now what s sustaining it?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, we are sustained by oxygen, by this continuous chemical reaction.
0
SPEAKER_01
And if you put a plastic bag on your head, then you ve got a minute or something before it s all over.
0
SPEAKER_00
So some way of being able to leverage a source of energy.
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, the source of energy at the origin of life is the reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen.
0
SPEAKER_01
And amazingly, most of these reactions are exergonic, which is to say they release energy.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you have hydrogen and CO2,
0
SPEAKER_01
and you put them together in a falcon tube and you warm it up to say 50 degrees centigrade and you put in a couple of catalysts and you shake it, nothing s gonna happen.
0
SPEAKER_01
But thermodynamically, that is less stable.
0
SPEAKER_01
Two gases, hydrogen and CO2, is less stable than cells.
0
SPEAKER_01
What should happen is you get cells coming out.
0
SPEAKER_01
So why doesn t that happen is because of the kinetic barriers.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s where you need the spark.
0
SPEAKER_00
Is it possible that life originated multiple times on Earth?
0
SPEAKER_00
The way you describe it, you make it sound so easy.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s a long distance to go from the first bits of prebiotic chemistry to, say, molecular machines like ribosomes.
0
SPEAKER_00
Is that the first thing that you would say is life?
0
SPEAKER_00
Like if I introduce the two of you at a party, you would say that s a living thing?
0
SPEAKER_01
I would say as soon as we introduce genes information into systems that are growing anyway, so I would talk about growing protocells.
0
SPEAKER_01
As soon as we introduce even random bits of information into there, I m thinking about RNA molecules for example.
0
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t have to have any information in it.
0
SPEAKER_01
It can be completely random sequence.
0
SPEAKER_01
But if it s introduced into a system which is in any case growing and doubling itself and reproducing itself, then any changes in that sequence that allow it to do so better or worse are now selected by perfectly normal natural selection.
0
SPEAKER_01
So that s when it becomes alive to my mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s encompassed into like an object.
0
SPEAKER_00
that keeps information and evolves that information over time, or changes that information over time in response to the universe.
0
SPEAKER_01
So it s always part of a cell system from the very beginning.
0
SPEAKER_00
So is your sense that it started only once because it s difficult, or is it possibly started in multiple locations on Earth?
0
SPEAKER_01
It s possible it started multiple occasions.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s two provisos to that.
0
SPEAKER_01
One of them is oxygen makes it impossible, really, for life to start.
0
SPEAKER_01
So as soon as we ve got oxygen in the atmosphere, then life isn t going to keep starting over.
0
SPEAKER_01
So, I often get asked by people, why can t we have life starting?
0
SPEAKER_01
If it s so easy, why can t life start in these vents now?
0
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is, if you want hydrogen to react with CO2 and there s oxygen there, hydrogen reacts with oxygen instead.
0
SPEAKER_01
You get an explosive reaction that way, it s rocket fuel.
0
SPEAKER_01
So, it s never going to happen.
0
SPEAKER_01
But for the origin of life earlier than that, all we know is that there s a single common ancestor for all of life.
0
SPEAKER_01
There could have been multiple origins and they all just disappeared.
0
SPEAKER_01
But there s a very interesting deep split in life between bacteria and what are called archaea, which look just the same as bacteria.
0
SPEAKER_01
And they re not quite as diverse, but nearly.
0
SPEAKER_01
And they are very different in their biochemistry.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so any explanation for the origin of life has to account as well for why they re so different and yet so similar.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that makes me think that life probably did arise only once.
0
SPEAKER_00
Can you describe the difference that s interesting there?
0
SPEAKER_00
How they re similar, how they re different?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, they re different in their membranes primarily.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re different in things like DNA replication.
0
SPEAKER_01
They use completely different enzymes and the genes behind it for replicating DNA.
0
SPEAKER_00
So they both have membranes, both have DNA replication.
0
SPEAKER_00
The process of that is different.
0
SPEAKER_01
They both have DNA.
0
SPEAKER_01
The genetic code is identical in them both.
0
SPEAKER_01
The way in which it s transcribed into RNA, into the copy of a gene, and the way that that s then translated into a protein, that s all basically the same in both these groups.
0
SPEAKER_01
So they clearly share a common ancestor.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s just that they re different in fundamental ways as well.
0
SPEAKER_01
And if you think about, well,
0
SPEAKER_01
kind of processes could drive that divergence very early on.
0
SPEAKER_01
I can think about it in terms of membranes, in terms of the electrical charges on membranes, and it s that that makes me think that there were probably many unsuccessful attempts and only one really successful attempt.
0
SPEAKER_00
Can you explain why that divergence makes you think there s one common ancestor?
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, can you describe that intuition?
0
SPEAKER_00
I m a little bit unclear about why the, like the leap from the divergence means there s one.
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you mean like the divergence indicates that there was a big invention at that time from one source?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yes, if it was, if you got, as I imagine it, you have a common ancestor living in a hydrothermal vent,
0
SPEAKER_01
Let s say there are millions of vents and millions of potential common ancestors living in all of those vents, but only one of them makes it out first.
0
SPEAKER_01
Then you could imagine that that cell is then going to take over the world and wipe out everything else.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so what you would see would be a single common ancestor for all of life, but with lots of different vent systems all vying to create the first life forms, you might say.
0
SPEAKER_00
So this thing is a cell, a single-cell organism.
0
SPEAKER_01
We re always talking about populations of cells, but yes, these are single-celled organisms.
0
SPEAKER_00
But the fundamental life form is a single cell, right?
0
SPEAKER_00
So they re always together, but they re alone together.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s a machinery in each one individual component that, if left by itself, would still work, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yes, yes, yes.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s the unit of selection is a single cell.
0
SPEAKER_01
But selection operates over generations and changes over generations in populations of cells.
0
SPEAKER_01
So it would be impossible to say that a cell is the unit of selection in the sense that unless you have a population, you can t evolve, you can t change.
0
SPEAKER_00
Right, but there was one Chuck Norris, it s an American reference, cell that made it out of the vents, right?
0
SPEAKER_00
Like the first one.
0
SPEAKER_01
So imagine then that there s one cell gets out and it takes over the world.
0
SPEAKER_00
It gets out in the water.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s like floating around.
0
SPEAKER_01
We re deep in the ocean somewhere.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
0
SPEAKER_01
But actually two cells got out and they appear to have got out from the same vent because they both share the same code and everything else.
0
SPEAKER_01
So unless all the, you know, we ve got a million different common ancestors in all these different vents.
0
SPEAKER_01
So either they all have the same code.
1
SPEAKER_01
code, and two cells spontaneously merged from different places, or two different cells, fundamentally different cells, came from the same place.
1
SPEAKER_01
So either way, what are the constraints that say, not just one came out, or not half a million came out, but two came out?
1
SPEAKER_01
That s kind of a bit strange.
1
SPEAKER_01
So how did they come out?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, they come out because
1
SPEAKER_01
What you re doing inside a vent is you re relying on the electrical charges down there to power this reaction between hydrogen and CO2 to make yourself grow.
1
SPEAKER_01
And when you leave the vent, you ve got to do that yourself.
1
SPEAKER_01
You ve got to power up your own membrane.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so the question is, well, how do you power up your own membrane?
1
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is, well, you need to pump.
1
SPEAKER_01
You need to pump ions to give an electrical charge on the membrane.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what do the pumps look like?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, the pumps look different in these two groups.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s as if they both emerge from a common ancestor.
1
SPEAKER_01
As soon as you ve got that ancestor, things move very quickly.
1
SPEAKER_01
and divergently.
1
SPEAKER_01
Why does the DNA replication look different?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, it s joined to the membrane.
1
SPEAKER_01
The membranes are different, the DNA replication is different because it s joined to a different kind of membrane.
1
SPEAKER_01
So there s interesting, you know, this is detail you may say, but it s also fundamental because it s about the two big divergent groups of life on Earth that seem to have diverged really early on.
1
SPEAKER_00
And it all started from
1
SPEAKER_00
one organism, and then that organism just start replicating the heck out of itself with some mutation of the DNA.
1
SPEAKER_00
So like there s some, there s a competition through the process of evolution.
1
SPEAKER_00
They re not like trying to beat each other up.
1
SPEAKER_00
They re just, they re just trying to live.
1
SPEAKER_01
They are just replicators.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, well, you know, let s not minimize their... They re just trying to chill, they re trying to relax, but there s no sense of trying to survive.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re replicating... I mean, there s no sense in which they re trying to do anything.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re just kind of an outgrowth of the Earth, you might say.
1
SPEAKER_00
Of course, the aliens would describe us humans in that same way.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s primitive life.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s just ants that are hairless, mostly hairless.
1
SPEAKER_00
Overgrown ants.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, what do you think about the idea of panspermia, that the theory that life did not originate on Earth and was planted here from outer space?
1
SPEAKER_00
or pseudopanspermia, which is like the basic ingredients, the magic that you mentioned was planted here from elsewhere in space.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t find them helpful.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s not to say they re wrong.
1
SPEAKER_01
So pseudotranspermia, the idea that the chemicals, the amino acids, the nucleotides are being delivered from space.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, we know that happens.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s unequivocal.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re delivered on meteorites, comets and so on.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what do they do next?
1
SPEAKER_01
That s to me the question.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, what do they do is they stock a soup.
1
SPEAKER_01
Presumably they land in a pond or in an ocean or wherever they land.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then you end up with the best possible case scenario is you end up with a super nucleotides and amino acids.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then you have to say, so now what happens?
1
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is, oh, well, they have to go become alive.
1
SPEAKER_01
So how did they do that?
1
SPEAKER_01
You may as well say then a miracle happened.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t believe in soup.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think what we have in a vent is a continuous conversion, a continuous growth, a continuous reaction, a continuous converting a flow of molecules into more of yourself, you might say, even if it s a small bit.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you ve got a kind of continuous self-organization and growth from the very beginning.
1
SPEAKER_01
You never have that in a soup.
1
SPEAKER_00
Isn t the entire universe and living organisms in the universe, isn t it just soup all the way down?
1
SPEAKER_00
Isn t it all soup?
1
SPEAKER_01
No, no, I mean soup almost by definition doesn t have a structure.
1
SPEAKER_00
But soup is a collection of ingredients that are like randomly... Yeah, but they re not random.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re not, I mean, we have chemistry going on here.
1
SPEAKER_01
We have membranes forming, which are, you know, effective oil-water interactions.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so it feels like there s a direction to a process, like a directed process.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are directions to processes, yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
And if you re starting with CO2 and you ve got two reactive fluids being brought together and they react, what are they going to make?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, they make carboxylic acids which include the fatty acids that make up the cell membranes and they form directly into bilayer membranes.
1
SPEAKER_01
They form like soap bubbles.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s spontaneous organization.
1
SPEAKER_01
caused by the nature of the molecules.
1
SPEAKER_01
And those things are capable of growing and are capable, in effect, of being selected even before there are genes.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we have a lot of order.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that order is coming from thermodynamics.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the thermodynamics is always about increasing the entropy of the universe.
1
SPEAKER_01
But if you have oil and water and they re separating, you re increasing the entropy of the universe even though you ve got some order, which is the soap and the water are not miscible.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now, to come back to your first
1
SPEAKER_01
question about panspermia properly, that just pushes the question somewhere else.
1
SPEAKER_01
Even if it s true, maybe life did start on Earth by panspermia.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what are the principles that govern the emergence of life on any planet?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s an assumption that life started here.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s an assumption that it started in a hydrothermal vent, or it started in a terrestrial geothermal system.
1
SPEAKER_01
The question is, can we work out a testable sequence of events that would lead from one to the other one, and then test it and see if there s any truth in it or not?
1
SPEAKER_01
With Panspermia, you can t do any of that.
1
SPEAKER_00
But the fundamental question of Panspermia is, do we have the machine here on Earth to build life?
1
SPEAKER_00
Is the vents enough?
1
SPEAKER_00
Is oxygen and hydrogen and whatever the heck else we want and some source of energy and heat, is that enough to build life?
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s, of course you would say that as a human.
1
SPEAKER_00
But there could be aliens right now chuckling at that idea.
1
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you need some special sauce.
1
SPEAKER_00
Your sense is we have everything here.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean this is precisely the question.
1
SPEAKER_01
I like to, when I m talking in schools, I like to start out with the idea of we can make a time machine.
1
SPEAKER_01
We go back four billion years, and we go to these environments that people talk about.
1
SPEAKER_01
We go to a deep sea hydrothermal vent, we go to a kind of Yellowstone Park type place environment, and we find some slime that looks like... We can test it.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s made of organic molecules.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s got a structure, which is not obviously cells, but is this a stepping stone on the way to life or not?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
How do we know?
1
SPEAKER_01
Unless we ve got an intellectual framework that says, this is a stepping stone and that s not a step.
1
SPEAKER_01
We d never know.
1
SPEAKER_01
We wouldn t know which environment to go to, what to look for, how to say this.
1
SPEAKER_01
So all we can ever hope for, because we re never going to build that time machine, is to have an intellectual framework that can explain step by step, experiment by experiment, how we go from a sterile inorganic planet to living cells as we know them.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in that framework, every time you have a choice, it could be this way or it could be that way, or, you know, there s lots of possible forks down that road.
1
SPEAKER_01
Did it have to be that way?
1
SPEAKER_01
Could it have been the other way?
1
SPEAKER_01
And would that have given you life with very different properties?
1
SPEAKER_01
And so if you come up with a, you know, it s a long hypothesis, because as I say, we re going from really simple prebiotic chemistry all the way through to genes and molecular machines.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a long, long pathway.
1
SPEAKER_01
and nobody in the field would agree on the order in which these things happened, which is not a bad thing, because it means that you have to go out and do some experiments and try and demonstrate that it s possible or not possible.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s so freaking amazing that it happened, though.
1
SPEAKER_00
It feels like there s a direction to the thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you try to answer from a framework perspective of what is life?
1
SPEAKER_00
So you said there s some order and yet there s complexity.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s not perfectly ordered, it s not boring.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s still some fun in it.
1
SPEAKER_00
And it also feels like the processes have a direction through the selection mechanism.
1
SPEAKER_00
They seem to be building something, always better, always improving.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, maybe it s- I mean, that s a perception.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s our romanticization of things are always better.
1
SPEAKER_00
Things are getting better, we d like to believe that.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you think about the world from the point of view of bacteria, and bacteria are the first things to emerge from whatever environment they came from.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they dominated the planet very, very quickly.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they haven t really changed.
1
SPEAKER_01
Four billion years later, they look exactly the same.
1
SPEAKER_00
So about four billion years ago, bacteria started to really run the show.
1
SPEAKER_00
And then nothing happened for a while.
1
SPEAKER_01
Nothing happened for two billion years.
1
SPEAKER_01
Then after two billion years, we see another single event origin, if you like, of our own type of cell, the eukaryotic cells, so cells with a nucleus and lots of stuff going on inside.
1
SPEAKER_01
Another singular origin, it only,
1
SPEAKER_01
happened once in the history of life on Earth.
1
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it happened multiple times and there s no evidence, everything just disappeared, but we have to at least take it seriously that there s something that stops bacteria from becoming more complex because they didn t.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a fact that they emerged
1
SPEAKER_01
four billion years ago, and something happened two billion years ago, but the bacteria themselves didn t change.
1
SPEAKER_01
They remain bacterial.
1
SPEAKER_01
So there is no trajectory, necessary trajectory, towards great complexity in human beings at the end of it.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s very easy to imagine that without photosynthesis arising, or without eukaryotes arising, that a planet could be full of bacteria and nothing else.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, we ll get to that, because that s a brilliant invention.
1
SPEAKER_00
And there s a few brilliant inventions along the way.
1
SPEAKER_00
But what is life?
1
SPEAKER_00
If you were to show up on Earth, but to take that time machine, and you said, asking yourself the question, is this a stepping stone towards life?
1
SPEAKER_00
As you step along, when you see the early bacteria, how would you know it s life?
1
SPEAKER_00
This is a really important question when you go to other planets and look for life.
1
SPEAKER_00
What is the framework of telling the difference between a rock and a bacteria?
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean the question s kind of both impossible to answer and trivial at the same time and I don t like to answer it because I don t think there is an answer.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think we re trying to describe- Those are the most fun questions.
1
SPEAKER_00
What do you mean there s no answer?
1
SPEAKER_01
No, there is no answer.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean there s lots of- there are at least 40 or 50 different definitions of life out there.
1
SPEAKER_01
And most of them are, well, obviously bad in one way or another.
1
SPEAKER_01
I can never remember the exact words that people use, but there s a NASA working definition of life, which more or less says a self-sustaining system capable of evolution or something along those lines.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I immediately have a problem with the word self-sustaining because it s sustained by the environment.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I know what they re getting at.
1
SPEAKER_01
I know what they re trying to say, but I pick a hole in that.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there s always wags who say, but by that definition, a rabbit is not alive.
1
SPEAKER_01
Only a pair of rabbits would be alive because a single rabbit is incapable of copying itself.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s all kinds of pedantic, silly but also important objections to any hypothesis.
1
SPEAKER_01
The real question is what is, you know, we can argue all day or people do argue all day about is a virus alive or not?
1
SPEAKER_01
And it depends on the content.
1
SPEAKER_01
Most biologists could not agree about that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So then what about a jumping gene, a retro element or something like that?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s even simpler than a virus, but it s capable of converting its environment into a copy of itself.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s about as close, this is not a definition, but this is a kind of a description of life, is that it s able to parasitize the environment, and that goes for plants as well as animals and bacteria and viruses, to make a relatively exact copy of themselves, informationally exact copy of themselves.
1
SPEAKER_00
By the way, it doesn t really have to be a copy of itself, right?
1
SPEAKER_00
It just has to be, you have to create something
1
SPEAKER_00
That s interesting.
1
SPEAKER_00
The way evolution is, so it is extremely powerful process of evolution, which is basically make a copy of yourself and sometimes mess up a little bit.
1
SPEAKER_00
That seems to work really well.
1
SPEAKER_00
I wonder if it s possible to,
1
SPEAKER_01
Mess up big time.
1
SPEAKER_00
Mess up big time as a standard, as the default.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s called a hopeful monster.
1
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t work.
1
SPEAKER_01
In principle, it can.
1
SPEAKER_01
Actually, it turns out, I would say that this is due a reemergence.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s some amazing work from Michael Levin.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know if you came across him, but if you haven t interviewed him, you should interview him.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, in Boston.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m talking to him in a few days.
1
SPEAKER_01
Oh, fantastic.
1
SPEAKER_00
So I mentioned, if I may mention, Andrej Karpathy is a friend who s really admired in the AI community, said you absolutely must talk to Michael and to Nick.
1
SPEAKER_00
Of course, I m a huge fan of yours, so I m really fortunate that we can actually make this happen.
1
SPEAKER_00
Anyway.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, Michael Levin is doing amazing work, basically about the way in which electrical fields control development.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he s done some work with planarian worms, so flatworms, where he ll tell you all about this, so I won t say any more than the minimum, but basically you can cut their head off and they ll redevelop a different
1
SPEAKER_01
a new head.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the head that they develop depends, if you knock out just one iron pump in a membrane, so you change the electrical circuitry just a little bit, you can come up with a completely different head.
1
SPEAKER_01
It can be a head which is similar to those that diverged 150 million years ago, or it can be a head which no one s ever seen before, a different kind of head.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now that is really, you might say, a hopeful monster.
1
SPEAKER_01
This is a leap into a different direction.
1
SPEAKER_01
The only question for natural selection is does it work?
1
SPEAKER_01
Is the change itself feasible as a single change?
1
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is yes, it s just a small change to a single gene.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the second thing is it gives rise to a completely different morphology.
1
SPEAKER_01
Does it work?
1
SPEAKER_01
And if it works, that can easily be a shift.
1
SPEAKER_01
But for it to be a speciation, for it to continue, for it to give rise to a different morphology over time, then it has to be perpetuated.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that shift, that change in that one gene has to work well enough that it is selected and it goes on.
1
SPEAKER_00
and copied enough times to where you can really test it.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the likelihood it would be lost, but there will be some occasions where it survives.
1
SPEAKER_01
And yes, the idea that we can have sudden, fairly abrupt changes in evolution, I think it s time for a rebirth.
1
SPEAKER_00
What about this idea that kind of trying to mathematize a definition of life and saying how many steps, the shortest amount of steps it takes to build the thing, almost like an engineering view of it.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you find that at all compelling?
1
SPEAKER_01
Ah, I like that view, because I think that in a sense, that s not very far away from what a hypothesis needs to do to be a testable hypothesis for the origin of life.
1
SPEAKER_01
You need to spell out, here s each step, and here s the experiment to do for each step.
1
SPEAKER_01
The idea that we can do it in the lab, some people say, oh, we ll have created life within five years, but ask them what they mean by life.
1
SPEAKER_01
We have a planet four billion years ago with these vent systems across the entire surface of the planet, and we have millions of years if we wanted.
1
SPEAKER_01
I have a feeling that we re not talking about millions of years.
1
SPEAKER_01
I have a feeling we re talking about
1
SPEAKER_01
maybe millions of nanoseconds or picoseconds.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re talking about chemistry, which is happening quickly.
1
SPEAKER_01
But we still need to constrain those steps, but we ve got a planet doing similar chemistry.
1
SPEAKER_01
You asked about a trajectory.
1
SPEAKER_01
The trajectory is the planetary trajectory.
1
SPEAKER_01
The planet has properties.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s basically, it s got a lot of iron at the center of it.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s got a lot of electrons at the center of it.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s more oxidized on the outside, partly because of the sun.
1
SPEAKER_01
And partly because the heat of volcanoes puts out oxidized gases.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the planet is a battery, it s a giant battery.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we have a flow of electrons going from inside to outside in these hydrothermal vents.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s the same topology that a cell has.
1
SPEAKER_01
A cell is basically just a micro version of the planet.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there is a trajectory in all of that.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there s an inevitability that certain types of chemical reaction are going to be favored over others.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there s an inevitability in what happens in water, the chemistry that happens in water.
1
SPEAKER_01
Some will be immiscible with water and will form membranes and will form insoluble structures.
1
SPEAKER_01
Nobody really understands water very well.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s another big question.
1
SPEAKER_01
For experiments on the origin of life, what do you put it in?
1
SPEAKER_01
What kind of structure do we want to induce in this water because the last thing is?
2
SPEAKER_00
likely to be is just kind of bulk water.
2
SPEAKER_01
How fundamental is water to life, would you say?
2
SPEAKER_00
I would say pretty fundamental.
2
SPEAKER_00
I wouldn t like to say it s impossible for life to start any other way, but water is everywhere.
2
SPEAKER_00
Water s extremely good at what it does, and carbon works in water especially well.
2
SPEAKER_00
And carbon is everywhere.
2
SPEAKER_00
So those things together make me think probabilistically, if we found 1,000 life forms, 995 of them would be carbon-based and living in water.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now the reverse question, if you found a puddle of water elsewhere and some carbon, no, just a puddle of water.
2
SPEAKER_01
Is a puddle of water a pretty damn good indication that life either exists here or has once existed here?
2
SPEAKER_01
No.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it doesn t work the other way.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think you need a living planet.
2
SPEAKER_00
You need a planet which is capable of turning over its surface.
2
SPEAKER_00
It needs to be a planet with water.
2
SPEAKER_00
It needs to be capable of bringing those electrons from inside to the outside.
2
SPEAKER_00
It needs to turn over its surface.
2
SPEAKER_00
It needs to make that water work and turn it into hydrogen.
2
SPEAKER_00
So I think you need a living planet.
2
SPEAKER_00
But once you ve got the living planet, I think the rest of it is kind of thermodynamics all the way.
2
SPEAKER_01
So if you were to run Earth over a million times,
2
SPEAKER_01
up to this point, maybe beyond, to the end.
2
SPEAKER_01
Let s run it to the end.
2
SPEAKER_01
What is it, how much variety is there?
2
SPEAKER_01
You kind of spoke to this trajectory that the environment dictates like chemically, I don t know in which other way.
2
SPEAKER_01
spiritually, like dictates kind of the direction of this giant machine that seems chaotic, but it does seem to have order in the steps it s taking.
