## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=0s) The Anatomy of a Virus and the "Imperial Secret Edict" Metaphor
The conversation opens with a fundamental inquiry into the nature of viruses. A virus appears deceptively simple: fundamentally, it is nothing more than an outer shell of protein encapsulating a tiny genetic message—a sliver of information or an instruction slip. The panel marvels at how something that lacks independent cellular machinery can possess such staggering, catastrophic power over complex living beings. Drawing a vivid historical comparison, the speakers liken the viral payload to an imperial secret decree issued by the Yongzheng Emperor. If a small strip of paper bearing just five characters penned in imperial vermilion—"execute the soldiers, don't submit a report"—is delivered into the world, the destructive ripple effect across an entire empire is colossal. In precisely that manner, a virus's lethality is determined not by physical mass or complex organs, but purely by the brutal potency of the code scripted upon that internal note.
[00:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=46s) The Human Being as an Ecosystem: Bacteriophages, Gut Flora, and Genetic Kinship
Yin Ye challenges the table to guess how many distinct types of viruses reside inside the human gut. When guests venture wild guesses in the billions, Yin Ye clarifies that he is referring to distinct varieties rather than total count: current scientific datasets identify between 100,000 and 190,000 distinct species of bacteriophages—viruses that exclusively infect and consume bacteria—in the human digestive tract alone. The overwhelming majority of these biological notes have zero direct interactions with human cells; some serve beneficial regulatory roles, and only a vanishingly tiny fraction cause infectious diseases. Across the entire planet, millions of viral species remain undiscovered, while only several hundred are documented as capable of infecting humans.
This leads to a profound philosophical and biological reframing of human identity: humans are not single, isolated organisms, but walking, talking ecosystems. Inside each human body, bacteria outnumber native human cells by roughly three to ten times, complemented by vast populations of fungi, bacteriophages, and potential parasites like protozoa, roundworms, hookworms, or tapeworms. Viewing oneself as a standalone individual is dismissed as human arrogance; from the vantage point of microflora, the human body is not merely a host, but an entire mountain range or biome. To illustrate this interconnected biological continuity, Yin Ye notes that over 85 percent of the genes in a human cell are shared with a dog.
- **Gut viral diversity:** Estimates range from 100,000 to 190,000 unique species of bacteriophages cataloged in human intestines.
- **Cellular balance:** Bacterial cells outnumber human somatic cells by approximately 3:1 to 10:1.
- **Genetic homology:** More than 85% of human genes share direct sequence homology with dogs.
- **Philosophical takeaway:** A roundtable discussion is best understood not as people chatting, but as "a conversation between ecosystems."
[03:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=187s) The Human Genome Project, SARS 2003, and the Pitfalls of Pathogen Identification
The discussion shifts to the ownership of scientific breakthroughs and genetic data. During the Human Genome Project (HGP), the international scientific community established a strict governing principle: genetic maps must remain open-access, co-developed, universally shared, and strictly unpatentable under natural conditions. Much like international treaties reserving Mars and the Moon for the whole of mankind rather than sovereign nations, the human genome was recognized as the collective heritage of our species—a literal embodiment of a "human community with a shared future."
Reflecting on practical applications, Yin Ye recounts his experience arriving at BGI in 2002–2003, right as the SARS epidemic broke out. The epicenter of the outbreak was only a few hundred kilometers away, traced back to the consumption of masked palm civets. Curiously, the patient widely reported to have eaten the infected civet infected numerous others but personally survived in robust health. Crucially, China stumbled during the initial scientific identification: from November 2002 when atypical pneumonia first emerged, it took until April 2003—nearly six months—to determine that the pathogen was a novel coronavirus and sequence its genome. American, Canadian, and Hong Kong laboratories beat mainland China to the sequence because domestic researchers were initially led astray, mistakenly chasing mycoplasma—an intermediate microorganism sitting between viruses and bacteria.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Historical Evolution of Viral Detection
accDescr: Timeline comparing diagnostic methods from 1892 Ivanovsky filter to 2020 rapid sequencing.
subgraph EarlyVirology["Early Virology Era"]
A["1892: Ivanovsky Filter<br/>Proves agent is smaller than bacteria"]
B["1918: Spanish Flu<br/>Misidentified as bacteria; cannot be seen"]
C["1930: Electron Microscope<br/>Viruses finally visualized with electron beams"]
end
subgraph ModernGenomics["Modern Genomic Sequencing"]
D["2002-2003: SARS Outbreak<br/>6-month delay due to mycoplasma misdirection"]
E["2020: Novel Coronavirus<br/>Immediate sequencing proves <80% homology to SARS"]
end
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
```
[05:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=345s) The Scale of the Invisible: From Ivanovsky to Modern Rapid Sequencing
The difficulty of identifying pathogens historically stems from the sheer invisibility of the viral realm. In 1892, Dmitri Ivanovsky proved that tobacco mosaic disease was caused by something smaller than bacteria because the infectious agent passed through fine porcelain filters, yet science remained blind to them. During the devastating 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, the global consensus overwhelmingly miscategorized the agent as a bacterium because the electron microscope was not invented until 1930 in Germany. Lacking visual confirmation, human beings instinctively doubt what they cannot see.
To put this scale into perspective, Yin Ye contrasts the size of a novel coronavirus with human reproductive cells:
- **Novel coronavirus particle:** A sphere measuring roughly 100 nanometers.
- **Immature human egg cell:** Measures roughly 100 micrometers (0.1 millimeters)—the only human cell visible to the naked eye.
- **Volume difference:** Because volume scales cubically, the difference between an egg cell and a virion is approximately ten to the ninth power, or one billion times.
- **Sperm cell:** Vastly smaller than an egg, yet still significantly larger than a single coronavirus virion.
This comparison sparks humorous banter at the table about the biological contributions of men versus women, noting that women provide the overwhelming biological architecture and energetic bulk in reproduction. Returning to epidemiology, Yin Ye points out the astonishing speed of modern high-throughput sequencing: while SARS took half a year to pin down in 2003, modern equipment allowed researchers facing the novel coronavirus in early 2020 to rapidly sequence the viral genome from environmental samples, immediately confirming it was a coronavirus while proving its genetic homology to SARS was under 80%, establishing it as a completely distinct pathogen.
[08:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=497s) Disease Naming and Historical Stigmatization
The discussion opens with a sharp perspective on viral genomics: a 20% genetic difference between viruses is astronomical. To put that in context, one only needs to look at the immense biological chasm between a human being and a dog. Therefore, while SARS and the virus causing COVID-19 both belong to the coronavirus family, they are fundamentally distinct species rather than identical pathogens. This scientific distinction leads directly into the historical habit of stigmatizing illnesses through geographic naming. The prime example is the 1918 "Spanish Flu," a label that is historically misleading because the outbreak did not originate in Spain. During World War I, warring nations such as the United States, France, and Germany experienced severe outbreaks among their troops, but they suppressed the news to protect military morale. Spain, remaining neutral, had no wartime censorship and openly reported on the epidemic—especially after the King of Spain contracted it. Consequently, the warring powers simply pinned the name on Spain.
This pattern of misleading geographic nomenclature repeats throughout medical history. A prominent case is "Mediterranean anemia" (thalassemia), a hereditary blood disorder prevalent across southern regions. Although first identified in the Mediterranean basin, it appears worldwide along latitudes where malaria is endemic. Thalassemia carriers historically enjoyed natural protection against lethal malaria; when malaria had no cure, carrying this milder blood disorder was an evolutionary choice of "the lesser of two evils." Today, with malaria largely suppressed, thalassemia persists as a significant genetic disease, yet its geographical name still confuses the public into believing it is exclusive to the Mediterranean. Similar stigmas apply to everyday conditions like "Hong Kong foot" (athlete's foot), which is ubiquitous worldwide, or the 2012 emergence of MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), an animal-to-human virus originating in camels that might more neutrally be termed "camel flu."
- **Genetic Divergence:** A 20% variation between coronaviruses represents two distinct species, comparable to the vast evolutionary distance between humans and canines.
- **WWI Censorship:** The 1918 flu was hidden by combatant states (the US, France, Germany) to avoid disrupting the war effort, leaving neutral Spain to bear the stigma.
- **Evolutionary Trade-Off:** Thalassemia persisted because carriers experienced milder malarial symptoms or avoided infection altogether.
---
[10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=605s) The Genomics of Invasion: From Hammers to Rocket Launchers
When the novel coronavirus was isolated, researchers complied with China's Infectious Disease Prevention Law and collaborated closely with the CDC. Sequencing the entire genome took only two weeks—a massive technological leap compared to the six months required during the 2003 SARS outbreak. Deciphering the viral sequence provided immediate diagnostic capability. Human DNA comprises roughly 3 billion base pairs, whereas the coronavirus possesses merely 30,000. Yet within those 30,000 base pairs lies an extraordinarily focused weapon. Facing the 3-billion-base-pair "Great Wall" of the human genome, the virus needs to breach only a single gateway: the ACE2 receptor on human cell surfaces.
The progression of the virus is described through vivid physical metaphors. If the original 2003 SARS virus attacked the ACE2 cellular doorway with a handheld hammer, the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain arrived with an electric drill, boring straight inside. By the time the lineage evolved into the Delta variant, it was effectively armed with a rocket launcher, blowing the cell door wide open with a single shot and outcompeting earlier lineages by nearly a thousandfold. This evolutionary trajectory is mirrored in its basic reproduction number ($R_0$), which estimates how many individuals an infected person will transmit the virus to in an unprotected population.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Evolution of Coronavirus Cellular Ingress
accDescr: Diagram contrasting how SARS, ancestral COVID-19, and the Delta variant penetrate the human ACE2 cell receptor.
subgraph Host["Host Defense"]
ACE2["ACE2 Receptor Doorway<br/>Target on 3B Base-Pair Genome"]
end
subgraph Variants["Evolutionary Breach Capability"]
SARS["2003 SARS<br/>R0 ~ 3<br/>Breach: Hammer"]
Ancestral["Ancestral COVID-19<br/>R0: 3 to 5<br/>Breach: Electric Drill"]
Delta["Delta Variant<br/>R0: 7 to 9<br/>Breach: Rocket Launcher"]
end
- **Genomic Scale:** Humans possess 3,000,000,000 base pairs; the coronavirus relies on just 30,000 base pairs to target the ACE2 receptor.
- **SARS $R_0$:** Approximately 3.
- **Original COVID-19 $R_0$:** Estimated between 3 and 5.
- **Delta Variant $R_0$:** Surged to 7–9, approaching the infectiousness of measles—the most contagious respiratory disease in recorded human history.
---
[11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=702s) The Nature of Viruses: Dawkins' Selfish Gene and Voldemort's Horcruxes
The dialogue shifts toward the fundamental nature of viruses, pondering whether they even qualify as life forms. Strictly speaking, a virus lacks many hallmark characteristics of living organisms, sitting directly on the razor's edge between organic and inorganic matter as a form of "pre-life." They have endured for billions of years, making them as old as life itself. When questioned about their ultimate purpose—whether they aspire to evolve into plants or animals—the explanation points to Richard Dawkins' seminal 1976 work, *The Selfish Gene*. Dawkins argued that biological entities are neither inherently good nor evil, but driven by self-replicating genetic code that seeks only its own perpetuation.
A virus is effectively a minimalist cluster of genes existing purely to replicate. In popular culture terms, it behaves like Voldemort from *Harry Potter*, splitting its essence across multiple Horcruxes: inert and seemingly dead in isolation, yet capable of reassembling and reviving the moment it encounters the proper host environment. It does not need to evolve into complex multicellular life because parasitism represents the lowest possible energy expenditure. When people wonder how an entity with no brain or consciousness can outwit human science, the reality is that it does not need intelligence: "it doesn't need intelligence; it just needs to counter human intelligence."
- **Life-Nonlife Boundary:** Viruses represent matter at the threshold where inorganic molecules transition into organic self-replicating systems.
- **Gene Minimalists:** Operating strictly under the selfish gene imperative, viruses pursue host parasitism because it demands the least energetic investment.
- **Agnostic Existence:** Rather than consciously planning mutations, viruses survive through sheer numbers and passive reflection of the selection pressures applied to them.
---
[13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=820s) Yan Fu's Unfolding, Coexistence, and the Limits of Vaccines
The conversation clarifies a widespread linguistic misconception regarding the word "evolution." In Chinese, the term is frequently rendered as *jinhua* (进化, literally "progressing forward"), but modern life sciences recognize that the more accurate historical translation is Yan Fu's term *yanhua* (演化, "unfolding" or gradual variation). In nature, there is no absolute "best" or "optimal," only what adapts best to current circumstances. The virus behaves like an unthinking mirror: if humans apply makeup, the mirror reflects it; if humans introduce vaccines or behavioral barriers, the viral gene pool shifts in response to find whatever crack remains open.
China showcased exceptional social mobilization against the virus, uniting government action, intense scientific labor, and widespread citizen cooperation. Yet viral biology operates on rules entirely indifferent to human organizational language—viruses do not isolate, nor do they care about hygiene campaigns. Relying exclusively on vaccines creates an endless cycle of "as the demon grows an inch, the priest grows a foot." Viruses and host populations historically reach equilibrium because killing all hosts leads to the pathogen's own extinction. Over time, viral strains trend toward higher transmissibility and lower lethality. COVID-19's lethality has dropped toward roughly one in a thousand (~0.1%), comparable to a severe influenza, though not yet down to the one-in-ten-thousand rate of mild seasonal flu. Vaccines successfully reduce the "critical hit rate" (preventing severe disease and death) even if transmission persists. Ultimately, humanity achieves practical victory not when the virus vanishes entirely, but when effective therapeutic drugs prevent infection from turning fatal.
- **Evolutionary Theory:** Yan Fu's translation emphasizes adaptation (*yanhua*) rather than linear advancement toward perfection (*jinhua*).
- **Lethality Trend:** The case fatality rate has shifted toward approximately 1/1,000, aligning closer to severe seasonal flu.
- **Vaccine Functionality:** While breakthrough infections still happen, vaccines slash the critical hit rate against hospitalization and severe symptoms.
