Tech Immortality vs. Human Mortality: Inside Silicon Valley's Anti-Aging Race

Summary

---

Amanpour Podcast Episode Summary

Episode Title: Tech Immortality vs. Human Mortality: Inside Silicon Valley's Anti-Aging Race
Host: Christiane Amanpour
Date: April 30, 2026

---

Overview

This episode navigates the intersection of cutting-edge technology, global conflict, and questions of ethics and mortality. It examines three primary themes:

1. The escalation and impact of the US-Iran conflict, with expert analysis on geopolitical shifts in the Persian Gulf.
2. Silicon Valley's ambitious (and at times bizarre) quest for longevity and even immortality, featuring insights from renowned journalist Kara Swisher and clips from her CNN series "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever."
3. The use—and potential abuse—of religious rhetoric in politics, particularly the Trump administration’s justification for war with Iran, including analysis by Peter Wehner.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Crisis in the Persian Gulf: The US-Iran Standoff

[03:23–21:16] Interview: Hassan Ahmadian, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Tehran

• Iran Under Siege: Ahmadian articulates Iran's perspective, describing the US blockade as an "act of war" and comparing the current conflict to earlier rounds of maximum pressure (“there’s a third war waged on the country in the form of a siege… the Iranians will not succumb to US Demands and pressure—defiance is the response.” —Hassan Ahmadian [04:30])
• Resilience and Retaliation: Despite economic pressure, Iran has adapted, learning to circumvent sanctions and keep oil exports steady ("Time is definitely working to Iran’s favor...their exports nowadays is way beyond that level" [06:54]).
• Escalation Looms: Iran's leadership has signaled possible military retaliation for further US harassment or attacks on their shipping, particularly if the Khatam al-Anbiya base is provoked (“I think we are bound to see escalation if there are seizure of Iranian ships or harassment...” [09:15]).
• Economic Hardships and Public Response: The Iranian economy is severely strained but public sentiment still 'rallies around the flag' due to perceived US aggression, although Ahmadian acknowledges more hardship could trigger renewed protests down the line ("Hardships are biting their daily lives" [10:38]).
• Regional Power Dynamics: Ahmadian addresses the UAE’s surprise exit from OPEC, characterizing it as a significant shock with potential to increase tensions within the GCC and align the UAE more closely with Israel ("UAE is drifting step by step away from the consensual mechanisms..." [16:03]).
• Government Stability: Despite US claims of fragmentation, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council remains in charge, with no credible evidence that the IRGC is usurping control ("I think it goes without saying that it's the Supreme National Security Council..." [18:33]).

---

2. Silicon Valley's Anti-Aging Obsession

[21:16–36:12] Segment: Kara Swisher on Longevity and the Tech Elite

• Series Satire and Reality: Christiane and Kara clarify that “Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever” is laced with irony—Swisher’s focus is on living “better longer” rather than literal immortality (“You got the joke.” —Kara Swisher [22:42]).
• Tech Billionaire Motivations: Swisher describes tech moguls' fear of death and belief they can 'hack' mortality, especially given their success in other realms ("They feel like…if they could hack everything else…they can hack this” [24:23]).
  • On Brian Johnson: “He spends $2 million a year…he’s 45, 46…to look 45 or 46, essentially, but with better pecs.” [24:23]
• Healthspan vs. Lifespan: Swisher underscores the gap between living longer and living healthier, especially in America where people spend an average of 12+ years sick before death (“We are at the bottom of everything, every list…so we’re sicker and it’s more expensive.” [26:44]).
• Gender Double Standards: Swisher calls out the difference between how society views women vs. men chasing youth: “When women did it, it's body dysmorphia. When men do it, it's body hacking.” [28:24]
• The Secret to Longevity: Swisher spotlights research showing social connection—a simple, free solution—as the largest determinant for a longer, healthier life, in contrast to expensive tech fixes. (“Don’t be poor...the most important thing is social and human connections.” [32:28]).
• Skepticism Toward Longevity Tech: Swisher road-tests biohacking methods (hyperbaric chambers, ketamine), debunking their effectiveness and warning about wellness industry hype. (“You do not go in a hyperbaric chamber…It doesn’t help…they’re trying to sell you your health.” [34:03])
• Memorable Moment: On living well versus living long:
  • “If you spend time with more people over your life, you will live longer and more healthfully.” —Kara Swisher [32:28]

---

3. Faith, Morality, and American Wars

[36:57–52:13] Interview: Peter Wehner, The Atlantic contributor, with Michelle Martin

• Holy War Rhetoric: Wehner critiques the Trump administration for framing the Iran conflict as a religious struggle, using biblical references as justification ("The war is being framed as a holy war… that's the wrong frame." —Peter Wehner [39:35]).
• Just War Theory Ignored: Traditional theological concepts meant to limit violence are being disregarded; leaders are “invoking the Bible to validate what they want to do.” [42:17]
• Pope Leo’s Objections: The first American-born Pope publicly opposes the war and Trump’s use of religious rhetoric, drawing inflammatory accusations from Trump but underscoring a moral divide within Christianity itself.
  • "Here is an example of a person of the Christian faith who's not subordinating the gospel to being close to power." —Peter Wehner [46:37]
• Vice President Vance and Religion: J.D. Vance, despite his recent conversion, is described as misusing faith for political advantage ("his life has shown itself to be one that abuses faith in order to pursue power" [48:50]).
• A Call for Christian Ethical Reflection: Wehner urges evangelical supporters of Trump to distinguish between policy alignment and excusing immoral behavior:
  • “You can praise him for what you think his policy achievements are, and you can call him out for rank immorality and corruption…if what's being produced…is an ethic that's antithetical to the ethic of Jesus, then you ought to ask yourself a second and a third time, am I on the right path and am I supporting the right cause?” [50:27]