2
SPEAKER_01
How much, how often will life, how often will bacteria emerge?
2
SPEAKER_01
How often will something like humans emerge?
2
SPEAKER_01
How much variety do you think there would be?
2
SPEAKER_00
I think at the level of bacteria, not much variety.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think we would get – how many times did you say you want to run it?
2
SPEAKER_00
A million times?
2
SPEAKER_00
I would say at least a few hundred thousand we ll get bacteria again.
2
SPEAKER_00
Because I think there s some level of inevitability that a wet rocky planet will give rise through
2
SPEAKER_00
through the same processes to something very, I think, this is not something I d have thought a few years ago, but working with a PhD student of mine, Stuart Harrison, he s been thinking about the genetic code, and we ve just been publishing on that.
2
SPEAKER_00
There are patterns that you can discern in the code, or he has discerned in the code, that if you think about them in terms of, we start with CO2 and hydrogen, and these are the first steps of biochemistry, you come up with a code which is very similar to the code that we see.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it wouldn t surprise me any longer if we found life on Mars and it had a genetic code that was not very different to the genetic code that we have here, without it just being transferred across.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s some inevitability about the whole of the beginnings of life, in my view.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s really promising because if the basic chemistry is tightly linked to the genetic code, that means we can interact with other life if it exists out there.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s potentially.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s really exciting if that s the case.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, but then bacteria.
2
SPEAKER_00
We ve got bacteria.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
How easy is photosynthesis?
2
SPEAKER_00
Much harder, I would say.
2
SPEAKER_01
Let s actually go there.
2
SPEAKER_01
Let s go through the inventions.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
What is photosynthesis?
2
SPEAKER_01
And why is it hard?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, there are different forms.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, basically you re taking hydrogen and you re sticking it onto CO2 and it s powered by the sun.
2
SPEAKER_00
The question is where are you taking the hydrogen from?
2
SPEAKER_00
And in photosynthesis that we know in plants, it s coming from water.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you re using the power of the sun to split water, take out the hydrogen, stick it onto CO2 and the oxygen is a waste product and you just throw it out, throw it away.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it s, you know, the single greatest planetary pollution event in the whole history of the Earth.
2
SPEAKER_01
The pollutant being oxygen.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
It also made possible animals.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can t have large active animals without an oxygenated atmosphere, at least not in the sense that we know on Earth.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s a really big invention in the history of Earth.
2
SPEAKER_00
Huge invention, yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
And it happened once.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s a few things that happened once on Earth and you re always stuck with this problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
Once it happened, did it become so good so quickly that it precluded the
2
SPEAKER_00
the same thing happening ever again, or are there other reasons?
2
SPEAKER_00
And we really have to look at each one in turn and think, why did it only happen once?
2
SPEAKER_00
In this case, it s really difficult to split water.
2
SPEAKER_00
It requires a lot of power, and that power, you re effectively separating charge across a membrane.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the way in which you do it, if it doesn t all rush back and kind of cause an explosion right at the site, requires really careful wiring.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that wiring,
2
SPEAKER_00
It can t be easy to get it right because the plants that we see around us, they have chloroplasts.
2
SPEAKER_00
Those chloroplasts were cyanobacteria ones.
2
SPEAKER_00
Those cyanobacteria are the only group of bacteria that can do that type of photosynthesis.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s plenty of opportunity.
2
SPEAKER_01
So not even many bacteria.
2
SPEAKER_01
So who invented photosynthesis?
2
SPEAKER_00
The cyanobacteria or their ancestors.
2
SPEAKER_01
And there s not many...
2
SPEAKER_00
No other bacteria can do what s called oxygenic photosynthesis.
2
SPEAKER_00
Lots of other bacteria can split.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, you can take your hydrogen from somewhere else.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can take it from hydrogen sulfide bubbling out of a hydrothermal vent.
2
SPEAKER_00
Grab your two hydrogens.
2
SPEAKER_00
The sulfur is the waste now.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can do it from iron.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can take electrons.
2
SPEAKER_00
So the early oceans were probably full of iron.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can take an electron from ferrous iron, so iron 2 plus and make it iron 3 plus, which now precipitates as rust.
2
SPEAKER_00
You take a proton from the acidic early ocean, stick it there.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now you ve got a hydrogen atom.
2
SPEAKER_00
Stick it onto CO2.
2
SPEAKER_00
You ve just done the trick.
2
SPEAKER_00
The trouble is
2
SPEAKER_00
you bury yourself in rusty iron.
2
SPEAKER_00
And with sulfur, you can bury yourself in sulfur.
2
SPEAKER_00
One of the reasons oxygenic photosynthesis is so much better is that the waste product is oxygen, which just bubbles away.
2
SPEAKER_01
That seems like extremely unlikely, and it s extremely essential for the evolution of complex organisms because of all the oxygen.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and that didn t accumulate quickly either.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it s converting, what is it?
2
SPEAKER_01
It s converting energy from the sun and the resource of water into the resource needed for animals.
2
SPEAKER_00
both resources needed for animals.
2
SPEAKER_00
We need to eat and we need to burn the food.
2
SPEAKER_00
And we re eating plants, which are getting their energy from the sun, and we re burning it with their waste product, which is the oxygen.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s a lot of kind of circularity in that.
2
SPEAKER_00
But without an oxygenated planet, you couldn t really have predation.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can have animals, but you can t really have animals that go around and eat each other.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can t have ecosystems as we know them.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, let s actually step back.
2
SPEAKER_01
What about eukaryotic versus prokaryotic cells, prokaryotes?
2
SPEAKER_01
What are each of those and how big of an invention is that?
2
SPEAKER_00
I personally think that s the single biggest invention in the whole history of life.
2
SPEAKER_01
Exciting.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what are they?
2
SPEAKER_01
Can you explain?
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
So I mentioned bacteria and archaea.
2
SPEAKER_00
These are both prokaryotes.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re basically small cells that don t have a nucleus.
2
SPEAKER_00
If you look at them under a microscope, you don t see much going on.
2
SPEAKER_00
If you look at them under a super resolution microscope, then they re fantastically complex.
2
SPEAKER_00
In terms of their molecular machinery, they re amazing.
2
SPEAKER_00
In terms of their morphological appearance under a microscope, they re really small and really simple.
2
SPEAKER_00
The earliest life that we can physically see on the planet are stromatolites, which are made by things like cyanobacteria and they re large superstructures.
2
SPEAKER_00
Effectively biofilms plated on top of each other and you end up with quite large structures that you can see in the fossil record.
2
SPEAKER_00
But they never came up with animals.
2
SPEAKER_00
They never came up with plants.
2
SPEAKER_00
They came up with multicellular things, filamentous cyanobacteria, for example.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re just long strings of cells.
2
SPEAKER_00
But the origin of the eukaryotic cell seems to have been what s called an endosymbiosis.
2
SPEAKER_00
So one cell gets inside another cell.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think that that s transformed the energetic possibilities of life.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what we end up with is a kind of supercharged cell, which can have a much larger nucleus with many more genes, all supported.
2
SPEAKER_00
If you think about it, you could think about it as multi-bacterial power without the overhead.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you ve got a cell and it s got bacteria living in it, and those bacteria are providing it with the energy currency it needs.
2
SPEAKER_00
But each bacterium has a genome of its own, which costs a fair amount of energy to
2
SPEAKER_00
to express, to kind of turn over and convert into proteins and so on.
2
SPEAKER_00
What the mitochondria did, which are these power packs in our own cells, they were bacteria once and they threw away virtually all their genes.
2
SPEAKER_00
They ve only got a few left.
2
SPEAKER_01
So mitochondria is, like you said, is the bacteria that got inside a cell and then threw away all this stuff it doesn t need to survive inside the cell and then kept what?
2
SPEAKER_00
So what we end up with, so it kept always a handful of genes.
2
SPEAKER_00
In our own case, 37 genes.
2
SPEAKER_00
But there s a few protists, which are single-celled things that have got as many as 70 or 80 genes.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it s not always the same, but it s always a small number.
2
SPEAKER_00
And you can think of it as a paired down power pack where the control unit has been kind of paired down to almost nothing.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it s putting out the same power, but the investment in the overheads is really paired down.
2
SPEAKER_00
That means that you can support a much larger nuclear genome.
2
SPEAKER_00
So we ve gone up in the number of genes, but also the amount of power you have to convert those genes into proteins.
2
SPEAKER_00
We ve gone up about fourfold in the number of genes, but in terms of the size of genomes and your ability to make the building blocks, make the proteins, we ve gone up 100,000 fold or more.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it s huge step change in the possibilities of evolution.
2
SPEAKER_00
And it s interesting then that the only two occasions that complex life has arisen on Earth, plants and animals,
2
SPEAKER_00
Fungi, you could say, are complex as well, but they don t form such complex morphology as plants and animals.
2
SPEAKER_00
Start with a single cell.
2
SPEAKER_00
They start with an oocyte and a sperm fused together to make a zygote.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you start development with a single cell, and all the cells in the organism have identical DNA, and you switch off.
2
SPEAKER_00
In the brain, you switch off these genes, and you switch on those genes.
2
SPEAKER_00
In the liver, you switch off those, and you switch on a different set.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the standard evolutionary explanation for that is that you re restricting conflict.
2
SPEAKER_00
You don t have a load of genetically different cells that are all fighting each other.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so it works.
2
SPEAKER_00
The trouble with bacteria is they form these biofilms and they re all genetically different.
2
SPEAKER_00
And effectively, they re incapable of that level of cooperation.
2
SPEAKER_00
They would get in a fight.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so why is this such a difficult invention of getting this bacteria inside and becoming an engine, which the mitochondria is?
2
SPEAKER_01
Why do you assign it such great importance?
2
SPEAKER_01
Is it great importance in terms of the difficulty of how it was to achieve or great importance in terms of the impact it had on life?
2
SPEAKER_00
Both.
2
SPEAKER_00
It had a huge impact on life because if that had not happened, you can be certain that life on Earth would be bacterial only.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that took a really long time.
2
SPEAKER_00
It took two billion years.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
And it hasn t happened since, to the best of our knowledge.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it looks as if it s genuinely difficult.
2
SPEAKER_00
And if you think about it then from just an informational perspective, you think bacteria have got, they structure their information differently.
2
SPEAKER_00
So a bacterial cell has a small genome.
2
SPEAKER_00
It might have 4,000 genes in it, but a single E. coli cell has access to about 30,000 genes, potentially.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s got a kind of metagenome where other E. coli out there have got different gene sets, and they can switch them around between themselves.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so you can generate a huge amount of variation.
2
SPEAKER_00
An E. coli metagenome is larger than the human genome.
2
SPEAKER_00
We own 20,000 genes or something.
2
SPEAKER_00
So, and they ve had four billion years of evolution to work out what can I do and what can t I do with this metagenome?
2
SPEAKER_00
And the answer is you re stuck, you re still bacteria.
2
SPEAKER_00
So they have explored genetic sequence space far more thoroughly than eukaryotes ever did because they ve had twice as long at least and they ve got much larger populations.
2
SPEAKER_00
And they never got around this problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
So why can t they?
2
SPEAKER_00
It seems as if you can t solve it with information alone.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what s the problem?
2
SPEAKER_00
The problem is structure.
2
SPEAKER_00
If the very first cells needed an electrical charge on their membrane to grow, and in bacteria it s the outer membrane that surrounds the cell which is electrically charged,
2
SPEAKER_00
You try and scale that up and you ve got a fundamental design problem, you ve got an engineering problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
There are examples of it and what we see in all these cases is what s known as extreme polyploidy, which is to say they have tens of thousands of copies of their complete genome, which is energetically hugely expensive and you end up with a large bacteria with no further development.
2
SPEAKER_00
What you need is to incorporate these electrically charged power pack units inside with their control units intact, and for them not to conflict so much with the host cell that it all goes wrong.
2
SPEAKER_00
Perhaps it goes wrong more often than not.
2
SPEAKER_00
And then you change the topology of the cell.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now, you don t necessarily have any more DNA than a giant bacterium with extreme polyploidy, but what you ve got is an asymmetry.
2
SPEAKER_00
You now have a giant nuclear genome
2
SPEAKER_00
We re surrounded by lots of subsidiary energetic genomes that do all the, they re the control units that are doing all the control of energy generation.
2
SPEAKER_01
Could this have been done gradually, or does it have to be done, the power pack has to be all intact and ready to go and working?
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s a kind of step change in the possibilities of evolution, but it doesn t happen overnight.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s gonna still require multiple, multiple generations.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it could take, you know, it could take millions of years.
2
SPEAKER_00
It could take shorter time.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is another thing, I would like to put the number of steps and try and work out what s required at each step, and we are trying to do that with sex, for example.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can t have a very large genome
2
SPEAKER_00
unless you have sex at that point.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what are the changes to go from bacterial recombination to eukaryotic recombination?
2
SPEAKER_00
What do you need to do?
2
SPEAKER_00
Why do we go from passing around bits of DNA as if it s loose change to fusing cells together, lining up the chromosomes, recombining across the chromosomes, and then going through two rounds of cell division to produce your gametes?
2
SPEAKER_00
All eukaryotes do it that way.
2
SPEAKER_00
So again, why switch?
2
SPEAKER_00
What are the drivers here?
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s a lot of time, there s a lot of evolution, but as soon as you ve got cells living inside another cell, what you ve got is a new design.
2
SPEAKER_00
You ve got new potential that you didn t have before.
2
SPEAKER_01
So the cell living inside another cell, that design allows for
2
SPEAKER_01
better storage of information, better use of energy, more delegation, like a hierarchical control of the whole thing, and then somehow that leads to ability to have multi-cell organisms.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m not sure that you have hierarchical control necessarily, but you ve got a system where you can have a much larger information storage depot in the nucleus.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can have a much larger genome.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that allows multicellularity, yes, because it allows you
2
SPEAKER_00
It s a funny thing to have an animal where I have 70% of my genes switched on in my brain and a different 50% switched on in my liver or something.
2
SPEAKER_00
You ve got to have all those genes in the egg cell at the very beginning and you ve got to have a program of development which says, okay, you guys switch off those genes and switch on those genes and you guys, you do that.
2
SPEAKER_00
but all the genes are there at the beginning.
2
SPEAKER_00
That means you ve got to have a lot of genes in one cell and you ve got to be able to maintain them.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the problem with bacteria is they don t get close to having enough genes in one cell.
2
SPEAKER_00
So if you were to try and make a multicellular organism from bacteria, you d bring different types of bacteria together and hope they ll cooperate, and the reality is they don t.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s really, really tough to do.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
We know they don t because it doesn t exist.
2
SPEAKER_01
We have the data, as far as we know.
2
SPEAKER_01
I m sure there s a few special ones and they die off quickly.
2
SPEAKER_01
I d love to know some of the most fun things bacteria have done since I Mean they can do some pretty funky things.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is big.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is broad brushstroke that I m talking about.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, generally speaking So how was so another you know fun invention?
2
SPEAKER_01
Us humans seem to utilize it well, but you say it s also very important early on
3
SPEAKER_01
on is sex, so what is sex?
3
SPEAKER_01
Just asking for a friend.
3
SPEAKER_01
And when was it invented and how hard was it to invent, just as you were saying, and why was it invented?
3
SPEAKER_01
Why, how hard was it, and when?
3
SPEAKER_00
I have a PhD student who s been working on this and we ve just published a couple of papers on sex, yes, yes, yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
What do you publish?
3
SPEAKER_01
Does biology, is it biology, genetics, journals?
3
SPEAKER_00
This is actually PNAS, which is Proceedings of the National Academy.
3
SPEAKER_00
So like broad, big, big picture stuff.
3
SPEAKER_00
Everyone s interested in sex.
3
SPEAKER_00
The job of biologist is to make sex dull.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s a beautiful way to put it.
3
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so when was it invented?
3
SPEAKER_00
It was invented with eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago.
3
SPEAKER_00
All eukaryotes share the same basic mechanism that you produce gametes.
3
SPEAKER_00
The gametes fuse together.
3
SPEAKER_00
So a gamete is the egg cell and the sperm.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re not necessarily even different in size or shape.
3
SPEAKER_00
So the simplest eukaryotes produce what are called motile gametes.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re all like sperm and they all swim around.
3
SPEAKER_00
They find each other.
3
SPEAKER_00
They fuse together.
3
SPEAKER_00
They don t have kind of much going on there beyond that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then these are
3
SPEAKER_00
haploid, which is to say we all have two copies of our genome, and the gametes have only a single copy of the genome.
3
SPEAKER_00
So when they fuse together, you now become diploid again, which is to say you now have two copies of your genome.
3
SPEAKER_00
And what you do is you line them all up
3
SPEAKER_00
And then you double everything.
3
SPEAKER_00
So now we have four copies of the complete genome.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then we crisscross between all of these things.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we take a bit from here and stick it on there and a bit from here and we stick it on here.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s recombination.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then we go through two rounds of cell division.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we divide in half.
3
SPEAKER_00
So now the two daughter cells have two copies and we divide in half again.
3
SPEAKER_00
Now we have some gametes, each of which has got a single copy of the genome.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s the basic ground plan for what s called meiosis and syngamy, that s basically sex.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it happens at the level of single-celled organisms and it happens pretty much the same way in plants and pretty much the same way in animals and so on.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s not found in any bacteria.
3
SPEAKER_00
They switch things around using the same machinery and they take up a bit of DNA from the environment, they take out this bit and stick in that bit and it s the same molecular machinery they re using to do it.
3
SPEAKER_01
So what about the kind of, you said, find each other, this kind of imperative to find each other, what is that?
3
SPEAKER_01
Like, is that?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, you ve got a few cells together.
3
SPEAKER_00
So the bottom line on all of this is bacteria, I mean, it s kind of simple when you ve figured it out, and figuring it out, this is not me, this is my PhD student, Marco Colnaghi, and it s very simple.
3
SPEAKER_00
In effect, if you re doing lateral, you re a E. coli cell.
3
SPEAKER_00
You ve got 4,000 genes.
3
SPEAKER_00
You want to scale up to a eukaryotic size.
3
SPEAKER_00
I want to have 20,000 genes.
3
SPEAKER_00
I need to maintain my genome so it doesn t get shot to pieces by mutations.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m going to do it by lateral gene transfer.
3
SPEAKER_00
I know I ve got a mutation in a gene.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t know which gene it is because I m not sentient.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I know I can t grow.
3
SPEAKER_00
I know my regulation systems are saying something wrong here, something wrong.
3
SPEAKER_00
Pick up some DNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
Pick up a bit of DNA from the environment.
3
SPEAKER_00
If you ve got a small genome, the chances of you picking up the right bit of DNA from the environment is much higher than if you ve got a genome of 20,000 genes.
3
SPEAKER_00
To do that, you ve effectively gotta be picking up DNA all the time, all day long and nothing else, and you re still gonna get the wrong DNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
You ve gotta pick up large chunks, and in the end, you ve gotta line them up.
3
SPEAKER_00
You re forced into sex, to coin a phrase.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you re... So there is a kind of,
3
SPEAKER_01
incentive.
3
SPEAKER_00
If you want to have a large genome, you ve got to prevent it mutating to nothing.
3
SPEAKER_00
That will happen with bacteria.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is another reason why bacteria can t have a large genome.
3
SPEAKER_00
But as soon as you give them the power pack, as soon as you give eukaryotic cells the power pack that allows them to increase the size of their genome, then you face the pressure that you ve got to maintain its quality.
3
SPEAKER_00
You ve got to stop it just mutating away.
3
SPEAKER_01
What about sexual selection?
3
SPEAKER_01
So the finding
3
SPEAKER_01
Like, I don t like this one, I don t like this one, this one seems all right.
3
SPEAKER_01
Like, what s the, is it, at which point does it become less random?
3
SPEAKER_00
It s hard to know.
3
SPEAKER_01
Because eukaryotes just kind of float around.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s their sexual selection in single-celled eukaryotes.
3
SPEAKER_00
There probably is, it s just that I don t know very much about it.
3
SPEAKER_01
You don t hang out with the eukaryotes.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, I do all the time.
3
SPEAKER_01
But you can t communicate with them yet.
3
SPEAKER_00
A peacock or something.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is not quite what I work on, but the standard answer is that it s female mate choice.
3
SPEAKER_00
She is looking for good genes.
3
SPEAKER_00
If you can have a tail that s like this and still survive, still be alive, not actually have been taken down by the nearest predator, then you must have got pretty good genes because despite this handicap,
3
SPEAKER_00
you re able to survive, so.
3
SPEAKER_01
So those are like human interpretable things like with a peacock, but I wonder, I m sure echoes of the same thing are there with more primitive organisms.
3
SPEAKER_01
Basically your PR, like how you advertise yourself that you re worthy of.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, absolutely.
3
SPEAKER_01
So one big advertisement is the fact that you survived it all.
3
SPEAKER_00
Let me give you one beautiful example of an algal bloom.
3
SPEAKER_00
And this can be in bacteria.
3
SPEAKER_00
So if suddenly you pump nitrate or phosphate or something into the ocean and everything goes green, you end up with all this algae growing there.
3
SPEAKER_00
A viral infection or something like that can kill the entire bloom overnight.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s not that the virus takes out everything overnight, it s that most of the cells in that bloom kill themselves before the virus can get onto them.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s through a form of cell death called programmed cell death.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we do the same things.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s how we have the gaps between our fingers and so on.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s how we craft synapses in the brain.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s fundamental again to multicellular life.
3
SPEAKER_00
They have the same machinery in these algal blooms.
3
SPEAKER_00
How do they know who dies?
3
SPEAKER_00
The answer is they will often put out a toxin.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that toxin is a kind of a challenge to you.
3
SPEAKER_00
Either you can cope with the toxin or you can t.
3
SPEAKER_00
If you can cope with it, you form a spore and you will go on to become the next generation.
3
SPEAKER_00
You ll form a kind of a resistance spore.
3
SPEAKER_00
You sink down a little bit, you get out of the way, you can t be attacked by a virus if you re a spore, or at least not so easily.
3
SPEAKER_00
Whereas if you can t deal with that toxin, you pull the plug and you trigger your death apparatus and you kill yourself.
3
SPEAKER_01
Oh, so it s truly life and death.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it s really, it s a challenge.
3
SPEAKER_00
And this is a bit like sexual selection.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s not so, they re all pretty much genetically identical, but they ve had different life histories.
3
SPEAKER_00
So have you had a tough day?
3
SPEAKER_00
Did you happen to get infected by this virus or did you run out of iron or did you get a bit too much sun?
3
SPEAKER_00
Whatever it may be.
3
SPEAKER_00
If this extra stress of the toxin just pushes you over the edge,
3
SPEAKER_00
Then you have this binary choice, either you re the next generation or you kill yourself now using this same machinery.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s also actually exactly the way I approach dating, but that s probably why I m single.
3
SPEAKER_01
Okay, what about if we can step back, DNA?
3
SPEAKER_01
Just mechanism of storing information.
3
SPEAKER_01
RNA, DNA, how big of an invention was that?
3
SPEAKER_01
That seems to be fundamental to something deep within what life is, is the ability, as you said, to kind of store and propagate information.
3
SPEAKER_01
But then you also kind of inferred that with your and your students  work that there s a deep connection between the chemistry and the ability
3
SPEAKER_01
to have this kind of genetic information.
3
SPEAKER_01
So how big of an invention is it to have a nice representation, a nice hard drive for info to pass on?
3
SPEAKER_00
Huge, I suspect.
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, but when I was talking about the code, you see the code in RNA as well.
3
SPEAKER_00
And RNA almost certainly came first.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there s been an idea going back decades called the RNA world, because RNA in theory can copy itself and can catalyze reactions.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it kind of cuts out this chicken and egg loop.
3
SPEAKER_01
So DNA is possible, it s not that special.
3
SPEAKER_00
So RNA is the thing that does the work, really.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the code lies in RNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
The code lies in the interactions between RNA and amino acids.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it still is there today in the ribosome, for example, which is just kind of a giant ribozyme, which is to say it s an enzyme that s made of RNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
So getting to RNA, I suspect, is probably not that hard.
3
SPEAKER_00
But getting from RNA, there s multiple different types of RNA now.
3
SPEAKER_00
How do you distinguish?