- **The End-Game:** Epidemics end through mutual adaptation and lifesaving therapeutic drugs that prevent death, echoing the eventual stabilization of historical pandemics like the 1918 influenza.
[25:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=1518s) Recessive Genes and the Pandora's Box of Germline Editing
The discussion opens on the reality of human genetics: virtually everyone carries hidden genetic mutations. When two prospective parents are carriers of the same recessive mutation, there is a one-in-four chance of having a child with a severe or fatal congenital condition. Yin Ye notes that no human genome is biologically perfect; many of these traits are evolutionary relics that originally helped human ancestors survive even deadlier environmental threats. The conversation then turns to the notorious case of human germline gene editing. While the panelists concede that the two gene-edited children themselves may not necessarily suffer compromised survival in the immediate future, the real danger is opening a door that cannot easily be shut. Once gene editing crosses from theoretical biology into human subjects, humanity risks engineering unpredictably altered traits.
The panel emphasizes that this debate is fundamentally an ethical problem that has now been codified into strict legal statutes and criminal penalties. The law explicitly forbids germline genetic modification. Yet, as one guest pointedly observes, legal sanctions primarily deter ethical, law-abiding scientists; they do very little to restrain bad actors operating outside regulatory oversight in clandestine settings.
---
[26:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=1566s) Parallels to IVF and the Arbitrary Boundaries of Humanism
The conversation considers whether moral judgments around biotechnology soften over time, taking in vitro fertilization (IVF) as a striking historical precedent. When Robert Edwards and his colleagues introduced the first "test-tube baby" in 1978, the breakthrough provoked widespread condemnation for violating religious and moral boundaries. Yet by 2010, the technology had enabled the birth of over four million children worldwide for infertile couples. Those first-generation IVF babies have grown into adulthood and naturally reproduced, proving that assisted reproduction does not compromise the natural reproductive cycle.
The panelists argue that public anxiety often stems from religious worldviews rather than biological harm. For thousands of years, humans have practiced artificial crossbreeding and assisted reproduction on crops and livestock without moral panic. Treating human reproductive biology as uniquely untouchable reflects an anthropocentric bias. Because human understanding of genetics is still in its infancy, scientists and society are forced to determine ethical boundaries incrementally, knowing that what is condemned today may become standard medical practice fifty years later.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Evolution of Reproductive and Genetic Ethics
accDescr: Diagram tracing historical shift from early plant breeding and IVF to modern germline editing boundaries.
subgraph Historical["Historical Precedents"]
A["Plant Breeding / Hybridization<br>(Thousands of years)"] --> B["First IVF Baby (1978, Robert Edwards)<br>Heavily criticized on religious grounds"]
B --> C["Widespread Acceptance (2010)<br>4+ Million births; natural reproduction"]
end
subgraph Current["Current Genetic Frontier"]
D["Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing<br>(NIPT, maternal blood draw)"]
E["Germline Genome Editing<br>(Strictly prohibited by international consensus)"]
end
C -.->|"Precedent for"| D
C -.->|"Ethical Line Drawn Before"| E
```
---
[27:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=1666s) The 14-Day Embryo Rule and the Menace of "Kitchen Labs"
Despite the temptation to rush into new genetic therapies, the scientific community has established hard boundaries. The most universal of these is the "14-day rule," which prohibits the in vitro cultivation of human and non-human primate embryos beyond fourteen days post-fertilization. Before day fourteen, an embryo has not yet formed a primitive streak or the rudiments of a central nervous system, meaning it cannot perceive pain or possess biological individuality. Guests point out that this fourteen-day cap is not merely a biological fact, but an international convention and a diplomatic compromise between biomedical researchers and religious communities.
The second unbreachable line is the complete ban on germline genetic modification, which would alter heritable DNA passed down to subsequent generations. Yet the hosts acknowledge a troubling reality: ethical rules only bind legitimate institutions. The panel references popular streaming documentaries showcasing amateur biohackers running "kitchen labs" and editing their own genomes in their garages. To counter these rogue experiments, the speakers urge that regulatory enforcement, legal accountability, and public transparency must expand aggressively to keep pace with rapid technological democratisation.
- **The 14-Day Rule:** Applies to human embryos and non-human primates (such as chimpanzees and monkeys) during in vitro research; culturing must cease at approximately fourteen days.
- **Underlying Rationale:** Concurrence with the emergence of the primitive streak, the earliest potential onset of neural sensation, and a broader socioreligious consensus.
- **The Germline Consensus:** Total prohibition against altering the inheritable human germline due to unpredictable multi-generational risks.
- **The "Kitchen Lab" Phenomenon:** Biohackers conducting DIY gene therapies in residential spaces, bypassing institutional oversight.
---
[30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=1802s) Global Regulatory Landscapes: From Darwinian Britain to Tech Hegemony
The table explores how different cultures and nations approach genetic regulation:
Continental Europe remains the most conservative region, maintaining rigid restrictions on genetic and embryological experimentation. By contrast, the United Kingdom has taken a radical stance; the earliest human-animal hybrid embryonic research took place in British laboratories. Yin Ye traces this pioneering, iconoclastic attitude directly back to Charles Darwin, who withheld his revolutionary manuscript on natural selection for twenty years until Alfred Russel Wallace pushed him to publish *On the Origin of Species* in 1859. This philosophical divergence has long made it difficult for Britain to align with the European Union on biomedical policy.
The United States presents the most commercially open and technically dominant environment. The panel notes that American permissiveness is backed by a global technology hegemony, spanning worldwide genetic databases, computational tools, and the digital infrastructure required to process massive sequencing datasets.
---
[31:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=1903s) Asia's Genetic Race and the Ethics of Prenatal Screening
Turning to Asia, Yin Ye observes that Japan is lagging behind in the commercial genetic sequencing sector, though it maintains strong competitive advantages in stem cell science, immunotherapy, and heavy ion radiotherapy. Within Asia's genomics arena, China ranks firmly as number one, with South Korea and Singapore also demonstrating significant activity.
The discussion grounds these geopolitical dynamics in practical clinical medicine, specifically Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). Down syndrome (trisomy 21), which historically required risky and invasive procedures like amniocentesis, can now be screened via a simple maternal blood draw. Yin Ye mentions that the natural incidence of Down syndrome is roughly 1 in 800 (referencing popular figures like the Chinese orchestra conductor Zhou Zhou).
This diagnostic power introduces complex dilemmas:
- **Severe vs. Correctable Conditions:** While conditions such as cleft lip or polydactyly can be resolved through postnatal surgery, trisomy 21 remains untreatable, creating severe emotional and financial strains that many families in developing nations cannot carry.
- **Informed Choice:** The decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy must rest firmly on maternal autonomy and informed consent ("pre-knowledge"), rather than state or social coercion.
- **Ethical Pluralism:** In some Western cultures, parents routinely choose to carry pregnancies with cleft lips or chromosomal abnormalities to term, defending every fetus's fundamental right to life regardless of physical disability.
---
[33:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2020s) Cognitive Decline, Family Memory, and the Toll of Caregiving
The dialogue pivots away from embryonic genetics into the intimate, lived reality of neurological and cognitive decline within the family. One of the speakers recounts observing an elderly relative undergoing cognitive assessments; within just five minutes, the individual was completely unable to recall everyday objects like a tomato, a plate, or a cup, ultimately receiving a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or atypical autism-like regression.
The group explores how cognitive degeneration affects familial recognition when parents slowly lose the ability to identify their own children. A guest explains that recognition is heavily dictated by daily physical presence and environmental cues. Because he served as the primary, co-located caregiver for his aging parents, his image remained anchored in their memory far longer. Conversely, his older sister worked away as a schoolteacher and could only visit during winter and summer breaks. As memory faded, the sibling who visited less frequently was the very first person their parent forgot.
[34:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2069s) The Cruelty of Cognitive Decline and Fading Recognition
Living with his mother day in and day out, Hu Yong has witnessed firsthand the progressive unraveling of her memory. Early on, her awareness of family hierarchy remained intact; she clearly knew he was the third child—the youngest son after an older sister and an older brother—and affectionately called him her "youngest son" while remembering his name. Over time, that structure dissolved. She began confusing his birth order. While she occasionally remembers his name is Hu Yong, she frequently addresses him as "old man"—the term she used for his father, who passed away the previous October. At other times, she refers to him as "older brother," either recalling her own long-deceased sibling or conflating him with Hu Yong’s living older brother.
Hu Yong describes her moments of recognizing him as being like a "flash of lightning." When that flash hits and she briefly remembers him, it brings a surge of joy. She might register small daily anchors—that he left for work or returned home—only to lose those facts moments later. Caregivers find themselves desperately clutching onto these microscopic sparks of clarity just to confirm the existence of their relationship. Without that recognition, the emotional toll reveals the true cruelty of Alzheimer’s disease. In China, roughly 90% of elderly people do not enter nursing homes, keeping this profound emotional and physical weight squarely inside the household. A film is recalled where a man faced fierce criticism for moving his father into a facility; the son defended himself by asking what else could be done when his father no longer even recognized him and professional nursing care was sorely needed.
[36:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2217s) The Unsolved Mystery of Alzheimer’s and the Toll of Caregiving
The conversation shifts to the clinical limits and pathogenesis of dementia. While modern medicine experiments with emerging therapies like monoclonal antibodies, doctors often emphasize that simple, continuous human interaction and mental exercises may do more to slow cognitive decline than current pharmaceuticals, as there is still no definitive cure. From a pathological standpoint, the disease manifests primarily as brain atrophy and neurodegeneration—potentially tied to abnormal protein accumulation or neurofibrillary tangles—yet its exact root causes remain elusive. Without a clear mechanism, targeted therapeutic interventions remain out of reach.
For families, the practical management of the illness is brutally taxing. Unlike typical professional responsibilities, caregiving cannot be scheduled into clean, discrete blocks of time. One cannot decide to dedicate three uninterrupted hours to care and then pivot to other pursuits for the next three. Caregiving demands total, continuous standby:
- Needs emerge unpredictably at any second of the day or night.
- The caregiver's attention is entirely fragmented by constant, sudden interruptions.
- Working family members are forced to choose between leaving an impaired elder alone at home or sacrificing their own employment.
[38:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2322s) Progression to Disability and the Burden of Incontinence
Unless a family has access to specialized nursing staff or dedicated memory-care facilities, managing an advanced Alzheimer’s patient at home borders on impossible. As Hu Yong observes, dementia follows an inexorable clinical trajectory: cognitive deterioration inevitably progresses into complete physical incapacity. Consequently, public health discourse often pairs the two conditions together as the "dementia and disability" elderly population.
Once physical incapacity sets in, managing basic bodily functions becomes an unending ordeal. Patients lose the neurological awareness required to regulate bowel and bladder functions:
- They cannot tell whether they need to use the restroom, are actively eliminating, or have already finished.
- The conceptual understanding of the excretion process vanishes entirely.
- A striking documentary example illustrates this tragedy: an accomplished university professor diagnosed with Alzheimer’s was found standing in the center of his living room having wet his pants. He had stood up with the intention of walking to the bathroom, but forgot his objective midway across the room, leaving his body to release involuntarily.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Progression of Alzheimer's Disease and Care Burden
accDescr: A flow diagram showing how cognitive memory loss progresses to disorientation, physical incapacity, and continuous caregiver burden.
subgraph CognitiveDecline["Cognitive Deterioration"]
A["Sporadic Memory Loss<br/>('Flash of Lightning' Recognition)"] --> B["Loss of Spatial & Executive Awareness<br/>(Forgetting bathroom trips midway)"]
end
subgraph PhysicalDisability["Physical Deterioration"]
B --> C["Full Physical Incapacity<br/>('Dementia and Disability')"]
C --> D["Complete Incontinence<br/>(Loss of bladder/bowel cues)"]
end
subgraph CareImpact["Household Impact"]
D --> E["Fragmented, 24/7 Demands"]
E --> F["Extreme Psychological & Physical Toll"]
end
```
[40:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2409s) The Four Groups of Caregiving and Social Realities
Reflecting on the universal reach of this crisis, Hu Yong categorizes humanity into four distinct groups regarding eldercare:
1. Those who have already been caregivers.
2. Those who are currently serving as caregivers.
3. Those who will inevitably become caregivers in the future.
4. Those who must be cared for.
Because virtually everyone eventually falls into one of these roles, care is an inescapable societal web. While media profiles emphasized the angle of a "Peking University Professor" caring for his mother, Hu Yong rejects the idea that his academic status makes the experience exceptional. He views himself simply as an ordinary child looking after ordinary aging parents. However, Dou Wentao points out an undeniable socio-economic disparity: a university professorship affords flexible hours and autonomy that standard blue-collar or 9-to-5 desk workers do not possess. For employees bound to rigid clock-in schedules, the choice to stay home means surrendering the very income required to finance medical and daily care.
[42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2529s) Dignity, "Infantilization," and the Simple Happiness of Forgetting
The discussion turns to the profound loss of personal dignity in old age—what observers describe as the "infantilization" of the elderly. Just as human beings enter the world helpless and naked, requiring their diapers changed, many leave it in the exact same state. Dou Wentao recalls his own bedridden mother after she suffered a stroke: though she lay vegetative and devoid of conscious response in a hospital room, his father made sure to keep her covered whenever washing or massaging her body, explaining, "Mom is a woman, too; she has her dignity."
In the late stages of Alzheimer's, however, dignity becomes an agonizing paradox. The disease strips away personal decorum, yet the patient lacks the cognitive faculties to realize it has been lost. While the caregiver bears the heavy psychological grief of watching a loved one's meaningful existence dissolve, the patient’s inner world simplifies into childlike innocence. Stripped of complex contemplation, they are spared the anguish of existential suffering.
Hu Yong notes that this simplified state shielded his mother from the grief of her husband’s death. She never fully comprehended that her husband had died; the family gently told her he had moved to "another world." During quiet lapses in thought, she still surfaces the only fundamental care expressions left in her repertoire—asking whether people around her are cold or hungry. Pointing toward the void, she will earnestly ask Hu Yong, "Is your dad hungry in that place? Is he cold?"—a moment of enduring tenderness that breaks the heart of the caregiver listening to it.