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Iran’s resilience:
  • “Time is definitely working to Iran’s favor.” —Hassan Ahmadian [06:54]
• On fear of death and biohacking:
  • "There's a lot of studies, fear of death leads to lack of longevity and acceptance of death makes you live longer and happier, which is fascinating..." —Kara Swisher [28:24]
• On the folly of ‘biohacking’ fads:
  • “You do not go in a hyperbaric chamber, Christiane… It doesn't help.” —Kara Swisher [34:01]
• On the true driver of longevity:
  • “The most important thing is social and human connections. …It's a very simple answer. And it doesn't cost anything.” —Kara Swisher [32:28]
• On the use of religion in war:
  • “The war is being framed as a holy war... that's the wrong frame.” —Peter Wehner [39:35]
  • “If what's being produced…is an ethic that's antithetical to the ethic of Jesus, then you ought to ask yourself a second and a third time, am I on the right path…” —Peter Wehner [50:27]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [03:23–21:16] Iran crisis and regional analysis with Hassan Ahmadian
• [21:16–36:12] Longevity, Silicon Valley, and health with Kara Swisher
  • [30:17–31:37] The neuroscience and psychology of quality aging (Wendy Suzuki segment)
  • [32:28–33:03] Swisher’s key takeaway on community and longevity
• [36:57–52:13] Faith, morality, and war—Peter Wehner with Michelle Martin

---

Additional Highlights

• Afghan Women’s Soccer: FIFA’s recognition of the Afghan women’s team as the national team is celebrated as a victory for women's rights under Taliban repression ("It’s about being seen, being heard, and finally being recognized." —Team vice captain [52:48])
• Emerging News Bites: Brief updates on tech industry lawsuits (Musk vs. Altman), AI policy, and the Pentagon's engagement with Silicon Valley firms highlight ongoing tensions at the intersection of technology, governance, and ethics.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Amanpour delivers a riveting journey through three of the 21st-century’s most pressing debates: the calculus of conflict and survival in the Middle East, the pursuit of ‘forever’ by Silicon Valley’s elite, and the fraught alliance between faith and political power in America. Through expert analysis and sharp wit, the show invites listeners to interrogate the true measures of progress, health, and morality in our world today.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every room looks and feels. @blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 five star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals free samples. Zero pressure right now. Get up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus plus get a free professional [e-mail] rules and restrictions apply. Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.

[Peter Wehner]

The blockade is genius. Okay, the blockade has been 100% foolproof.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Trump digs in for an extended blockade on Iran as the United Arab Emirates shocks the world by quitting opec. I look at big changes in the Persian Gulf with the Iranian Middle east expert Hassan Ahmadian then knowing that time

[Kara Swisher]

is finite has been a great motivator in my life.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Kara Swisher wants to live forever, but is that really a good idea? The award winning journalist cuts through the hype of longevity and anti aging and

[Peter Wehner]

the war is being framed as a holy war, as a religious war. And that's the wrong frame.

[Christiane Amanpour]

How the Trump administration invokes Christianity to justify its war on Iran Michelle Martin speaks with former Bush speechwriter Peter Weiner. Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. At the heart of the current standoff in Iran is the classic question, who has the watch and who has the time? Donald Trump bets that extending his blockade will break Iran's economy and drive negotiators back to the table. While Iran's leaders believe choking off the Strait of Hormuz gives them the ultimate leverage over the global economy as gas and oil prices spike and Trump's approval ratings hit new lows. Meanwhile, threats of renewed military aggression are growing. A senior Iranian military official is taunting the White House, saying, we have already seen what happened to your bases in the region. In fact, America's vulnerability in the Gulf was highlighted in Congress on Wednesday as Democratic Representative Patrick Ryan grilled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about six US Soldiers who were killed in an Iranian drone attack at the Shubaiba port in Kuwait.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Before the war started, there was clear

[Christiane Amanpour]

intelligence that Sha was high on Iran's target list.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Internal analysis had said the site was indefensible from aerial attack and should not be used. Yet you sent our soldiers from the 103rd Sustainment Command there anyway. Is that true or False, true or false? Straightforward question. Are you going to give me a chance to answer or just did you send them there or not?

[Michelle Martin]

I always.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

We took proactive measures from the beginning to ensure force protection and defensive posture was maximized across the theater.

[Christiane Amanpour]

There are also reports the United States may be preparing for more strong strikes on Iran. And what about the Gulf states? With the UAE quitting opec, is there a new security order taking shape in the Persian Gulf? Joining me now from Doha for an Iranian perspective on these critical questions is Hassan Ahmad. He's professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Tehran. Mr. Ahmadiyan, welcome to the program. Can I start by asking you.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Thanks for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, welcome. Can I start by asking you to try to tell me what's happening from the Iranian government perspective? Because I know you're very well, you know, aware and plugged in. So today the new supreme leader, Mujtaba Khamenei, put out a statement talking about Persian Gulf Day and essentially saying Iran's enemies will land up at the, you know, at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Do you think Iran is preparing, believes that there is another round of active war coming.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

As we speak? Christiane? There's a third war waged on the country in the form of a siege. It's an act of war imposed on the country. The Iranians went for negotiations for three times, and afterwards they were faced with acts of wars, one back in June, the second, just the latest one, and now a siege on the country. And so we hear the Iranians digging in, saying that we will not succumb to US Demands and pressure, and that was expected. They are talking about retaliation if the United States is to continue harassing Iranian shipments in the Gulf of Oman, which did against two ships. And so we hear this defiance that if there's another conflict, the Iranians will basically retaliate in kind. I think what's concerning is that the United States believes that Iran can still succumb to its demands. Iranians offered their proposal before the war that mediators said that was very rational of a proposal, but yet they were attacked. Now, the logic here is that the more you show appeasement to this administration, the more you will face war or bad consequences on the part of the United States. And so defiance is the response that is stand up to pressure and push back against it, which they did back in the war, in the 40 days war, and now they're doing in the siege.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So, you know, what you term a siege is the US Blockade of the Iranian ports and the President has doubled down. It appears that he is telling his aides and posting that he's prepared for a long blockade. So as I posed in the introduction, you know, it's a question of a test of wills, a test of time, and who can take the most pain. Do you think Iran at this point, with its weakened economy and an economy that's getting weaker every day, can it last a long U.S. siege?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