3
SPEAKER_00
This is something we re actively thinking about.
3
SPEAKER_00
How do you distinguish between a random population of RNA?
3
SPEAKER_00
Some of them go on to become messenger RNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is the transcript of the code of the gene that you want to make.
3
SPEAKER_00
Some of them become transfer RNA, which is kind of the unit that holds the amino acid that s going to be polymerized.
3
SPEAKER_00
Some of them become ribosomal RNA, which is the machine which is joining them all up together.
3
SPEAKER_00
How do they discriminate themselves?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is some kind of phase transition going on there?
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a difficult question.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we re now in the region of biology where information is coming in.
3
SPEAKER_00
But the thing about RNA is very, very good at what it does, but the largest genomes supported by RNA are RNA viruses, like HIV, for example.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re pretty small.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so there s a limit to how complex life could be unless you come up with DNA, which chemically is a really small change.
3
SPEAKER_00
But how easy it is to make that change, I don t really know.
3
SPEAKER_00
As soon as you ve got DNA, then you ve got an amazingly stable molecule for information storage.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you can do absolutely anything.
3
SPEAKER_00
But how likely that transition from RNA to DNA was, I don t know either.
3
SPEAKER_01
How much possibility is there for variety
3
SPEAKER_01
in ways to store information, because it seems to be very, there s specific characteristics about the programming language of DNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, there s a lot of work going on on what s called the xenodna or RNA.
3
SPEAKER_00
Can we replace the bases themselves, the letters, if you like, in RNA or DNA?
3
SPEAKER_00
Can we replace the backbone?
3
SPEAKER_00
Can we replace, for example, phosphate with arsenate?
3
SPEAKER_00
Can we replace the sugar ribose or deoxyribose with a different sugar?
3
SPEAKER_00
And the answer is yes, you can.
3
SPEAKER_00
Within limits,
3
SPEAKER_00
There s not an infinite space there.
3
SPEAKER_00
Arsenate doesn t really work if the bonds are not as strong as phosphate.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s probably quite hard to replace phosphate.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s possible to do it.
3
SPEAKER_00
The question to me is, why is it this way?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is it because there was some form of selection that this is better than the other forms, and there were lots of competing forms of information storage early on, and this one was the one that worked out?
3
SPEAKER_00
Or was it kind of channeled that way, that these are the molecules that you re dealing with?
3
SPEAKER_00
and they work.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I m increasingly thinking it s that way that we re channeled towards ribose, phosphate, and the bases that are used.
3
SPEAKER_00
But there are, you know, 200 different letters kicking around out there that could have been used.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s such an interesting question.
3
SPEAKER_01
If you look at in the programming world in computer science, there s a programming language called JavaScript, which was written super quickly.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s a giant mess, but it took over the world.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it was kind of- Sounds very biological.
3
SPEAKER_01
It was kind of a running joke that like, surely this can t be, it s a terrible programming language, it s a giant mess, it s full of bugs, it s so easy to write really crappy code, but it took over all of front-end development in the web browser.
3
SPEAKER_01
If you have any kind of dynamic interactive website, it s usually running JavaScript.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it s now taking over much of the backend, which is like the serious heavy duty computational stuff.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it s become super fast with the different compilation engines that are running it.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it s like, it really took over the world.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s very possible that this initially crappy derided language actually takes everything over.
3
SPEAKER_01
And then the question is, did human civilization always strive towards JavaScript?
3
SPEAKER_01
or was JavaScript just the first programming language that ran on the browser and still sticky?
3
SPEAKER_01
The first is the sticky one.
3
SPEAKER_01
And so it wins over anything else because it was first.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think that s answerable, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
But it s good to ask that.
3
SPEAKER_01
I suppose in the lab, you can t run it with programming languages, but in biology you can probably
3
SPEAKER_01
do some kind of small-scale evolutionary test to try to infer which is which?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I mean, in a way, we ve got the hardware and the software here, and the hardware is maybe the DNA and the RNA itself, and then the software perhaps is more about the code.
3
SPEAKER_00
Did the code have to be this way?
3
SPEAKER_00
Could it have been a different way?
3
SPEAKER_00
People talk about the optimization of the code, and there s some suggestion for that.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think it s weak, actually.
3
SPEAKER_00
But you could imagine you could come out with a million different codes and this would be one of the best ones.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, we don t know this.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, I mean, people have tried to model it based on the effect that mutations would have.
3
SPEAKER_00
So, no, you re right.
3
SPEAKER_00
We don t know because that s the single assumption that a mutation is what s being selected on there.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there s other possibilities too.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there does seem to be a resilience and a redundancy to the whole thing.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s hard to mess up.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the way you mess it up often is likely to produce interesting results.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it s... Are you talking about JavaScript or the genetic code now?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, well, I mean, it s almost, you know, biology is underpinned by this kind of mess as well.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you look at the human genome and it s full of stuff that is really either broken or dysfunctional or was a virus once, whatever it may be, and somehow it works.
3
SPEAKER_00
And maybe we need a lot of this mess.
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, we know that some functional genes are taken from this mess.
3
SPEAKER_01
So what about, you mentioned the predatory behavior.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
We talked about sex.
3
SPEAKER_01
What about violence, predator and prey dynamics?
3
SPEAKER_01
When was that invented?
3
SPEAKER_01
And poetic and biological ways of putting it, how do you describe predator-prey relationship?
3
SPEAKER_01
Is it a beautiful dance or is it a violent atrocity?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, I guess it s both, isn t it?
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, when does it start?
3
SPEAKER_00
It starts in bacteria.
3
SPEAKER_00
You see these amazing predators.
3
SPEAKER_00
Delavibrio is one that Lynn Margulis used to talk about a lot.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s got a kind of a drill piece that drills through the wall and the membrane of the bacterium, and then it effectively eats the bacterium from just inside the periplasmic space and makes copies of itself that way.
3
SPEAKER_00
So that s straight predation.
3
SPEAKER_00
There are predators among bacteria.
3
SPEAKER_01
So predation in that, sorry to interrupt, means you murder somebody and use their body as a resource in some way.
3
SPEAKER_01
But it s not parasitic in that you need them to be still alive?
3
SPEAKER_00
No, no, I mean predation is you kill them, really.
3
SPEAKER_00
Murder.
3
SPEAKER_00
Parasites, so you kind of live on them.
3
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so but it seems the predator is the really popular tool.
3
SPEAKER_00
So what we see if we go back 560, 570 million years before the Cambrian explosion, there is what s known as the Ediacaran fauna, or sometimes they call Vendobionts, which is a lovely name.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s not obvious that they re animals at all.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re stalked things.
3
SPEAKER_00
They often have fronds that look a lot like leaves with kind of fractal branching patterns on them.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the thing is they re found, sometimes geologists can figure out the environment that they were in and say, this is more than 200 meters deep because there s no sign of any waves.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s no storm damage down here, this kind of thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were more than 200 meters deep, so they re definitely not photosynthetic.
3
SPEAKER_00
These are animals.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re filter feeders, and we know sponges and corals and things are filter feeding animals.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re stuck to the spot.
3
SPEAKER_00
Little bits of carbon that come their way, they filter it out, and that s what they re eating.
3
SPEAKER_00
So no predation involved in this, beyond stuff just dies anyway.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it feels like a very gentle, rather beautiful, rather limited world, you might say.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s not a lot going on there.
3
SPEAKER_00
And something changes.
4
SPEAKER_01
Oxygen definitely changes during this period.
4
SPEAKER_01
Other things may have changed as well.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the next thing you really see in the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion.
4
SPEAKER_01
And what do we see there?
4
SPEAKER_01
We re now seeing animals that we would recognize.
4
SPEAKER_01
They ve got eyes, they ve got claws, they ve got shells.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re plainly killing things or running away and hiding.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so we ve gone from a rather gentle but limited world to a rather vicious, unpleasant world that we recognize and which leads to kind of arms races, evolutionary arms races, which again is something that when we think about a nuclear arms race, we think, Jesus, we don t want to go there.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s not done anybody any good.
4
SPEAKER_01
In some ways, maybe it does do good.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to make an argument for nuclear arms, but predation as a mechanism forces organisms to adapt to change to be better to escape or to kill.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you need to eat, then you ve got to eat.
4
SPEAKER_01
A cheetah s not going to run at that speed unless it has to because the zebra is capable of escaping.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it leads to much greater feats of evolution than would ever have been possible without it.
4
SPEAKER_01
And in the end, to a much more beautiful world.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so it s not all bad by any means.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the thing is, you can t have this if you don t have an oxygenated planet.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because it s all in the end, it s about how much energy can you extract from the food you eat.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if you don t have an oxygenated planet, you can get about 10% out, not much more than that.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if you ve got an oxygenated planet, you can get about 40% out.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that means you can have, instead of having one or two trophic levels, you can have five or six trophic levels.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that means things can eat things that eat other things and so on.
4
SPEAKER_01
And you ve gone to a level of ecological complexity, which is completely impossible in the absence of oxygen.
4
SPEAKER_00
This reminds me of the Hunter S. Thompson quote, that for every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.
4
SPEAKER_00
The history of life on Earth, unfortunately, is that of violence.
4
SPEAKER_00
Just the trillions and trillions of multi-cell organisms that were murdered in the struggle for survival.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s a sorry statement, but yes, it s basically true.
4
SPEAKER_00
And that somehow is a catalyst from an evolutionary perspective for creativity, for creating more and more complex organisms that are better and better at surviving.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, survival of the fittest, if you just go back to that old phrase, means death of the weakest.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, what s fit, what s weak, these are terms that don t have much intrinsic meaning.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the thing is, evolution only happens because of death.
4
SPEAKER_00
One way to die is the constraints, the scarcity of the resources in the environment, but that seems to be not nearly as good of a mechanism for death than other creatures roaming about in the environment.
4
SPEAKER_00
When I say environment, I mean like the static environment, but then there s the dynamic environment of bigger things trying to eat you and use you for your energy.
4
SPEAKER_01
It forces you to come up with a solution to your specific problem that is inventive and is new and hasn t been done before.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so it forces, I mean, literally change, literally evolution on populations.
4
SPEAKER_01
They have to become different.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s interesting that humans have channeled that into more, I mean, I guess what humans are doing is they re inventing
4
SPEAKER_00
more productive and safe ways of doing that.
4
SPEAKER_00
This whole idea of morality and all those kinds of things, I think they ultimately lead to competition.
4
SPEAKER_00
versus violence, because I think violence can have a cold, brutal, inefficient aspect to it.
4
SPEAKER_00
But if you channel that into more controlled competition in the space of ideas, in the space of approaches to life, maybe you can, you know,
4
SPEAKER_00
be even more productive than evolution is, because evolution is very wasteful.
4
SPEAKER_00
The amount of murder required to really test a good idea, genetically speaking, is just a lot.
4
SPEAKER_00
Many, many, many generations.
4
SPEAKER_01
Morally, we cannot.
4
SPEAKER_01
based society on the way that evolution works.
4
SPEAKER_01
But actually, in some respects, we do, which is to say, this is how science works.
4
SPEAKER_01
We have competing hypotheses that have to get better, otherwise they die.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s the way that society works.
4
SPEAKER_01
In ancient Greece, we had Athens and Sparta and city-states, and then we had the Renaissance and nation-states.
4
SPEAKER_01
Universities compete with each other.
4
SPEAKER_01
Tremendous amount of companies competing with each other all the time.
4
SPEAKER_01
It drives innovation.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if we want to do it without all the death that we see in nature, then we have to have some kind of societal level control that says, well, there s some limits, guys, and these are what the limits are going to be.
4
SPEAKER_01
And society as a whole has to say, right, we want to limit the amount of death here, so you can t do this and you can t do that.
4
SPEAKER_01
And who makes up these rules and how do we know?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s a tough thing, but it s basically trying to find a moral basis
4
SPEAKER_01
for avoiding the death of evolution and natural selection and keeping the innovation and the richness of it.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I forgot who said it, but that murder is illegal, probably Kurt Vonnegut.
4
SPEAKER_00
Murder is illegal except when it s done to the sound of trumpets and at a large scale.
4
SPEAKER_00
So we still have wars.
4
SPEAKER_00
But we are struggling with this idea that murder is a bad thing.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s so interesting how we re channeling the best of the evolutionary imperative
4
SPEAKER_00
and trying to get rid of the stuff that s not productive.
4
SPEAKER_00
Trying to almost accelerate evolution, the same kind of thing that makes evolution creative, we re trying to use that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think we naturally do it.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I don t think we can help ourselves do it.
4
SPEAKER_01
You know, capitalism as a form is basically about competition and differential rewards.
4
SPEAKER_01
But society, and you know, we have a,
4
SPEAKER_01
I keep using this word, moral obligation, but we cannot operate as a society if we go that way.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s interesting that we ve had problems achieving balance.
4
SPEAKER_01
So for example, in the financial crash in 2009.
4
SPEAKER_01
Do you let banks go to the wall or not?
4
SPEAKER_01
This kind of question.
4
SPEAKER_01
In evolution, certainly you let them go to the wall and in that sense, you don t need the regulation because they just die.
4
SPEAKER_01
Whereas if we, as a society, think about what s required for society as a whole, then you don t necessarily let them go to the wall.
4
SPEAKER_01
In which case, you then have to impose some kind of regulation that the bankers themselves will, in an evolutionary manner, exploit.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, we ve been struggling with this kind of idea of capitalism, the cold brutality of capitalism that seems to create so much beautiful things in this world, and then the ideals of communism that seem to create so much brutal destruction in history.
4
SPEAKER_00
We struggle with ideas.
4
SPEAKER_00
of, well, maybe we didn t do it right.
4
SPEAKER_00
How can we do things better?
4
SPEAKER_00
And then the ideas are the things we re playing with, as opposed to people.
4
SPEAKER_00
If a PhD student has a bad idea, we don t shoot the PhD student.
4
SPEAKER_00
We just criticize their idea and hope they improve it.
4
SPEAKER_00
You have a very humane lab.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I don t know how you guys do it.
4
SPEAKER_00
The way I run things, it s always life and death.
4
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so it is interesting about humans that there is an inner sense of morality, which begs the question of,
4
SPEAKER_00
How did Homo sapiens evolve?
4
SPEAKER_00
If we think about the invention of, early invention of sex and early invention of predation, what was the thing invented to make humans?
4
SPEAKER_00
What would you say?
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean I suppose a couple of things I d say.
4
SPEAKER_01
Number one is you don t have to wind the clock back very far, five, six million years or so and let it run forwards again and the chances of humans as we know them is not necessarily that high.
4
SPEAKER_01
as an alien, you find planet Earth and it s got everything apart from humans on it.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s an amazing, wonderful, marvelous planet, but nothing that we would recognize as extremely intelligent life, space-faring civilization.
4
SPEAKER_01
So when we think about aliens, we re kind of after something like ourselves.
4
SPEAKER_01
We re after a space-faring civilization.
4
SPEAKER_01
We re not after zebras and giraffes and lions and things, amazing though they are.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the
4
SPEAKER_01
the additional kind of evolutionary steps to go from large, complex mammals, monkeys, let s say, to humans doesn t strike me as that long a distance.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s all about the brain.
4
SPEAKER_01
And where s the brain and morality coming from, it seems to me, to be all about groups, human groups and interactions between groups.
4
SPEAKER_00
The collective intelligence of it.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes, the interactions, really.
4
SPEAKER_01
And there s a guy at UCL called Mark Thomas who s done a lot of really beautiful work, I think, on this kind of question.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I talk to him every now and then, so my views are influenced by him.
4
SPEAKER_01
But a lot seems to depend on population density.
4
SPEAKER_01
that the more interactions you have going on between different groups, the more transfer of information, if you like, between groups of people moving from one group to another group, almost like lateral gene transfer in bacteria, the more expertise you re able to develop and maintain, the more culturally complex your society can become.
4
SPEAKER_01
And groups that have become detached
4
SPEAKER_01
like on Easter Island, for example, very often degenerate in terms of the complexity of their civilization.
4
SPEAKER_00
Is that true for complex organisms in general?
4
SPEAKER_00
Population density is often productive.
4
SPEAKER_01
Really matters, but in human terms,
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t know what the actual factors were that were driving a large brain but you can talk about fire, you can talk about tool use, you can talk about language and none of them seem to correlate especially well with the actual known trajectory of human evolution in terms of
4
SPEAKER_01
cave art and these kind of things.
4
SPEAKER_01
That seems to work much better just with population density and number of interactions between different groups.
4
SPEAKER_01
All of which is really about human interactions, human-human interactions and the complexity of those.
4
SPEAKER_00
But population density is the thing that increases the number of interactions, but then there must have been inventions
4
SPEAKER_00
forced by that number of interactions that actually led to humans.
4
SPEAKER_00
So like Richard Wrangham talks about that it s basically the beta males had to beat up the alpha male.
4
SPEAKER_00
So that s what collaboration looks like, is they, when you re living together, they don t like the, our early ancestors,
4
SPEAKER_00
don t like the dictatorial aspect of a single individual at the top of a tribe, so they learn to collaborate how to basically create a democracy of sorts, a democracy that prevents, minimizes, or lessens the amount of violence.
4
SPEAKER_00
which essentially gives strength to the tribe and make the war between tribes versus the dictator.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think one of the most wonderful things about humans is we re all of those things.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, we are deeply social as a species, and we re also deeply selfish.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it seems to me the conflict between capitalism and communism, it s really just two aspects of human nature, both of which are- We have both.
4
SPEAKER_01
We have both.
4
SPEAKER_01
And we have a constant kind of vying between the two sides.
4
SPEAKER_01
We really do care about other people beyond our families, beyond our immediate people.
4
SPEAKER_01
We care about society and the society that we live in.
4
SPEAKER_01
And you could say that s a drawing towards socialism or communism.
4
SPEAKER_01
On the other side, we really do care about ourselves.
4
SPEAKER_01
We really do care about our families, about working for something that we gain from.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s the capitalist side of it.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re both really deeply ingrained in human nature.
4
SPEAKER_01
In terms of violence and interactions between groups, yes, all this dynamic of if you re interacting between groups, you can be certain that they re going to be burning each other and all kinds of physical violent interactions as well, which will drive
4
SPEAKER_01
the kind of cleverness of how do you resist this?
4
SPEAKER_01
Let s build a tower.
4
SPEAKER_01
What are we going to do to prevent being overrun by those marauding gangs from over there?
4
SPEAKER_01
You look outside humans and you look at chimps and bonobos and so on, and they re very, very different structures to society.
4
SPEAKER_01
Chimps tend to have an aggressive alpha male type structure and bonobos, there s basically a female society where the males are predominantly excluded and only brought in at the behest of the female.
4
SPEAKER_01
we have a lot in common with both of those groups.
4
SPEAKER_00
And there s again, tension there.
4
SPEAKER_00
And probably chimps more violence, bonobos probably more sex.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s another tension.
4
SPEAKER_00
How serious do we wanna be?
4
SPEAKER_00
How much fun we wanna be?
4
SPEAKER_00
Asking for a friend again, what do you think happened to Neanderthals?
4
SPEAKER_00
What did we...
4
SPEAKER_00
cheeky humans due to the Neanderthals, homo sapiens.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do you think we murdered them?
4
SPEAKER_00
How do we murder them?
4
SPEAKER_00
How do we out-compete them?
4
SPEAKER_00
Or do we out-mate them?
4
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think there s unequivocal evidence that we mated with them.
4
SPEAKER_00
We always try to mate with everything.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes, pretty much.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s some interesting, the first sequences that came along were in mitochondrial DNA.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that was back to about 2002 or thereabouts.
4
SPEAKER_01
What was found was that Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was very different to human mitochondrial DNA.
4
SPEAKER_01
You could do a clock on it and it said the divergent state was about 600,000 years ago or something like that, so not so long ago.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then the first full genomes were sequenced maybe 10 years after that.
4
SPEAKER_01
And they showed plenty of signs of mating between.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the mitochondrial DNA effectively says no mating.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the nuclear genes say, yeah, lots of mating.
4
SPEAKER_00
But we don t know- How s that possible?
4
SPEAKER_00
So can you explain the difference between mitochondrial DNA and nucleus?
4
SPEAKER_01
I ve talked before about the mitochondria, which are the power packs in cells.
4
SPEAKER_01
These are the paired down control units is their DNA.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s passed on by the mother only.
4
SPEAKER_01
And in the egg cell, we might have half a million copies of mitochondrial DNA.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s only 37 genes left and they do basically the control unit of energy production.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s what it s doing.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s a basic old school machine that does
4
SPEAKER_01
It s got genes that were considered to be effectively trivial because they did a very narrowly defined job.
4
SPEAKER_01
But they re not trivial in the sense that that narrowly defined job is about everything that is being alive.
4
SPEAKER_01
So they re much easier to sequence.
4
SPEAKER_01
You ve got many more copies of these things and you can sequence them very quickly.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the problem is because they go down only the maternal line from mother to daughter, your mitochondrial DNA and mine is going nowhere.
4
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t matter.
4
SPEAKER_01
Any kids we have, they get their mother s mitochondrial DNA, except in very, very rare and strange circumstances.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so it tells a different story, and it s not a story which is easy to reconcile always.
4
SPEAKER_01
And what it seems to suggest, to my mind at least, is that there was one way traffic of genes, probably going from humans into Neanderthals rather than the other way around.
4
SPEAKER_01
Why did the Neanderthals disappear?
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t know.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I suspect that they were
4
SPEAKER_01
I suspect they were probably less violent, less clever, less populous, less willing to fight.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t know.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think it probably drove them to extinction at the margins of Europe.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s interesting how much, if we ran earth over and over again, how many of these branches of intelligent beings that have figured out some kind of
4
SPEAKER_00
how to leverage collective intelligence.
4
SPEAKER_00
Which ones of them emerge?
4
SPEAKER_00
Which ones of them succeed?
4
SPEAKER_00
Is it the more violent ones?
4
SPEAKER_00
Is it the more isolated ones?
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, like what dynamics result in more productivity?
4
SPEAKER_00
And I suppose we ll never know.
4
SPEAKER_00
The more complex the organism, the harder it is to run the experiment in the lab.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and in some respects, maybe it s best if we don t know.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, the truth might be very painful.
5
SPEAKER_00
What about if we actually step back a couple of interesting things that we humans do?
5
SPEAKER_00
One is object manipulation and movement.
5
SPEAKER_00
And of course, movement was something that was done, that was another big invention, being able to move around the environment.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the other one is the sensory mechanism, how we sense the environment.
5
SPEAKER_00
One of the coolest high-definition ones is vision.
5
SPEAKER_00
How big are those inventions in the history of life on Earth?
5
SPEAKER_01
vision movement.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, again, extremely important going back to the origin of animals, the Cambrian explosion where suddenly you re seeing eyes in the fossil record.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s not necessarily, again, lots of people historically have said what use is half an eye and you can go in a series of steps from a light sensitive spot on a flat
5
SPEAKER_01
piece of tissue to an eyeball with a lens and so on.
5
SPEAKER_01
If you assume no more than, I don t remember, this was a specific model that I have in mind, but it was 1% change or half a percent change for each generation, how long would it take to evolve an eye as we know it?
5
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is half a million years.
5
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t have to take long.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s not how evolution works.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s not an answer to the question.
5
SPEAKER_01
It just shows you can reconstruct the steps and you can work out roughly how it can work.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it s not that big a deal to evolve an eye, but once you have one, then there s nowhere to hide.
5
SPEAKER_01
And again, we re back to predator-prey relationships.
5
SPEAKER_01
We re back to all the benefits that being able to see brings you.
5
SPEAKER_01
And if you think philosophically what bats are doing with ecolocation and so on, I have no idea, but I suspect that they form an image of the world in pretty much the same way that we do.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s just a matter of mental reconstruction.
5
SPEAKER_01
So I suppose the other thing about sight, there are single-celled
5
SPEAKER_01
organisms that have got a lens and a retina and a cornea and so on.
5
SPEAKER_01
Basically, they ve got a camera type eye in a single cell.
5
SPEAKER_01
They don t have a brain.
5
SPEAKER_01
What they understand about their world is impossible to say, but they re capable of coming up with the same structures to do so.