[45:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2700s) Caring for an Aging Mother with Dementia: From Daily Routines to the Caregiver's Burden
The conversation opens with a tender, candid reflection on the daily reality of caring for an elderly parent suffering from severe cognitive decline. The speaker observes that when his mother—who is now over eighty years old—repeatedly asks if his father is cold or hungry, she is not necessarily processing the current reality; rather, it is a deeply ingrained, lingering habit of expression. Throughout her life, her primary way of expressing maternal affection and care was asking her children and family, "Are you hungry? Are you cold?" While it brings a strange sense of comfort that the patient themselves may no longer suffer conscious distress, the true psychological and emotional weight falls entirely upon the caregivers.
At home, the dynamic flips completely: an eighty-something mother is treated like a two- or three-year-old toddler. The caregiver finds themselves coddling her, responding gently to her nonsensical remarks, and turning on the television or a smartphone screen. She has no idea what the programs are about; she simply watches the shapes move and listens to the sounds, remaining occupied for hours. Because the speaker works in the media, stacks of promotional magazines constantly pile up at home. To keep her engaged, he hands her an issue, coaxing, "Mom, why don't you read a book?" Instead of reading, her entire afternoon project becomes meticulously tearing the pages into long paper strips. Turning to the table, the speaker asks Professor Xu Zidong and the other guests whether they have wrestled with this heartbreaking reality of caring for elderly relatives.
---
[46:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2810s) Planning for Old Age: Sudden Death as a Blessing, 24-Hour Caregivers, and the Zhuhai Solution
The question prompts Professor Xu Zidong and the guests to confront their own fears about aging and end-of-life care. When asked if he has dealt with taking care of aging parents, Professor Xu admits he mostly ponders his own future, jokingly preferring a scenario where nobody has to care for him. He shares the story of his father, a former hospital director who passed away abruptly while playing mahjong. In traditional Chinese family culture, an instantaneous passing like that is paradoxically regarded as a blessing for the descendants: he spared everyone years of bedridden decline and suffering. The table reflects on how elderly deaths are weighed against age—reaching an advanced age softens the regret, and sudden heart failure is grimly acknowledged as a mercy compared to protracted infirmity.
Turning to their own twilight years, Professor Xu notes that he has already reassured his daughter: "Don't worry, okay, I won't be a burden to you." In practical terms, the only viable path for middle-class families is hiring round-the-clock home care:
- **Round-the-clock home care:** Hiring at least one 24-hour caregiver, or two if finances permit (a guest banters that someone like "Xiao Lan" will simply hire eight).
- **The cross-border eldercare model:** A guest cites prominent scholars living in the United States whose health deteriorated. Because professional home care in the US is exorbitantly expensive and difficult to organize, their adult children bought them a house in Zhuhai and hired multiple domestic caregivers. In mainland China, 24-hour non-professional live-in care remains far more accessible, even if formal nursing certifications are lacking.
- **The institutional bottleneck:** Nursing homes and home-care agencies face a structural labor shortage because bedside care for the chronically ill and cognitively impaired is grueling, low-status work that few people are truly willing to do.
---
[49:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=2951s) The Modern Ideal of Aging and the Agony of Caregiver Guilt
The panel discusses the newly emerging lifestyle consensus for navigating modern longevity: work hard in youth, save diligently through middle age, and aim for a specific tri-part trajectory described in contemporary essays: "living long, getting sick late, and dying quickly." While an enviable ideal, everyone concedes that one's manner of dying is completely outside individual control.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Cycle of Caregiver Guilt in Dementia Care
accDescr: Diagram showing the emotional loop caregivers experience when managing a declining relative with dementia.
subgraph Interaction ["Daily Care Reality"]
A["Fluctuating Lucidity & Incontinence"] --> B["Caregiver Impatience & Friction"]
end
subgraph Psychological_Toll ["Emotional Aftermath"]
B --> C["Caregiver Departs for Work"]
C --> D["Deep Guilt & Self-Blame"]
D --> E["Coping Rationalization: 'A Prolonged Farewell'"]
E --> A
end
```
A younger guest shares a personal, emotionally raw account of caring for their grandmother. With her parents not yet at that stage, this was their only firsthand brush with cognitive decline. The grandmother fluctuated between sharp lucidity and utter confusion, proving the adage that "suffering is left for those who are still lucid."
- When lucid, the grandmother's familiar, loving gaze was fully present; when confused, she would soil herself, vehemently resist assistance, or insist on unreasonable demands.
- Caught between demanding professional work in Beijing and bedside care at home, the guest often grew impatient, only to be consumed by crushing guilt the moment they boarded the train back to work: "Why couldn't I have been more patient with her?"
- To endure the psychological strain, the guest developed a bittersweet coping rationalization: their grandmother was a famously sweet-tempered woman who had never raised her voice in her life. If she had passed away suddenly while remaining that angelic figure, the grief would have been unbearable. By slowly morphing into a difficult, unrecognizable stranger, she was effectively saying goodbye in slow motion—allowing the family's grief to soften and dissipate before the final departure.
---
[51:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=3098s) AI, Personal Identity, and Proving "Your Mother Is Your Mother"
The conversation shifts from emotional grief to a deep philosophical and technical inquiry into whether caregiving at this stage is mere moral duty or genuine emotional connection. Drawing on artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind, the speaker unpacks the foundational concept of "personal identity":
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Competing Frameworks of Personal Identity in Dementia
accDescr: Contrast between philosophical memory continuity and embodied sensory continuity.
subgraph Philosophical_Model ["Psychological Continuity (AI / Philosophy)"]
M1["Continuous Memory"] & M2["Consistent Psyche"] --> PID["Valid Personal Identity"]
PID -.->|"Collapses in Dementia"| FAIL["Mother is 'Another Person'"]
end
In philosophical thought, personal identity asks why the person looking in the mirror this morning is the same individual who went to sleep the night before, despite overnight cellular turnover. Traditional philosophy dictates that identity relies on the continuity of memory and psychological experience. Yet when applied to a mother with advanced dementia, this classic theory collapses:
- Her memories of decades of shared life have vanished completely.
- Her consciousness is fragmented; she no longer recognizes her youngest son, who was once her favorite.
- If identity were purely psychological, the son would have to conclude that the woman before him is no longer his mother.
Yet the son instinctively rejects this philosophical verdict. He knows with absolute certainty that she is still his mother, not through abstract cognitive continuity, but through tangible bodily and sensory continuity. Whenever he returns home, his instinctive ritual is to hold her hands for extended periods. Even in her diminished state, she feels his cold hands, pulls them close, and says, "Your hands are so cold... let me warm them for you." Her familiar hands, their tactile warmth, and her unmistakable, lingering scent anchor her identity far better than memory ever could. The table laughs at the poetic irony—navigating the bureaucratic absurdity of having to "prove your mother is your mother"—concluding that personhood and identity are not isolated computations of the mind, but living realities forged and preserved through physical touch and interpersonal relationships.
[55:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=3330s) The Illusion of the "Self" and the Humiliation of "Proof of Survival"
The conversation opens with a meditation on how identity and interpersonal connection unravel under the weight of dementia. When holding hands with an Alzheimer's patient, the act ceases to have mutual meaning; the patient no longer understands the gesture, meaning the perceived warmth and connection exist solely within the caregiver's subjective consciousness. Citing Carl Jung's notion that "we can only be ourselves through others," the speakers observe that once the mirror of the other is shattered, the self becomes unrecognizable. From a Buddhist perspective, this disease vividly demonstrates that the individual "I" is merely an illusion. The physical body continually replaces its cells every few years, and once memories evaporate, personal identity collapses into nothing more than an external social construct—a government ID card that tells society and a son that this shell is still his parent, even when their internal sense of self has vanished completely.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Social and Psychological Dissolution of the Self in Dementia
accDescr: Flowchart showing how identity transitions from internal consciousness to external social verification in Alzheimer's.
subgraph Loss["Cognitive Dissolution"]
A["Loss of Shared Meaning<br/>(Holding hands, memories)"]
B["Dissolution of the Subjective 'I'<br/>(Cellular & memory turnover)"]
end
subgraph External["External Construction"]
C["Relational Recognition<br/>(Son still sees a mother)"]
D["Bureaucratic Identity<br/>(ID card, government pension)"]
E["Annual 'Proof of Survival'<br/>(Photo with current date & ID)"]
end
A --> B
B --> C
B --> D
D --> E
```
To illustrate the surreal, bureaucratic reduction of human life, an anecdote is shared regarding an elderly mother receiving her retirement pension. Having grown up on a state farm in Heilongjiang, the administering agency eventually required the family to submit annual "proof of survival" (健在证明) to ensure relatives were not illegally claiming a deceased person's pension. The speakers find these four characters darkly profound: to provide this proof, the elderly parent must be propped up holding a paper calendar turned to the exact day—such as pointing directly at April 24th—while displaying their national identity card to the camera. It is not merely proof of identity, but raw, physical proof of biological survival, turning an aging human being into a living document held up like a mugshot or an awkward self-portrait in a mirror.
- **The Heilongjiang Farm Pension Requirement**: Families must submit an annual photograph of the elderly parent holding a current calendar turned to the specific date alongside their national ID card to verify physical existence.
- **The Concept of the Illusory Self**: In both Jungian psychology and Buddhist philosophy, the self cannot exist in isolation; once memory and reciprocity are stripped away, identity survives solely through external bureaucratic records and family perception.
---
[57:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=3467s) Caregiver Burnout, Paranoia, and Broken Marriages
While Alzheimer's forces philosophical reflection, the day-to-day reality for conscious family members is filled with sorrow, helplessness, and uncontrollable anger. Dou Wentao candidly admits to his own early hypocrisy when advising his older brother on caregiving. Whenever his brother experienced mental breakdowns while nursing their father, Wentao would preach patience from the sidelines, asking, "Why are you so anxious? You have to remember he's a patient; you can't treat him like a normal person, right?" Yet the moment Wentao took over primary caregiving duties for just a few consecutive days, he found himself reacting with the exact same irritability and short temper. Being a dutiful, "filial son" offers no psychological immunity against the sheer grind of the disease.
The psychological symptoms accompanying dementia, particularly behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), push household members beyond their breaking points. Dou Wentao recounts the devastating toll on his brother's marriage while caring for their elderly parent. Suffering from severe paranoia and a reversed sleep-wake cycle, the father would pace and stand guard outside the couple's bedroom door all night long. Whenever the wife entered the room, the father would interrogate them, demanding, "What are you two doing in there?" and asserting, "I'm watching you; don't think you can hide anything from me."
This unrelenting nocturnal surveillance shattered the couple's private life. Eventually, the sister-in-law gave an ultimatum, declaring, "I have to go back to my hometown; I can't take it." Even when shown medical literature explaining that his behavior was an involuntary symptom of Alzheimer's, she pointed out the cold reality: "Well, he's your father, but why should I have to endure this suspicion every single day? My normal married life is impossible to maintain." The constant stress forced the married couple to separate, leaving Wentao's brother to live alone with their mother to shoulder the burden in isolation.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Dynamics of Dementia Caregiving Strain
accDescr: Diagram illustrating the strain of dementia symptoms on caregiver relationships, physical health, and family stability.
subgraph Demands["Dementia Symptoms & Care Demands"]
A["Paranoia & Delusions<br/>(Door-watching, sleeplessness)"]
B["Physical Dead Weight<br/>(Lifting, toileting)"]
C["Continuous Surveillance<br/>(Day-and-night cycle reversal)"]
end
subgraph Impacts["Systemic Fallout on Caregivers"]
D["Marital Breakdown & Forced Separation"]
E["Physical Exhaustion & Back Injuries"]
F["Caregiver Guilt & Emotional Outbursts"]
G["Career Derailment & Life Disruption"]
end
A --> D
A --> F
B --> E
C --> G
```
---
[59:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=3594s) Sibling Division of Labor and the Hidden Costs of Family Care
Guest speaker Professor Hu reflects on Dou Wentao's family trauma, acknowledging that despite the harrowing difficulty of his own caregiving journey, he considers himself exceptionally fortunate compared to most. Hu's circumstances offered several structural buffers: as a university professor, he is not tied to rigid shift work, allowing flexible daytime hours to accompany and nurse his parents. Crucially, he is not an only child. Facing this crisis alongside an older brother and an older sister, the three siblings formed a united front, turning an ordeal that destroys many families into a collective effort that deepened their sibling bond.
Hu breaks down how their division of labor functioned in practice:
- **The Sister’s Educational Schedule and Early Retirement**: Because Hu's sister worked as a schoolteacher and lived nearby, she moved in to take over primary caregiving duties during winter and summer breaks. She even elected to retire early specifically to help shoulder the family care burden.
- **The Brother’s Physical Strength**: Because Professor Hu suffers from severe back issues, lifting an incapacitated elderly parent was physically impossible. Bedridden elderly patients place their entire "dead weight" onto their caregiver without exerting any supportive strength of their own, creating an immense hazard for lumbar strain. Hu's older brother, who is significantly taller, heavier, and sturdier, stepped in to handle all heavy lifting and transfers.
- **Nuclear Family Understanding**: Devoting thousands of hours to aging parents inevitably starves a caregiver's spouse and children of time and emotional presence, requiring immense patience and tolerance from one's immediate household.
Despite this ideal scenario, the panel emphasizes that such family solidarity is an extreme outlier. In the vast majority of households, prolonged elderly care triggers vicious feuds among siblings, causes bitter divorces, and leaves children of caregivers emotionally abandoned. Dou Wentao cautions that elderly illness is an almost "unsolvable issue" that blindsides successful mid-career professionals: someone riding high on professional accomplishments and personal satisfaction can see their entire career, financial security, and emotional life completely destroyed when an aging parent collapses into dementia.
---
[01:03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=3782s) The Ostrich Mentality, Desensitization, and Aging Without Infrastructure
The dialogue pivots to an even darker horizon: the terrifying realization of what happens when the caregiver eventually becomes the one requiring care. The panel notes that the ultimate tragedy is anticipating the day when you must rely on your own children to handle your basic bodily functions and clean up your incontinence. Observing that the younger female guest has likely never contemplated such grim realities, a panelist describes appearing on the show as a form of psychological "desensitization therapy" (脱敏疗法). In psychology, confronting an unbearable topic repeatedly gradually diminishes reflexive avoidance. The speaker confesses to previously living with a complete "ostrich mentality"—admitting that when first opening an article by Professor Hu, the mere mention of the distinctive, lingering "smell in the house" of an incapacitated elder caused them to quietly close the browser tab in horror.