I think time is definitely working to Iran's favor. Back in the first Trump administration, the Iranian oil exports went down to 300,000 barrels of oil daily for roughly a year. And still the Iranians managed to keep their economy above water. Their exports nowadays is way beyond that level. And I think even the siege couldn't stop them exporting more than that. And so time, of course, the pressure on Iran is immense and it's increasing, but it's still way below what was in the first Trump administration because the Iranians learned it the hard way how to circumvent those sanctions and US Economic pressure on the country. On the other hand, there are the munition shortage, the defenses on the part of the United States and Israel. There is the midterm that is approaching that is putting pressure on the U.S. administration. And there are the markets that are hurting as a result of the siege. And of course, the war that came up with the, that came with the situation we see in the Strait of Hormuz. So there's this sense, very strong sense in Iran that time is working to their favor, but at the same time, they would, I suspect they would not sit on their hands with the United States harassing their shipments. Two days ago, before the Supreme Leader talked, the Khatam Al Ambiya based announced or issued an announcement saying that they will retaliate. This is the body that is responsible for Iran's war efforts, which means it was given the directions that it has, the decision has been made that it has to retaliate against the US Provocations against Iran's shipments, which I think will lead to escalation. Now, whether or not that would widen the war like the one we saw the past, you know, 50 days, we should wait and see. But I think escalation is looming large as we speak.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What kind of retaliation?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Well, I think Khatam Olambiya was clear in that if another attack on Iran's shipments, we saw one of them happening. The Iranians retaliated in the Strait of Hormuz, but now they're talking about targeting US Forces that are harassing Iran's shipments I think that is very much in the picture now with this announcement. And I think we are bound to see escalation if there are seizure of Iranian ships or harassment of Iranian ships, according to Iranian officials.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let me just drill down a little bit on the internal situation. Economically, you know, clearly the United States, Israel is betting on squeezing the Iranian government, squeezing the people and, you know, the pain threshold regarding, you know, poverty, the shortage of food and other things. Look, inflation is now at 50%. It was 40% before the war. The real currency has hit a record low this week. Public panic over declining purchasing power. At least 191,000 workers have applied for unemployment support since the war. How sustainable is this wartime economy?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Well, economically, as I said, Iran is under pressure. The Iranians are under pressure, and basically the siege as a collective punishment tool is working. But very slowly. I think we have months and months before seeing its effect kicking in. That's if Iran doesn't take action and escalate against US Siege. I think escalation is Iran's preferred option if the siege is to be really implemented against Iran. Now, economically, the Iranians are managing their economy for the past decade under maximum pressure. And of course, that created many hardships in the country. And now we have damaged infrastructure as a result of war. They're in need of opening of the economy. But having said that, I believe the rally around the flag that we saw in the war is still very much sensed with the United States pushing harder and harder against Iran. And I think that's. That shouldn't be sidelined in any discussion. I think that's what's driving people still in the streets demonstrating against US Aggression, as it is being called in Iran and US Provocations against the country. You see, that is very much helping the political system in Iran and its pushback against the United States. Now moving forward, maybe in months, hardships will grow and many things can change. But at this point, I think time is really not of concern for months to come to Iran. Of course the hardships are there. They were there before the war and they will continue to be there if there is no deal with the United States and with the west in general. But generally, I think the Iranians have shown that they can live with sanctions, though hardships are biting their daily lives.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, let me ask you about that because clearly people are under huge hardship and have been for many, many years. You say, you know, you talk about rallying around the flag now, but you say things may change in the future. So I'm trying to figure out what changes you think? I mean, as you know, before the war started in January, there was such economic distress that that caused the protests and then they were brutally put down. Do you think the leadership is at all concerned or thinks at all about whether the people will again, let's say after the war or at some point feel so much pain again they will want to rise up and as they said before, get rid of this government of theirs?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Well, everyone is concerned with the economics of the country. Daily lives are under pressure and you know, the demonstrations that happened back in January before Turning violent for 10 days they were basically calling for economic changes in the country. The policies and the criticizing mismanagement and corruption, etc. And I think in the future we might see that. But also much news came in just two weeks ago. President Trump was saying that we sent arms into Iran in January. I think that's very much circulated in Iran and I think there's no, you know, the MEK also said that more than 100 of its operatives were killed in the streets. So it was, you know, economic hardship. People fed up with their economics internally but also used by external powers to instigate civil unrest that is armed and that's very much now known in Iran. And I think many people who would see themselves protesting for their economic situation would refrain for the time being moving forward. Of course, if there's more hardships on the economic economy and their daily lives, they might also demonstrate for the betterment of their economic situation. But I don't see that happening anytime soon taking into account that we saw just recently a war on the country that added to the hardships in the country.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay. Obviously the MEK is the anti regime group, the Mujahideen Khalq and they are known to have done all sorts of things like that. There's no evidence that I know of that President Trump sent weapons into Iran. I will check on it, but there's nothing I know about that. It may be circulating, but I'm not sure that that's factual. But that's what I'm trying to ask you next is with all of this, what does that mean for Doha, where you are now, Qatar? What does it mean for the reshaping potentially of the GCC order just, just yesterday with opec, sorry, with UAE pulling out of opec, that's a real shot across the bow. What do you see happening in the gcc?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Well, I think two shocks hit the GCC just recently. One is the U. S Israeli war on Iran with Iran retaliating against US Bases which basically brought down the logic of having bases as a security umbrella in this region. They actually turn, turn them into magnets for Iranian attacks on US Bases. The second shock just came yesterday. I think it's based on the geopolitics that are shifting in the region. We saw before the war on Iran, UAE and Saudi Arabia going head to head in multiple fronts in Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Syria. Obviously, that rivalry has a lot to do with the UAE withdrawing from the opec. That means that UAE is drifting step by step away from the consensual mechanisms that are, though shallow, but they were working in the region. OPEC is one of the oldest organizations that Iran and the UAE and many other countries in the region were member of. Now, with the UAE withdrawing, they're saying that it's our sovereign right. Of course it is. But at the same time, it adds to the rivalry that already exists. And I think it complicates things not only within the gcc, but within the region generally, because UAE is now viewed in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, around the region. It's allying itself more and more with Israel. And, you know, Israel just attacked Iran. And so these kinds of complications are to overshadow much of the politics and geopolitics in the region moving forward.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Last question about the leadership in Iran. President Trump keeps saying that it's fragmented and he's waiting for a coherent, you know, answer to his peace proposals. So can you just tell me, you know, who's in charge and is actually the irgc, the followers of Mujtab Al Khamenei? Are they. Is that where the seat of power is right now? In other words, is it more directly consolidated in the military side of the Iranian government?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