5
SPEAKER_01
So I suppose then
5
SPEAKER_01
is that once you ve got things like eyes, then you have a big driving pressure on the central nervous system to figure out what it all means.
5
SPEAKER_01
And we come around to your other point about manipulation, sensory input and so on, about now you have a huge requirement to understand what your environment is and what it means and how it reacts and where you should run away and where you should stay put.
5
SPEAKER_00
Actually, on that point, let me, I don t know if you know the work of Donald Hoffman, who talks about, who uses the argument, the mechanism of evolution to say that there s not necessarily a strong evolutionary,
5
SPEAKER_00
value to seeing the world as it is.
5
SPEAKER_00
So objective reality, that our perception actually is very different from what s objectively real.
5
SPEAKER_00
We re living inside an illusion, and we re basically the entire...
5
SPEAKER_00
The entire set of species on Earth, I think, I guess are competing in a space that s an illusion that s distinct from, that s far away from physical reality as it is, as defined by physics.
5
SPEAKER_01
I m not sure it s an illusion so much as a bubble.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, we have a sensory input which is a fraction of what we could have a sensory input on.
5
SPEAKER_01
and we interpret it in terms of what s useful for us to know to stay alive.
5
SPEAKER_01
So yes, it s an illusion in that sense, but the tree is physically there and if you walk into that tree, it s not purely a delusion, there s some physical reality to it.
5
SPEAKER_00
So it s a sensory slice into reality as it is, but because it s just a slice, you re missing a big picture.
5
SPEAKER_00
But he says that that slice doesn t necessarily need to be a slice.
5
SPEAKER_00
It could be a complete fabrication that s just consistent amongst the species, which is an interesting, or at least it s a humbling realization that our perception
5
SPEAKER_00
is limited, and our cognitive abilities are limited.
5
SPEAKER_00
And at least to me, this argument from evolution, I don t know how much, how strong that is as an argument, but I do think that life can exist in the mind.
5
SPEAKER_00
in the same way that you can do a virtual reality video game, and you can have a vibrant life inside that place, and that place is not real in some sense, but you can still have all the same forces of evolution, all the same competition, the dynamics between humans you can have, but I don t know if, I don t know if there s evidence for that being the thing that happened on Earth.
5
SPEAKER_00
It seems that Earth,
5
SPEAKER_01
I think in either environment, I wouldn t deny that you could have exactly the world that you talk about and it would be very difficult to – the idea in Matrix movies and so on that the whole world is completely a construction.
5
SPEAKER_01
And we re fundamentally deluded.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s difficult to say that s impossible or couldn t happen, and certainly we construct in our minds what the outside world is.
5
SPEAKER_01
But we do it on input, and that input, I would hesitate to say is not real.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because it s precisely how we do understand the world.
5
SPEAKER_01
We have eyes, but if you keep someone in... Apparently this kind of thing happens.
5
SPEAKER_01
Someone kept in a dark room for five years or something like that, they never see properly again because the neural wiring that underpins how we interpret vision never developed.
5
SPEAKER_01
When you watch a child develop, it walks into a table, it bangs its head on the table and it hurts.
5
SPEAKER_01
Now you ve got two inputs.
5
SPEAKER_01
You ve got one pain from this sharp edge and number two, you ve probably touched it and realized it s there, it s a sharp edge and you ve got the visual input and you put the three things together and think, I don t want to walk into a table again.
5
SPEAKER_01
So you re learning and it s a limited reality, but it s a true reality.
5
SPEAKER_01
And if you don t learn that properly, then you will get eaten, you will get hit by a bus, you will not survive.
5
SPEAKER_01
And same if you re in some kind of, let s say, computer construction of reality.
5
SPEAKER_01
I m not on my ground here, but if you construct the laws that this is what reality is inside this, then you play by those laws.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, well, I mean, as long as the laws are consistent.
5
SPEAKER_00
So just like you said in the lab, the interesting thing about the simulation question, yes, it s hard to know if we re living inside a simulation, but also, yes, it s possible to do these kinds of experiments in the lab now more and more.
5
SPEAKER_00
To me, the interesting question is how realistic does a virtual reality game need to be for us to not be able to tell the difference?
5
SPEAKER_00
A more interesting question to me is,
5
SPEAKER_00
how realistic or interesting does a virtual reality world need to be in order for us to want to stay there forever, or much longer than physical reality?
5
SPEAKER_00
Prefer that place.
5
SPEAKER_00
And also prefer it not as we prefer hard drugs, but prefer it in a deep, meaningful way, in a way we enjoy life.
5
SPEAKER_00
So.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I suppose the issue with the matrix, I imagine that it s possible to,
5
SPEAKER_01
to delude the mind sufficiently that you genuinely in that way do think that you are interacting with the real world when in fact the whole thing s a simulation.
5
SPEAKER_01
How good does a simulation need to be to be able to do that?
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, it needs to convince you that all your sensory input is correct and accurate and joins up and makes sense.
5
SPEAKER_01
Now, that sensory input is not something that we re born with.
5
SPEAKER_01
We re born with a sense of touch.
5
SPEAKER_01
We re born with eyes and so on, but we don t know how to use them.
5
SPEAKER_01
We don t know what to make of them.
5
SPEAKER_01
we go around, we bump into trees, we cry a lot, we re in pain a lot, we re basically booting up the system so that it can make head or tail of the sensory input that it s getting.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that sensory input is not just a one-way flux of things, it s also you have to walk into things, you have to hear things, you have to put it together.
5
SPEAKER_01
Now, if you ve got just babies in the matrix who are slotted into this,
5
SPEAKER_01
I don t think they have that kind of sensory input.
5
SPEAKER_01
I don t think they would have any way to make sense of New York as a world that they re part of.
5
SPEAKER_01
The brain is just not developed in that way.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I can t make sense of New York in this physical reality either.
5
SPEAKER_00
But yeah, I mean, but you said pain and the walking into things.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, you can create a pain signal, and as long as it s consistent that certain things result in pain, you can start to construct a reality.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s some, maybe you disagree with this, but I think we are born almost with a desire to be convinced by our reality.
5
SPEAKER_00
like a desire to make sense of our reality.
5
SPEAKER_00
So there s an imperative.
5
SPEAKER_00
So whatever that reality is given to us, like the table hurts, fire is hot, I think
5
SPEAKER_00
We wanna be deluded in the sense that we want to make a simple, like Einstein s simple theory of the thing around us.
5
SPEAKER_00
We want that simplicity.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so maybe the hunger for the simplicity is the thing that could be used to construct a pretty dumb simulation that tricks us.
5
SPEAKER_00
So maybe tricking humans doesn t require building a universe.
5
SPEAKER_01
No, I don t.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, this is not what I work on, so I don t know how close to it we are.
5
SPEAKER_01
But I agree with you that, yeah, I m not sure that it s a morally justifiable thing to do, but is it possible in principle?
5
SPEAKER_01
I think it d be very difficult, but I don t see why in principle it wouldn t be possible.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I agree with you that we try to understand the world, we try to integrate the sensory inputs that we have, and we try to come up with a hypothesis that explains what s going on.
5
SPEAKER_01
I think, though, that we have huge input from the social context that we re in.
5
SPEAKER_01
We don t do it by ourselves.
5
SPEAKER_01
We don t kind of blunder around in a universe by ourself and understand the whole thing.
5
SPEAKER_01
we re told by the people around us what things are and what they do and language is coming in here and so on.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it would have to be an extremely impressive simulation to simulate all of that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, simulate all of that, including the social construct, the spread of ideas and the exchange of ideas.
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t know, but those questions are really important to understand as we become more and more digital creatures.
5
SPEAKER_00
It seems like the next step of evolution is us becoming all the same mechanisms we ve talked about.
5
SPEAKER_00
are becoming more and more plugged in into the machine.
5
SPEAKER_00
We re becoming cyborgs.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there s an interesting interplay between wires and biology.
5
SPEAKER_00
You know, zeros and ones and the biological systems.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I don t think you can just
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t think we ll have the luxury to see humans as disjoint from the technology we ve created for much longer.
5
SPEAKER_00
We are an organism that s... Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, but...
5
SPEAKER_01
We come really with this to consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_01
And is there a distinction there?
5
SPEAKER_01
Because what you re saying, the natural endpoint says we are indistinguishable.
5
SPEAKER_01
That if you are capable of building an AI, which is sufficiently close and similar that we merge with it, then
5
SPEAKER_01
to all intents and purposes, that AI is conscious as we know it.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I don t have a strong view, but I have a view.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I wrote about it in the epilogue to my last book because 10 years ago, I wrote a chapter in a book called Life Ascending about consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the subtitle of Life Ascending was the 10 Great Inventions of Evolution, and I couldn t possibly write a book with a subtitle like that that did not include consciousness, and specifically consciousness as one of the great inventions.
5
SPEAKER_01
And it was in part because I was just curious to know more and I read more for that chapter.
5
SPEAKER_01
I never worked on it, but I ve always... How can anyone not be interested in the question?
5
SPEAKER_01
And I was left with the feeling that A, nobody knows, and B, there are two main schools of thought out there.
5
SPEAKER_01
with a big kind of skew in distribution.
5
SPEAKER_01
One of them says, oh, it s a property of matter.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s an unknown law of physics, panpsychism.
5
SPEAKER_01
Everything is conscious.
5
SPEAKER_01
The sun is conscious.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s just a matter of, or a rock is conscious.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s just a matter of how much.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I find that very unpersuasive.
5
SPEAKER_01
I can t say that it s wrong.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s just that I think we somehow can tell the difference between something that s living and something that s not.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then the other end is it s an emergent property of a very complex central nervous system.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I never quite understand what people mean by words like emergence.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there are genuine examples, but I think we very often tend to use it to plaster over ignorance.
5
SPEAKER_01
As a biochemist, the question for me then was, okay, it s a concoction of a
5
SPEAKER_01
a central nervous system.
5
SPEAKER_01
A depolarizing neuron gives rise to a feeling, to a feeling of pain, or to a feeling of love, or anger, or whatever it may be.
5
SPEAKER_01
So what is then a feeling in biophysical terms in the central nervous system?
5
SPEAKER_01
Which bit of the wiring gives rise to, and I ve never seen anyone answer that question in a way that makes sense to me.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that s an important question to answer.
5
SPEAKER_01
I think if we want to understand consciousness, that s the only question to answer because certainly an AI is capable of out thinking and it s only a matter of time.
5
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it s already happened.
5
SPEAKER_01
In terms of just information processing and computational skill, I don t think we have any problem in designing a mind which is at least the equal of the human mind.
5
SPEAKER_01
But in terms of what we value the most as humans, which is to say our feelings, our emotions, our sense of what the world is in a very personal way, that I think means as much or more to people than their information processing.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s where I don t think that AI necessarily will become conscious because I think it s a property of life.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, let s talk about it more.
5
SPEAKER_00
You re an incredible writer, one of my favorite writers, so let me read from your latest book, Transformers, what you write about consciousness.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think therefore I am, said Descartes.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s one of the most celebrated lines ever written.
5
SPEAKER_00
But what am I exactly?
5
SPEAKER_00
An artificial intelligence can think too, by definition, and therefore is.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yet few of us could agree whether AI is capable, in principle, of anything resembling human emotions, of love or hate, fear and joy, of spiritual yearnings for oneness or oblivion, or corporeal pangs of thirst and hunger.
5
SPEAKER_00
The problem is we don t know what emotions are, as you were saying.
5
SPEAKER_00
What is the feeling in physical terms?
5
SPEAKER_00
How does a discharging neuron give rise to a feeling of anything at all?
5
SPEAKER_00
This is the heart problem of consciousness, the seeming duality of mind and matter, the physical makeup of our innermost self.
5
SPEAKER_00
We can understand in principle how an extremely sophisticated parallel processing system could be capable of wondrous feats of intelligence, but we can t answer in principle whether such a supreme intelligence would experience joy or melancholy.
5
SPEAKER_00
What is the quantum of solace?
5
SPEAKER_00
Speaking to the question of emergence,
5
SPEAKER_00
You know, there s just technical, there s an excellent paper on this recently about this kind of phase transition emergence of performance in neural networks on the problem of NLP, natural language processing.
5
SPEAKER_00
So language models, there seems to be this question of size.
5
SPEAKER_00
At some point,
5
SPEAKER_00
there is a phase transition as you grow the size of the neural network.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the question is, this is sort of somewhat of a technical question that you can philosophize over.
5
SPEAKER_00
The technical question is, is there a size of a neural network that starts
6
SPEAKER_00
to be able to form the kind of representations that can capture a language and therefore be able to, not just language, but linguistically capture knowledge that s sufficient to solve a lot of problems.
6
SPEAKER_00
in language, like be able to have a conversation.
6
SPEAKER_00
And there seems to be not a gradual increase, but a phase transition.
6
SPEAKER_00
And they re trying to construct the science of where that is.
6
SPEAKER_00
Like what is a good size of a neural network?
6
SPEAKER_00
And why does such a phase transition happen?
6
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, that sort of points to emergence, that there could be stages where,
6
SPEAKER_00
A thing goes from being, oh, you re a very intelligent toaster, to a toaster that s feeling sad today and turns away and looks out the window, sighing, having an existential crisis.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was thinking of Marvin, the paranoid android.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, no, Marvin is simplistic because Marvin is just cranky.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
6
SPEAKER_01
So easily programmed.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, easily programmed, non-stop existential crisis.
6
SPEAKER_00
You re almost basically, what is it, notes from underground, but it s just constantly complaining about life.
6
SPEAKER_00
No, they re capturing the full roller coaster of human emotion, the excitement, the bliss, the connection, the empathy and all that kind of stuff.
6
SPEAKER_00
And then the selfishness, the anger, the depression, all that kind of stuff, they re capturing all of that.
6
SPEAKER_00
and be able to experience it deeply, like it s the most important thing you could possibly experience today.
6
SPEAKER_00
The highest highs, the lowest lows, this is it.
6
SPEAKER_00
My life will be over.
6
SPEAKER_00
I cannot possibly go on, that feeling, and then after a nap, you re feeling amazing.
6
SPEAKER_00
That might be something that emerges.
6
SPEAKER_01
So why would a nap make an AI being feel better?
6
SPEAKER_00
First of all, we don t know that for a human either, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
But we do know that that s actually true for many people much of the time.
6
SPEAKER_01
You may be depressed and you have a nap and you do, in fact, feel better.
6
SPEAKER_00
Oh, you are actually asking the technical question there.
6
SPEAKER_00
So there s a biological answer to that.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so the question is whether AI needs to have the same kind of attachments to its body, bodily function and preservation of the brain s successful function.
6
SPEAKER_00
Self-preservation, essentially, in some deep biological sense.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, to my mind, it comes back around to the problem we were talking about before, about simulations and sensory input and learning what all of this stuff means.
6
SPEAKER_01
And life and death, that biology, unlike society, has a death penalty over everything.
6
SPEAKER_01
And natural selection works on that death penalty, that if you make this decision wrongly, you die.
6
SPEAKER_01
and the next generation is represented by beings that made a slightly different decision on balance.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that is something that s intrinsically difficult to simulate in all its richness, I would say.
6
SPEAKER_00
So what is... Death in all its richness.
6
SPEAKER_00
Our relationship with death.
6
SPEAKER_00
or the whole of it, so which, when you say richness, of course, there s a lot in that.
6
SPEAKER_00
Which is hard to simulate?
6
SPEAKER_00
What s part of the richness that s hard to simulate?
6
SPEAKER_01
I suppose the complexity of the environment and your position in that, or the position of an organism in that environment, in the full richness of that environment over its entire life, over multiple generations, with changes in gene sequence over those generations, so slight changes in the makeup of those individuals over generations.
6
SPEAKER_01
But if you take it back to the level of single cells,
6
SPEAKER_01
which I do in the book and ask, how does a single cell in effect know it exists as a unit, as an entity?
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, no, in inverted commas, obviously it doesn t know anything, but it acts as a unit and it acts with astonishing precision.
6
SPEAKER_01
as a unit.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I had suggested that that s linked to the electrical fields on the membranes themselves and that they give some indication of how am I doing in relation to my environment as a kind of real-time feedback on the world.
6
SPEAKER_01
And this is something physical.
6
SPEAKER_01
which can be selected over generations, that if you are, if you get this wrong, it s linked with this set of circumstances that I ve just, as an individual, I have a moment of blind panic and run.
6
SPEAKER_01
As a bacterium or something, you have some electrical discharge that says blind panic and it runs, whatever it may be.
6
SPEAKER_01
And you associate over generations, multiple generations, that this electrical phase that I m in now is associated with a response like that.
6
SPEAKER_01
And it s easy to see how feelings come in through the back door almost with that kind of...
6
SPEAKER_01
giving real-time feedback on your position in the world in relation to how am I doing.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then you complexify the system, and yes, I have no problem with phase transition.
6
SPEAKER_01
Can all of this be done purely by the language, by the issues with how the system understands itself?
6
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it can, I honestly don t know.
6
SPEAKER_01
But the philosophers for a long time have talked about the possibility that you can have a zombie intelligence and that there are no feelings there, but everything else is the same.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I have to throw this back to you, really.
6
SPEAKER_01
How do you deal with a zombie intelligence?
6
SPEAKER_00
So first of all, I can see that from a biologist perspective, you think of all the complexities that led up to the human being.
6
SPEAKER_00
the entirety of the history of four billion years, that in some deep sense, integrated the human being into this environment.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that dance of the organism and the environment, you could see how emotions arise from that, and their emotions are deeply connected, creating a human experience.
6
SPEAKER_00
And from that, you mix in consciousness and the full mess of it, yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
But from a perspective of an intelligent organism that s already here,
6
SPEAKER_00
like a baby that learns.
6
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t need to learn how to be a collection of cells or how to do all the things it needs to do.
6
SPEAKER_00
The basic function of a baby, as it learns, is to interact with its environment, to learn from its environment, to learn how to fit in to this social society, to like,
6
SPEAKER_01
and the basic response of the baby is to cry a lot of the time.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, to convince the humans to protect it or to discipline it, to teach it.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, we ve developed a bunch of different tricks.
6
SPEAKER_00
how to get our parents to take care of us, to educate us, to teach us about the world.
6
SPEAKER_00
Also, we ve constructed the world in such a way that it s safe enough for us to survive in, and yet dangerous enough for learning the valuable lessons, like the tables are still hard with corners, so we can still run into them, and it hurts like how
6
SPEAKER_00
So AI needs to solve that problem, not the problem of constructing this super complex organism that leads up to run the whole, to make an apple pie to build the whole universe, you need to build a whole universe.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think the zombie question, it s something I would leave to the philosophers because,
6
SPEAKER_00
And I will also leave to them the definition of love and what happens between two human beings when there s a magic that just grabs them like nothing else matters in the world and somehow you ve been searching for this feeling, this moment, this person your whole life.
6
SPEAKER_00
that feeling, the philosophers can have a lot of fun with that one and also say that that s just, you could have a biological explanation, you could have all kinds of, it s all fake, it s actually, Ayn Rand will say it s all selfish.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of different interpretations.
6
SPEAKER_00
I ll leave it to the philosophers.
6
SPEAKER_00
The point is the feeling, sure as hell feels very real.
6
SPEAKER_00
And if my toaster makes me feel
6
SPEAKER_00
like it s the only toaster in the world.
6
SPEAKER_00
And when I leave, and I miss the toaster, and when I come back, I m excited to see the toaster, and my life is meaningful and joyful, and the friends I have around me get a better version of me because that toaster exists.
6
SPEAKER_00
That sure as hell feels like a conscious toaster.
6
SPEAKER_01
Is that psychologically different to having a dog?
6
SPEAKER_01
because I mean, most people would dispute whether we can say a dog, I would say a dog is undoubtedly conscious, but some people say it doesn t.
6
SPEAKER_00
But there s degrees of consciousness and so on, but people are definitely much more uncomfortable saying a toaster can be conscious than a dog.
6
SPEAKER_00
And there s still a deep connection.
6
SPEAKER_00
You could say our relationship with the dog has more to do with anthropomorphism, like we kind of project a human being onto it.
6
SPEAKER_00
We can do the same damn thing with a toaster.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes, but you can look into the dog s eyes and you can see that it s sad, that it s delighted to see you again.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t have a dog, by the way.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s not that I m a dog person.
6
SPEAKER_00
And dogs are actually incredibly good at using their eyes to do just that.
6
SPEAKER_01
They are.
6
SPEAKER_01
Now, I don t imagine that a dog is remotely as close to being intelligent as an AI intelligence, but it s certainly capable of communicating emotionally.
6
SPEAKER_01
with us.
6
SPEAKER_00
But here s what I would venture to say.
6
SPEAKER_00
We tend to think because AI plays chess well, and is able to fold proteins now well, that it s intelligent.
6
SPEAKER_00
I would argue that in order to communicate with humans, in order to have emotional intelligence, it actually requires another order of magnitude of intelligence.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s not easy to be flawed.
6
SPEAKER_00
Solving a mathematical puzzle is not the same as the full complexity of human to human interaction.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s actually, we humans just take for granted the things we re really good at.
6
SPEAKER_00
Non-stop people tell me how shitty people are at driving.
6
SPEAKER_00
No, humans are incredible at driving.
6
SPEAKER_00
Bipedal walking, walking, object manipulation, we re incredible at this.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so people tend to,
6
SPEAKER_00
discount the things we all just take for granted.
6
SPEAKER_00
And one of those things that they discount is our ability, the dance of conversation and interaction with each other, the ability to morph ideas together, the ability to get angry at each other, and then to miss each other, like to create a tension that makes life fun and difficult and challenging in a way that s meaningful.
6
SPEAKER_00
That is a,
6
SPEAKER_00
a skill that s learned, and AI would need to solve that problem.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, in some sense, what you re saying is AI cannot become meaningfully emotional, let s say, until it experiences some kind of internal conflict that is unable to reconcile these various aspects of reality or its reality.
6
SPEAKER_01
with a decision to make.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then it feels sad, necessarily, because it doesn t know what to do.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I certainly can t dispute that.
6
SPEAKER_01
That may very well be how it works.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think the only way to find out is to do it.
6
SPEAKER_00
And to build it, yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
And leave it to the philosophers if it actually feels sad or not.
6
SPEAKER_00
The point is, the robot will be sitting there alone, having an internal conflict, an existential crisis, and that s required for it to have a deep, meaningful connection with another human being.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, does it actually feel that?
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
6
SPEAKER_01
But I d like to throw something else at you, which troubles me on reading it.
6
SPEAKER_01
Noah Harari s book, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and he s written about this kind of thing on various occasions.
6
SPEAKER_01
And he sees biochemistry as an algorithm.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then AI will necessarily be able to hack that algorithm and do it better than humans.
6
SPEAKER_01
So there will be AI better at writing music that we appreciate than Mozart ever could, or writing better than Shakespeare ever did, and so on.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because biochemistry is algorithmic, and all you need to do is figure out which bits of the algorithm to play to make us feel good or bad or appreciate things.
6
SPEAKER_01
And as a biochemist, I find that argument
6
SPEAKER_01
Close to irrefutable and not very enjoyable.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t like the sound of it.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s just my reaction as a human being.
6
SPEAKER_01
You might like the sound of it because that says that AI is capable of the same kind of emotional feelings about the world as we are because the whole thing is an algorithm and you can program an algorithm and there you are.
6
SPEAKER_01
He then has a peculiar final chapter where he talks about consciousness in rather separate terms, and he s talking about meditating and so on and getting in touch with his inner conscious.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t meditate.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t know anything about that.
6
SPEAKER_01
But he wrote in very different terms about it, as if somehow it s a way out of the algorithm.
6
SPEAKER_01
Now, it seems to me that consciousness in that sense is capable of scuppering the algorithm.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think in terms of the biochemical feedback loops and so on, it is undoubtedly algorithmic.
6
SPEAKER_01
But in terms of what we decide to do, it can be much more…
6
SPEAKER_01
based on an emotion.
6
SPEAKER_01
We can just think, ah, I don t care.
6
SPEAKER_01
I can t resolve this complex situation.
6
SPEAKER_01
I m gonna do that.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that can be based on, in effect, a different currency, which is the currency of feelings and something where we don t have very much personal control over.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then it comes back around to you and what are you trying to get at with AI?
