Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. And I do think a lot of it is motivated by fear of death, which, you know, yeah, I don't want to die either, especially not anytime soon. But there's a difference between, you know, a healthy fear of death and letting it sort of run your life. But yeah, I mean, Kurzweil basically takes Moore's Law, right? This exponential increase in the number of transistors that you can cram into the same area on a silicon chip and generalizes it and says, oh, you know, this is not just a technological phenomenon that lasted for about 50 years from the late 2020th into the early 21st century. Instead, this is a general trend in technology, something he calls the law of accelerating returns, and not just technology, but actually biology as well. So he traces it back at least as far as the start of life on Earth and in some places, I think, even claims to trace it all the way back to the Big Bang with the organization of inorganic systems as well. He just thinks that there is a trend toward greater complexity and intelligence that runs through absolutely everything and that it's pointing to a time in the very near future. He has repeatedly said the year 2045 is when the singularity arrives and our technology becomes unimaginably advanced. And the evidence he marshals for this is pretty weak. He says, you know, you can pick out particular points of interest in the history of life on Earth and the history of human technology. And when you plot them on a chart, you get, you know, a straight line on a semi-log chart. And so that means that you've got an exponential trend. But the fact is that, you know, those points are cherry-picked. And he's got a problem that I think most of us have when we look at history. You know, unless you work really hard, history looks sort of logarithmic, right? You've got this clearer view of what's been happening in the recent past. And then the more distant past is more distant. And so you can't see it as well. And so you end up with this sort of, you know, logarithmic view of the past that is something that I think Kurzweil is mistaking for a true exponential trend.

Yes. And I think you gave an example in your book that, you know, you could look at, maybe this was Kurzweil's example. You can look at lily pads and then they grow exponentially and then they cover the size of the pond and then that's it. But more broadly, though, there are limits. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, what interests me is that we've spoken to Chomsky about this and he said after Newton exercised the ghost but left the machine intact, you know, that the whole enterprise of science stopped being about trying to understand how the universe actually worked and it was more about making sense of the universe. I mean, David Krakow said to us that science is. Like poetry, you know, it allows us to give the universe meaning and make it make sense to us. But reality is protein, isn't it? So, what Ray Kurzweil did was he selected a bunch of things that were relevant to humans. So, he didn't select, you know, things that might have been more globally important to our success. And then he kind of fitted it on a graph. And this isn't just this is a very natural thing, right? The world is complicated. And to make it make sense, we kind of select things that privilege the way we think about the world.

But I suppose it is a bit of a straw man just to make the sigmoid case. So what they would say is that the actual exponential curve is the stacking of sigmoids. And in technology, whether it's Betamax or whether it's film processing technology, what tends to happen is you get these disruptions. So you find a divergent stepping stone and usually a different people, you know, different group of people situated somewhere else. They find a new way of doing things and it just keeps going.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that's exactly what Kurzweil says. He says, you know, the exponential trend is itself made by a bunch of sigmoid curves and each curve lets you get further up the overall exponential trend. Sure, yes, he does say that. But as I say in the book, there is absolutely no reason why that is something that's always going to happen. And indeed, his own sort of generalization of Moore's Law, when he puts that together, it ignores much of the early history of computing where stuff like that did not happen. If you go back to, you know, analog computation devices from 1,000, 2,000 years ago, they don't fit on his trend. And there's no technology coming up that looks like it's going to save Moore's Law in the future. And that's just one trend. Kurzweil wants to say that those sigmoids save you and get you a continuing exponential trend in every single area of, you know, human technology and human growth. And that's, I'm sorry, just wish casting.

Yes, but there does seem to be an obsession with infinity and keeping going. I mean, you gave another wonderful example of Jeff Bezos. And apparently he said he was very, very scared of stasis. So for him, death is the lack of growth, right? Yeah. And there's a wonderful bit in your book, Wait, where you said, you know, okay, so he's saying like we need to keep using more and more energy every single year. And you said, yeah, you know, maybe we can extrapolate this and possibly for another 3,700 years, we can still use more energy. But if you think about it, that's actually less time than when the great pyramid of Giza was created. And at some point, it must end. Yeah,