While society prefers to avert its eyes, the panel stresses that cognitive decline is an unavoidable byproduct of demographic progress. The rapid emergence of widespread dementia is directly linked to soaring human longevity: in the 1980s, the average life expectancy was merely around 68 years old, meaning many individuals passed away before severe neurodegenerative diseases could manifest. Today, society faces an unprecedented demographic cliff for which social and medical infrastructure is fundamentally unprepared.
- **Prevalence at Advanced Age**: Statistics indicate that after age 85, the incidence rate of Alzheimer's reaches approximately 50%. Consequently, in an elderly couple where both spouses survive past 85, it is a statistical certainty that one will end up acting as the full-time caregiver for the other.
- **Reliance on Home Care**: Over 90% of elderly care remains reliant on informal, home-based family caregiving rather than institutional support.
- **Nursing Home Deficits**: High-end residential facilities frequently demand millions in upfront deposits alongside exorbitant monthly maintenance fees. Even for families with the financial resources to pay, the supply of specialized care beds remains critically insufficient.
[01:05:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=3904s) Aging Demographics and the Search for Specialized Care
The discussion opens with the realization that Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline are the inevitable biological trade-offs of extended human longevity. As life expectancy increases, physical and neurological functions naturally deteriorate. The probability of developing dementia climbs noticeably past age 60 and escalates dramatically after age 85. In China, where demographic aging is accelerating, one in every three individuals will be over 60 by the 2030s, portending a massive surge in neurodegenerative cases. Unlike rapid, acute illnesses, Alzheimer's is a protracted, dragging condition that gradually depletes entire families over years.
When consulting a specialist about his mother’s long-term prognosis, the speaker was candidly told that once an Alzheimer's patient reaches the stage of no longer recognizing family members, the burden surpasses what a household can bear, making institutional memory care the recommended path. However, the doctor immediately added a disheartening caveat: specialized, truly professional dementia care facilities in China remain exceedingly rare, and existing operations often lack clinical and psychological rigor.
Reflecting on his own journey, the speaker admits he initially considered placing his mother in a residential care facility, though his wife originally vetoed the idea. At that time, his mother was in the milder stages of cognitive impairment and still possessed clear agency and comprehension. She was fully aware of the intention when her son brought her on an exhaustive tour of a nursing home. She inspected the facility, spoke with the director, physicians, and nursing staff, and even ate a meal in the dining hall to evaluate the food. After the visit concluded, she firmly declared that she refused to go. Faced with her explicit objection, the family chose to respect her dignity and autonomy, recognizing that dragging an aware parent into a home against her will was unthinkable.
- **Dementia Risk Milestones**: Rises sharply after age 60; accelerates significantly after age 85.
- **Demographic Projections**: By the 2030s, one in three people in China will be aged 60 or older.
- **Institutional Limitations**: Specialized, high-standard memory care facilities in China remain scarce and underdeveloped.
- **The Mother's Evaluation**: Visited the facility, spoke with doctors and caregivers, tasted the cafeteria food, and decisively vetoed institutionalization while still possessing mild-stage agency.
---
[01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=4020s) The Unspoken Bond: Why Home Care Outweighs Institutionalization
As the mother's cognitive faculties degraded further to the point where she could no longer express an explicit will, the logistical option to institutionalize her resurfaced. However, the speaker discovered that the dynamic had inverted: it was no longer merely a matter of honoring her past refusal; he himself could not bear to send her away. While medical experts suggest that total loss of recognition is the benchmark for institutional placement, the speaker observes that an intuitive, profound emotional connection continues to linger between them.
This unspoken connection manifests concretely in everyday home life. The household employs a 24-hour caregiver, yet the mother frequently ignores the aide's directives and occasionally reacts with defensive agitation, such as grabbing the caregiver’s wrist and refusing to let go. But the moment her son steps into the room and speaks—saying, "Mom, it's time for you to eat now," or "You need to go to sleep now"—her entire demeanor softens. She instantly nods, smiles, and complies without resistance. Deep beneath the neurological fog, she recognizes her son as a unique, safe harbor. Faced with that lingering trust, the speaker finds it unbearable to envision his mother lying in an unfamiliar bed, surrounded solely by strangers, feeling as though he would be exiling her to a detached world before her time.
---
[01:08:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=4114s) The Fragile Equilibrium: Caregiver Dependence and Miyazaki's Teetering Tower
Responding to Professor Xu Zidong's query about what will happen if her condition worsens to where even this connection fades, the speaker emphasizes the indispensable role of domestic caregivers. Without dedicated in-home aides, family members attempting to shoulder 24-hour dementia care alone would suffer immediate physical and psychological collapse. Yet securing capable and compassionate help is an exhausting trial; families often cycle through caregiver after caregiver due to burnout, mismatched temperaments, or substandard care.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Fragile Equilibrium of In-Home Dementia Care
accDescr: Flowchart illustrating the daily support structure of home dementia care, the sudden triggers that can destabilize it, and the resulting systemic collapse.
subgraph SupportSystem["The Daily Fragile Balance"]
A["Primary Family Caregiver"] --- B["24-Hour In-Home Aide"]
B --- C["Routine Domestic Care & Mobility"]
end
subgraph Triggers["Sudden Disruptive Triggers"]
D["Caregiver Resignation / Turnover"]
E["Accidental Fall / Unoperable Fracture"]
F["Bedridden State & Pulmonary Infection"]
end
subgraph Crisis["Systemic Collapse"]
G["Immediate Caregiver Burnout"]
H["Fatal Medical Complications"]
I["Forced Institutionalization"]
end
The speaker characterizes his daily reality—co-managing his mother alongside the live-in aide, supplemented by occasional visits from his siblings—as an "extremely fragile balance" that survives strictly day-to-day. He draws an evocative parallel to Hayao Miyazaki’s film *The Boy and the Heron*, pointing to the scene where an old man painstakingly balances a precarious tower of wooden blocks on the verge of toppling. His caregiving life feels identically fraught: it holds together today, but might collapse tomorrow. While his mother does not suffer from cancer, she can currently only shuffle forward an inch at a time. The constant dread is that a single second of inattention could lead to a fall. At her advanced age, surgery for a fracture is out of the question; becoming completely bedridden invariably triggers pneumonia and fatal pulmonary complications. Because no amount of foresight can truly prepare a family for that breaking point, one can only survive day-to-day and react when the structure finally tumbles.
- **The Co-Caregiving Dynamic**: The primary son and a 24-hour caregiver form a frontline unit, maintaining an equilibrium that could shatter at any moment.
- **The Miyazaki Metaphor**: Likened to the teetering wooden block tower in *The Boy and the Heron* (*君たちはどう生きるか*), symbolizing a life perpetually on the brink of collapse.
- **Cascading Risks of Immobilization**: A split-second fall prevents surgical repair at advanced age, leading to a bedridden state, pulmonary failure, and death.
---
[01:11:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=4278s) Violent Tendencies, Agitation, and the Disorienting World of *The Father*
The conversation turns to the grim dead ends of dementia, where optimistic aphorisms like "there's always a way out" ring hollow. Many elderly patients develop acute behavioral and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD), exhibiting paranoid hostility, unprovoked agitation, and violent outbursts. Some elderly individuals adamantly reject outside help, driving away seven or eight caregivers in succession and stubbornly accepting care only from their direct offspring. In tragic scenarios, caregivers and families are forced to physically restrain agitated patients to their beds to prevent them from grabbing heavy objects and injuring themselves or others.
To understand the internal reality of this condition, the group references the film *The Father* (starring Anthony Hopkins). The movie masterfully dramatizes the fractured inner landscape of dementia, where the boundary separating objective reality from delusion permanently erodes. Patients are trapped in a seamless blur between waking reality and dreams, frequently speaking to long-deceased relatives as if they are standing directly in front of them. It leaves caregivers wrestling with whether the patient is experiencing a literal hallucination or inhabiting an entirely disjointed plane of existence.
---
[01:12:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=4375s) From Stacking Blocks to Tetris: The Vanishing Illusion of Career Security
The discussion transitions from the precariousness of personal caregiving to the systemic anxiety pervading the modern workforce. Education today faces a surreal predicament: institutions are preparing students for occupations that do not yet exist, training them to use technologies that have not yet been invented to solve problems not yet recognized as problems. In this hyper-evolving environment, the traditional strategy of "biding your time" (熬) or coasting in a single post has become obsolete; those who attempt to coast inevitably find themselves discarded into the societal recycling bin. A worker might spend decades perfecting a craft—such as engineering exceptionally durable pagers or feature phones—only to watch the entire industry wiped out overnight by technological disruption.
The speakers contrast two fundamentally distinct paradigms of life security:
1. **The Modern "Tetris" Reality**: For younger generations, life is no longer about stacking wooden blocks into an enduring, predictable tower. Instead, it behaves like *Tetris*: falling blocks demand constant maneuvering, and the moment a full row is successfully built, it is wiped away and disappears overnight.
2. **The Planned-Economy "Danwei" Era**: Dou Wentao recalls his early years working in a state-owned unit (the broadcast station/Danwei), where future anxiety was virtually non-existent because the institution prearranged every stage of life. Young employees lived in spartan 7-square-meter bachelor dormitories; even after marrying, couples would simply continue to squeeze into the same 7-square-meter room while awaiting institutional housing allocations. Though materially modest, the environment offered absolute psychological security. As years of service accumulated predictably, one could comfortably envision living out an entire lifetime on a steady track, happily eating Cantonese beef chow fun day after day without existential dread.
- **The Modern Career Paradox**: Preparing students for non-existent jobs, unknown technologies, and undefined future problems.
- **The Obsolescence Trap**: Mastery of an obsolete product (e.g., pagers or indestructible dumbphones) offers no structural protection.
- **Tetris vs. Danwei Stability**: Modern life constantly clears accumulated progress overnight like Tetris, contrasting sharply with the planned-economy era where a 7-square-meter dormitory and accumulating seniority guaranteed lifelong certainty.
[01:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=4989s) The Cost of Capital: From Creative Freedom to Corporate Debt
The conversation turns to the realities of business expansion, financing, and what happens when an independent creator decides to scale up. Dou Wentao recounts a conversation with an industry insider who asked him directly: "Are you preparing for financing or something?" The veteran offered a blunt warning, citing the cautionary tale of another prominent figure in the media landscape, and asked Dou whether he was truly ready to dismantle his current lifestyle. Taking outside funding and scaling an enterprise demands a radical transformation: someone accustomed to autonomy and flexible hours suddenly finds themselves arriving at the office by 8:00 AM every morning and unable to leave before 10:00 PM.
The daily routine shifts entirely from creative focus to grueling administrative overhead—spending whole days shuttling between meetings, mediating conflicting stakeholder interests, handling social obligations, reporting up the chain of command, and constantly chasing quantitative performance indicators, all while struggling to keep the core show in production. As Dou observes, anyone dreaming of making serious money through institutional capital must confront a fundamental question: "do you really want to live this life?" The panel agrees that once an entrepreneur accepts institutional investment, it feels less like an injection of wealth and more like plunging into inescapable debt.
- **The Corporate Grind of Scale:** Raising venture capital shifts a creator's day from ideation to crisis management, forcing an 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM grind spent balancing investor demands, executive reporting, and target KPIs.
- **Capital as Liability:** The participants liken venture backing to "being in debt"—a psychological and operational burden where outside money creates intense ongoing liabilities.
---
[01:24:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=5052s) The Beijing Exodus and the Realities of Creative Production
The discussion shifts to the human toll of operating in a major metropolis like Beijing. Reflecting on organizational turnover, the speakers note that their primary retention issue is not employees jumping ship to rival companies, but rather talented young professionals being forced out of the city entirely. Brilliant individuals arrive in Beijing, spend two or three years completing university degrees or cutting their teeth in demanding jobs, and often meet a partner. Yet the moment they decide to get married or start a family, remaining becomes untenable. They are not leaving out of a lack of ambition; they simply can no longer afford the exorbitant cost of living in the capital, prompting a steady exodus toward more livable regions.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Talent Pipeline and Creative Output Across City Tiers
accDescr: Diagram showing how cost of living drives talent out of tier-one cities and why deep cultural work thrives in lower-tier cities.
subgraph TierOne["Tier-1 Metropolises (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou)"]
A["Ambitious Talent Arrives"] --> B["High Living Costs & Market Pressures"]
B --> C{"Life Milestones: Marriage / Family"}
C -->|"Cannot Afford to Stay"| D["Exodus to Tier-2 & Tier-3 Cities"]
B --> E["Obsession with Instant ROI & Easy Money"]
E --> F["PR Events, Red Envelopes & Briefing Meetings"]
F --> G["Inability to Write Deep, Long-Form Work"]
end
subgraph LowerTiers["Tier-2 & Tier-3 Cities"]
D --> H["Affordable Living & Sustainable Pace"]
H --> I["Rich Mindset & Deep Knowledge Accumulation"]
I --> J["High-Caliber, Long-Form Cultural Content"]
end
```
This urban economic pressure has a direct impact on the creative ecosystem. One speaker recalls a public talk addressing how people classify the tier of their city, noting a curious realization: despite Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou ostensibly harboring the highest concentration of educated, culture-loving elites, the authors who actually produce substantial, long-form investigative or cultural writing rarely reside in these first-tier metropolises.
In tier-one cities, the daily environment is hyper-commercialized and driven entirely by immediate return on investment (ROI). With quick cash readily available through press conferences, public relations planning sessions, and collecting promotional "red envelopes," few creatives can afford the time-consuming, grueling effort required for deep long-form pieces. Consequently, serious intellectual and creative cultivation often shifts to second- and third-tier cities, where creators can build up substantial knowledge, preserve their energy, and live comfortably without having Beijing drain their blood and sweat.