6
SPEAKER_01
Do we need to have some system
6
SPEAKER_01
which is capable of overriding a rational decision which cannot be made because there s too much conflicting information by effectively an emotional, judgmental decision that just says, do this and see what happens.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s what consciousness is really doing in my view.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and the question is whether it s a different process or just a higher level process.
6
SPEAKER_00
I might, you know, the idea that biochemistry is an algorithm is, to me, an oversimplistic view.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of things that, the moment you say it, it s irrefutable, but it simplifies,
6
SPEAKER_01
I m sure it s an extremely complex system.
6
SPEAKER_00
And in the process, loses something fundamental.
6
SPEAKER_00
So for example, calling a universe an information processing system.
6
SPEAKER_00
Sure, yes.
6
SPEAKER_00
You could make that.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a computer that s performing computations.
6
SPEAKER_00
But you re missing the
6
SPEAKER_00
the process of the entropy somehow leading to pockets of complexity that creates these beautiful artifacts that are incredibly complex and they re like machines.
6
SPEAKER_00
And then those machines are through the process of evolution are constructing even further complexity.
6
SPEAKER_00
Like in calling universe information processing machine, you re missing those little local pockets and how difficult it is to create them.
6
SPEAKER_00
So the question to me is if biochemistry is an algorithm, how difficult is it to create a software system that runs the human body, which I think is incorrect.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think that is going to take so long.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, that s going to be centuries from now, to be able to reconstruct a human.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, what I would venture to say, to get some of the magic of a human being.
6
SPEAKER_00
what we were saying with the emotions and the interactions and like a dog makes a smile and joyful and all those kinds of things, that will come much sooner.
6
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t require us to reverse engineer the algorithm of biochemistry.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes, but the toaster is making you happy.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s not about whether you make the toaster happy.
6
SPEAKER_00
No, it has to be.
6
SPEAKER_00
It has to be.
6
SPEAKER_00
It has to be.
6
SPEAKER_00
The toaster has to be able to leave me happy.
7
SPEAKER_00
but it s the toaster is the AI in this case.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s a very intelligent thing.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, the toaster has to be able to be unhappy and leave me.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s essential.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s essential for my being able to miss the toaster.
7
SPEAKER_01
If the toaster is just my servant,
7
SPEAKER_01
that s not, or a provider of services tells me the weather makes toast, that s not going to deep connection.
7
SPEAKER_01
It has to have internal conflict.
7
SPEAKER_01
You write about life and death.
7
SPEAKER_01
It has to be able to be conscious of its mortality.
7
SPEAKER_01
and the finiteness of its existence.
7
SPEAKER_01
And that life is temporary and therefore needs to be more selective.
7
SPEAKER_00
One of the most moving moments in the movies from when I was a boy was the unplugging of Hal in 2001, where that was the death of a sentient being and Hal knew it.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I think we all kind of know that a sufficiently intelligent being is going to have some form of consciousness, but whether it would be like biological consciousness, I just don t know.
7
SPEAKER_00
And if you re thinking about how do we bring together, I mean, obviously we re going to interact more closely with AI.
7
SPEAKER_00
But is a dog really like a toaster, or is there really some kind of difference there?
7
SPEAKER_00
Biochemistry is algorithmic, but it s not a single algorithm, and it s very complex.
7
SPEAKER_00
Of course it is.
7
SPEAKER_00
So it may be that there are, again, conflicts in the circuits of biochemistry.
7
SPEAKER_00
But I have a feeling
7
SPEAKER_00
the level of complexity of the total biochemical system at the level of a single cell is less complex than the level of neural networking in the human brain or in an AI.
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, I guess I assumed that we were including the brain in the biochemistry algorithm, because you have to... I would see that as a higher level of organization of neural networks.
7
SPEAKER_00
They re all using the same biochemical wiring within themselves.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but the human brain is not just neurons.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s the immune system.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s the whole package.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, to have a biochemical algorithm that runs an intelligent biological system, you have to include the whole damn thing.
7
SPEAKER_01
And it s pretty fascinating that it comes from an embryo.
7
SPEAKER_01
The whole, I mean, oh boy.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, if you can...
7
SPEAKER_01
What is a human being?
7
SPEAKER_01
Because it s just some code, and then you build, so DNA doesn t just tell you what to build, but how to build it.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, the thing is impressive, and the question is how difficult is it to reverse engineer the whole shebang?
7
SPEAKER_00
Very difficult.
7
SPEAKER_01
I would say it s,
7
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to say impossible, but it s much easier to build a human than to reverse engineer, to build like a fake human, human-like thing, than to reverse engineer the entirety of the process of evolution.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m not sure if we are capable of reverse engineering the whole thing, if the human mind is capable of doing that.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I wouldn t be a biologist if I wasn t trying, but...
7
SPEAKER_00
I know I can t understand the whole problem, I m just trying to understand the rudimentary outlines of the problem.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s another aspect though, you re talking about developing from a single cell to the human mind and all the subsystems that are part of an immune system and so on.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is something that you ll talk about, I imagine, with Michael Levin.
7
SPEAKER_00
So little is known about, you talk about reverse engineering, so little is known about the developmental pathways that go from a genome to going to a fully wired organism.
7
SPEAKER_00
And a lot of it seems to depend on the same intellect.
7
SPEAKER_00
electrical interactions that I was talking about happening at the level of single cells and its interaction with the environment.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s a whole electrical field side to biology that is not yet written into any of the textbooks, which is about how does an embryo develop into or a single cell develop into these complex systems, what defines the head, what defines the immune system, what defines the brain and so on.
7
SPEAKER_00
That really is written in a language that we re only just beginning to understand.
7
SPEAKER_00
And frankly, biologists, most biologists are still very reluctant to even
7
SPEAKER_00
get themselves tangled up in questions like electrical fields influencing development.
7
SPEAKER_00
It seems like mumbo-jumbo to a lot of biologists and it should not be because this is the 21st century biology.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is where it s going.
7
SPEAKER_00
But we re not gonna reverse engineer a human being or the mind or any of these subsystems until we understand how this developmental processes work, how electricity and biology really works.
7
SPEAKER_00
And if it is linked with feelings and with consciousness and so on,
7
SPEAKER_00
That s the, I mean, in the meantime we have to try, but I think that s where the answer lies.
7
SPEAKER_01
So you think it s possible that the key to things like consciousness or some of the more tricky aspects of cognition might lie in that early development, the interaction of electricity and biology.
7
SPEAKER_00
But we already know the EEG and so on is telling us a lot about brain function, but we don t know which cells, which parts of a neural network is giving rise to the EEG.
7
SPEAKER_00
We don t know the basics.
7
SPEAKER_00
The assumption is, I mean, we know it s neural networks, we know it s multiple cells, hundreds or thousands of cells involved in it, and we assume that it s to do with depolarization during action potentials and so on.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the mitochondria which are in there have much more membranes than the plasma membrane of the neuron, and there s a much greater membrane potential.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it s formed in parallel, very often parallel cristae, which are capable of reinforcing a field and generating fields over longer distances.
7
SPEAKER_00
And nobody knows if that plays a role in consciousness or not.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s reasons to argue that it could, but frankly, we simply do not know, and it s not taken into consideration.
7
SPEAKER_00
You look at the structure of the mitochondrial membranes
7
SPEAKER_00
in the brains of simple things like Drosophila, the fruit fly, and they have amazing structures.
7
SPEAKER_00
You can see lots of little rectangular things all lined up in amazing patterns.
7
SPEAKER_00
What are they doing?
7
SPEAKER_00
Why are they like that?
7
SPEAKER_00
We haven t the first clue.
7
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about organoids and brain organoids?
7
SPEAKER_01
So in a lab trying to study the development of these, in the Petri dish, development of organs, do you think that s promising?
7
SPEAKER_01
Do you have to look at whole systems?
7
SPEAKER_00
I ve never done anything like that.
7
SPEAKER_00
I don t know much about it.
7
SPEAKER_00
The people who I ve talked to who do work on it say amazing things can happen and that a bit of a brain grown in a dish is capable of experiencing some kind of feelings or even memories of its former brain.
7
SPEAKER_00
Again, I have a feeling that until we understand how to control the electrical fields that control development, we re not going to understand how to turn an organoid into a real functional system.
7
SPEAKER_01
how do we get that understanding?
7
SPEAKER_01
It s so incredibly difficult.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you would have to, I mean, one promising direction, I d love to get your opinion on this.
7
SPEAKER_01
I don t know if you re familiar with the work of DeepMind and AlphaFold with protein folding and so on.
7
SPEAKER_01
Do you think it s possible that that will give us some breakthroughs in biology, trying to basically simulate and model the behavior of
7
SPEAKER_01
trivial biological systems as they become complex biological systems.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m sure it will.
7
SPEAKER_00
The interesting thing to me about protein folding
7
SPEAKER_00
is that for a long time, my understanding, this is not what I work on, so I may have got this wrong, but my understanding is that you take the sequence of a protein and you try to fold it.
7
SPEAKER_00
And there are multiple ways in which it can fold and to come up with the correct confirmation is not a very easy thing because you re doing it from first principles from a string of letters, which specify the string of amino acids.
7
SPEAKER_00
But what actually happens is when a protein is coming out of a ribosome,
7
SPEAKER_00
is coming out of a charged tunnel, and it s in a very specific environment, which is going to force this to go there now, and then this one to go there, and this one to come like that.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so you re forcing a specific conformational set of changes onto it as it comes out of the ribosome.
7
SPEAKER_00
So by the time it s fully emerged, it s already got its shape, and that shape depended on the immediate environment that it was emerging into, one amino acid at a time.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I don t think that the field was looking at it that way.
7
SPEAKER_00
And if that s correct, then that s very characteristic of science, which is to say it asks very often the wrong question and then does really amazingly sophisticated analyses on something, having never thought to actually think, well, what is biology doing?
7
SPEAKER_00
And biology is giving you a charged electrical environment that forces you to be this way.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now, did
7
SPEAKER_00
Deep mind come up through patterns with some answer that was like that.
7
SPEAKER_00
I ve got absolutely no idea.
7
SPEAKER_00
It ought to be possible to deduce that from the shapes of proteins.
7
SPEAKER_00
It would require much greater, much greater skill than the human mind has.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the human mind is capable of saying, well, hang on, let s look at this exit tunnel and try and work out what shape is this protein going to take?
7
SPEAKER_00
And we can figure that out.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s really interesting about the exit tunnel.
7
SPEAKER_01
But like sometimes we get lucky and
7
SPEAKER_01
just like in science, the simplified view or the static view will actually solve the problem for us.
7
SPEAKER_01
So in this case, it s very possible that the sequence of letters has a unique mapping to our structure without considering how it unraveled, so without considering the tunnel.
7
SPEAKER_01
And so that seems to be the case in this situation.
7
SPEAKER_01
The cool thing about proteins, all the different shapes they can possibly take, it actually seems to take
7
SPEAKER_01
very specific, unique shapes given the sequence.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s forced on you by an exit tunnel.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the problem is actually much simpler than you thought.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then there s a whole army of proteins which change the conformational state, chaperone proteins.
7
SPEAKER_00
And they re only used when there s some, presumably, issue with how it came out of the exit tunnel and you want to do it differently to that.
7
SPEAKER_00
So very often the chaperone proteins will go there and will influence the way in which it falls.
7
SPEAKER_00
So there s two ways of doing it.
7
SPEAKER_00
Either you can look at the structures and the sequences of all the proteins and you can apply an immense mind to it and figure out what the patterns are and figure out what happened.
7
SPEAKER_00
Or you can look at the actual situation where it is and say, well, hang on, it was actually quite simple.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s got a charged environment and it s forced to come out this way.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then the question will be, well, do different ribosomes have different charged environments?
7
SPEAKER_00
What happens if a chaperone, you know, you re asking a different set of questions to come to the same answer in a way, which is telling you,
7
SPEAKER_00
a much simpler story and explains why it is rather than saying it could be – this is one in a billion different possible conformational states that this protein could have.
7
SPEAKER_00
You re saying, well, it has this one because that was the only one it could take given its setting.
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, yeah, I mean, currently humans are very good at that kind of first principles thinking.
7
SPEAKER_01
I was stepping back, but I think AI is really good at collecting a huge amount of data and a huge amount of data of observation of planets and figure out that Earth is not at the center of the universe, that there s actually a sun, we re orbiting the sun, but then you can, as a human being, ask, well, how do solar systems come to be?
7
SPEAKER_01
What are the different forces that are required to make this kind of pattern emerge?
7
SPEAKER_01
And then you start to invent things like gravity.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, obviously.
7
SPEAKER_01
Is it an invention?
7
SPEAKER_01
I mixed up the ordering of gravity wasn t considered as a thing that connects planets, but we are able to think about those big picture things as human beings.
7
SPEAKER_01
AI is just very good to infer simple models from a huge amount of data.
7
SPEAKER_01
And the question is with biology, we kind of go back and forth how we solve biology.
7
SPEAKER_01
Listen, protein folding was,
7
SPEAKER_01
thought to be impossible to solve, and there s a lot of brilliant PhD students that worked one protein at a time trying to figure out the structure, and the fact that I was able to do that.
7
SPEAKER_00
Oh, I m not knocking it at all, but I think that people have been asking the wrong question.
7
SPEAKER_01
But then, as the people start to ask
7
SPEAKER_01
better and bigger questions.
7
SPEAKER_01
The AI kind of enters the chat and says, I ll help you out with that.
7
SPEAKER_00
Can I give you another example from my own work?
7
SPEAKER_00
The risk of getting a disease as we get older, there are genetic aspects to it.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you spend your whole life overeating and smoking and whatever, that s a whole separate question.
7
SPEAKER_00
But there s a genetic side to the risk and we know a few genes that increase your risk of certain things and for probably 20 years now,
7
SPEAKER_00
People have been doing what s called GWAS, which is genome-wide association studies.
7
SPEAKER_00
So you effectively scan the entire genome for any single nucleotide polymorphisms, which is, say, a single letter change in one place that has a higher association of being linked with a particular disease or not.
7
SPEAKER_00
And you can come up with thousands of these things across the genome.
7
SPEAKER_00
And if you add them all up and try and say, well, so do they add up to explain the known genetic risk of this disease?
7
SPEAKER_00
And the known genetic risk often comes from twin studies and you can say that if this twin gets
7
SPEAKER_00
Epilepsy, there s a 40 or 50% risk that the other twin, identical twin, will also get epilepsy.
7
SPEAKER_00
Therefore, the genetic factor is about 50%.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so the gene similarities that you see should account for 50% of that known risk.
7
SPEAKER_00
Very often it accounts for less than a 10th of the known risk.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s two possible explanations, and there s one which people tend to do, which is to say, ah, well, we don t have enough statistical power.
7
SPEAKER_00
Maybe there s a million.
7
SPEAKER_00
We ve only found 1,000 of them, but if we find the other million, they re weakly related, but there s a huge number of them, and so we ll account for that whole risk.
7
SPEAKER_00
Maybe there s a billion of them.
7
SPEAKER_00
So that s one way.
7
SPEAKER_00
The other way is to say, well, hang on a minute, you re missing a system here.
7
SPEAKER_00
That system is the mitochondrial DNA, which people tend to dismiss because it s small and it doesn t change very much.
7
SPEAKER_00
But a few single letter changes in that mitochondrial DNA, it controls some really basic processes.
7
SPEAKER_00
It controls
7
SPEAKER_00
not only all the energy that we need to live and to move around and do everything we do, but also biosynthesis to make the new building blocks to make new cells.
7
SPEAKER_00
And cancer cells very often kind of take over the mitochondria and rewire them so that instead of using them for making energy, they re effectively using them as precursors for the building blocks for biosynthesis.
7
SPEAKER_00
You need to make new amino acids, new nucleotides for DNA.
7
SPEAKER_00
You want to make new
7
SPEAKER_00
lipids to make your membranes and so on.
7
SPEAKER_00
So they kind of rewire metabolism.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now the problem is that we ve got all these interactions between mitochondrial DNA and the genes in the nucleus that are overlooked completely because people literally throw away the mitochondrial genes.
7
SPEAKER_00
And we can see in fruit flies that they interact and produce big differences in risk.
7
SPEAKER_00
So you can set AI onto this question of exactly what
7
SPEAKER_00
how many of these base changes there are.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s just one possible solution that maybe there are a million of them, and it does account for the greatest part of the risk.
7
SPEAKER_00
The other one is they aren t.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s just not there.
7
SPEAKER_00
Actually, the risk lies in something you weren t even looking at.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is where human intuition is very important, and just this feeling that, well, I m working on this, and I think it s important, and I m bloody minded about it.
7
SPEAKER_00
In the end, some people are right.
7
SPEAKER_00
It turns out that it was important.
7
SPEAKER_00
Can you get AI to do that, to be bloody minded?
7
SPEAKER_01
And that hang on a minute, you might be missing a whole other system here that s much bigger.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s the moment of discovery, of scientific revolution.
7
SPEAKER_01
I m giving up on saying AI
8
SPEAKER_00
I can t do something.
8
SPEAKER_00
I ve said it enough times about enough things.
8
SPEAKER_00
I think there s been a lot of progress.
8
SPEAKER_00
And instead, I m excited by the possibility of AI helping humans.
8
SPEAKER_00
But at the same time, just like I said, we seem to dismiss the power of humans.
8
SPEAKER_00
Like we re so limited in so many ways,
8
SPEAKER_00
that we kind of, in what we feel like dumb ways, like we re not strong, we re kind of, our attention, our memory is limited, our ability to focus on things is limited.
8
SPEAKER_00
in our own perception of what limit it is, but that actually, there s an incredible computer behind the whole thing that makes this whole system work, our ability to interact with the environment, to reason about the environment, there s magic there.
8
SPEAKER_00
And I m hopeful that AI can capture some of that same magic, but that magic is not gonna look like Deep Blue playing chess.
8
SPEAKER_00
it s going to be more interesting.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I don t think it s going to look like pattern finding either.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s essentially what you re telling me it does very well at the moment.
8
SPEAKER_01
And my point is, it works very well where you re looking for the right pattern.
8
SPEAKER_01
But we are storytelling animals, and the hypothesis is a story.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s a testable story.
8
SPEAKER_01
But a new hypothesis is a leap into the unknown, and it s a new story, basically.
8
SPEAKER_01
And it says, this leads to this, leads to that.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s a causal set of
8
SPEAKER_01
of storytelling.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s also possible that the leap into the unknown has a pattern of its own.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yes, it is.
8
SPEAKER_00
And it s possible that it s learnable.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m sure it is.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s a nice book by Arthur Koestler on
8
SPEAKER_01
on the nature of creativity and he likens it to a joke where the punchline goes off in a completely unexpected direction and says that this is the basis of human creativity that some creative switch of direction to an unexpected place is similar to a joke.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m not saying that s how it works but it s a nice idea and there must be some truth in it.
8
SPEAKER_01
And it s one of these, most of the stories we tell are probably the wrong story and probably going nowhere and probably not helpful.
8
SPEAKER_01
And we definitely don t do as well at seeing patterns in things.
8
SPEAKER_01
But some of the most enjoyable human aspects is finding a new story that goes to an unexpected place.
8
SPEAKER_01
And these are all aspects of what being human means to me.
8
SPEAKER_01
And maybe these are all things that AI figures out for itself, or maybe they re just aspects
8
SPEAKER_01
But I just have the feeling sometimes that the people who are trying to understand what we are like, if we wish to craft an AI system which is somehow human-like, that we don t have a firm enough grasp of what humans really are like in terms of how we are built.
8
SPEAKER_00
but we get a better, better understanding of that.
8
SPEAKER_00
I agree with you completely.
8
SPEAKER_00
We try to build the thing, and then we go, hang on a minute.
8
SPEAKER_00
There s another system here, and that s actually the attempt to build AI that s human-like is getting us to a deeper understanding of human beings.
8
SPEAKER_00
The funny thing, I recently talked to Magnus Carlsen, widely considered to be the greatest chess player of all time.
8
SPEAKER_00
and he talked about AlphaZero, which is a system from DeepMind that plays chess, and he had a funny comment.
8
SPEAKER_00
He has a kind of dry sense of humor, but he was extremely impressed when he first saw AlphaZero play, and he said that it did a lot of things that could easily be mistaken for creativity.
8
SPEAKER_00
So he like refused, as a typical human, refused to give the system sort of its due.
8
SPEAKER_00
Because he came up with a lot of things that a lot of people are extremely impressed by.
8
SPEAKER_00
Not just the sheer calculation, but the brilliance of play.
8
SPEAKER_00
So one of the things that it does in really interesting ways is it sacrifices pieces.
8
SPEAKER_00
So in chess, that means you basically take a few steps back in order to take a step forward.
8
SPEAKER_00
You give away pieces for some future reward.
8
SPEAKER_00
And that, for us humans, is where art is in chess.
8
SPEAKER_00
You take big risks that, for us humans,
8
SPEAKER_00
those risks are especially painful because you have a fog of uncertainty before you.
8
SPEAKER_00
So to take a risk now based on intuition of I think this is the right risk to take, but there s so many possibilities that that s where it takes guts, that s where art is, that s that danger.
8
SPEAKER_00
And then AlphaZero takes those same kind of risks and does them even greater degree.
8
SPEAKER_00
But of course, it does it from a
8
SPEAKER_00
where you could easily reduce down to a cold calculation over patterns, but boy, when you see the final result, it sure looks like the same kind of magic that we see in creativity.
8
SPEAKER_00
when we see creative play on the chessboard.
8
SPEAKER_00
But the chessboard is very limited, and the question is, as we get better and better, can we do that same kind of creativity in mathematics, in programming, and then eventually in biology, psychology, and expand into more and more complex systems?
8
SPEAKER_01
I used to go running when I was a boy and fell running, which is say running up and down mountains.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I was never particularly great at it, but there were some people who were amazingly fast, especially at running down.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I realized in trying to do this that there s only really two ways.
8
SPEAKER_01
There are three possible ways of doing it and there s only two that work.
8
SPEAKER_01
Either you go extremely slowly and carefully.
8
SPEAKER_01
and you figure out, okay, there s a stone.
8
SPEAKER_01
I ll put my foot on this stone, and then there s a muddy puddle I m going to avoid.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s slow, it s laborious.
8
SPEAKER_01
You figure it out step by step.
8
SPEAKER_01
Or you can just go incredibly fast, and you don t think about it at all.
8
SPEAKER_01
The entire conscious mind is shut out of it, and it s probably the same playing table tennis or something.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s something in the mind which is doing a whole lot of subconscious calculations about exactly that, and it s amazing.
8
SPEAKER_01
You can run at astonishing speed down a hillside with no idea how you did it at all.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then you panic, and you think, I m going to break my leg if I keep doing this.
8
SPEAKER_01
I ve got to think about where I m going to put my foot.
8
SPEAKER_01
So you slow down a bit and try to bring those conscious mind in, and then you do.
8
SPEAKER_01
You crash.
8
SPEAKER_01
You cannot think consciously while running downhill.
8
SPEAKER_01
So it s amazing how many calculations the mind is able to make.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now, the problem with playing chess or something, if you re able to make all of those subconscious forward calculations about,
8
SPEAKER_01
What is the likely outcome of this move now in the way that we can by running down a hillside or something?
8
SPEAKER_01
It s partly about what we have adapted to do.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s partly about the reality of the world that we re in.
8
SPEAKER_01
Running fast downhill is something that we better be bloody good at, otherwise we re going to be eaten.
8
SPEAKER_01
Whereas trying to calculate multiple, multiple moves into the future is not something we ve ever been called on to do.
8
SPEAKER_01
Two or three, four moves into the future is quite enough.
8
SPEAKER_01
most of us most of the time.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah.
8
SPEAKER_00
So yeah, just solving chess may not, we may not be as far towards solving the problem of downhill running as we might think just because we solve chess.
8
SPEAKER_00
Still, it s beautiful to see creativity.
8
SPEAKER_00
Humans create machines that are able to create art and art on a chessboard and art otherwise.
8
SPEAKER_00
Who knows how far that takes us.
8
SPEAKER_00
So I mentioned Andrej Karpathy earlier.