I'm not sure that's the case. I think there are two sides to this story that keeps coming up in the United States. One is that I don't think it's news. I think it's an agenda to sow division within the Iranian political system. The name of the game, stopping the consolidation of the power in the hands of the new leadership in Iran. That's, I think, a goal that comes up with all these talking points. But within Iran, we don't see indications to that direction. So far, we didn't see anyone resign or pushed out of power or basically sidelined. There are no indications. But when it comes to who's running Iran, I think it goes without saying that it's the Supreme National Security Council that's the highest authority on strategic decision making within Iran. The supreme leader, of course, has the veto power over its decisions. Now, whether or not he goes against its decisions or not, I mean, it depends on the circumstance and the issue that is discussed within that body. Of course, the irgc, the artish, the Foreign Ministry, the president, all, you know, 13 members are part of the political system in Iran, all sides of it, and they basically discuss and take the decision. Now, in times of war, of course, louder voices of military IRGC could be heard in the country. I think that's what's causing the call for or the assumption that the IRGC is running the country. But I don't see that happening. At least I didn't see much indications to that direction. The IRGC has been working within the framework that was announced by the Supreme National Security Council right after the ceasefire. The three page document that basically talked about how the Strait of Hormuz would be worked on and how Iran would position itself internally and externally against future aggressions. There are of course speculations that the United States is accumulating power and ammunition and forces to maybe attack Iran once more. Just Israelis recently we're talking about Israeli leaders are talking about resumption of conflict or possibility of resumption of conflict with Iran. So they're getting ready to that. But that all is being worked on within Iran based on the three page document issued by the Supreme National Security Council. I didn't see a divergence there.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Thank you very much, Hassan Ahmadiyan, thank you for joining us. Professor at the University of Tehran for the moment in Doha, Qatar. And stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break. Now, would you want to live forever? It seems plenty of ultra rich tech titans do and they're using their considerable money and influence to shape the race to live longer. Kara Swisher, the acclaimed tech and business journalist, says the Silicon Valley bros are doing it wrong. In a new series on cnn, she cuts through the H to separate real science from wishful thinking. Here's a clip.

[Michelle Martin]

Are you comfy?

[Kara Swisher]

I feel like I'm in an air fryer, but sure. How often do you go in this thing? Daily tech bros are desperate to live longer.

[Peter Wehner]

There's a lot of money in this,

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Kara, this longevity trend. Hasn't the earth suffered enough? Shouldn't we just die?

[Christiane Amanpour]

The series is called Cara Swisher Wants to Live Forever and the eponymous one joins me now from New York. Cara, welcome to the program.

[Kara Swisher]

Hi Christiane, how you doing?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay. So I'm surprised having seen some of the episodes and will see more that it says Kara Swisher wants to Live forever. Because you don't come across as wanting to live forever. In fact, you're poking holes in all these bros that want to live forever.

[Kara Swisher]

Yes. You got the joke.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I did. Oh, it was a joke.

[Kara Swisher]

I want to live longer. Better is what it is, and sort of collapse the healthspan lifespan problem. A lot of people live longer than they're healthy. And actually, in the United States, the gulf is enormous, much more so than anywhere in the world. And so I want to see what. I was sort of struck by all the charlatanism online right now about health and everything else, by the way, and the real science that's really developing that could really help us live healthier, longer lives. And so I wanted to show both things. And of course, it's being spurred by tech billionaires who are so narcissistic, they just want to preserve their godlike bodies as long as they can.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, you know, you've interviewed so many of them, and as you say, you interviewed Brian Johnson, who's a tech entrepreneur, and I'm going to put a clip of your conversation with him, and then we'll get into it.

[Kara Swisher]

Sure.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The primary thing that we want to

[Peter Wehner]

do is to say, like, let's just not die.

[Kara Swisher]

So why do you phrase it like that? Because it is phrased and you market it and it's quite marketed. I want to live forever.

[Peter Wehner]

Oh, I don't.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So I specifically do not say I

[Peter Wehner]

want to live forever.

[Michelle Martin]

Mm.

[Kara Swisher]

Okay. But you said you don't want to die.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Don't die is very different.

[Kara Swisher]

Okay, explain that for me.

[Peter Wehner]

Okay. Don't die is not about me. It's not about a select group. It's about a species.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This is like, literally a homo sapien, like endeavor.