---
[01:26:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=5165s) Tier-1 Cities vs. Tier-1 People: The Definition of Reliability
Moving past geographic classifications, the speakers examine the difference between city tiers and human caliber. Society frequently labels cities as first-, second-, or third-tier, but the panel poses a more incisive question: what tier are you as an individual? Setting aside regional prejudices, people exhibit distinct differences in outlook, bearing, vision, and operational style. A person living in a premier global metropolis may operate with a third-tier mentality, while an individual residing in a remote third-tier town can exhibit first-tier vision and dignity.
Dou Wentao grounds this abstract distinction in a single, concrete operational trait: whether a person is genuinely "reliable" (靠谱). In professional hiring, specialized technical abilities—such as drafting a news report—can be trained in days. The defining separator among workers is their level of diligence and thoroughness:
> "Just because I said it doesn't mean you heard it. Just because I did it doesn't mean I achieved it."
Unreliable employees execute tasks mechanically and deflect accountability when things fall apart, falling back on hollow excuses like, "But I told them," or "I did it, I didn't know it would turn out this way." By contrast, high-caliber individuals obsess over the outcome rather than the mere motion. Dou cites an example of a conscientious colleague briefing Jiang Fangzhou before a shoot: rather than simply sending an address and a time, they confirm comprehension, account for logistical friction, and say, "Be here tomorrow at three. Getting upstairs might take some time, so you'll need an extra ten minutes to get here." That anticipation of variables and commitment to the final result is what makes someone universally sought after in any field.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Task Execution vs True Reliability
accDescr: A comparison between an unreliable mindset that only completes basic tasks and a reliable mindset that guarantees outcomes.
subgraph Unreliable["Unreliable Mindset (Pass-the-Buck)"]
U1["'I Said It'"] --> U2["No Verification of Reception"]
U3["'I Did It'"] --> U4["No Verification of Result"]
U4 --> U5["Excuses: 'I didn't know it would end up like this'"]
end
- **Execution vs. Outcome:** True competence is not marked by merely performing an action, but by taking responsibility for the finished result without resting on perfunctory communication.
- **The Prison Wall Paradox:** To illustrate that meticulous work is an internal instinct rather than an external calculation, the panel references Italian writer Primo Levi’s account of concentration camps, where Jewish prisoners constructed the walls of their own enclosure with astonishing precision and craft simply because careful work was their unbreakable habit.
---
[01:29:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_r0ICWyQ8s&t=5340s) Extreme Meticulousness: From the 22-Degree Studio to Wang Yung-ching’s Clean Rice
To illustrate what top-tier professional reliability looks like in practice, Dou Wentao shares an incident from his own production crew. Dou is notoriously sensitive to heat and dislikes sweating on set. During a recording session, he asked his team to check the studio temperature. A staff member did not simply reply with a guess; they placed a physical thermometer directly on the set, snapped a photograph showing the reading of 22 degrees Celsius, and messaged it to Dou on WeChat. Crucially, the staff member added an extra layer of forethought, noting that water was currently boiling nearby for hot tea, meaning Dou’s body temperature would likely rise once he started drinking. That proactive, multi-layered awareness exemplifies an employee anyone would fight to keep.
Dou contends that while systemic social hurdles undoubtedly exist, there is a fundamental truth to the saying that while companies go bankrupt, truly capable individuals never do. A person with that level of diligence and observational skill will rise to the top of any trade, even when starting at the absolute bottom:
- **The Hyper-Observant Real Estate Agent:** Dou recalls choosing his property agent because the young man projected unquestionable integrity and possessed remarkable observational instincts. The agent paid close attention to Dou's routine, knew what car he drove, tracked parking availability, and routinely distributed practical holiday gifts like rice, Spring Festival couplets, and flowers. Unsurprisingly, he became the fastest-promoted professional among his peers.
- **The Jianguomen Liangpi Vendor:** Dou remembers a street vendor selling cold skin noodles (*liangpi*) near Beijing's Jianguomen roughly a decade ago. Dressed immaculately and running an impeccably clean, orderly cart, the vendor approached fast food with such consummate professionalism that customers gladly traveled across the city just to buy his noodles.
- **Wang Yung-ching’s Rice Business:** Wang Yung-ching, who later founded Formosa Plastics and became the wealthiest tycoon in Taiwan, started out running a modest rice shop with his brothers on a street crowded with competitors. In those days, commercially sold rice was routinely contaminated with small stones and sand, forcing housewives to spend tedious hours sifting grain before cooking. Wang set his shop apart by painstakingly picking out every grain of sand and gravel by hand, delivering spotless rice that built an unshakeable commercial reputation.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Campus to Workplace Transformation
accDescr: Diagram illustrating the shift from school habits to professional reliability.
subgraph SchoolMindset["校园惯性与理论脱节"]
A["宏大叙事 / 应试概念"]
B["缺乏职场沟通与协作训练"]
end
subgraph ProfessionalCore["重塑职业素养"]
C["主动反思与自我清洗"]
D["可靠靠谱、善解人意"]
E["落于细节的专业执行力"]
end
subgraph CareerOutcome["长远社会认同"]
F["赢得信任与尊重"]
G["成为优秀的普通人"]
end
[0:00] We basically understand genes now, but
[0:01] there's actually one thing I've never
[0:03] been able to figure out.
[0:05] >> Mm-hmm.
[0:06] >> Take viruses, for example.
[0:07] >> Right.
[0:08] >> Isn't it just a layer of protein?
[0:09] >> Yes.
[0:10] >> That's how I understand it.
[0:11] >> Right.
[0:12] >> Wrapping a little note inside.
[0:13] >> Pretty much.
[0:14] >> It’s like it’s wrapping up an
[0:16] instruction, a message, a piece of
[0:17] information.
[0:18] >> Yes.
[0:19] >> It doesn't really seem like...what
[0:21] exactly is this thing? Why is it, what
[0:23] is it?
[0:24] >> That it has such great destructive
[0:26] power. Mm.
[0:27] >> This is equivalent to its core, which
[0:29] is what's written on that note, mm.
[0:30] >> Just like the example you gave, if that
[0:32] were a secret decree for the Yongzheng
[0:34] Emperor. Saying "execute the soldiers,
[0:35] don't submit a report," just those five
[0:37] characters written on the note, and
[0:38] with a stroke of Yongzheng's brush, the
[0:40] impact is huge. So, the key lies in
[0:41] what is written on that note.
[0:43] >> Professor Xu, regarding this, I'd like
[0:44] to take the chance to ask you about
[0:46] this important matter.
[0:46] >> Wait, wait, I didn't quite catch what
[0:48] you said before. Hey, let me ask a few
[0:50] basic conceptual questions first. Do
[0:52] you know, for example, how many viruses
[0:54] are in our gut? How many types of
[0:56] viruses? Go ahead and take a guess.
[0:58] >> Is it billions?
[0:59] >> You can't lose.
[1:00] >> How many types? How many?
[1:02] >> How many types, not the total quantity,
[1:04] but how many different types.
[1:05] >> At the very least, it wouldn't be lower
[1:07] than—one data set says 100,000 types,
[1:09] another says 190,000 types. And these
[1:11] are just bacteriophages, which are the
[1:12] little notes on your body coded with
[1:14] various protein recipes. The point is,
[1:16] the vast majority of these notes have
[1:18] nothing to do with you, a small portion
[1:20] are beneficial to you, and only a tiny
[1:22] fraction are harmful to you—which we
[1:24] call infectious diseases. So, in
[1:25] reality, there are probably at least
[1:27] millions of viruses we haven't
[1:29] discovered yet, at least that amount.
[1:31] We don't recognize the vast majority of
[1:33] them. The ones we know today that can
[1:35] infect humans are only a few hundred
[1:37] types. And the vast majority are
[1:38] neutral or even beneficial to you.
[1:40] >> And that, that thing that tells me what
[1:42] to eat, what is that?
[1:44] >> That's bacteria. Mm, but there are some
[1:46] viruses that specifically eat bacteria,
[1:48] called bacteriophages. They are viruses
[1:50] that specialize in eating bacteria.
[1:51] Because viruses are much smaller than
[1:53] bacteria. So, that means we humans
[1:55] carry a massive amount of bacteria and
[1:56] a massive amount of viruses in our
[1:57] bodies, and we might even carry fungi
[1:59] —for example, if you have athlete's
[2:00] foot, you definitely have fungi. For
[2:02] instance, many of us, a lot of people
[2:05] even have parasites. You might even
[2:07] carry things like malaria-causing
[2:08] agents; you could have protozoa,
[2:10] roundworms, hookworms, tapeworms—all
[2:11] of these are possible. So, humans,
[2:13] therefore, humans are an ecosystem. I
[2:16] have always said that a human is not
[2:18] just one person. We are certainly not
[2:20] just a group of individuals sitting
[2:23] here today; we are all ecosystems—
[2:26] this is a conversation between
[2:28] ecosystems. Thinking you are just "you"
[2:31] might be a bit arrogant; you likely
[2:33] have more bacteria in your body than
[2:36] cells.
[2:36] >> About three to ten times more.
[2:39] >> If we look at the volume, bacteria
[2:41] outnumber cells. From the bacteria's
[2:43] perspective, why are you the host?
[2:45] Aren't you just our habitat? Right.
[2:48] >> Think of it as a mountain, where trees
[2:50] grow in abundance. If the mountain says
[2:52] it has no trees, that’s wrong; you
[2:54] are actually a mountain covered in
[2:55] trees.
[2:56] >> This fungus, in fact, is...
[2:58] >> 85 percent the same as a dog.
[3:00] >> Over 85 percent of the genes in every
[3:03] cell of that mountain of yours are the
[3:05] same as a dog’s. Now, who do these
[3:08] scientific research results, the human
[3:10] genome data you've mapped, belong to?
[3:13] Basically, during the Human Genome
[3:14] Project, a very important principle was
[3:16] established: shared, co-developed, and
[3:18] accessible to all.
[3:19] >> Oh, the whole world agreed on this.
[3:22] >> It was decided back then that a
[3:23] person's genes must be public. We
[3:25] specifically emphasized that genes
[3:27] cannot be patented—at least not those
[3:29] under natural conditions. Because once
[3:31] you patent a gene, you're claiming a
[3:33] natural discovery, which shouldn't be
[3:35] done. So, there was a very strong
[3:37] signal from the academic community at
[3:39] the time that this should be something
[3:41] shared by all of humanity. That’s
[3:43] interesting. You see, all of humanity
[3:45] possesses rationality. When humanity
[3:47] first started moon landings or space
[3:49] exploration, agreements were made that
[3:51] places like Mars or the Moon do not
[3:52] belong to any single nation; they are
[3:54] common to all. You see, this genetic
[3:56] map, right? It also cannot be privately
[3:59] owned.
[3:59] >> Now I finally understand the meaning of
[4:01] a "human community with a shared future
[4:02] ." From that perspective, that is
[4:03] indeed the right way to understand it.
[4:05] >> The question is, how can research in
[4:07] this field benefit humanity today?
[4:09] >> Yes, for example, we also worked on the
[4:11] 2003 SARS outbreak. I had been at BGI
[4:13] for less than a year, and I was right
[4:15] on the front lines. Back then, the SARS
[4:17] source was just a few hundred
[4:18] kilometers from here.
[4:19] >> It was from the palm civet, right? The
[4:21] guy who ate it is still around. I
[4:23] actually went to visit him later; he
[4:25] was in quite good health. He had
[4:27] infected many people, but he himself is
[4:29] still very healthy. Of course, eating
[4:31] palm civets was a common phenomenon in
[4:32] the south back then; it wasn't just him
[4:34] .
[4:34] >> That is not a good habit.
[4:36] >> It’s not a good habit, it’s a flaw,
[4:38] and it shouldn't be that way. But what
[4:40] am I referring to? It was November 2002
[4:42] when we first learned of atypical
[4:45] pneumonia. But we only truly identified
[4:47] it as what was then called a
[4:49] coronavirus—SARS coronavirus.
[4:51] Obtaining this sequence, first knowing
[4:54] it's a virus, second knowing it's a
[4:56] coronavirus, and third knowing its
[4:58] sequence, wasn't until April 2003; it
[5:00] took us half a year to find out. So
[5:03] during this process, despite being the
[5:05] site of the first outbreak, eventually
[5:07] the US, Canada, and Hong Kong, China
[5:09] were the ones to complete the
[5:11] sequencing first; China fell behind on
[5:13] this. We knew it was a microorganism at
[5:15] the time, but not a virus, because we
[5:17] were led toward mycoplasma; we thought
[5:19] a lot about it being mycoplasma, which
[5:21] is a type of intermediate organism
[5:23] slightly higher than a virus and lower
[5:25] than a bacterium.
[5:26] >> Back during the Spanish flu, it seems
[5:29] most scientists globally also once
[5:31] thought it was a bacterium.
[5:33] >> Right.
[5:34] >> Actually, there were a few scientists
[5:36] at the time who pointed out it was a
[5:38] virus, but they weren't believed by the
[5:40] majority, so research just kept going,
[5:42] and going, and going in that bacterial
[5:44] direction.
[5:45] >> Professor, let me interrupt you here.
[5:47] We've known of the existence of viruses
[5:49] since 1892. Ivanovsky used a filter
[5:51] back then, like a sieve, to block
[5:53] bacteria, but the liquid that passed
[5:54] through could still cause infection, so
[5:56] he realized this was something he
[5:57] couldn't block.
[5:58] >> Meaning it was small enough to pass
[5:59] through.
[6:00] >> At least smaller than bacteria.
[6:01] >> Viruses are compared to bacteria...
[6:03] >> Much smaller, yes.
[6:04] >> Hundreds or thousands of times smaller.
[6:06] >> A COVID-19 virus and a human egg cell.
[6:08] Do you know how many times the
[6:09] difference is?
[6:10] >> How many times?
[6:11] >> How many? Take a guess.
[6:12] >> No idea, guess.
[6:13] >> A billion, maybe?
[6:14] >> A billion.
[6:15] >> 1.1 billion?