8
SPEAKER_00
Him and I are big fans of yours.
8
SPEAKER_00
If you re taking votes, his suggestion was you should write your next book on the Fermi Paradox.
8
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask you on the topic of alien life.
8
SPEAKER_00
Since we ve been talking about life, and we re a kind of aliens, how many alien civilizations are out there, do you think?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, the universe is very big, so some.
8
SPEAKER_01
But not as many as most people would like to think is my view because the idea that there is a trajectory going from simple cellular life like bacteria all the way through to humans
8
SPEAKER_01
It seems to me there s some big gaps along that way.
8
SPEAKER_01
The eukaryotic cell, the complex cell that we have is the biggest of them, but also photosynthesis is another.
8
SPEAKER_01
Another interesting gap is a long gap from the origin of the eukaryotic cells to the first animals.
8
SPEAKER_01
That was about a billion years, maybe more than that.
8
SPEAKER_01
A long delay in when oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere.
8
SPEAKER_01
So from the first appearance of oxygen in the Great Oxidation Event to enough for animals to respire, it was close to two billion years.
8
SPEAKER_01
Why so long?
8
SPEAKER_01
It seems to be planetary factors.
8
SPEAKER_01
It seems to be geology as much as anything else.
8
SPEAKER_01
And we don t really know
8
SPEAKER_01
what was going on.
8
SPEAKER_01
So the idea that there s a kind of an inevitable march towards complexity and sentient life, I don t think is right.
8
SPEAKER_01
Not to say it s not gonna happen, but I think it s not gonna happen often.
8
SPEAKER_00
So if you think of Earth, given the geological constraints and all that kind of stuff,
8
SPEAKER_00
Do you have a sense that life, complex life, intelligent life happen really quickly on Earth, or really long?
8
SPEAKER_00
So just to get a sense of, are you more sort of saying that it s very unlikely to get the kind of conditions required to create humans, or is it even if you have the condition, it s just statistically difficult?
8
SPEAKER_01
I think the, I mean, the problem, the single great problem at the center of all of that, to my mind, is the origin of the eukaryotic cell, which happened once, and without eukaryotes, nothing else would have happened.
8
SPEAKER_01
And that is something that- That s because you re saying it s super important, the eukaryotes, but- I m saying a tantamount to saying that it is impossible to build something as complex as a human being from bacterial cells.
8
SPEAKER_00
Totally agree in some deep fundamental way.
8
SPEAKER_00
But it s just like one cell going inside another.
8
SPEAKER_00
Is that so difficult to get to work right?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, again, it happened once.
8
SPEAKER_01
And if you think about, I m in a minority view in this position.
8
SPEAKER_01
Most biologists probably wouldn t agree with me anyway.
8
SPEAKER_01
But if you think about the starting point, we ve got a simple cell.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s an archaeal cell, we can be fairly sure about that.
8
SPEAKER_01
So it looks a lot like a bacterium, but is in fact from this other domain of life.
8
SPEAKER_01
So it looks a lot like a bacterial cell.
8
SPEAKER_01
That means it doesn t have anything.
8
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t have a nutrients, it doesn t really have
8
SPEAKER_01
complex endomembrane.
8
SPEAKER_01
It has a little bit of stuff, but not that much.
8
SPEAKER_01
And it takes up an endosymbiont.
8
SPEAKER_01
So what happens next?
8
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is basically everything to do with complexity.
8
SPEAKER_01
To me, there s a really beautiful paradox here.
8
SPEAKER_01
Plants and animals and fungi all have exactly the same type of cell, but they all have really different ways of living.
8
SPEAKER_01
So a plant cell
8
SPEAKER_01
photosynthetic.
8
SPEAKER_01
They started out as algae in the oceans and so on.
8
SPEAKER_01
So think of algal bloom, single cell things.
8
SPEAKER_01
The basic cell structure that it s built from is exactly the same with a couple of small differences.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s got chloroplasts as well.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s got a vacuole.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s got a cell wall, but that s about it.
8
SPEAKER_01
Pretty much everything else is exactly the same in a plant cell and an animal cell.
8
SPEAKER_01
And yet the ways of life are completely different.
8
SPEAKER_01
So this cell structure did not evolve in response to different ways of life, different environments.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m in the ocean doing photosynthesis.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m on land running around as part of an animal.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m a fungus in a soil, spreading out long shoots into whatever it may be, mycelium.
8
SPEAKER_01
they all have the same underlying cell structure.
8
SPEAKER_01
Why?
8
SPEAKER_01
Almost certainly it was driven by adaptation to the internal environment, to having these pesky endosymbionts that forced all kinds of change on the host cell.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now in one way you could see that as a really good thing because it may be that
8
SPEAKER_01
There s some inevitability to this process that as soon as you ve got endless imbalance, you re more or less bound to go in that direction, or it could be that there s a huge fluke about it and it s almost certain to go wrong in just about every case possible, that the conflict will lead to effectively war leading to death and extinction, and it simply doesn t work out.
8
SPEAKER_01
So maybe it happened millions of times and it went wrong every time, or maybe it only happened once.
8
SPEAKER_01
and it worked out because it was inevitable.
8
SPEAKER_01
And actually, we simply do not know enough now to say which of those two possibilities is true, but both of them are a bit grim.
8
SPEAKER_00
But you re leaning towards, we just got really lucky in that one leap.
8
SPEAKER_00
So do you have a sense that our galaxy, for example, has just maybe millions of planets with bacteria living on it?
8
SPEAKER_01
I would expect tens of billions of planets with bacteria living on it, practically.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there s probably, what, five to 10 planets per star, of which I would hope that at least one would have bacteria on.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I expect bacteria to be very common.
8
SPEAKER_01
I simply can t put a number otherwise.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I expect it will happen elsewhere.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s not that I think we re living in a completely empty universe.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I think that it s not going to happen inevitably and that s not the only problem with complex life on Earth.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mentioned oxygen and animals and so on as well.
8
SPEAKER_01
And even humans, we came along very late.
8
SPEAKER_01
You go back five million years and would we be that impressed if we came across a planet full of giraffes?
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you d think, hey, there s life here and there s a nice planet to colonize or something.
8
SPEAKER_01
We wouldn t think, oh, let s try and have a conversation with this giraffe.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I m not sure what exactly we would think.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m not exactly sure what makes humans so interesting from an alien perspective or how they would notice.
8
SPEAKER_00
I ll talk to you about cities too, because that s an interesting perspective of how to look at human civilization.
8
SPEAKER_00
But your sense, I mean, of course you don t know, but it s an interesting world, it s an interesting galaxy, it s an interesting universe to live in that s just like every sun, like 90% of solar systems have bacteria in it.
8
SPEAKER_00
Like, imagine that world.
8
SPEAKER_00
and the galaxy maybe has just a handful, if not one intelligent civilization.
8
SPEAKER_00
That s a wild world.
8
SPEAKER_00
I didn t even think about that world.
8
SPEAKER_00
There s a kind of thought that, like one of the reasons it would be so exciting to find life on Mars or Titan or whatever is like, if it s life is elsewhere, then surely,
8
SPEAKER_00
Statistically, that life, no matter how unlikely, eukaryotes, multicellular organisms, sex, violence, what else is extremely difficult?
8
SPEAKER_00
I mean, photosynthesis.
8
SPEAKER_00
is figuring out some machinery that involves the chemistry and the environment to allow the building up of complex organisms, surely that would arise.
8
SPEAKER_00
But man, I don t know how I would feel about just bacteria everywhere.
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, it would be depressing if it was true.
8
SPEAKER_01
I suppose depressing, I don t think.
8
SPEAKER_00
I don t know what s more depressing, bacteria everywhere or nothing everywhere.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yes, either of them are chilling.
8
SPEAKER_01
But whether it s chilling or not, I don t think should,
8
SPEAKER_01
force us to change our view about whether it s real or not.
8
SPEAKER_01
And what I m saying may or may not be true.
8
SPEAKER_00
So how would you feel if we discovered life on Mars?
8
SPEAKER_00
It sounds like you would be less excited than some others.
8
SPEAKER_00
Because you re like, well.
8
SPEAKER_01
What I would be most interested in is how similar to life on Earth it would be.
8
SPEAKER_01
It would actually turn into quite a subtle problem because the
8
SPEAKER_01
The likelihood of life having gone to and fro between Mars and the Earth is quite – I wouldn t say high, but it s not low.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s quite feasible.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so if we found life on Mars and it had very similar genetic code but it was slightly different, most people would interpret that immediately as evidence that there d been transit one way or the other and that it was a common origin of life on Mars or on the Earth and it
9
SPEAKER_00
went one way or the other way.
9
SPEAKER_00
The other way to see that question, though, would be to say, well, actually, the beginnings of life lie in deterministic chemistry and thermodynamics, starting with the most likely abundant materials, CO2 and water and a wet, rocky planet.
9
SPEAKER_00
And Mars was wet and rocky at the beginning.
9
SPEAKER_00
And we ll, I won t say inevitably, but potentially almost inevitably come up with a genetic code which is not very far away from the genetic code that we already have.
9
SPEAKER_00
So, we see subtle differences in the genetic code.
9
SPEAKER_00
What does it mean?
9
SPEAKER_00
It could be very difficult to interpret.
9
SPEAKER_01
Is it possible, do you think, to tell the difference of something that truly originated?
9
SPEAKER_00
I think if the stereochemistry was different,
9
SPEAKER_00
We have sugars, for example, that are the L form or the D form, and we have D sugars and L amino acids right across all of life.
9
SPEAKER_00
But lipids, the bacteria have one stereoisomer and the bacteria have the other, the opposite stereoisomer.
9
SPEAKER_00
So it s perfectly possible to use one or the other one, and the same would almost certainly go for, and I think George Church has been trying to make life based on the opposite stereoisomer.
9
SPEAKER_00
So it s perfectly possible to do, and it will work.
9
SPEAKER_00
And if we were to find life on Mars that was using the opposite stereoisomer, that would be unequivocal evidence that life had started independently there.
9
SPEAKER_01
So hopefully the life we find will be on Titan and Europa or something like that where it s less likely that we shared and it s harsher conditions so there s gonna be weirder kind of life.
9
SPEAKER_00
I wouldn t count on that because life started in deep sea hydrothermal vents.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s pretty harsh.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
9
SPEAKER_00
So Titan is different.
9
SPEAKER_00
Europa is probably quite similar to Earth in the sense that we re dealing with an ocean.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s an acidic ocean there as the early Earth would have been.
9
SPEAKER_00
And it almost certainly has hydrothermal systems.
9
SPEAKER_00
Same with Enceladus.
9
SPEAKER_00
We can tell that from these plumes coming from the surface through the ice.
9
SPEAKER_00
We know there s a liquid ocean and we can tell roughly what the chemistry is.
9
SPEAKER_00
For Titan, we re dealing with liquid methane and things like that.
9
SPEAKER_00
So that would really, if there really is life there, it would really have to be very, very different to anything that we know on Earth.
9
SPEAKER_01
So the hard leap, the hardest leap, the most important leap is from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, eukaryotic.
9
SPEAKER_01
What s the second, if we re ranking?
9
SPEAKER_01
You gave a lot of emphasis on photosynthesis.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and that would be my second one, I think.
9
SPEAKER_00
But it s not so much... I mean, photosynthesis is part of the problem.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s a difficult thing to do.
9
SPEAKER_00
Again, we know it happened once.
9
SPEAKER_00
We don t know why it happened once.
9
SPEAKER_00
But the fact that it was kind of taken on board completely by plants and algae and so on as chloroplasts,
9
SPEAKER_00
and did very well in completely different environments and then on land and whatever else seems to suggest that there s no problem with exploring.
9
SPEAKER_00
You could have a separate origin that explored this whole domain over there that the bacteria had never gone into.
9
SPEAKER_00
So that kind of says that the reason that it only happened once is probably because it s difficult, because the wiring is difficult.
9
SPEAKER_00
But then it happened at least 2.2 billion years ago, right before the GOE, maybe as long as 3 billion years ago, when some people say there are whiffs of oxygen, there s just kind of traces in the fossil, in the geochemical record that say maybe there was a bit of oxygen then.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s really disputed.
9
SPEAKER_00
Some people say it goes all the way back 4 billion years ago,
9
SPEAKER_00
and that it was the common ancestry of life on Earth was photosynthetic.
9
SPEAKER_00
So immediately you ve got groups of people who disagree over a two billion year period of time about when it started.
9
SPEAKER_00
Let s take the latest date when it s unequivocal, that s 2.2 billion years ago, through to around about the time of the Cambrian explosion when oxygen levels definitely got close to modern levels, which was around about 550 million years ago.
9
SPEAKER_00
So we ve gone more than one and a half billion years where the Earth was in stasis.
9
SPEAKER_00
Nothing much changed.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s known as the boring billion, in fact.
9
SPEAKER_00
Probably stuff was, that was when eukaryotes arose somewhere in there, but it s...
9
SPEAKER_00
So this idea that the world is constantly changing, that we re constantly evolving, that we re moving up some ramp is a very human idea.
9
SPEAKER_00
But in reality, there are kind of tipping points to a new stable equilibrium.
9
SPEAKER_00
where the cells that are producing oxygen are precisely counterbalanced by the cells that are consuming that oxygen, which is why it s 21% now and has been that way for hundreds of millions of years.
9
SPEAKER_00
We have a very precise balance.
9
SPEAKER_00
You go through a tipping point and you don t know where the next stable state s going to be, but it can be a long way from here.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so if we change the world with global warming, there will be a tipping point.
9
SPEAKER_00
The question is where and when and what s the next stable state?
9
SPEAKER_00
It may be uninhabitable to us.
9
SPEAKER_00
It ll be habitable to life for sure.
9
SPEAKER_00
But there may be something like the Permian extinction where 95% of species go extinct and there s a 5 to 10 million year gap and then life recovers.
9
SPEAKER_00
without humans.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the question statistically, well, without humans, but statistically, does that ultimately lead to greater complexity, more interesting life, more intelligent life?
9
SPEAKER_00
Well, after the first appearance of oxygen with the GOE, there was a tipping point which led to a long-term stable state that was equivalent to the Black Sea today, which is to say oxygenated at the very surface and stagnant, sterile, not sterile, but sulfurous, lower down.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that was stable certainly around the continental margins for more than a billion years.
9
SPEAKER_00
It was not a state that led to progression in an obvious way.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, it s interesting to think about evolution, like what leads to stable states and how often are evolutionary pressures emerging from the environment.
9
SPEAKER_01
So maybe other planets are able to create evolutionary pressures, chemical pressures, whatever, some kind of pressure that say, you re screwed unless you get your shit together in the next.
9
SPEAKER_01
like 10,000 years, like a lot of pressure.
9
SPEAKER_01
It seems like Earth, like the boring building might be explained in two ways.
9
SPEAKER_01
One, it s super difficult to take any kind of next step.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the second way it could be explained is there s no reason to take the next step.
9
SPEAKER_00
No, I think there is no reason, but at the end of it, there was a snowball Earth.
9
SPEAKER_00
So there was a planetary catastrophe on a huge scale where the sea was frozen at the equator.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that forced change in one way or another.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s not long after that, 100 million years perhaps after that, so not a short time, but this is when we begin to see animals.
9
SPEAKER_00
There was a shift again, another tipping point that led to catastrophic change that led to a takeoff then.
9
SPEAKER_00
We don t really know why, but one of the reasons why that I discuss in the book is about sulfate being washed into the oceans, which sounds incredibly parochial.
9
SPEAKER_00
But the issue is, I mean, what the data is showing, we can track roughly how oxygen was going into the atmosphere.
9
SPEAKER_00
from carbon isotopes.
9
SPEAKER_00
So there s two main isotopes of carbon that we need to think about here.
9
SPEAKER_00
One is carbon-12, 99% of carbon is carbon-12.
9
SPEAKER_00
And then 1% of carbon is carbon-13, which is a stable isotope.
9
SPEAKER_00
And then there s carbon-14, which is a trivial radioactive.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s trivial in amount.
9
SPEAKER_00
So carbon-13 is 1%.
9
SPEAKER_00
And life and enzymes generally
9
SPEAKER_00
You can think of carbon atoms as little balls bouncing around, ping pong balls bouncing around.
9
SPEAKER_00
Carbon-12 moves a little bit faster than carbon-13 because it s lighter, and it s more likely to encounter an enzyme.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so it s more likely to be fixed into organic matter.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so organic matter is enriched, and this is just an observation, it s enriched in carbon-12 by a few percent compared to carbon-13, relative to what you would expect if it was just equal.
9
SPEAKER_00
And if you then bury organic matter,
9
SPEAKER_00
as coal or oil or whatever it may be, then it s no longer oxidized.
9
SPEAKER_00
So some oxygen remains left over in the atmosphere.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that s how oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.
9
SPEAKER_00
And you can work out historically how much oxygen there must have been in the atmosphere by how much carbon was being buried.
9
SPEAKER_00
And you think, well, how can we possibly know how much carbon was being buried?
9
SPEAKER_00
And the answer is, well, if you re burying carbon-12, what you re leaving behind is more carbon-13 in the oceans, and that precipitates out into limestone.
9
SPEAKER_00
So you can look at limestones over these ages and work out what s the carbon 13 signal.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that gives you a kind of a feedback on what the oxygen content.
9
SPEAKER_00
Right before the Cambrian explosion, there was what s called a negative isotope anomaly excursion, which is basically the carbon 13 goes down by a massive amount and then back up again 10 million years later.
9
SPEAKER_00
And what that seems to be saying is the amount of carbon 12 in the oceans
9
SPEAKER_00
was disappearing, which is to say it was being oxidized.
9
SPEAKER_00
And if it s being oxidized, it s consuming oxygen.
9
SPEAKER_00
So a big carbon-13 signal says the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 is really going down, which means there s much more carbon-12 being taken out and being oxidized.
9
SPEAKER_00
Sorry, this is getting too complex.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, it s a good way to estimate the amount of oxygen.
9
SPEAKER_00
If you calculate the amount of oxygen based on the assumption that all this carbon-12 that s being taken out is being oxidized by oxygen, the answer is all the oxygen in the atmosphere gets stripped out.
9
SPEAKER_00
There is none left.
9
SPEAKER_00
And yet the rest of the geological indicators say, no, there s oxygen in the atmosphere.
9
SPEAKER_00
So it s kind of a paradox.
9
SPEAKER_00
And the only way to explain this paradox, just on mass balance of how much stuff is in the air, how much stuff is in the oceans, and so on, is to assume that oxygen was not the oxygen, it was sulfate.
9
SPEAKER_00
Sulfate was being washed into the oceans,
9
SPEAKER_00
It s used as an electron acceptor by sulfate-reducing bacteria, just as we use oxygen as an electron acceptor.
9
SPEAKER_00
So they pass their electrons to sulfate instead of oxygen.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so these are bacteria.
9
SPEAKER_00
So they re oxidizing carbon, organic carbon, with sulfate, passing the electrons onto sulfate.
9
SPEAKER_00
That reacts with iron to form iron pyrite, or fool s gold, sinks down to the bottom, gets buried out of the system.
9
SPEAKER_00
And this can account for the mass balance.
9
SPEAKER_00
So why does it matter?
9
SPEAKER_00
It matters because what it says is there was a chance event.
9
SPEAKER_00
Tectonically, there was a lot of sulfate sitting on land as some kind of mineral.
9
SPEAKER_00
So calcium sulfate minerals, for example, are evaporitic.
9
SPEAKER_00
And because there happened to be some continental collisions, mountain building, the sulfate was pushed up the side of a mountain and happened to get washed into the ocean.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so I wonder how many happy accidents like that are possible.
9
SPEAKER_00
Statistically, it s really hard.
9
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you can rule that in statistically, but this is the course of life on Earth.
9
SPEAKER_00
Without all that sulfate being raised up, this Cambrian explosion almost certainly would not have happened, and then we wouldn t have had animals, and so on and so on.
9
SPEAKER_01
This kind of explanation of the Cambrian explosion,
9
SPEAKER_01
So, let me actually say in several ways, so, you know, folks who challenge the validity of the theory of evolution will give us an example, now I m not well studied in this, but will give us an example of the Cambrian explosion as like, this thing is weird.
9
SPEAKER_00
Oh, it is weird, yeah.
9
SPEAKER_01
So by the question I would have,
9
SPEAKER_01
is what s the biggest mystery or gap in understanding about evolution?
9
SPEAKER_01
Is it the Cambrian explosion?
9
SPEAKER_01
And if so, what s our best understanding of how to explain?
9
SPEAKER_01
First of all, what is it?
9
SPEAKER_01
In my understanding, in the short amount of time, maybe 10 million years, 100 million years, something like that, a huge number of animals, a variety, diversity of animals were created.
9
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, there s like five questions in there.
9
SPEAKER_01
Is that the biggest mystery to you about evolution?
9
SPEAKER_00
No, I don t think it s a particularly big mystery really anymore.
9
SPEAKER_00
There are still mysteries about why then, and I ve just said sulfate being washed into the oceans is one, it needs oxygen and oxygen levels rose around that time.
9
SPEAKER_00
So probably before that, they weren t high enough for animals.
9
SPEAKER_00
What we re seeing with the Cambrian explosion is the beginning of predators and prey relationships.
9
SPEAKER_00
We re seeing modern ecosystems and we re seeing arms races and we re seeing
9
SPEAKER_00
we re seeing the full creativity of evolution unleashed.
9
SPEAKER_00
So I talked about the boring billion, nothing happens for one and a half billion years.
9
SPEAKER_00
The assumption, and this is completely wrong, this assumption, is then that evolution works really slowly and that you need billions of years to affect some small change and then another billion years to do something else.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s completely wrong.
9
SPEAKER_00
Evolution gets stuck in a stasis and it stays that way for tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years.
9
SPEAKER_00
And Stephen Jay Gould used to argue this.
9
SPEAKER_00
He called it punctuated equilibrium, but he was doing it to do with animals and to do with the last 500 million years or so, where it s much less obvious than if you think about the entire planetary history.
9
SPEAKER_00
And then you realize that the first 2 billion years was bacteria only.
9
SPEAKER_00
You have the origin of life, 2 billion years of just bacteria, oxygen and photosynthesis arising here.
9
SPEAKER_00
Then you have a global catastrophe, snowball earths and great oxidation event, and then another
9
SPEAKER_00
billion years of nothing happening, and then some period of upheavals, and then another snowball earth, and then suddenly you see the Cambrian explosion.
9
SPEAKER_00
This is long periods of stasis where the world is in a stable state and is not geared towards increasing complexity.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s just everything is in balance.
9
SPEAKER_00
And only when you have a catastrophic level, global level problem, like a snowball earth, it forces everything out of balance and there s a tipping point and you end up somewhere else.
9
SPEAKER_00
Now, the idea that evolution is slow is wrong.
9
SPEAKER_00
It can be incredibly fast.
9
SPEAKER_00
And I mentioned earlier on, in theory, it would take half a million years to invent an eye, for example, from a light sensitive spot.
9
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t take long.
9
SPEAKER_00
to convert one kind of tube into a tube with knobbles on it, into a tube with arms on it, and then multiple arms, and then one end is a head where it starts out as a swelling.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s not difficult intellectually to understand how these things can happen.
9
SPEAKER_00
It boggles the mind that it can happen so quickly, but we re used to human time scales.
9
SPEAKER_00
And what we need to talk about is generations of things that live for a year in the ocean.
9
SPEAKER_00
And then a million years is a million generations.
9
SPEAKER_00
And the amount of change that you can do, you can affect in that period of time is enormous.
9
SPEAKER_00
And we re dealing with large populations of things where selection is sensitive to pretty small changes and can
9
SPEAKER_00
So again, as soon as you throw in the competition of predators and prey, and you re ramping up the scale of evolution, it s not very surprising that it happens very quickly when the environment allows it to happen.
9
SPEAKER_00
So I don t think there s a big mystery.
9
SPEAKER_00
There s lots of details that need to be filled in.
9
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the big mystery in biology is consciousness.
9
SPEAKER_01
The big mystery in biology is consciousness.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, intelligence is kind of a mystery too.
9
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you said biology, not psychology.
9
SPEAKER_01
Because from a biology perspective, it seems like intelligence and consciousness are all the same like weird,
9
SPEAKER_01
Like, all the brain stuff.
