Neuralink news and the future of longevity science.

S1E15 | Highlights and impact of this week's top tech themes.

Hi, Friends —

Welcome to [our digital disco]! I’m excited to have you here. Keep scrolling for this week’s key themes in biotech and spyware news. You can also check out last week’s newsletter here.

✰ Exciting Announcement! ✰

Last week I published a guest post for AI Supremacy, the #1 AI/ML newsletter by futurist Michael Spencer. The piece is called AI's world order: National security challenges and a new Cold War, & dives into how AI is changing geopolitical dynamics and security. Give it a read!

Notable Themes

☞ Neuralink received FDA approval for an in-human clinical study.

Elon Musk’s biotech startup has been approved to trial Link, its brain implant, to help patients with severe paralysis. Patients will need to undergo major brain surgery to enable the Link system to process brain signals and translate them to an external device — potentially empowering patients to communicate using their minds. The FDA approval for an in-human study arose following many years of lab and [at times, controversial] animal testing.

Elon Musk has touted the potential of Neuralink's device in addressing numerous other conditions, including blindness, paralysis, and depression. His ambitions extend far beyond medical treatment, however. Musk envisions a future where the device transcends its initial purpose, evolving into a "general population device" that seamlessly connects the human mind to powerful supercomputers. Musk contemplates equipping humans with AI to keep up with the technological advancements, and even extract human thoughts.

• Why does it matter? The implications of Neuralink, or similar ventures in the field, extend far beyond medical advancements. Tech-assisted brains deeply challenge our understanding of what it means to be human in an increasingly digital world. Advanced technologies like Neuralink also raise concerns about accessibility and equity. Will this innovation be available to all? Or will only those who can afford it be able to super-charge their minds and memories?

• Pros: If successful, Neuralink’s initial release could revolutionize communication and behavior for individuals with severe paralysis. This would have a wildly transformative impact on those who are currently unable to speak or move freely, restoring their ability to interact with the world. Furthermore, the concept of a "general population device," which connects the human mind to supercomputers, opens up a realm of possibilities. It could enable individuals to access and process information at unprecedented speeds, enhancing cognitive abilities that previously required physical interaction with devices. The latter would have far-reaching implications for education, productivity, and problem-solving.

• Cons: Musk is representative of Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” mentality — which isn’t exactly an ethically sound approach in the field of human health. Many fear he may abuse his power to expedite approvals and release technologies without sufficient controls to avoid damaging or even lethal consequences. Musk’s extravagant endorsement of Neuralink technology, his track record of leading other companies (*ahem* Twitter), and the ethical concerns surrounding Neuralink's experiments (on both animal welfare and future human trials) have sparked considerable concern. I could write many, many pieces about my thoughts and concerns about AI-enabled humans. I’ll leave that for a future post at the end of June. But allow me to note: While rigorous in-person testing is still necessary to make Link available to the wider market, Neuralink has just moved one step closer to getting the FDA’s final seal of approval. And given Musk’s ambitions and reputation, it’s unlikely he will stop with addressing only the most serious of health conditions.

☞ Could a 'longevity state' hold the key to defying aging?

Last month, nearly 800 people gathered in Zuzalu, a pop-up city in Montenegro, to discuss how to leverage science to extend human life — and overcome the challenges faced by this research. Their solution? A “longevity state,” or independent territory to progress in anti-aging research without the tight restrictions of federal laws and regulations. They argue that aging is morally bad, and a problem that needs to be solved. The proposed state would address the challenges of longevity research by offering tax incentives, supporting biohacking, and relaxing regulations on clinical trials.

• Why does it matter? The global population is aging rapidly, with an estimated 1.4B people aged 60+ by 2030, creating a significant market for longevity-focused research and solutions. Investors have taken note; over $12.5B has been invested in longevity companies since 2015. People are interested in both its potential to enhance human performance and well-being, as well as a lucrative market opportunity. (Companies such as Juvenescence, AgeX Therapeuics, and Biosplice Therapeutics are at the forefront of innovative longevity solutions.) Yet efforts to influence lifespan and quality of life are complex and controversial. In many countries, aging isn’t officially recognized as a disease, making it harder for researchers to gain regulatory approval.

• Pros: A more flexible regulatory environment could attract biotech companies to invest in longevity R&D, creating an environment conducive to rapid anti-aging progress. This could open doors to innovative therapies that improve quality of life and alleviate many healthcare burdens. In turn, individuals might receive more opportunities to take charge of their well-being, try out emerging treatments, and optimize their health in novel ways.

• Cons: There are incredibly heavy ethical concerns regarding loosened health R&D regulations. These laws exist to protect people from careless injury or death. Without rigorous scientific validation and adequate oversight, unproven therapies are likely to be used to exploit peoples’ desires for longevity and cause serious health consequences. It becomes easier for companies to make misleading claims, cut corners, and prioritize financial gains, rather than ensuring the safety and effectiveness of their products.

Snacktime

📓 Reading: Plato’s passage on illusions and reality: The Allegory of the Cave.

♬ Listening to: Wired’s recent episode regarding the detection of Pegasus Spyware in a war zone. Pegasus, designed by Israeli cybersecurity company NSO Group, is a software that infects and takes control of mobile devices. The spyware has gained significant attention and controversy due to its alleged use by governments and intelligence agencies to target individuals, including journalists, human rights defenders, and political dissidents.

Pegasus raises serious privacy and human rights issues, as it allows for invasive surveillance and can potentially be used to suppress dissent. In recent years there have been several high-profile cases where Pegasus was allegedly used to target individuals. These cases have shed light on the dangers of powerful surveillance tools and have sparked debates on the need for stricter oversight of the spyware industry.

Next up

✎ Cybersecurity and the future of your digital safety.

✿ As always — any and all feedback is welcome! In the meantime: give someone a hug and say an ‘I love you’ this week. Make the world a little happier.