[6:17] >> A billion. Oh, so it's a molecule; it's
[6:19] basically a molecule, nearly reaching
[6:21] the physical level of a molecule. A
[6:23] virus is 100 nanometers. For the COVID-
[6:26] 19 virus, we think of a sphere that is
[6:28] 100 nanometers. An immature egg cell is
[6:31] 100 micrometers. Or 0.1 millimeters,
[6:34] that big; so, human eye resolution is
[6:36] just enough to see it—that is, we can
[6:39] see an egg cell; it’s the only cell
[6:41] visible to the naked eye. So what I
[6:43] just mentioned was nanometers, now I'm
[6:45] talking about millimeters, with
[6:47] micrometers in between. Once you
[6:49] multiply this, it becomes 10 cubed in
[6:51] volume, so it's a difference of a
[6:52] billion times—ten to the ninth power
[6:54] makes such a huge difference. I told
[6:56] him that back in 1892, we knew viruses
[6:59] existed, but we couldn't see them. In
[7:01] 1930, the Germans invented the electron
[7:03] microscope. It was only when we started
[7:05] using electrons like light that we were
[7:07] finally able to see viruses. But the
[7:08] Spanish Flu happened back in 1918. So,
[7:10] at that time, we were still over a
[7:12] decade away from being able to see a
[7:13] virus. We didn't know.
[7:14] >> So, back then, even if you suspected it
[7:16] was a virus, there was no evidence.
[7:17] Ultimately, when people can't see
[7:18] something, very few can think it
[7:19] through like Einstein with physical
[7:21] formulas and believe it's right; most
[7:22] people only believe what they see. It's
[7:23] not just you; we scientists are the
[7:25] same way.
[7:26] >> But speaking of this...
[7:27] >> Compared to a sperm cell, which one is
[7:29] bigger?
[7:29] >> A sperm is much smaller than an egg,
[7:30] but a sperm is still larger than the
[7:32] novel coronavirus.
[7:32] >> It is still larger than the coronavirus
[7:34] .
[7:34] >> Yes, a hundred million times larger.
[7:36] >> So that means in the future...
[7:38] >> Well, it's not a hundred million times
[7:39] larger, maybe dozens of times larger;
[7:41] it's written as dozens of times here.
[7:42] Oh, so sperm...
[7:44] >> Yes, sperm are invisible.
[7:46] >> So men have almost no contribution to
[7:47] humanity; it’s all the egg, the womb
[7:49] —it’s the egg plus the womb plus
[7:50] the woman.
[7:51] >> Oh my, thank you.
[7:53] >> I remember you once said back in
[7:54] Berkeley that women always give you so
[7:55] much more in return for whatever you
[7:57] give them.
[7:58] >> They give you so many gifts in return.
[8:00] >> So, do you mean that if this tool
[8:01] develops to a certain point, we could
[8:03] instantly detect, for example, whether
[8:05] there is a virus in this space?
[8:06] >> Exactly. So, after I came back and
[8:09] finished the tests this time, I knew
[8:10] immediately: first, this is a
[8:12] coronavirus; second, I knew it wasn't
[8:14] SARS because their genetic similarity
[8:16] was less than 80%. That's a huge
[8:17] difference. For a virus, a 20%
[8:19] difference is massive—look at how big
[8:20] the difference is between us and a dog.
[8:22] >> Huge difference.
[8:23] >> So, at most, they are related; we say
[8:25] they are both of the coronavirus family
[8:26] , but they are two different species.
[8:27] They are two different ones, and these
[8:29] two are not the same.
[8:30] >> Back then, there wasn't even a name for
[8:31] it, hmm.
[8:32] >> It was impossible to name it back then.
[8:33] But we definitely shouldn't stigmatize
[8:34] it; take the Spanish Flu, for example,
[8:36] it’s ridiculous—it had nothing to
[8:37] do with Spain.
[8:38] >> Right. It was just that the King of
[8:39] Spain got infected, so they pinned the
[8:41] name on it: "Since your King of Spain
[8:42] got infected, we'll call it the Spanish
[8:43] Flu." Blaming others for viruses isn't
[8:45] something that started today; it’s
[8:46] always been happening. Right, because
[8:48] there was another factor at the time,
[8:50] which was World War I. Actually, for
[8:52] instance, the flu that first broke out
[8:54] in the U.S.—the U.S., France, Germany
[8:56] , and other warring nations had many
[8:58] soldiers infected, but it affected the
[9:01] war effort, so they didn't talk about
[9:03] it. However, Spain was a neutral
[9:04] country, so by comparison, the neutral
[9:06] country just said that you were the
[9:07] ones who had it, since both sides were
[9:09] hiding it.
[9:10] >> We have done many such things
[9:11] throughout history; for example, we now
[9:12] have something in the south called
[9:14] Mediterranean anemia.
[9:15] >> It’s a type of blood disorder; it's
[9:16] actually a kind of bad blood. It’s
[9:18] called that because it was first
[9:19] discovered in the Mediterranean, but it
[9:20] was later found everywhere—wherever
[9:22] there’s malaria at that latitude,
[9:23] there is Mediterranean anemia.
[9:24] >> It exists to combat malaria, because if
[9:26] you get...
[9:27] >> Getting malaria versus having
[9:28] Mediterranean anemia. When malaria was
[9:30] untreatable, it was better to have the
[9:31] anemia. Because carriers of this anemia
[9:33] wouldn't get malaria, or if they did,
[9:34] the symptoms were milder; it's a case
[9:36] of choosing the lesser of two evils.
[9:37] Today, malaria is gone, so
[9:38] Mediterranean anemia has become a
[9:40] significant genetic disease. But
[9:42] because you named it "Mediterranean,"
[9:43] people think it only refers to the
[9:45] Mediterranean, which isn't true; it’s
[9:46] just a disease. What about Hong Kong
[9:49] foot? "
[9:49] >> Hong Kong foot" is also a form of
[9:50] stigmatization; honestly, where don't
[9:51] you find this kind of foot condition?
[9:53] >> The 2012 MERS was also named after the
[9:55] Middle East.
[9:56] >> Actually, they were very depressed; why
[9:58] was it called MERS? The name was
[9:59] because it was brought by camels, so we
[10:01] shouldn't stigmatize it now. It should
[10:03] be called camel flu. No, let me
[10:05] continue with this. Once we got the
[10:07] virus, according to China's Infectious
[10:08] Disease Prevention Law, we had to
[10:10] cooperate with the CDC, and then they
[10:12] released the data. Actually, this was
[10:13] very short—the results came out in
[10:15] two weeks, which is much faster than
[10:16] half a year. Do you know why that was a
[10:18] benefit?
[10:18] >> We could then make a diagnosis. As long
[10:21] as I know the full picture of this
[10:22] virus. Humans have 3 billion base pairs
[10:25] . The coronavirus has 30,000 base pairs
[10:27] —only 30,000. But within those 30,000
[10:29] base pairs, it’s formidable; when
[10:31] those 30,000 face your "Great Wall" of
[10:33] 3 billion, I only need to hit one point
[10:36] , and that's enough. That point is
[10:38] called ACE2, which is like a door on
[10:40] the surface of our cells. So, for this
[10:42] coronavirus, if we say SARS back then
[10:44] was holding a hammer and hacking away
[10:46] at that spot, this one is holding an
[10:48] electric drill. It drills straight in,
[10:50] which is why its penetrative power is
[10:52] especially strong.
[10:53] >> And from the initial Alpha and Beta,
[10:55] when it reached Delta, it was no longer
[10:57] holding a power drill; it was
[10:58] essentially holding a rocket launcher,
[11:00] blowing the door wide open with a
[11:01] single shot.
[11:02] >> Meaning it's about 1,000 times more
[11:03] potent in the competition, right?
[11:05] >> We have a value for this called the
[11:07] basic reproduction number, which
[11:08] measures how many people one virus can
[11:10] infect per day if we take no protective
[11:12] measures. For SARS, it was around three
[11:15] . When COVID-19 first emerged, it was
[11:16] estimated to be between three and five.
[11:18] But it has evolved into the fourth
[11:20] generation, the Delta variant or what
[11:21] we call the Indian variant; at this
[11:23] stage, it's essentially between seven
[11:24] and nine. What is the concept of seven
[11:26] to nine? It's close to measles, the
[11:28] most contagious disease in our history.
[11:31] Or, in short, it belongs to the
[11:33] strongest category of viruses, even
[11:35] stronger than the flu; that's why the
[11:37] world has been restless lately, because
[11:40] of the Delta variant's resurgence.
[11:42] >> Right, what kind of existence is this
[11:44] virus? It can't even be considered a
[11:47] life form.
[11:48] >> Yes, strictly speaking, it indeed lacks
[11:50] many characteristics of life. Right, so
[11:52] what is it then? It has been around for
[11:55] billions of years, perhaps as old as
[11:58] humanity or even life itself. It should
[12:01] be said that the most ancient forms of
[12:03] life might be viruses, or at least one
[12:06] of them. But this virus exists, and it
[12:08] has just remained this way.
[12:10] >> Yes.
[12:11] >> Then I don't really understand if it
[12:13] wants to become a plant or an animal;
[12:15] what is its goal?
[12:16] >> It's like this; we can think about this
[12:18] from two angles. Let's start with one
[12:20] that's easier for everyone to
[12:21] understand. There's a man named Richard
[12:24] Dawkins who wrote a very famous book in
[12:26] the 1980s, "The Selfish Gene." The
[12:28] Selfish Gene.
[12:29] >> The Selfish Gene.
[12:31] >> He argues that humans are born neither
[12:32] inherently good nor evil, but
[12:34] inherently selfish. There is no right
[12:36] or wrong; it just wants to replicate
[12:37] itself.
[12:38] >> Right.
[12:39] >> Viruses can be understood precisely as
[12:40] a combination of a few genes. Its sole
[12:42] purpose for existence is itself. For
[12:45] example, it's like Voldemort. It can be
[12:47] split into several horcruxes. You might
[12:49] see the virus as dead, but under the
[12:51] right conditions, it reassembles and
[12:53] comes back to life. And the existence
[12:55] of this form of life is something at a
[12:57] more fundamental level, occurring when
[12:59] the boundary between inorganic and
[13:00] organic matter is broken.
[13:02] >> You see life, but it hasn't quite
[13:03] reached life yet; it's right on that
[13:05] boundary.
[13:05] >> Pre-life.
[13:07] >> You could understand it that way.
[13:08] >> Then why aren't there any on other
[13:09] planets?
[13:10] >> We just don't know.
[13:11] >> How do you know there aren't any?
[13:12] >> This is a position of agnosticism, not
[13:14] one of denial. So, is it possible for
[13:15] the virus to develop further?
[13:17] >> Of course it is. Its development is
[13:19] very simple: it just needs to counter
[13:20] you.
[13:20] >> Many people ask me how this virus can
[13:22] be so formidable without intelligence.
[13:23] I tell them it doesn't need
[13:24] intelligence; it just needs to counter
[13:25] human intelligence.
[13:26] >> Right. Following the laws of life, why
[13:29] wouldn't it continue to evolve into an
[13:31] organic life form?
[13:32] >> Because it already has a more
[13:33] convenient way to parasitize.
[13:35] Parasitism is the lowest energy
[13:36] consumption for it, which aligns with
[13:38] the development of selfish genes. So
[13:40] why are we so unselfish? As we delve
[13:43] deeper into life sciences, we often
[13:45] encounter this term, and most people
[13:46] hear it as "evolution"(jin-hua). But in
[13:48] reality, the correct translation for
[13:50] the word "evolution" is "unfolding"(
[13:52] yan-hua).
[13:52] >> There is no "best" in evolution—Yan
[13:54] Fu's translation was very accurate:
[13:55] natural selection favors those who
[13:57] adapt, not those who are "optimal." Mm.
[13:59] >> Actually, there is no "optimal," only "
[14:01] better." That is why this new virus is
[14:03] so powerful: it changes as you change.
[14:05] I don't need intelligence; I am your
[14:06] mirror. A mirror has no intelligence,
[14:08] right? But if you put on makeup, I
[14:10] reflect your image. I don't need to be
[14:12] like you humans, creating vaccines or
[14:13] other things. As long as my genes
[14:14] follow the same principles as yours. If
[14:16] I can pry open your door, I win. That
[14:18] is the survival rule of viruses. So,
[14:20] how do humans—for example, China—
[14:22] fight against viruses? I often...we can
[14:24] cite many examples. China has very
[14:26] strong social organizational
[14:27] capabilities; the government is
[14:28] mobilized, our scientists are working
[14:29] hard, and the public is very
[14:30] cooperative. But ultimately, you are
[14:32] using a language the virus doesn't
[14:33] speak. Viruses don't isolate themselves
[14:36] . Viruses won't collectively engage in
[14:38] sanitation campaigns. But if you try to
[14:40] use vaccines to combat them, you’ll
[14:42] find you can never finish the job
[14:44] because they keep changing, just like
[14:46] the flu. In the end, didn't the virus
[14:48] and humanity reach a mutually agreeable
[14:50] outcome?
[14:50] >> Oh, so in the end, vaccines can't
[14:53] handle it?
[14:54] >> We can say the epidemic is over, but we
[14:57] won't say the virus is gone. Almost all
[14:59] viruses, after reaching a certain level
[15:01] of infection, will transition to a
[15:03] relatively milder state, because if the
[15:06] virus kills all humans, it dies itself.
[15:08] The trend we see now is that although
[15:10] the virus is becoming more infectious,
[15:12] its lethality has dropped significantly
[15:13] compared to the start. Its current
[15:15] lethality rate is roughly equivalent to
[15:17] a severe flu, at about one-thousandth,
[15:18] although it hasn't dropped to
[15:19] one-ten-thousandth yet.
[15:20] >> Is this because its toxicity has
[15:22] decreased on its own, or is it because
[15:24] we have been vaccinated? Both, both
[15:26] play a role. Vaccines are definitely
[15:28] useful, because even though many of the
[15:29] recent cases we see are vaccinated,
[15:31] they haven't developed severe illness.
[15:33] At least in terms of severity, the
[15:35] probability has been greatly reduced.
[15:36] To use gaming terms, the critical hit
[15:38] rate has been lowered, though the
[15:40] infection rate remains.
[15:41] >> I don’t understand all that much
[15:43] science, but I have a simple thought. I
[15:45] feel that relying on vaccines to fight
[15:47] this virus is like what you just said:
[15:49] as the demon grows an inch, the priest
[15:51] grows a foot—it’s endless. Yes.