9
SPEAKER_00
I don t see intelligence as necessarily that difficult, I suppose.
9
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I see it as a form of computing, and I don t know much about computing, so I... You don t know much about consciousness either, so I mean, I suppose... Oh, I see.
9
SPEAKER_01
I see, I see, I see, I see.
9
SPEAKER_01
That consciousness you do know a lot about as a human being.
9
SPEAKER_00
No, no.
9
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think I can understand the why
10
SPEAKER_00
of a brain as a series of, in pretty much the same way as a computer in theory, in terms of the circuitry of it.
10
SPEAKER_00
The mystery to me is how this system gives rise to feelings, as we were talking about earlier on.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I just, I think we oversimplify intelligence.
10
SPEAKER_01
I think the dance, the magic of reasoning,
10
SPEAKER_01
is as interesting as the magic of feeling.
10
SPEAKER_01
We tend to think of reasoning as like running a very simplistic algorithm.
10
SPEAKER_01
I think reasoning is the interplay between memory, whatever the hell is going on in the unconscious mind, all of that.
10
SPEAKER_00
I m not trying to diminish it in any way at all.
10
SPEAKER_00
It obviously is extraordinarily, exquisitely complex, but I don t see a logical difficulty with how it works.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, no, I mean, I agree with you, but sometimes, yeah, there s a big cloak of mystery around consciousness.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, let me compare it with classical versus quantum physics.
10
SPEAKER_00
Classical physics is logical and you can understand the kind of language we re dealing with.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s almost at the human level.
10
SPEAKER_00
We re dealing with stars and things that we can see and when you get to quantum mechanics and things.
10
SPEAKER_00
it s practically impossible for the human mind to compute what just happened there.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
10
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that is the same.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s like, you understand mathematically that the notes of a musical composition, that s intelligence.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
10
SPEAKER_01
But why it makes you feel a certain way, that is much harder to understand.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s really, but it was interesting framing that that s a mystery at the core of biology.
10
SPEAKER_01
I wonder who solves consciousness.
10
SPEAKER_01
I tend to think consciousness will be solved by the engineer.
10
SPEAKER_01
Meaning the person who builds it, who keeps trying to build the thing versus biology, such a complicated system.
10
SPEAKER_01
I feel like it s, I feel like the building blocks of consciousness from a biological perspective are like, that s like the final creation of a human being.
10
SPEAKER_01
So you have to understand the whole damn thing.
10
SPEAKER_01
You said electrical fields, but like, electrical fields plus plus, everything, the whole shebang.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, trying to agree.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, my feeling is from my meager knowledge of the history of science is that the biggest breakthroughs usually come through from a field that was not related.
10
SPEAKER_00
So if anyone, you know, is not going to be a biologist who solves consciousness just because biologists are too embedded in the nature of the problem.
10
SPEAKER_00
And then nobody s going to believe you when you ve done it because nobody s going to be able to prove that this AI is in fact conscious and sad in any case, and any more than you can prove that a dog is conscious and sad.
10
SPEAKER_00
So it tells you that it is in good language and you must believe it.
10
SPEAKER_00
But I think most people will accept if faced with that, that that s what it is.
10
SPEAKER_00
All of this probability of complex life
10
SPEAKER_00
In one way, I think why it matters is that
10
SPEAKER_00
My expectation, I suppose, is that we will be, over the next 100 years or so, if we survive at all, that AI will increasingly dominate.
10
SPEAKER_00
And pretty much anything that we put out into space, looking for other, well, for the universe, for what s out there, will be AI.
10
SPEAKER_00
Won t be us.
10
SPEAKER_00
We won t be doing that.
10
SPEAKER_00
Or when we do, it ll be on a much more limited scale.
10
SPEAKER_00
I suppose the same would apply to any alien civilization.
10
SPEAKER_00
So, perhaps rather than looking for signs of life out there, we should be looking for AI out there.
10
SPEAKER_00
But then we face the problem that I don t see how a planet is going to give rise directly to AI.
10
SPEAKER_00
I can see how a planet can give rise directly to organic life.
10
SPEAKER_00
And if the principles that govern the evolution of life on Earth apply to other planets as well, and I think a lot of them would, then the likelihood of ending up with a human-like civilization capable of giving rise to AI in the first place is massively limited.
10
SPEAKER_00
Once you ve done it once, perhaps it takes over the universe and maybe there s no issue.
10
SPEAKER_00
But it seems to me that the two are necessarily linked, that you re not gonna just turn a sterile planet into an AI life form without the intermediary of the organics first.
10
SPEAKER_01
So you have to run the full evolutionary computation with the organics to create AI.
10
SPEAKER_00
How does AI bootstrap itself up without the aid, if you like, of an intelligent designer?
10
SPEAKER_01
the origin of AI is going to have to be in the chemistry of a planet.
10
SPEAKER_01
But that s not a limiting factor, right?
10
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask the Fermi paradox question.
10
SPEAKER_01
Let s say we live in this incredibly dark and beautiful world of
10
SPEAKER_01
just billions of planets with bacteria on it, and very few intelligent civilizations, and yet, there s a few out there.
10
SPEAKER_01
Why haven t we, at scale, seen them visit us?
10
SPEAKER_01
What s your sense?
10
SPEAKER_01
Is it because they don t exist?
10
SPEAKER_00
Is it because?
10
SPEAKER_00
Well, don t exist in the right part of the universe at the right time, that s the simplest answer for it.
10
SPEAKER_01
Is that the one you find the most compelling, or is there some other explanation?
10
SPEAKER_00
I find that, no, it s not that I find it more compelling, it s that I find more probable.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I find all of them, I mean, there s a lot of hand-waving in this, we just don t know.
10
SPEAKER_00
So I m trying to read out from what I know about life on Earth to what might happen somewhere else.
10
SPEAKER_00
And it gives, to my mind, a bit of a pessimistic view of bacteria everywhere and only occasional intelligent life.
10
SPEAKER_00
And running forward, humans only once on Earth and nothing else that you would necessarily be any more excited about making contact with than you would be making contact with them on Earth.
10
SPEAKER_00
So, I think the chances are pretty limited, and the chances of us surviving are pretty limited too.
10
SPEAKER_00
The way we re going on at the moment, the likelihood of us not making ourselves extinct within the next few hundred years, possibly within the next 50 or 100 years, seems quite small.
10
SPEAKER_00
I hope we can do better than that.
10
SPEAKER_00
So maybe the only thing that will survive from humanity will be AI.
10
SPEAKER_00
And maybe AI, once it exists and once it s capable of effectively copying itself and cutting humans out of the loop, then maybe that will take over the universe.
10
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there s a kind of inherent sadness to the way you described that.
10
SPEAKER_01
But isn t that
10
SPEAKER_01
also potentially beautiful, that that s the next step of life?
10
SPEAKER_01
I suppose, from your perspective, as long as it carries the flame of consciousness somehow.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think, yes, there can be some beauty to it being the next step of life, and I don t know if consciousness matters or not from that point of view, to be honest with you.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
10
SPEAKER_00
But there s some sadness, yes, probably, because
10
SPEAKER_00
Because I think it comes down to the selfishness that we were talking about earlier on.
10
SPEAKER_00
I am an individual with a desire not to be displaced from life.
10
SPEAKER_00
I want to stay alive.
10
SPEAKER_00
I want to be here.
10
SPEAKER_00
So I suppose the threat that a lot of people would feel is that we will just be wiped out, that there will be potential conflicts between AI and humans, and that AI will win because it s a lot smarter.
10
SPEAKER_01
boy, would that be a sad state of affairs if consciousness is just an intermediate stage between bacteria and AI?
10
SPEAKER_01
Right?
10
SPEAKER_00
And so- Well, I would see bacteria as being potentially a kind of primitive form of consciousness anyway.
10
SPEAKER_00
Right, so maybe- The whole of life on Earth, to my mind- Is conscious.
10
SPEAKER_00
Is capable of some form of feelings in response to the environment.
10
SPEAKER_00
That s not to say it s intelligent, though it s got its own algorithms for intelligence, but nothing comparable with us.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think it s beautiful what a planet, what a sterile planet can come up with.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s astonishing that it s come up with all of this stuff that we see around us and that either we or whatever we produce is capable of destroying all of that is a sad thought.
10
SPEAKER_00
But it s also, it s hugely pessimistic.
10
SPEAKER_00
I d like to think that we re capable of giving rise to something which is at least as good if not better than us as AI.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I have that same optimism, especially a thing that is able to propagate throughout the universe more efficiently than humans can, or extensions of humans, some merger with AI and humans, where that comes from.
10
SPEAKER_01
bioengineering of the human body to extend its life somehow to carry that flame of consciousness and that personality and the beautiful tension that s within all of us, carry that through to multiple planets, to multiple solar systems all out there in the universe.
10
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s a beautiful vision.
10
SPEAKER_01
Whether AI can do that or bioengineered humans can, that s an exciting possibility.
10
SPEAKER_01
And especially meeting other
10
SPEAKER_01
other alien civilizations in that same kind of way.
10
SPEAKER_01
Do you think aliens have consciousness?
10
SPEAKER_00
if they re organic.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think any system which is gonna bootstrap itself up from planetary origins, I mean, let me finish this and then I ll come on to something else, but from planetary origins is going to face similar constraints and those constraints are going to be addressed in similar basic engineering ways and I think it will be cellular and I think it will have electrical charges and I think it will have to,
10
SPEAKER_00
be selected in populations over time, and all of these things will tend to give rise to the same processes as the simplest fix to a difficult problem.
10
SPEAKER_00
So I would expect it to be conscious, yes, and I would expect it to resemble life on Earth in many ways.
10
SPEAKER_00
When I was about, I guess, 15 or 16, I remember reading a book by Fred Hoyle.
10
SPEAKER_00
called the Black Cloud, which I was a budding biologist at the time.
10
SPEAKER_00
And this was the first time I d come across someone that really challenging the heart of biology and saying, you are far too parochial.
10
SPEAKER_00
You re thinking about life as carbon-based.
10
SPEAKER_00
Here s a life form, which is kind of dust, interstellar dust on a solar system scale.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s a novel, but I felt enormously challenged by that novel because it hadn t occurred to me.
10
SPEAKER_00
how limited my thinking was, how narrow-minded I was being.
10
SPEAKER_00
And here was a great physicist with a completely different conception of what life could be.
10
SPEAKER_00
And since then, I ve seen him attacked in various ways.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I m reluctant to say the attacks make more sense to me than the original story, which is to say,
10
SPEAKER_00
But even in terms of information processing, if you re on that scale and there s a limit to the speed of light, how quickly can something think if you re needing to broadcast across the solar system?
10
SPEAKER_00
It s going to be slow.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s not going to hold a conversation with you on the kind of timelines that Fred Hoyle was imagining, or at least not by any easy way of doing it, assuming that the speed of light is a limit.
10
SPEAKER_00
And then again, you really can t.
10
SPEAKER_00
This is something Richard Dawkins argued long ago, and I do think he s right.
10
SPEAKER_00
There is no other way to generate this level of complexity than natural selection.
10
SPEAKER_00
Nothing else can do it.
10
SPEAKER_00
You need populations.
10
SPEAKER_00
And you need selection in populations and kind of an isolated interstellar cloud.
10
SPEAKER_00
Again, it s unlimited time and maybe there s no problems with distance, but you need to have a certain frequency of generational time to generate a serious level of complexity.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I just have a feeling it s never going to work.
10
SPEAKER_01
Well, as far as we know, so natural selection, evolution is a really powerful tool here on Earth, but there could be other mechanisms.
10
SPEAKER_01
So whenever, I don t know if you re familiar with cellular automata, but complex systems that have really simple components and seemingly move based on simple rules when they re taken as a whole, really interesting complexity emerges.
10
SPEAKER_01
I don t know what the pressures on that are.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s not really selection, but interesting complexity seems to emerge, and that s not well understood exactly why that complexity emerges.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think there s a difference between complexity and evolution.
10
SPEAKER_00
So some of the work we re doing on the origin of life is thinking about how does
10
SPEAKER_00
Well, how do genes arise?
10
SPEAKER_00
How does information arise in biology?
10
SPEAKER_00
Thinking about it from the point of view of reacting CO2 with hydrogen, what do you get?
10
SPEAKER_00
Well, what you re going to get is carboxylic acids, then amino acids.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s quite hard to make nucleotides.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s possible to make them, and it s been done, and it s been done following this pathway as well.
10
SPEAKER_00
But you make trace amounts.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so the next question, assuming that this is the right way of seeing the question, which maybe it s just not, but let s assume it is, is, well, how do you reliably make more nucleotides?
10
SPEAKER_00
And how do you become more complex and better at becoming a nucleotide generating machine?
10
SPEAKER_00
And the answer is, well, you need positive feedback loops.
10
SPEAKER_00
some form of autocatalysis.
10
SPEAKER_00
So that can work, and we know it happens in biology.
10
SPEAKER_00
If this nucleotide, for example, catalyzes CO2 fixation, then you re going to increase the rate of flux through the whole system, and you re going to effectively steepen the driving force to make more nucleotides.
10
SPEAKER_00
And this can be inherited because there are forms of membrane heredity that you can have.
10
SPEAKER_00
And effectively, if a cell divides in two and it s got a lot of stuff inside it, and that stuff is basically bound as a network which is capable of regenerating itself, then it will inevitably regenerate itself.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so you can develop greater complexity
10
SPEAKER_00
But everything that I ve said depends on the underlying rules of thermodynamics.
10
SPEAKER_00
There is no evolvability about that.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s simply an inevitable outcome of your starting point, assuming that you re able to increase the driving force through the system.
10
SPEAKER_00
You will generate more of the same.
10
SPEAKER_00
You ll expand on what you can do, but you ll never get anything different than that.
10
SPEAKER_00
And it s only when you introduce information into that as a gene, as a kind of small stretch of RNA, which can be random stretch, then you get real evolvability, then you get biology as we know it, but you also have selection as we know it.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, I don t know how to think about information
10
SPEAKER_01
That s a kind of memory of the system.
10
SPEAKER_01
So it s not, yeah, at the local level, it s propagation of copying yourself and changing and improving your adaptability to the environment.
10
SPEAKER_01
But if you look at Earth as a whole, it has a kind of memory.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s the key feature of it.
10
SPEAKER_00
In what way?
10
SPEAKER_01
It remembers the stuff it tries.
10
SPEAKER_01
Like if you were to describe Earth
10
SPEAKER_01
I think evolution is something that we experience as individual organisms.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s how the individual organisms interact with each other.
10
SPEAKER_01
There s a natural selection.
10
SPEAKER_01
But when you look at Earth as an organism in its entirety, how would you describe it?
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean- Well, not as an organism.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the idea of Gaia is lovely, and James Lovelock originally put Gaia out as an organism that had somehow evolved, and he was immediately attacked by lots of people.
10
SPEAKER_00
And he s not wrong, but he backpedaled somewhat because that was more of a poetic vision than the science.
10
SPEAKER_00
The science is now called earth systems science, and it s really about how does the world kind
11
SPEAKER_01
so it remains within the limits which are hospitable to life, and it does it amazingly well.
11
SPEAKER_01
And it is working at a planetary level of kind of integration of regulation.
11
SPEAKER_01
But it s not evolving by natural selection, and it can t because there s only one of it.
11
SPEAKER_01
And so it can change over time, but it s not evolving.
11
SPEAKER_01
All the evolution is happening in the parts of the system.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but it s a self-sustaining organism.
11
SPEAKER_00
What do you mean?
11
SPEAKER_01
No, it s sustained by the sun.
11
SPEAKER_00
Right, so you don t think it s possible to see Earth as its own organism?
11
SPEAKER_01
I think it s poetic and beautiful, and I often refer to the Earth as a living planet.
11
SPEAKER_01
But it s not, in biological terms, an organism, no.
11
SPEAKER_00
If aliens were to visit Earth, what would they notice?
11
SPEAKER_00
What would be the basic unit of light they would notice?
11
SPEAKER_01
Trees, probably.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s green, and it s green and blue.
11
SPEAKER_01
I think that s the first thing you d notice.
11
SPEAKER_01
It stands out from space as being different to any of the other planets.
11
SPEAKER_00
So it d notice the trees at first, because the green.
11
SPEAKER_00
Well, I would.
11
SPEAKER_01
I d notice the green, yes.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
11
SPEAKER_00
and then probably figure out the photosynthesis.
11
SPEAKER_01
Probably noticed cities a second, I suspect.
11
SPEAKER_01
They arrived at night, they noticed cities first, that s for sure.
11
SPEAKER_00
It depends the time.
11
SPEAKER_00
You write quite beautifully in Transformers, once again.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think you opened the book in this way, I don t remember.
11
SPEAKER_00
From space, describing Earth, it s such an interesting idea of what Earth is.
11
SPEAKER_00
You also, I mean, Hitchhiker s Guide summarizing it is harmless, or mostly harmless, which is a beautifully poetic thing.
11
SPEAKER_00
You open Transformers with, from space, it looks gray and crystalline.
11
SPEAKER_00
obliterating the blue-green colors of the living earth.
11
SPEAKER_00
It is crisscrossed by irregular patterns and convergent striations.
11
SPEAKER_00
There s a central amorphous density where these scratches seem lighter.
11
SPEAKER_00
This, quote, growth does not look alive, although it has extended out along some lines and there is something grasping and parasitic about it.
11
SPEAKER_00
Across the globe, there are thousands of them, varying in shape and detail, but all of them gray, angular, inorganic, spreading.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yet, at night, they light up.
11
SPEAKER_00
glowing up the dark sky, suddenly beautiful.
11
SPEAKER_00
Perhaps these cankers on the landscape are in some sense living.
11
SPEAKER_00
There s a controlled flow of energy.
11
SPEAKER_00
There must be information and some form of metabolism, some turnover of materials.
11
SPEAKER_00
Are they alive?
11
SPEAKER_00
No, of course not.
11
SPEAKER_00
They are cities.
11
SPEAKER_00
So is there some sense that cities are living beings?
11
SPEAKER_00
You think aliens would think of them as living beings?
11
SPEAKER_01
Well, it d be easy to see it that way, wouldn t it?
11
SPEAKER_00
It wakes up at night, they wake up at night.
11
SPEAKER_01
Strictly nocturnal, yes.
11
SPEAKER_01
I imagine that any aliens that are smart enough to get here would understand that they re not living beings.
11
SPEAKER_01
My reason for saying that is that we tend to think of biology in terms of information and forget about the cells.
11
SPEAKER_01
I was trying to draw a comparison between the cell as a city and the energy flow through the city and the energy flow through cells and the turnover of materials.
11
SPEAKER_01
An interesting thing about cities is that they re not really exactly governed by anybody.
11
SPEAKER_01
There are regulations and systems and whatever else, but it s pretty loose.
11
SPEAKER_01
They have their own life, their own way of developing over time.
11
SPEAKER_01
And in that sense, they re quite biological.
11
SPEAKER_01
There was a plan after the Great Fire of London.
11
SPEAKER_01
Christopher Wren was making plans not only for St.
11
SPEAKER_01
Paul s Cathedral, but also to rebuild in large Parisian type boulevards, a large part of the area of central London that was burnt.
11
SPEAKER_01
And it never happened because they didn t have enough money, I think.
11
SPEAKER_01
But it s interesting what was in the plan.
11
SPEAKER_01
There were all these boulevards, but there were no pubs and no coffee houses or anything like that.
11
SPEAKER_01
And the reality was London just kind of
11
SPEAKER_01
grew up in a set of jumbled streets.
11
SPEAKER_01
And it was the coffee houses and the pubs where all the business of the city of London was being done.
11
SPEAKER_01
And that was where the real life of the city was.
11
SPEAKER_01
And no one had planned it.
11
SPEAKER_01
The whole thing was unplanned and works much better that way.
11
SPEAKER_01
And in that sense, a cell is completely unplanned.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s not controlled by the genes in the nucleus in the way that we might like to think that it is.
11
SPEAKER_01
evolved entity that has the same kind of flux, the same animation, the same life.
11
SPEAKER_01
So I think it s a beautiful analogy, but I wouldn t get too stuck with it as a metaphor.
11
SPEAKER_00
See, I disagree with you.
11
SPEAKER_00
I disagree with you.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think you are so steeped, and actually the entirety of science, the history of science is steeped in a biological framework of thinking about what is life.
11
SPEAKER_00
And not just biological, it s very human-centric, too.
11
SPEAKER_00
That the human organism is the epitome of life.
11
SPEAKER_00
On Earth, I don t know.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think there is some deep fundamental way in which a city is a living being in the same way that a human individual can be.
11
SPEAKER_01
But it doesn t give rise to an offspring city.
11
SPEAKER_01
So, I mean, it doesn t work by natural selection, it works by, if anything, memes.
11
SPEAKER_01
It works by copying itself conceptually as a mode of being.
11
SPEAKER_00
So, I mean, maybe memes, maybe ideas are the organisms that are really essential to life on Earth.
11
SPEAKER_00
Maybe it s much more important about the collective aspect of human nature, the collective intelligence, than the individual intelligence.
11
SPEAKER_00
Maybe the collective humanity is the organism, and the thing that defines the collective intelligence of humanity is the ideas, and maybe the way that manifests itself is cities.
11
SPEAKER_00
maybe, or societies, or geographically concentrated societies, or nations, and all that kind of stuff.
11
SPEAKER_00
I mean, from an alien perspective, it s possible that that is the more deeply noticeable thing, not from a place of ignorance.
11
SPEAKER_01
Yes, but what s noticeable doesn t tell you how it works.
11
SPEAKER_01
I think, I mean, I don t have any problem with what you re saying really, except that it s not possible without the humans.
11
SPEAKER_01
You know, we went from a hunter-gatherer type economy, if you like, without cities, through to cities.
11
SPEAKER_01
And as soon as we get into human evolution and culture and society and so on, then yes, there are other forms of evolution.
11
SPEAKER_01
are the forms of change.
11
SPEAKER_01
But cities don t directly propagate themselves, they propagate themselves through human societies, and human societies only exist because humans as individuals propagate themselves.
11
SPEAKER_01
So there is a hierarchy there, and without the humans in the first place, none of the rest of it exists.
11
SPEAKER_00
So to you, life is primarily defined by the basic unit on which evolution can operate.
11
SPEAKER_01
I think it s a really important thing, yes.
11
SPEAKER_00
And we don t know, we don t have any other better ideas than evolution for how to create life.
11
SPEAKER_01
I never came across a better idea than evolution.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, maybe I m just ignorant and I don t know.
11
SPEAKER_01
And there s, you know, you mentioned there s no automator and so on.
11
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think specifically about that, but I have thought about it in terms of selective units of the origin of life.
11
SPEAKER_01
the difference between evolvability and complexity, or just increasing complexity, but within very narrowly defined limits.
11
SPEAKER_01
The great thing about genes and about selection is it just knocks down all those limits.
11
SPEAKER_01
It gives you a world of information in the end which is limited only by
11
SPEAKER_01
the biophysical reality of what kind of an organism you are, what kind of a planet you live on, and so on.
11
SPEAKER_01
And cities and all these other forms that look alive and could be described as alive, because they can t propagate themselves, can only exist as the product of something that did propagate itself.
11
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
11
SPEAKER_00
I mean, there s a deeply compelling truth to that kind of way of looking at things, but I just hope that we don t miss the giant cloud among us.
11
SPEAKER_01
I kind of hope that I m wrong about a lot of this, because I can t say that my worldview is particularly uplifting, but in some sense, it doesn t matter if it s uplifting or not.
11
SPEAKER_01
Science is about what s reality, what s out there, why is it this way?
11
SPEAKER_01
And I think there s beauty in that too.
11
SPEAKER_00
There s beauty in darkness.
11
SPEAKER_00
You write about life and death sort of at the biological level.
11
SPEAKER_00
Does the question of suicide, why live, does the question of why the human mind is capable of depression, are you able to
11
SPEAKER_00
introspect that from a place of biology?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why our minds, why we humans can go to such dark places?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why can we commit suicide?
11
SPEAKER_00
Why can we go, you know, suffer?
