Mm-hmm.

But today, you know, we know that that boundary is, is a lot more blurry than we thought.

So our point is that you're not truly gone until the brain has deteriorated beyond the point at which some, you know, future technology could repair it.

And if we jump in very early, as early as possible, like preferably seconds after legal death has been declared, and start cooling the patient, introducing various chemicals to protect the cells, and then eventually store them at super cold temperatures, the tissues are gonna be unchanging, just like, you know, we have millions of people walking around today who were cryopreserved as embryos at some point.

We have cryopreserved skin and heart valves and corneas and so on.

So it's just more complex.

We can't re- we can't reverse that process today because it requires a, a very rapid warming, which is difficult in large bodies of tissue.

Is there anything that you're looking to, for the audience to understand more about, you know, preserving people when they die, things that they should be aware of if they're interested in pursuing that, or things that you would caution them about or encourage them about? What are your thoughts there?

Uh, Max More, you're up next.

Yeah.

Good evening.

The resolution before us is, "Let's engineer better human beings." Now, to some of you, that's going to conjure up some worrying images if you've read, you know, Brave New World, uh, This Perfect Day, many of those fictional stories, and that's quite understandable.

That phrase does produce images, but those are misleading images.

Those are bringing up some false associations that we have to, uh, separate from the core issue here.

I support this resolution because to me, better doesn't mean more controlled or standardized or made into some mold.

Give us your closing thoughts on this evening's debate.