[Kara Swisher]

So you're in it for humanity, not for self aggrandizement.

[Peter Wehner]

Like, what else is there to play for?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Did you buy that? That it wasn't for him to. Okay, what do you think is motivating them?

[Kara Swisher]

Because, well, I think he has an empty hole in his soul. I guess, like, a lot of them is that they feel like they. That they. They have all the money in the world, but the one thing that happens is biology is undefeated. And so they're thinking if they could hack everything else, which they have for the most part, they can hack this. And so they really can't. But the struggle to do it is really both poignant and really pathetic. Because if they spent the money on helping poverty like Mackenzie Scott does, or spent the money on gold standard testing of these things, and in Brian's case. I happen to like him and I knew him in the before times. He spends $2 million a year. He's 45, 46. To look 45 or 46, essentially, but with better pecs, I gu. Well done. Anybody could do that, really. And so one of the things that struck me is that because they're testing on just him, it doesn't help humanity in any way. It helps Brian Johnson. And so, you know, through the. And he's like, has this thing. Well, if he puts it out, people could copy him, but people can't copy him because he's spending $2 million a year. And so my whole thing was, why are you doing this if you really want to help humanity? And he calls himself a rejuvenation athlete. It's a song I don't understand every

[Christiane Amanpour]

time there's a new name for what's happening. A rejuvenation athlete. I like that. Look, I want to touch on something that you raised. When we started to talk, you talked about, I think, you know, a sick society or a healthy society or whatever. You talked about the difference between America and the uk. So I just, in preparation for you, pulled this column by Simon cooper of the FT. And he, you know, he noted that in 2024, global life expectancy reached 73.3 years, which is a new record. But it's. The discrepanc discrepancy is worse in the US where the average person in 2019 lived with a disability, for instance, you know, 12.4 years of sickness before death.

[Kara Swisher]

That's, that's, that's a delta.

[Christiane Amanpour]

That's huge. And then all this life extending while things that traditionally give you the will to live and the joy of life and natural sort of boosters are all declining. And I think you touched on that in your, you know, in the piece as well.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah, I think it's really interesting. The United States spends $15,000 per capita on healthcare compared to UK all peer countries, which is about 6 to 7,000. And we are at the bottom of everything, every list that you could be on. So we're sicker and it's more expensive. So from an economic point of view, it's a real. We shouldn't be doing this. We could save a lot of money if we did a lot of things. And I think what happens is we have not a healthcare industry in the United States because we don't have universal health care, really. And it's not inexpensive. That there's a difference. It's not health care. It's sick Care. And that's the wrong way to think about it. If you could do all these preventative things early on, like they do in Korea. I went to Korea, one of the longest living populations in the world, especially women, you could prevent a lot of what would happen later, which is inevitable with senescent cells. But you could have this life that where the lifespan and the health span gels together, so you live a longer, healthier life until your dying day.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, I think that's really interesting because it's one thing to live much longer. It's another thing to live healthy and joyfully and actually enjoy those last years. But I want to pick up on what you mentioned about South Korea and women, because, look, a lot of these young men, and you mentioned, you know, Brian, who's 46 and all pecked up and, you know, looks pretty good physically.

[Kara Swisher]

Bezos.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Bezos, exactly. Doing the same thing. Women have been under this pressure to look good and to, you know, perform like, you know, like they were sort of showpieces. Right. And now the men are doing it. What gives?

[Kara Swisher]

Well, you know, when women did it, it's body dysmorphia. When men do it, it's body hacking. Like, of course, like, it's seen as a good thing. It's part of, you know, this narcissistic tendency with a lot of these people like that, we're talk. But I think it's a real fear of death. And one of the things that came through very clearly. There's a lot of studies, fear of death leads to lack of longevity and acceptance of death makes you live longer and happier, which is fascinating when you think about it. And I think they're just fearful and they live in these sort of bubbles and they're very wealthy and they can buy everything. But, you know, there is a you can't take it with you kind of quality to everything we do. And they feel like, wait a minute, I can't take it with me. Maybe I can put my brain in another body. Maybe I can create a digital version of myself. There's all kinds of schemes that they're doing, but mostly they have to deal with what Elon Musk once called the meat sack. You have a meat sack you're carrying around with you, and so what do you do with that meat sack? And at the same time, there's so much amazing stuff happening with the help of technology, like AI in terms of gene issues, around drug discovery, around cancer. MRNA technology is astonishing. Of course, it's been politicized in the United States GLP1s. All this stuff is happening at the same time. So much misinformation and nonsense is out there. And so I wanted to sort of break that apart so you understand what's working and what isn't.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, I'm going to play another clip because this is, you know, essentially you defining the good life. You point out that tech billionaires are desperate to hang on, but they almost never talk about the quality of life. So this is what you're discussing, you know, like what engages the brain when you're speaking to neuroscientist Wendy Suzuki.

[Kara Swisher]

Well, you study this, talk about this, you're a neuroscientist. I study brain plasticity, how the brain can learn and grow from particular kinds of activities. I study exercise. But we know that learning and play

[Christiane Amanpour]

is really, really good for the brain.

[Kara Swisher]

It's strategy, it's that interaction, it's creativity. One of my specialties is a brain structure called the hippocampus. It's in the temporal lobe.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You have one on the right and

[Michelle Martin]

one on the left.

[Kara Swisher]

That's really important for memory. So you need it to remember what you put down. You know, in Texas Hold'.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Em.

[Kara Swisher]

It's also important for imagination. If you're trying to get something going in your game strategy, you need that imagination to envision what that strategy might be. Games boost your brain, but the real win. You usually can't play alone. And it turns out interacting with actual humans, messy, opinionated, rule bending humans, is what fights loneliness and helps you live longer.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And for me, that was the bingo moment. It is all about community and in real life. And I wonder what you also learned because you touched on this issue with Gen Zs and whether they have a different view of the boundary between, you know, life and death and longevity.