[15:54] >> Under what circumstances can humanity
[15:56] feel that we have temporarily won this
[15:58] battle? It’s when there are drugs
[16:00] that can keep people from dying, or at
[16:02] least make it less likely for them to
[16:04] die after catching the disease. Think
[16:06] of the flu. The flu has occurred
[16:09] countless times in history, but the
[16:11] 1918 flu, sparked by World War I, was
[16:14] the hardest to deal with. When were we
[16:17] basically able to "shake hands and make
[16:19] peace" with the Spanish flu? Around 19
[16:23] ...Around the 1930s, we could basically
[16:26] shake hands and make peace, because you
[16:28] couldn't defeat it, and there were no
[16:30] vaccines back then. But you asked the
[16:31] question: is there a cure for the flu
[16:33] today? No.
[16:34] >> Still no.
[16:35] >> Still no. We often joke about the flu
[16:38] today, saying if you take medicine
[16:39] you'll be better in a week, and if you
[16:40] don't, you'll be better in seven days.
[16:41] >> It can only make you feel a bit more
[16:43] comfortable. If your nose is stuffed,
[16:45] I’ll help decongest it; I’ll
[16:46] constrict your blood vessels to make
[16:48] you feel better. If you can’t sleep,
[16:50] I’ll help you sleep.
[16:51] >> But the flu doesn't cause many deaths
[16:53] anymore.
[16:54] >> That’s because 50 million to 200
[16:56] million people already died in that
[16:58] 1918 outbreak. Compared to that time,
[17:00] our way of dealing with the flu hasn't
[17:02] changed, but our life-sustaining
[17:03] capabilities have become stronger.
[17:04] >> What is "life-sustaining care"?
[17:07] >> Ventilators. ICUs—these all count as
[17:09] human power to support you, which has
[17:11] strengthened your body's ability to "
[17:13] support the righteous and eliminate the
[17:15] evil."
[17:16] >> Because I’m always hoping for some
[17:18] kind of drug—isn’t that how it is?
[17:20] Right?
[17:21] >> You can look at it this way. For
[17:23] example, Donald Trump said he caught
[17:25] COVID-19 last October.
[17:26] >> Mm-hmm.
[17:27] >> And the medication he used was a type
[17:29] of monoclonal antibody...
[17:31] >> It was from a few American companies,
[17:33] but I looked at the dosage at the time;
[17:35] he had to take eight grams of
[17:37] antibodies. In other words, this type
[17:39] of treatment might be useful, but the
[17:41] problem is that regular people
[17:42] absolutely cannot afford it. That thing
[17:44] is a treatment level in the millions or
[17:47] tens of millions.
[17:48] >> That's very expensive, right?
[17:50] >> First of all, it's expensive, that's
[17:51] one thing. The second issue is why
[17:53] viruses are so hard to deal with. It's
[17:55] because viruses are all inside the
[17:57] cells. Yeah.
[17:59] >> They are different from bacteria; our
[18:00] current antibiotics treat bacteria, but
[18:02] antibiotics can't handle viruses.
[18:03] >> Viruses are all inside the cells, which
[18:05] means if I want to kill the virus
[18:07] inside, I have to kill your human cells
[18:09] first. So this toxicity means that
[18:11] while killing the virus, I might suffer
[18:13] significant self-inflicted damage.
[18:14] >> That's all very possible, yeah.
[18:16] >> So dealing with viruses is an extremely
[18:19] difficult task.
[18:20] >> Therefore, in the end, we humans and
[18:22] most viruses have reached a state of
[18:24] harmonious coexistence. Let me ask you
[18:27] a scary question, although it's
[18:29] unpleasant, we can't avoid thinking
[18:31] about it. Is it possible that some
[18:33] virus will eventually wipe out humanity
[18:36] ? So far, there is no such precedent.
[18:39] Because this involves another issue:
[18:42] humans must maintain, what we call,
[18:45] sufficient species diversity. We cannot
[18:48] have a monoculture. For example, these
[18:51] cherry tomatoes—many people initially
[18:53] ask, "Boss, are these genetically
[18:56] modified?" They really aren't, because
[18:58] we were the first to find the gene that
[19:00] regulates tomato crop traits, called
[19:02] QTL. I can adjust this gene to make it
[19:05] bigger or smaller. It was discovered in
[19:07] 1988; this was the first crop gene, so
[19:10] we can easily adjust tomatoes to be
[19:12] large today. But if there were only one
[19:14] type of cultivated tomato in the world
[19:16] and no wild species, then as soon as a
[19:19] virus hits, they would all be gone. So
[19:21] if we want to survive long-term, we
[19:23] must protect biodiversity. You know, I
[19:26] was reading a popular science book that
[19:28] talked about this.
[19:29] >> The species in nature store many genes
[19:31] that might be very useful for us in the
[19:34] future, for example, it mentioned
[19:36] crocodiles.
[19:36] >> Yes.
[19:37] >> Crocodile genes are more effective than
[19:39] any of our antibiotics.
[19:40] >> Yes, they have their own protective
[19:42] state. You mentioned that we have now
[19:44] completed the sequencing of the 3
[19:46] billion human genes.
[19:48] >> It's done. Have we figured out which
[19:51] gene controls which disease? Are they
[19:53] all clear now?
[19:54] >> No. We've probably only figured out
[19:57] less than 5%.
[19:58] >> But is that 5%something you think
[20:00] you've figured out, or...
[20:01] >> You have a point.
[20:02] >> Truly figured out.
[20:04] >> You have a point, it's just what we
[20:05] think we've figured out. With our
[20:07] current level of understanding, is it
[20:08] true that everyone with a certain gene
[20:10] will definitely have the disease? We
[20:11] actually have a term for the maximum
[20:13] expression, called "penetrance," which
[20:14] refers to the probability that a gene
[20:15] you carry will manifest as a specific
[20:17] trait. It's actually just a little over
[20:19] 90%. There's still 10%we can't explain;
[20:21] there are always exceptions in life.
[20:23] It's inaccurate. Take me for example—
[20:25] I’ve done this gene testing before—
[20:27] and they keep emailing me saying, "How
[20:28] is your acrophobia?" but I don't have
[20:30] acrophobia. They likely assume people
[20:33] with my DNA profile have a high chance
[20:34] of being afraid of heights.
[20:36] >> It’s like this: they often confuse
[20:38] correlation with causation. Confusing
[20:40] correlation and causation is something
[20:42] we in the genetics industry encounter
[20:43] all the time. So, you can't rely on
[20:45] these casual genetic tests for a true
[20:47] clinical diagnosis. You have to follow
[20:49] strict diagnostic standards, and the
[20:50] number of things that can be accurately
[20:52] diagnosed this way is actually quite
[20:53] small. But, Professor Du, regarding the
[20:55] issue you mentioned, perhaps we will
[20:57] never be able to fully understand a
[20:58] single gene.
[20:59] >> Right. That’s why I’m asking you
[21:02] this question, which relates to our
[21:04] concerns about the future—for
[21:05] instance, things we see in the news
[21:07] every day, like claims that we’ve
[21:09] discovered a gene to cure cancer.
[21:12] >> And now we even have so-called
[21:14] gene-editing technology.
[21:16] >> This gene-editing technology sounds
[21:19] simple: if a specific gene causes a
[21:21] disease, you just snip it or change it.
[21:24] But my question is, how can you be sure
[21:27] ? If you alter one thing, might you
[21:29] trigger a chain reaction that affects
[21:31] everything else? Do we have any
[21:32] certainty about this? No certainty at
[21:34] all. You are right about that. What you
[21:37] said is correct; the idea of fixing one
[21:39] thing only to break another is a
[21:41] problem that everyone now clearly
[21:43] recognizes in gene editing. Many people
[21:45] ask me if we can edit a "perfect" human
[21:47] , and I say it’s impossible. First of
[21:49] all, what even defines a "perfect"
[21:50] human? Secondly, the "whack-a-mole"
[21:52] problem is just too prevalent. The only
[21:54] thing we can manage today is to correct
[21:56] a few errors; that is the extent of it.
[21:57] For example, in Mediterranean anemia,
[21:59] or thalassemia, it might just be a
[22:01] single incorrect base pair. So, if I
[22:02] repair that gene, I can at least spare
[22:04] a child from needing a bone marrow
[22:05] transplant, constant transfusions, or
[22:07] lifelong medication, allowing them to
[22:08] use their own cells. I can do that, but
[22:10] medical ethics can only go so far. Two
[22:12] core elements: first, to fix what is
[22:15] wrong—you are ill, so I make you
[22:16] normal. Second, this is not germline
[22:19] editing. I modified it, but it does not
[22:21] affect or carry over to their sperm or
[22:22] eggs, because one cannot edit the
[22:24] germline. That would be creating. It is
[22:27] equivalent to customizing babies.
[22:29] >> Then why was that professor from
[22:30] Southern University of Science and
[22:32] Technology, what’s his name, He
[22:33] Jiankui, not allowed?
[22:34] >> Shenzhen scientist He Jiankui claimed
[22:37] that a pair of gene-edited babies named
[22:39] Lulu and Nana were born in China in
[22:41] November.
[22:42] >> Now as Chang.
[22:47] >> To some extent, if we re-examine He
[22:49] Jiankui's gene-edited baby incident,
[22:52] there were two core elements: first,
[22:54] informed consent was insufficient. That
[22:57] is, there were flaws in the process
[22:59] between the subjects and the final
[23:02] conclusion reached.
[23:03] >> The pregnant women who participated.
[23:06] >> Did not know. What exactly this was for
[23:08] ; they might have just understood it as
[23:09] , "If I do this editing, you won't get
[23:11] AIDS." Perhaps we call this informed
[23:13] consent.
[23:14] >> Your child won't get AIDS in the future
[23:16] , things like that.
[23:17] >> That's the idea—it was insufficient.
[23:21] The second problem is that, in this
[23:23] process, he actually went "off-target"
[23:26] during the editing. Meaning it didn't
[23:29] ...
[23:30] >> What does "off-target" mean?
[23:32] >> To put it concretely, for instance,
[23:33] everyone finds AIDS terrifying, but
[23:35] there is indeed a group of people in
[23:37] nature who are immune to AIDS. Oh,
[23:38] immune to AIDS. Why are these people
[23:41] immune to AIDS? They have a gene called
[23:44] CCR5. If you delete 32 base pairs out
[23:47] of the 31 base pairs of this gene. We
[23:50] call it knocking out these 32. The AIDS
[23:52] virus can't find the door, so it can't
[23:54] get in. The AIDS virus. We can simply
[23:57] understand it as that. So this person
[23:58] has a defect, but it prevents the virus
[24:00] from entering.
[24:01] >> Uh, you could understand it that way,
[24:03] because we only really recognized AIDS
[24:05] in the mid-80s, around 1985 or 1986.
[24:06] Before that, it might have been a
[24:08] defect, but afterwards, it became a
[24:10] natural immunity to AIDS, so...
[24:12] >> That's an advantage. It counts as an
[24:14] advantage, which is what I meant by
[24:15] there being no "best," no "optimal."
[24:17] Actually, if you look at He Jiankui's
[24:19] original intention, it was good,
[24:20] because since the parents already had
[24:22] AIDS, how could he make the offspring
[24:23] immune to AIDS? The simplest way: just
[24:25] make them immune to AIDS, right? So I
[24:27] should accurately knock out those 32
[24:29] base pairs.
[24:30] >> But he didn't knock them out correctly.
[24:32] >> Oh, a technical error.
[24:34] >> A technical error, and he knew it, yet
[24:35] he still went through with it.
[24:37] >> So that makes this even harder to talk
[24:40] about. There is this concern that by
[24:44] modifying the genes of the fertilized
[24:47] egg, it involves what you call germline
[24:49] cells. I feel like it sounds as if this
[24:53] pollutes the gene pool, is there such a
[24:55] claim? It’s because, because these
[24:58] two children, do they have the right to
[25:00] reproduce in the future? If they have
[25:03] the right to reproduce, then these
[25:05] modified genes of theirs will be passed
[25:07] on. You can understand it this way:
[25:10] none of our genes are perfect. Taking
[25:13] myself as an example, I know I am a
[25:14] carrier of at least eight serious
[25:16] genetic conditions; if my partner and I
[25:18] were both carriers, there would be a
[25:20] one-in-four chance of having a child
[25:21] with a potentially severe or fatal
[25:23] condition. But everyone has them. All
[25:26] of us here certainly have them, because
[25:28] basically no one is perfect; as I said,
[25:30] these traits might be legacies that
[25:31] evolved historically to combat even
[25:33] more serious ones.
[25:34] >> Hmm. So in this sense, if we simply ask
[25:38] whether these two edited children will
[25:40] have their future survival affected, I
[25:42] think it is highly unlikely. But once
[25:45] this door is opened, as you said, we
[25:47] could end up creating anything. So this
[25:50] door itself is something we are
[25:52] discussing today,
[25:53] >> it’s an ethical issue.
[25:55] >> It is an ethical issue, but now it has
[25:56] been given legal responsibility, with
[25:58] safety laws specifically prohibiting it
[26:00] . Hmm.
[26:01] >> It can’t be done, at least not by
[26:03] good people; the fact that you haven't
[26:04] caught the bad guys is a big problem.
[26:06] >> Could this thing change over time, for
[26:09] example, like with IVF, which was also
[26:11] highly controversial back then but is
[26:14] now considered a very advanced
[26:16] technology?
[26:17] >> You are right. In 1978, Edwards and the
[26:20] first IVF baby were heavily criticized
[26:23] for breaking all sorts of ethical
[26:25] boundaries, but by 2010, four million
[26:27] children had been born through this
[26:29] technology to infertile couples who
[26:31] couldn't have children before, and the
[26:34] first generation has even become
[26:36] parents themselves.
[26:37] >> Yes, they can reproduce themselves.