11
SPEAKER_00
Suffer, period, but also suffer from a feeling of meaninglessness, of going to a dark place that depression can take you.
11
SPEAKER_00
Is this a feature of life or is it a bug?
11
SPEAKER_01
I don t know.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, if it s a feature of life, then I suppose it would have to be true of other organisms as well.
11
SPEAKER_01
And I don t know.
11
SPEAKER_01
We were talking about dogs earlier on, and they can certainly be very sad and upset and may mooch for days after their owner died or something like that.
11
SPEAKER_01
So I suspect in some sense it s a feature of biology.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s probably a feature of mortality.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s probably a
11
SPEAKER_01
But beyond all of that, I mean, I guess there s two ways you could come at it.
11
SPEAKER_01
One of them would be to say, well, you can effectively do the math and come to the conclusion that it s all pointless, and that there s really no point in me being here any longer.
11
SPEAKER_01
And maybe that s true.
11
SPEAKER_01
In the greater scheme of things, you can justify yourself in terms of society, but society will be gone soon enough as well, and you end up with a very bleak place just by logic.
11
SPEAKER_00
In some sense, it s surprising that we can find any meaning at all.
11
SPEAKER_01
Well, maybe this is where consciousness comes in, that we have transient joy, but with transient joy, we have transient misery as well.
11
SPEAKER_01
And sometimes, with everything in biology, getting the regulation right is practically impossible.
11
SPEAKER_01
You will always have a bell-shaped curve where some people, unfortunately, are at the joy end and some people are at the misery end.
11
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, that s the way brains are wired.
11
SPEAKER_01
I doubt there s ever an escape from that.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s the same with sex and everything else as well.
11
SPEAKER_01
We re dealing with, you know, you can t regulate it, so anything goes.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s all part of biology.
11
SPEAKER_00
Amen to that.
11
SPEAKER_00
Let me, on writing.
11
SPEAKER_00
in your book, Power, Sex, and Suicide.
11
SPEAKER_00
First of all, can I just read off the books you ve written?
11
SPEAKER_00
If there s any better titles and topics to be covered, I don t know what they are.
11
SPEAKER_00
It makes me look forward to whatever you re going to write next.
11
SPEAKER_00
I hope there s things you write next.
11
SPEAKER_00
So first you wrote Oxygen, the Molecule that Made the World, as we ve talked about this idea of the role of oxygen in life on Earth.
11
SPEAKER_00
Then, wait for it, Power, Sex, Suicide, Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life.
11
SPEAKER_00
Then Life Ascending, the 10 Great Inventions of Evolution.
11
SPEAKER_00
The Vital Question, the first book I ve read of yours.
11
SPEAKER_00
The Vital Question, Why is Life the Way It Is?
11
SPEAKER_00
And the new book, Transformer, The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death.
11
SPEAKER_00
In Power, Sex, and Suicide, you write about writing, or about a lot of things, but I have a question about writing.
11
SPEAKER_00
You write, in The Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy, Ford Perfect spends 15 years researching his revision to the guide s entry on the Earth, which originally read harmless.
11
SPEAKER_00
By the way, I would also as a side quest, as a side question, would like to ask you what would be your summary of what Earth is?
11
SPEAKER_00
You re right, his long essay on the subject is edited down by the guy to read mostly harmless.
11
SPEAKER_00
I suspect that too many new additions suffer similar fate.
11
SPEAKER_00
if not through absurd editing decisions, at least through a lack of meaningful change in content.
11
SPEAKER_00
As it happens, nearly 15 years have passed since the first edition of Power Sex Suicide was published, and I am resisting the temptation to make any lame revisions.
11
SPEAKER_00
Some say that even Darwin lessened the power of his arguments in The Origin of Species through his multiple revisions, in which he dealt with criticisms and sometimes shifted his views in the wrong direction.
11
SPEAKER_00
I prefer my original to speak for itself, even if it turns out to be wrong.
11
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask the question about writing, both your students in the academic setting, but also writing some of the most brilliant writings on science and humanity I ve ever read.
11
SPEAKER_00
What s the process of writing?
11
SPEAKER_00
How do you advise other humans?
11
SPEAKER_00
If you were to talk to young Darwin or the young you,
11
SPEAKER_00
and just young anybody and give advice about how to write and how to write well about these big topics, what would you say?
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I suppose there s a couple of points.
11
SPEAKER_01
One of them is, what s the story?
11
SPEAKER_01
What do I want to know?
11
SPEAKER_01
What do I want to convey?
11
SPEAKER_01
Why does it matter to anybody?
11
SPEAKER_01
And very often the biggest, most interesting questions, the childlike questions are the one that actually everybody wants to ask but don t quite do it in case they look stupid.
11
SPEAKER_01
And one of the nice things about being in science is the longer you re in, the more you realize that everybody doesn t know the answer to these questions and it s not so stupid to ask them after all.
11
SPEAKER_01
So trying to ask the questions that
11
SPEAKER_01
I would have been asking myself at the age of 15, 16, when I was really hungry to know about the world and didn t know very much about it, and wanted to go to the edge of what we know, but be helped to get there.
11
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to be too much terminology, and so I want someone to keep a clean eye on what the question is.
11
SPEAKER_01
Beyond that,
11
SPEAKER_01
I ve wondered a lot about who am I writing for?
11
SPEAKER_01
And that was in the end, the only answer I had was myself at the age of 15 or 16.
11
SPEAKER_01
Because even if you re, you just don t know who s reading, but also where are they reading it?
11
SPEAKER_01
Are they reading it in the bath or in bed or on the metro, or are they listening to an audiobook?
11
SPEAKER_01
Do you want to have a recapitulation every few pages because you read three pages at a time, or are you really irritated by that?
11
SPEAKER_01
You re going to get criticism from people who are irritated by what you re doing, and you don t know who they are or what you re going to do that s going to irritate people.
11
SPEAKER_01
In the end, all you can do is just try and
11
SPEAKER_01
please yourself.
11
SPEAKER_01
And that means, well, what are these big, fun, fascinating, big questions?
11
SPEAKER_01
And what do we know about it?
11
SPEAKER_01
And can I convey that?
11
SPEAKER_01
And I kind of learned in trying to write, first of all,
11
SPEAKER_01
say what we know.
11
SPEAKER_01
And I was shocked in the first couple of books how often I came up quickly against all the stuff we don t know.
11
SPEAKER_01
And if you re trying to, I ve realized later on in supervising various physicists and mathematicians who are PhD students, their maths is way beyond what I can do.
11
SPEAKER_01
But the process of trying to work out, what are we actually going to model here?
11
SPEAKER_01
What s going into this equation?
11
SPEAKER_01
It s a very similar one to writing.
11
SPEAKER_01
What am I going to put on a page?
11
SPEAKER_01
What s the simplest possible way I can encapsulate this idea so that I now have it as a unit that I can kind of see
12
SPEAKER_01
how it interacts with the other units.
12
SPEAKER_01
And you realize that, well, if this is like that and this is like this, then that can t be true.
12
SPEAKER_01
So you end up navigating your own path through this landscape.
12
SPEAKER_01
And that can be thrilling because you don t know where it s going.
12
SPEAKER_01
And I d like to think that that s one of the reasons my books have worked for people because this sense of thrilling adventure ride, I don t know where it s going either.
12
SPEAKER_00
So finding the simplest possible way to explain the things we know, and the simplest possible way to explain the things we don t know, and the tension between those two, and that s where the story emerges.
12
SPEAKER_00
What about the edit?
12
SPEAKER_00
Do you find yourself to the point of this, you know, editing doubt to mostly harmless?
12
SPEAKER_00
To arrive at simplicity, do you find the edit is productive or does it destroy the magic that was originally there?
12
SPEAKER_01
No, I usually find, I think I m perhaps a better editor than I am a writer.
12
SPEAKER_01
I write and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite.
12
SPEAKER_00
So you put a bunch of crap on the page first and then see where, edit where it takes you.
12
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but then there s the professional editors who come along as well.
12
SPEAKER_01
And I mean, in Transformer,
12
SPEAKER_01
The editor came back to me after I d sent him two months after I sent the first edition, he d read the whole thing and he said, the first two chapters prevent a formidable hurdle to the general reader.
12
SPEAKER_01
Go and do something about it.
12
SPEAKER_01
And it was the last thing I really wanted to do.
12
SPEAKER_00
Your editor sounds very eloquent in speech.
12
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, well, this was an email, but I thought about it and the bottom line is he was right.
12
SPEAKER_01
And so I put the whole thing aside for about two months and spent the summer.
12
SPEAKER_01
This would have been, I guess, last summer.
12
SPEAKER_01
And then turned to it with full attention in about September or something and rewrote those chapters almost from scratch.
12
SPEAKER_01
I kept some of the material.
12
SPEAKER_01
It took me a long time to process it, to work out what needs to change, where does it need to change.
12
SPEAKER_01
I wasn t writing in this time.
12
SPEAKER_01
How am I going to tell this story better so it s more accessible and interesting?
12
SPEAKER_01
And in the end, I think it worked.
12
SPEAKER_01
It s still difficult.
12
SPEAKER_01
It s still biochemistry.
12
SPEAKER_01
But he ended up saying, now he s got a barreling energy to it.
12
SPEAKER_01
Because he d told me the truth the first time, I decided to believe that he was telling me the truth the second time as well and was delighted.
12
SPEAKER_00
Could you give advice to young people in general, folks in high school, folks in college, how to take on some of the big questions you ve taken on?
12
SPEAKER_00
Now, you ve done that in the space of biology and expanded out.
12
SPEAKER_00
How can they have a career they can be proud of or have a life they can be proud of?
12
SPEAKER_01
Gosh, that s a big question.
12
SPEAKER_00
I m sure you ve gathered some wisdom that you can impart.
12
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so the only advice that I actually ever give to my students is follow what you re interested in.
12
SPEAKER_01
because they re often worried that if they make this decision now and do this course instead of that course, then they re gonna restrict their career opportunities.
12
SPEAKER_01
And there isn t a career path in science.
12
SPEAKER_01
It s not, I mean, there is, but there isn t.
12
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of competition.
12
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of death, symbolically.
12
SPEAKER_01
So who survives?
12
SPEAKER_01
The people who survive are the people who care enough to still do it.
12
SPEAKER_01
They re very often the people who don t worry too much about the future and are able to live in the present.
12
SPEAKER_01
Because if you do a PhD, you ve competed hard to get onto the PhD, then you have to compete hard to get a post-doc job.
12
SPEAKER_01
and you have the next bomb maybe on another continent, and it s only two years anyway, and there s no guarantee you re gonna get a faculty position at the end of it.
12
SPEAKER_00
So- And there s always the next step to compete.
12
SPEAKER_00
If you get a faculty position, you get a tenure, and with tenure you go full professor, full professor, then you go to some kind of, whatever the discipline is, there s an award.
12
SPEAKER_00
If you re in physics, you re always competing for the Nobel Prize, there s different awards.
12
SPEAKER_00
And then eventually you re all competing
12
SPEAKER_00
I mean, there s always a competition.
12
SPEAKER_01
So there is no happiness.
12
SPEAKER_01
Happiness does not lie.
12
SPEAKER_00
If you re looking into the future, yes.
12
SPEAKER_01
And if what you re caring about is a career, then it s probably not the one for you.
12
SPEAKER_01
If, though, you can put that aside, and I ve also worked in industry for a brief period, and I was made redundant twice, so I know that there s no guarantee that you ve got a career that way either.
12
SPEAKER_01
So live in the moment.
12
SPEAKER_01
and try and enjoy what you re doing.
12
SPEAKER_01
And that means really go to the themes that you re most interested in and try and follow them as well as you can.
12
SPEAKER_01
And that tends to pay back in surprising ways.
12
SPEAKER_01
I don t know if you ve found this as well, but I found that people will help you often.
12
SPEAKER_01
If they see some light shining in the eye, you re excited about their subject and just want to talk about it.
12
SPEAKER_01
And they know that their friend in California has got a job coming up, they ll say, go for this.
12
SPEAKER_01
This guy s all right.
12
SPEAKER_01
They ll use the network to help you out if you really care.
12
SPEAKER_01
And you re not going to have a job two years down the line, but if what you really care about is what you re doing now,
12
SPEAKER_01
then it doesn t matter if you have a job in two years time or not.
12
SPEAKER_01
It ll work itself out if you ve got the light in your eye.
12
SPEAKER_01
And so that s the only advice I can give.
12
SPEAKER_01
And most people probably drop out through that system because the fight is just not worth it for them.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, when you have the light in your eye, when you have the excitement for the thing, what happens is you start to surround yourself with others that are interested in that same thing, that also have the light.
12
SPEAKER_00
If you really are rigorous about this, because I think it does take, it doesn t, it takes effort.
12
SPEAKER_01
Oh, you ve got to be obsessive.
12
SPEAKER_01
But if you re doing what you really love doing, then it s not work anymore, it s what you do.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but I also mean the surrounding yourself with other people that are obsessed about the same thing.
12
SPEAKER_00
Oh, that takes some work as well, yes.
12
SPEAKER_00
And luck.
12
SPEAKER_00
Finding the right mentors, the collaborators, because I think one of the problem with the PhD process is people are not careful enough in picking their mentors.
12
SPEAKER_00
Those are people
12
SPEAKER_00
mentors and colleagues and so on.
12
SPEAKER_00
Those are people who are gonna define the direction of your life, how much you love a thing.
12
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the power of just like the few little conversations you have in the hallway, it s incredible.
12
SPEAKER_00
So you have to be a little bit careful in that.
12
SPEAKER_00
Sometimes you just get randomly almost assigned really,
12
SPEAKER_00
pursue, I suppose, the subject as much as you pursue the people that do that subject.
12
SPEAKER_00
So, like, both, the whole dance of it.
12
SPEAKER_01
They kind of go together, really.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, they really do.
12
SPEAKER_00
But take that part seriously.
12
SPEAKER_00
And probably, in the way you re describing it,
12
SPEAKER_01
careful how you define success, because... You ll never find happiness in success, I don t think.
12
SPEAKER_01
There s a lovely quote from Robert Louis Stevenson, I think, who said, nothing in life is so disenchanting as attainment.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so I mean, in some sense, the true definition of success is,
12
SPEAKER_00
getting to do today what you really enjoy doing, just what fills you with joy, and that s ultimately success.
12
SPEAKER_00
So success isn t the thing beyond the horizon, the big trophy, the financials.
12
SPEAKER_01
I think it s as close as we can get to happiness.
12
SPEAKER_01
That s not to say you re full of joy all the time, but it s as close as we can get to a sustained human happiness is by getting some fulfillment from what you re doing on a daily basis.
12
SPEAKER_01
And if what you re looking for is
12
SPEAKER_01
the world giving you the stamp of approval with a Nobel Prize or a fellowship or whatever it is, then, you know, I ve known people like this who they re eaten away by the anger, the kind of caustic resentment that they ve not been awarded this prize that they deserve.
12
SPEAKER_00
And the other way, if you put too much value into those kinds of prizes and you win them, I ve gotten a chance to see that it also
12
SPEAKER_00
The more quote-unquote successful you are in that sense, the more you run the danger of growing an ego so big that you don t get to actually enjoy the beauty of this life.
12
SPEAKER_00
You start to believe that you figured it all out, as opposed to, I think what ultimately the most fun thing is, is being curious about everything around you, being constantly surprised, and these little moments of discovery, of enjoying.
12
SPEAKER_00
Enjoying beauty in small and big ways all around you.
12
SPEAKER_00
And I think the bigger your ego grows, the more you start to take yourself seriously, the less you re able to enjoy that.
12
SPEAKER_00
Amen to that, I couldn t agree more.
12
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, the summary from harmless to mostly harmless.
12
SPEAKER_00
in Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy, how would you try to summarize Earth?
12
SPEAKER_00
And if you were given, if you had to summarize the whole thing in a couple of sentences, and maybe throw in meaning of life in there, like what, why, why?
12
SPEAKER_00
Why?
12
SPEAKER_00
Maybe, is that a defining thing about humans that we care about the meaning?
12
SPEAKER_00
of the whole thing.
12
SPEAKER_00
I wonder if that should be part of the... These creatures seem to be very lost.
12
SPEAKER_01
Yes, they re always asking why.
12
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s my defining question is why.
12
SPEAKER_01
People used to make a joke.
12
SPEAKER_01
I have a small scar on my forehead from a climbing accident years ago.
12
SPEAKER_01
And the guy I was climbing with had dislodged a rock and he d shouted something.
12
SPEAKER_01
He shouted below, I think, meaning that the rock was coming down.
12
SPEAKER_01
And I hadn t caught what he said, so I looked up and it smashed straight on my forehead.
12
SPEAKER_01
And everybody around me took the piss saying, he looked up to ask why.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but that s a human imperative.
12
SPEAKER_00
That s part of what it means to be human.
12
SPEAKER_00
Look up to the sky and ask why.
12
SPEAKER_01
So your question, define the earth.
12
SPEAKER_01
I m not sure I can do that.
12
SPEAKER_01
I mean, the first word that comes to mind is living.
12
SPEAKER_01
I wouldn t like to say mostly living, but perhaps.
12
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s interesting, because if you were to write The Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy, I suppose, say our idea that we talked about, that bacteria is the most prominent form of life throughout the galaxy and the universe,
12
SPEAKER_00
I suppose that Earth would be kind of unique and would require... It requires abundance in that case.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
12
SPEAKER_01
It s profligate, it s rich, it s enormously, enormously living.
12
SPEAKER_00
So how would you describe that it s not bacteria, it s... Eukaryotic.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
12
SPEAKER_01
Well, I mean, that s the technical term, but it is basically it s… Yeah, and then… How would I describe that?
12
SPEAKER_01
I ve actually really struggled with that term because the word… I mean, there s few words quite as good as eukaryotic to put everybody off immediately.
12
SPEAKER_01
You start using words like that and they ll leave the room.
12
SPEAKER_01
A Krebs cycle is another one that gets people to leave the room.
12
SPEAKER_01
But so I ve tried to think, is there another word for eukaryotic that I can use?
12
SPEAKER_01
And really the only word that I ve been able to use is complex, complex cells, complex life and so on.
12
SPEAKER_01
And that word, it serves one immediate purpose, which is to convey an impression.
12
SPEAKER_01
But then it means so many different things to everybody that actually is lost immediately.
12
SPEAKER_01
And so it s a kind of,
12
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s a noticeable, from the perspective of other planets, that is a noticeable phase transition of complexity, is the eukaryotic.
12
SPEAKER_00
What about the harmless and the mostly harmless?
12
SPEAKER_00
Is that kind of?
12
SPEAKER_01
Probably accurate on a universal kind of scale.
12
SPEAKER_01
I don t think that humanity is in any danger of disturbing the universe at the moment.
12
SPEAKER_00
at the moment, which is why the mostly, we don t know.
12
SPEAKER_00
Depends what Elon is up to.
12
SPEAKER_00
Depends how many rockets.
12
SPEAKER_01
I think... It ll be still even then a while, I think, before we disturb the fabric of time and space.
12
SPEAKER_00
Was the aforementioned Andrej Karpathy, I think he summarized Earth as...
12
SPEAKER_00
as a system where you hammer it with a bunch of photons, the input is like photons and the output is rockets.
12
SPEAKER_01
Well that s a hell of a lot of photons before it was a rocket launch.
12
SPEAKER_00
But maybe in the span of the universe, it s not that much time.
12
SPEAKER_00
And I do wonder what the future is, whether we re just in the early beginnings of this Earth, which is important when you try to summarize it, or we re at the end, where humans have finally gained the ability to destroy the entirety of this beautiful project we ve got going on.
12
SPEAKER_00
Now with nuclear weapons, with engineered viruses, with all those kinds of things.
12
SPEAKER_01
Or just inadvertently through global warming and pollution and so on.
12
SPEAKER_01
We re quite capable of that.
12
SPEAKER_00
I mean, we just need to pass the tipping point.
12
SPEAKER_01
Quickly or slowly.
12
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think we re more likely to do it inadvertently than through a nuclear war, which could happen at any time.
12
SPEAKER_01
But my fear is we just don t know where the tipping points are and we will,
12
SPEAKER_01
We kind of think we re smart enough to fix the problem quickly if we really need to.
12
SPEAKER_01
I think that s the overriding assumption.
12
SPEAKER_01
We re all right for now.
12
SPEAKER_01
Maybe in 20 years time, it s going to be a calamitous problem, and then we ll really need to put some serious mental power into fixing it without seriously worrying that perhaps that is too late and that however brilliant we are, we missed the boat.
12
SPEAKER_00
And just walk off the cliff.
12
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
12
SPEAKER_00
I have optimism in humans being clever.
12
SPEAKER_00
descendants.
12
SPEAKER_01
Oh, I have no doubt that we can fix the problem, but it s an urgent problem.
12
SPEAKER_01
We need to fix it pretty sharpish.
12
SPEAKER_01
And I do have doubts about whether politically we are capable of coming together enough to, not just in any one country, but around the planet.
12
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I know we can do it, but do we have the will?
12
SPEAKER_01
Do we have the vision to accomplish it?
12
SPEAKER_00
That s what makes this whole ride fun.
12
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
12
SPEAKER_00
Not only do we not know if we can handle the crises before us, we don t even know all the crises that are gonna be before us in the next 20 years.
12
SPEAKER_00
The ones I think that will most likely challenge us,
12
SPEAKER_00
in the 21st century are the ones we don t even expect.
12
SPEAKER_00
People didn t expect World War II at the end of World War I. Well, some folks did, but not at the end of World War I, but by the late 1920s, I think people were beginning to worry about it.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, no, there s always people worrying about everything.
12
SPEAKER_00
So if you focus on the thing that- People worry about, yes.
12
SPEAKER_00
Because there s a million things people worry about, and 99.99999% of them don t come to be.
12
SPEAKER_00
Of course, the people that turn out to be right, they ll say, I knew all along, but that s not an accurate way of knowing what you could have predicted.
12
SPEAKER_00
I think, rationally speaking, you can worry about it, but nobody thought you could have another world war
12
SPEAKER_00
The war to end all wars, why would you have another war?
12
SPEAKER_00
And the idea of nuclear weapons, just technologically, is a very difficult thing to anticipate.
12
SPEAKER_00
To create a weapon that just jumps orders of magnitude and destructive capability.
12
SPEAKER_00
And of course we can intuit all the things like engineered viruses, nanobots, artificial intelligence,
12
SPEAKER_00
yes, all the different complicated global effects of global warming.
12
SPEAKER_00
So how that changes the allocation of resources, the flow of energy, the tension between countries, the military conflict between countries, the reallocation of power, then looking at the role of China in this whole thing with
13
SPEAKER_00
to Russia and growing influence of Africa and the weird dynamics of Europe.
13
SPEAKER_00
And then America falling apart through the political division fueled by recommender systems through Twitter and Facebook.
13
SPEAKER_00
The whole beautiful mess is just fun.
13
SPEAKER_00
And I think there s a lot of incredible engineers, incredible scientists, incredible human beings.
13
SPEAKER_00
that while everyone is bickering and so on online for the fun of it on the weekends, they re actually trying to build solutions and those are the people that will create something beautiful.
13
SPEAKER_00
At least I have, you know, that s the process of evolution.
13
SPEAKER_00
It all started with Chuck Norris,
13
SPEAKER_00
a single cell organism that went out from the vents and was the parent to all of us.
13
SPEAKER_00
And for that guy or lady or both, I guess, is a big thank you and I can t wait to what happens next.
13
SPEAKER_00
And I m glad there s incredible humans writing and studying it like you are, Nick.
13
SPEAKER_00
It s a huge honor.
13
SPEAKER_00
that you would talk to me.
13
SPEAKER_00
This is really amazing.
13
SPEAKER_00
I can t wait to read what you write next.
13
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for existing.
13
SPEAKER_00
And thank you for talking today.
13
SPEAKER_00
Thank you.
13
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Nick Lane.
13
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
13
SPEAKER_00
And now let me leave you with some words from Steve Jobs.
13
SPEAKER_00
I think the biggest innovations of the 21st century will be at the intersection of biology and technology.
13
SPEAKER_00
A new era is beginning.
13
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening.
13
SPEAKER_00
I hope to see you next time.