[Kara Swisher]

Well, you know, what's interesting is this was all young people in a basement in Brooklyn in this food hall. And what's really interesting is young people are pushing away. One of the contrasts I wanted to put is between online and offline worlds. Right online with the chatbots and the chat relationships is very deleterious to longevity. And because it's seamless, Christiane and friction is what creates much more cognitive health, which is part of living longer. Right. And everything else. And so one of the things that's really astonishing, people ask me, what are the big secrets, Kara? What are the big secrets? And you can go into MRNA technology and GLP1s absolutely in AI and cancer, et cetera. But the number two things that are critically important to longevity don't be poor. I hate to say that, but it's true. Be rich. That helps. The most important thing is social and social and human connections. There's all this science behind that. And it's really astonishing how much the online world and we've become extremely online is going to hurt us and how helpful it is to be with people. It's actually health improving. And so it's a very simple answer. And it doesn't cost anything and you don't have to pay like for a red light mask or whatever nonsense they're trying to push on you. And that's to me, was the most important insight here is if you spend time with more people over your life, you will live longer and more healthfully.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I agree with you.

[Kara Swisher]

So have dinner with me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, yeah. When I say I totally agree with you. But you did test all of. Well, not all of this stuff, but quite a lot of stuff. We've got you in a hyperbaric chamber. You did some ketamine. You've done, you know, this kind of stuff. Anyway, here's this clip.

[Peter Wehner]

Yep.

[Kara Swisher]

Hello, Amy. Thanks for dragging me into this. So you did all these things, right? I've done all these things, yeah. But this is like a sort of Rolls Royce of hyperbaric chambers.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Yeah.

[Kara Swisher]

This is nice because I'm a classy dame, but go ahead.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, exactly.

[Kara Swisher]

How do they measure something like this? Just I feel okay or I feel. How are you feeling? You feeling better? Feel the same? Do you feel smarter because we were out?

[Michelle Martin]

They're like, I feel so much sharper

[Kara Swisher]

when I go in there. Are you feeling sharper? Your answers, are they getting like, I think I'm sharp all the time. Amy,

[Christiane Amanpour]

I think you failed her test.

[Kara Swisher]

Yes. It's not. You do not go in a hyperbaric chamber, Christina.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I'm not.

[Kara Swisher]

It doesn't help.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Don't take ketamine.

[Kara Swisher]

If you have the bends. If you have the bends or have a wound, go for it. Otherwise, it's another thing. They're trying to sell you your health. That's what they're trying to do. And this does not help you. It just doesn't.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let me ask you because. Because I can't let you go without asking. You know, some of your news, news knowledge here. Musk versus Altman. They're in court right now.

[Kara Swisher]

Sure.

[Christiane Amanpour]

How is this gonna turn out? What do you think?

[Kara Swisher]

Speaking of bad health, I think it's bad for both of them. I don't think it's good for either company in this case, right now, Elon's been on the stand and he's been sort of soiling himself rather nicely over there because anytime he gets pushed back because he's in this world, speaking of worlds that are insular, he's not used to being pushed on. What happened is he was an early funder of this, the most significant funder, and then he left because he couldn't take control of it. And now he has. You know, it's the biggest regret of his life because he didn't think they could do what Sam Altman did with it. So he's trying to pretend he's the hero and everything else. And is, is it's not good for either company and it's very bad for the brand of AI, I'll tell you that, which is already on a downward slope, a very fast moving downward slope.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And one other last question because it's a big deal too, the idea of AI and the Pentagon. Bloomberg is reporting the White House is drafting an AI policy memo outlining requirements for AI deployment by national security agencies. Tell me what you know about that. Of course, after Anthropic refused to allow the DoD to use its mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.

[Kara Swisher]

It depends on what's in there. It may be a win for Anthropic. Anthropic is correct in that way. And I'm worried about this group of people doing this because it's chock full of Silicon Valley people on the make in those positions. And so therefore it will be focused in on helping Silicon Valley companies. And it has nothing to do with national security. It's about dominating AI Whatever private company and government is just seen as an advantage. And Donald Trump is the willing dupe, the coin operated president. Who's going to let them do it?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, you keep the tech bros honest. Keep on doing it. Kara Swisher, thank you very much. And for this program. We'll be right back after this short break. I'm Jack McBrayer and I am back

[Hassan Ahmadian]

on the hunt to find even wilder.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Oh no.

[Michelle Martin]

Is this real?

[Hassan Ahmadian]

It is more outright.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You like pink? It's my favorite color.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Over the top houses on the market.

[Peter Wehner]

Oh, look at this bathroom.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And meet the fascinating people who call

[Hassan Ahmadian]

these one of a kind places home.

[Christiane Amanpour]

How does one obtain a caboose?

[Peter Wehner]

Zillow gone wild. All new season Friday at 9:30 on HGTV.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Now with negotiations to end the war in Iran stalled, the United States has yet to give an entirely clear rationale for starting it in the first place, much less an exit strategy. Well, our next guest argues that the Trump administration is invoking Christian scripture as a moral justification for this war. It's a topic Peter Weiner explores in depth in two recent columns for the Atlantic, where he's a contributing writer, and he's joining Michelle Martin to discuss what this all means for politics and for religion.

[Michelle Martin]

Thanks, Christiane. Peter Wenner, thank you so much for joining us.

[Peter Wehner]

It's delightful to be with you. Thanks for having me on.

[Michelle Martin]

So people who followed your writing know that you have spent years writing about faith, politics, and power. In two recent pieces in the Atlantic, you're really wrestling with what happens when religion is used either to justify war or to restrain it. So as we look at the Iran war right now, what are some of the central moral questions that you think need to be wrestled with?

[Peter Wehner]

Well, I think the central moral question is whether the war is legitimate on moral grounds. And that's a real debate to be had. That's true of any war. And you have to take into account facts and circumstances. I think what troubles me in this present moment is one I would say is President Trump and his team have not made any argument really for going to war, let alone a moral argument for going to war. But beyond that, it's the invocation, particularly by Secretary of Defense Hegseth, but not only by him, to use the Bible to validate this war and to essentially cast the war as a spiritual and religious struggle. And I think they're wrong to do that. I think it's destructive to the larger debate that we're having, and I think it's also destructive to the Christian faith, which Hegseth proclaims.

[Michelle Martin]

At a Pentagon worship service on March 25, Secretary Hegseth reportedly prayed for violence against those who deserve no mercy. His words. And some military reporting around that period said commanders were telling troops that the war was part of God's plan and that Trump had been anointed by Jesus to trigger Armageddon. At the same time, President Trump told Iranians to take over your government and help is on the way. So when you put those two statements together, what do they say about how the war is being framed?

[Peter Wehner]

Yeah, I think what it says is that the war is being framed as a holy war, as a religious war. And that's the wrong frame. I don't think the application. In fact, I'm quite certain that the application that they're using these biblical texts to justify what, what's essentially a merciless war, a war of total destruction. We heard from the president in one of his tweets several weeks ago, a Threat to destroy the entire civilization. There is a tradition, it's called the just war tradition within Christianity about whether one should go, whether a country should go to war. And if you do go to war, what are the parameters of that war? How do you prosecute a war justly? Now, that's not easy, because war, by its very nature, involves a lot of complicated moral questions and doing things that you might otherwise not do. But you still have to have constraints that. That keep you from. From acting in ways that are. That are. That are barbarous. And what we're seeing from the administration is not only no reference or engagement with a just war theory, it's actually turning it upside down. And it's. It's. The argument that they're making is that the just war theory doesn't matter and morality doesn't matter. And we're going to war. We're on the side of God, and we can do carte blanche. We can do anything we want in the name of God to win this war. And that can lead to not only a lot of terrible human destruction, unnecessary human destruction, but it can. It. It can weaken the moral stature of the United States to. To. To do this kind of thing. And I think it's a defamation of the Christian faith and the name of Jesus. And I'm a person of the Christian faith, so that. That troubles me too.

[Michelle Martin]

In your April 13 piece for the Atlantic, it's titled Hegseth's Unholy War, you write that the Defense Secretary seems less interested in being on the side of God than on insisting that God is on his side. And in the same piece, you argue that Hegseth's language isn't just political spin, but something deeper than that. At a Pentagon Press Briefing on April 16, 2026, Hegseth dismissed negative coverage or moral criticism as incredibly unpatriotic and an endless stream of garbage. Compared the press to the biblical Pharisees, and said it's often hard to figure out what side some of you are actually on. A couple questions I have about that is where does his worldview come from in your reporting?

[Peter Wehner]

I think he has reached for faith to try and put meaning into his life. And it's no secret that he's had something of a dissolute life. And I think he's gone to faith to try and bring it together. Now, a lot of people do that. I think in. In this case with Hegseth, a couple of things are going on. One is that he's found himself under the influence of a pastor named Doug Wilson, who is with Reformed tradition within the Protestant world that I think deeply misunderstands Christianity and corrupts and distorts the scriptural teaching. So I think that's one thing that's going on with Hagg. So the other thing that's happening with him, and this is not specific only to him, it's temptation that I think all people of faith have. But I think it's particularly pronounced in his case and that is you take pre existing sentiments, reflexes, sensibilities, core identities and you, you proof text the Bible to validate what you already believe. So the, the Bible and, and faith becomes almost a, a hood ornament. It's secondary to other things. And in this case I think it's secondary to Pete Hegseth's psychological profile, his ideology, the, the, the dogmatisms that, that, that he's a part of the world he's a part of which is the maga world. That is really what he is going to do. That's what he's going to act and he wants to validate that and he validates it by invoking in the, in the case of, of some of these services that he's held at the Pentagon by invoking the Bible and, and the name of God to, to justify and ratify what, what he wants to do. The trouble is that what he's trying to do, which is to get the Bible to validate his approach actually has nothing to do with what the Bible or what God wants.

[Michelle Martin]

In your latest piece you describe Pope Leo, the first American born Pope, as someone who is unwilling to subordinate his faith to politics or to adjust his commitment to the gospel in exchange for access to, to power. I can't think of a time when there was an exchange like this between an American President and a Pope. Just as briefly as you can, walk us through what happened here for people who haven't followed it.

[Peter Wehner]

Yeah. Pope Leo, American Pope, born in Chicago. He's had some statements over the last several months that has taken issue with some elements of, I would say the Trumpian approach of mass deportation, the use of Jesus that Trump has done in some of his social media treats, but especially on, on the, on the Iran war and he's expressed objections to it. He's Pope. The Catholic Church traditionally speaks out on, on behalf of peace. The fact that a Pope would speak out against the actions of a country or, or, or president is not unusual. It's happened, happened before. I think what's, what's different about this is that Donald Trump in responding to Pope Leo does what he always does, which is the personalization of it and the way in which he's so aggressively going after Pope Leo.

[Michelle Martin]

He called him, just to clarify for people, again, he called him weak on crime. He says that the Pope doesn't mind if Iran has a bomb. He's saying he doesn't know anything about war, he doesn't know anything about foreign policy, he's weak on foreign policy, et cetera. And I just want to, if you could, frame for us just how remarkable this is, because a lot of people just find it shocking, and people are

[Peter Wehner]

right to be shocked. And it's unprecedented. It really has never happened. Again. Presidents and popes have had differences over time, but it's always been respectful differences. It's also politically stupid, I should add. I mean, Trump is taking on, you know, the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide and a lot of Catholics within the United States. I will say that one of the things that's. Well, several things struck me about the fact that Pope Leo spoke out. 1. One is what you alluded to, which is here is an example of a person of the Christian faith who's not subordinating the gospel to being close to power. He has no interest in. In being close to power, cozying up to power. He has no career ambitions that he's.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

That he.

[Peter Wehner]

That he's. That he's after. So that I think is. Is notable. But the other thing that was notable to me, it was like, I don't know, an archetypal sort of conflict. One was the fact that you have men who are just polar opposites. One who is a person of deep religious faith, whose entire interior life has been shaped by spiritual disciplines, is a man of, by all accounts, calmness and kindness, part of the Augustinian tradition of contemplation in action and a preferential treatment for the poor, to use a Catholic phrase. So that's on the one hand. And on the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who's a man who's completely and thoroughly secular, who views life as a series of conquests, sexual conquests, financial conquests, conquests in the realm of power, who has no institutional ties to any church, who himself has said that he's. Doesn't think he's. He needs to ask forgiveness for God, for anything. So you've got that conflict. But beyond that is what struck me, is not only this Pope Leo standing up to Donald Trump, but he's, in a sense, transcending Donald Trump. You mentioned that attack on the pope, saying he was weak on crime. Even by Trumpian standards, that's a ludicrous attack. What is that supposed to mean? I think what it means is that Donald Trump doesn't know how to attack this Pope in a way that's meaningful.

[Michelle Martin]

What about J.D. vance, the vice president who converted to Catholicism in 2019? Yeah, he said this was at a turning point USA Events. That's that sort of campus oriented kind of movement to sort of inculcate conservative principles, mainly focused on college kids. And this is in April 14th. And, and the Vice President said the Pope should, quote, unquote, be careful when he talks about matters of theology. He says the Vatican should stick to questions of morality. He says when the Pope says that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword, there is more than a thousand year tradition of just war theory, end quote. So what do you make of the Vice President's response to this?

[Peter Wehner]

Yeah, look, I think it's reasonable to say that the Pope should be careful in invoking his theology, but I think it's also fair to say that, that J.D. vance should be careful about invoking theology on his part as well. You know, as I mentioned earlier, there's a real debate to be had about wars and the role of faith and whether a war qualifies as a just war or not. I think the trouble with Vice President Vance is not the critique that you read from as it relates to the, to the Pope. Those are fair questions to, to ask. I think the trouble with J.D. vance, apart from the fact that he's a recent convert to, to Catholicism, is that his life has shown itself to be one that abuses faith in order to pursue power and to, and, and, and, and to promote Donald Trump and, and the MAGA agenda. So in some sense, I think he's almost disqualified himself from the start from this.

[Michelle Martin]

So before I let you go, I wanted to kind of loop back to where we started our conversation, which is to say there are many people who've told me, for example, well, I voted for him because of abortion and I know there's really no other choice. Or there are people who say, well, I may not like the way he talks about people, but he's promoting the things that I care about, like I believe in a strong traditional family structure. So how would you want people, particularly people who have that point of view, to think about this, to think about the current moment?

[Peter Wehner]

The first thing I would say is if you think Donald Trump's agenda is promoting the things that you care most about, whether it's abortion or the Courts, let's set aside the fact that I think in many respects he's not. But let's assume for the sake of the argument he is, you can do two things at once. You can praise him for what you think his policy achievements are, and you can call him out for rank immorality and corruption and, and, and unethical behavior. The problem for an awful lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists Shell, is that they have not done that. They have tossed their head over that wall and they have championed him and defended him at every single point along this ugly path. And, and you don't need to do that. You don't need to give up your, your, your, your independence of judgment or your moral independence for, For a, a political leader. And the last thing I would say is that if what is being produced, and here I'm speaking, you know, to Christians, if what's being produced is an ethic that's antithetical to the ethic of Jesus, then you ought to ask yourself a second and a third time, am I on the right path and am I supporting the right cause and I'm supporting the right person? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear. And I think only somebody with a deep vested interest in the outcome can come away and say, donald Trump and his administration over these last 10 years is the personification of a Christian ethic. He's the opposite of that. And people who value their faith should speak up more often than they do for the sake of a country they love and for the sake of the faith that they love.

[Michelle Martin]

Peter Wehner, thank you so much for talking with me.

[Peter Wehner]

Thanks. I enjoyed it very much.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally tonight, team spirit is taking on a whole new meaning for Afghanistan's female soccer players. This week, FIFA committed to recognizing their squad as the Afghan national team. And the timing couldn't be more significant as the Taliban continues to crack down on women's rights and including banning them from playing sports. For the dozens of players who live in exile, the move is a practical and emotional game changer. Here's what the team's vice captain had to say.

[Kara Swisher]

You know, it means everything. It's the result of years of struggle and sacrifices, and it means the results of not giving up. For me, it's not just about football. It's about being seen, being heard, and finally being recognized.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Never give up. Indeed, it is the end of a long journey to represent their country as they previously played under a refugee banner. And we'll all be wishing them luck, I'm sure, for their next game. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye. From London,

[Peter Wehner]

I'm Daniel Dae Kim. I'm going to South Korea to figure out how this small nation conquered the world with its culture. Join me and meet the artists and creators behind the phenomenon. K Everything streaming May 9 on the CNN app.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

Influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a hard look at the longevity industry.

[Kara Swisher]

There's so much bad information that the really good information gets drowned.

[Hassan Ahmadian]

The new CNN Original series Kara Swisher wants to live Forever now streaming on the CNN app.