[26:39] >> They can reproduce; this is a
[26:41] >> natural process, and it is
[26:43] >> natural, so in this sense, this is
[26:45] still about our understanding of
[26:47] technology and ethical boundaries. At
[26:49] least when Edwards was doing the first
[26:51] IVF, judging by our intentions and
[26:53] common sense, it seems to have been the
[26:55] right thing to do. Back then, the
[26:57] opposition mainly came from a religious
[26:59] perspective. But they forgot that we
[27:02] have actually been crossbreeding plants
[27:04] for thousands of years. We have been
[27:07] performing IVF on plants, so why can't
[27:10] we do it on humans? This is another
[27:12] issue; isn't this just a form of
[27:14] human-centered humanism?
[27:16] >> Or perhaps it doesn't damage our genes.
[27:20] >> These issues will always be understood
[27:22] step-by-step; what we might have
[27:24] considered wrong 50 years ago, we might
[27:27] see as right 50 years from now. But it
[27:29] is true, as you just said, that we
[27:32] don't fully know the secrets of genes
[27:34] yet. Yes.
[27:36] >> But we have already started to take
[27:38] action.
[27:38] >> Yes.
[27:39] >> Then, do we not need to consider the
[27:41] impact this action will have in 10 or
[27:44] 20 years, or even generations later?
[27:46] >> We need to consider it, which is why
[27:49] even for IVF today, there are several
[27:51] basic ethical rules we cannot break,
[27:54] such as the 14-day rule. Referring to
[27:56] the fertilized egg outside the body. It
[27:59] actually extends to non-human primates,
[28:01] including chimpanzees and monkeys; at
[28:03] around 14 days, it must be stopped and
[28:05] cannot continue. It cannot continue.
[28:07] Especially when you are referring to
[28:08] scientific research.
[28:09] >> It can only be done in vitro for 14
[28:11] days; it cannot be done indefinitely.
[28:12] >> Why?
[28:13] >> Is this considered a certain definition
[28:15] of life?
[28:15] >> It is considered a form of respect. It
[28:17] is considered a form of respect.
[28:18] >> How should we put it, within 14 days?
[28:21] It is not considered much of a life;
[28:24] this is a global convention. Behind
[28:26] this convention, as you mentioned. Some
[28:29] believe that pain sensation begins.
[28:31] Some believe that the nervous system
[28:34] has started to develop, meaning it is
[28:36] beginning to become a person. Beginning
[28:38] to become a person, but more
[28:40] importantly, it is actually a
[28:41] compromise between the scientific and
[28:43] religious communities.
[28:44] >> That is roughly how it is understood;
[28:46] the reasons behind it are complex, but
[28:48] it is a combination of factors. This is
[28:49] something no one can touch, and the
[28:51] second point is what you mentioned: we
[28:53] cannot perform germline editing; this
[28:55] is the consensus. Because if this
[28:56] Pandora's box is opened, there's no end
[28:58] to it, since you don't know what
[29:00] changes are right, but I also made it
[29:01] clear earlier. It can only restrict
[29:03] good people and law-abiding people;
[29:05] what if I go to some island nation? I
[29:07] might find some mad scientists like in
[29:09] Hollywood movies who start doing it;
[29:10] this issue is just like human cloning.
[29:12] Actually, you might not know, but maybe
[29:14] someone has already started conducting
[29:16] such experiments.
[29:16] >> Maybe they really have.
[29:18] >> Maybe they really have.
[29:19] >> Oh, there’s this documentary on
[29:21] Netflix—I’m not sure if they were
[29:23] working on germline cells, but you just
[29:26] have to admire how bold some of these
[29:28] foreigners are, editing their own genes
[29:30] in their home laboratories.
[29:32] >> They call them kitchen labs, just
[29:34] kitchen labs.
[29:35] >> Exactly, yes. So, I would say this
[29:38] presents two issues: first, when the "
[29:40] devil" grows by a foot, the "priest"
[29:41] must grow by ten—research cannot fall
[29:44] behind. But as for how this research is
[29:46] applied, we must act on two fronts:
[29:47] first, through ethical conventions, and
[29:49] second, through what we call
[29:51] transparency, keeping the public
[29:52] informed. In fact, every foundation
[29:54] faces this issue; it depends on how we
[29:56] limit things to ensure more good people
[29:58] use technology for the right problems,
[30:00] preventing it from causing chaos.
[30:02] >> When "the priest grows by ten," it
[30:04] means ethics and laws must also grow by
[30:06] ten.
[30:06] >> That’s right.
[30:07] >> It’s necessary, otherwise, we are now
[30:10] at a very dangerous crossroads; it’s
[30:13] arguably the first time in history.
[30:15] >> Regarding life—while we still don't
[30:18] fully understand it, our knowledge of
[30:20] life itself......has already surpassed
[30:22] the sum of everything we knew before.
[30:25] Could we understand it this way:
[30:27] humanity has reached a point where
[30:29] there are things we know we can do, but
[30:32] we shouldn't do yet? We’ve actually
[30:34] always known this; it’s just that it
[30:36] has now become a consensus among
[30:38] everyone, not only discussed in the
[30:40] scientific community but also in the
[30:42] ethical realm, and our public deserves
[30:44] full awareness—at the very least, the
[30:46] right to know.
[30:47] >> Are there differences in opinion
[30:49] between countries?
[30:49] >> There are differences, for example...
[30:51] >> Europe is the most conservative.
[30:53] >> Extremely conservative, yes.
[30:55] >> But Britain has left now, and Britain
[30:57] is still very radical. Our earliest
[31:00] human-animal hybrid embryos were all
[31:02] created in the UK.
[31:04] >> My goodness, that’s impressive.
[31:06] Because this is the birthplace of
[31:08] Darwin; in 1859, when*On the Origin of
[31:10] Species*was published, it subverted
[31:11] creationism. You can imagine the
[31:13] constraints he faced back then, and he
[31:15] only published it because Wallace told
[31:16] him, "If you don't publish, I will."
[31:18] Darwin held back his manuscript for 20
[31:20] years before finally releasing the
[31:22] first edition in 1859, which was truly
[31:24] remarkable. So, in a large part,
[31:25] Britain’s exit today is also because
[31:26] they feel they can no longer find
[31:28] common ground with the EU on many
[31:29] issues. The US is the most radical and
[31:31] open, not worried that other countries
[31:33] will outpace it. So while it may seem
[31:35] inclusive, its inclusion is actually
[31:37] built on the established tech hegemony
[31:39] it already holds, like global databases
[31:40] and internet infrastructure, which are
[31:42] all in their hands.
[31:43] >> What about Japan and China?
[31:45] >> In the current genetic industry, Japan
[31:47] is lagging behind. Japan is relatively
[31:49] strong in fields like stem cell
[31:51] research, immunotherapy, and heavy ion
[31:53] therapy. In terms of gene research in
[31:55] Asia, China is undeniably number one.
[31:57] Even Singapore and South Korea have
[31:59] been more active than Japan lately, so
[32:01] Japan has already begun to fall behind.
[32:04] What is the greatest good that current
[32:06] genetic research can achieve—the goal
[32:08] everyone is working toward?
[32:10] >> Let me give you an example. There is a
[32:14] technology for prenatal screening for
[32:16] Down syndrome, which everyone has
[32:18] likely heard of—like Zhou Zhou, the
[32:21] conductor. The incidence rate is quite
[32:24] high, one in 800.
[32:26] >> In the past, you almost always had to
[32:29] do an amniocentesis for a definitive
[32:31] diagnosis.
[32:32] >> Yes.
[32:33] >> Today, thanks to genetic technology,
[32:35] you can just draw blood from the
[32:37] pregnant woman's vein.
[32:38] >> To find out if it's...
[32:40] >> To find out if the baby is healthy or
[32:42] has issues, and then a choice can be
[32:43] made. If you feel it's fine, you give
[32:45] birth; if you find an issue, since it's
[32:47] very early, you can essentially stop
[32:49] the pregnancy at that point to prevent
[32:51] the tragedy from widening.
[32:52] >> But even just talking about this, it
[32:55] raises ethical issues abroad.
[32:57] >> For example, if you do this prenatal
[32:59] testing and the child might have a
[33:02] cleft lip.
[33:03] >> Cleft lip.
[33:04] >> Cleft lip. In other countries, many
[33:07] parents feel, "I won't terminate; my
[33:09] child with a cleft lip also has the
[33:11] right to live, and I will give birth to
[33:14] them." Okay, so as I said, I use the
[33:16] term "pre-knowledge." The right to
[33:19] choose must lie with the mother. It's
[33:21] actually with both parents, but
[33:22] listening to the mother is more
[33:23] important. A cleft lip can be repaired
[33:24] with surgery, and things like
[33:25] polydactyly are no problem, so you can
[33:27] have the child. But Down syndrome is
[33:29] currently incurable. The burden that
[33:30] Down syndrome brings is something many
[33:32] families in developing countries simply
[33:34] cannot afford. So it's a matter of
[33:36] personal opinion; there is no absolute
[33:38] answer. What I mean is that this
[33:40] technology is not...He wouldn't
[33:42] remember that five minutes ago he had
[33:44] mentioned a tomato, a plate, or a cup.
[33:46] Through this series of tests, they gave
[33:49] me a diagnosis, saying he had mild
[33:51] autism. What I’m curious about is,
[33:54] regarding her recognition of the
[33:56] children—for example, you have three
[33:58] siblings in your family—does she have
[34:00] the ability to distinguish between the
[34:03] three of you?
[34:04] >> It depends on the environment. For
[34:06] instance, because I have been the
[34:08] primary caregiver for my parents for a
[34:11] long time.
[34:11] >> Mhm.
[34:13] >> And since my older sister lives away,
[34:15] because she is a teacher. She can only
[34:18] come during winter and summer breaks.
[34:20] Therefore, her impression of my sister
[34:22] is far less deep than her impression of
[34:24] me, but...
[34:25] >> The first person she would forget is my
[34:27] sister, because my sister has less
[34:29] contact with her. As for me, since I am
[34:32] with her constantly in our daily life,
[34:34] you would find that, at the beginning,
[34:37] she clearly knew I was the third child,
[34:39] as I have an older sister and an older
[34:42] brother. The third one, after all, the
[34:44] third child is the youngest, and she
[34:47] has always called me "youngest son,""
[34:49] lao" meaning youngest.
[34:50] >> She consistently calls me "youngest son
[34:53] ," and she knows my name. She has now
[34:56] started to forget my birth order.
[34:58] Sometimes she knows my name is Hu Yong.
[35:01] But many times, she calls me "old man,"
[35:04] which was actually my father. My father
[35:07] passed away last October. Sometimes she
[35:10] calls me "older brother," which in a
[35:12] sense means she is thinking of her own
[35:14] brother, but that uncle passed away a
[35:16] long time ago. And sometimes, she
[35:19] mistakes "older brother" for my actual
[35:21] brother. My brother, so her current
[35:24] recognition of me, as I often say, is
[35:27] sometimes like a flash of lightning.
[35:30] And you are so happy because she
[35:32] recognizes you again. She remembers you
[35:35] for some things, like she knows you
[35:37] went to work, she knows you came home,
[35:39] but many times, she doesn't even
[35:41] remember those things—that you went
[35:44] to work or came home. It’s a bit like
[35:46] you have to desperately hold onto these
[35:49] tiny things to confirm. That is, the
[35:52] relationship between you and her, and
[35:55] her and you; if this were gone, I think
[35:58] that is the cruelty of Alzheimer's. So,
[36:02] can you imagine what this means for a
[36:05] caregiver? I think this, you could call
[36:08] it a social issue, but there’s really
[36:11] nothing that can be done. In China, 90%
[36:13] of the elderly will not go to nursing
[36:17] homes. Or perhaps, as you've
[36:19] specifically looked into it—because I
[36:22] once heard about a movie, a movie where
[36:24] at the beginning people criticized a
[36:27] man for sending his father to a nursing
[36:29] home. Later, he said, "My father
[36:33] doesn't even recognize who I am anymore
[36:36] ." In that situation, since I lack
[36:40] nursing experience, wouldn't it be
[36:42] better for him to be in a facility with
[36:44] professional care? The doctor suggested
[36:48] giving him some mental exercises. And
[36:51] then, you need to
[36:52] >> help him recover a little. Meaning, to
[36:55] slow down the progression.
[36:57] >> I’ve realized that modern
[36:58] professionals just can't do it. Doctors
[37:01] say that talking to them more might
[37:03] actually be more effective than taking
[37:05] medication, since there isn't really a
[37:07] cure right now, no specific cure.
[37:09] >> Right, it’s dementia. Sometimes I
[37:12] hear news about something called
[37:14] monoclonal antibodies, but that stuff,
[37:17] anyway...
[37:18] >> Specifically, what is going wrong
[37:21] inside the brain? Is there something
[37:24] growing, or is it a general form of
[37:26] degeneration?
[37:27] >> It seems to be primarily a process of
[37:29] atrophy.
[37:30] >> It's a neurodegenerative disease, and
[37:32] honestly, there's no definitive
[37:33] conclusion on the cause yet. Some
[37:35] people
[37:36] >> Because there's no consensus on the
[37:38] cause, there’s no specific treatment.
[37:40] We still don't fully understand the
[37:41] disease's pathogenesis.
[37:43] >> Uh, right. Sometimes they say that
[37:45] tests show a certain protein, or that
[37:47] there's some kind of tangling in the
[37:49] neurons; that’s one theory. But for
[37:52] the countless elderly and their
[37:54] families, I really feel—take my
[37:56] younger brother, for instance. Our
[37:58] family has more children than most, and
[38:01] financially we're doing okay—not rich
[38:04] , but not struggling—so...
[38:06] >> He has to work, so the elderly person
[38:09] is left home alone all day. But in
[38:11] reality, taking care of them is a
[38:13] profession. Uh, it’s not just a
[38:15] profession. The most troublesome part
[38:18] of caregiving is that you can't carve
[38:19] out specific times, because it demands
[38:22] your presence anytime, anywhere—their
[38:24] needs arise at any moment.
[38:25] >> So, with this time, you can't say, "
[38:27] I'll focus on caring for them for three
[38:29] hours, and then I'll do something else
[38:31] for the next three." It’s not a
[38:33] process like that. It’s fragmented
[38:35] time; you have to be like someone on
[38:37] call at all times. So, this is a very
[38:40] exhausting thing. Mm.
[38:42] >> Do you think that in an average
[38:44] household, if there's an elderly person
[38:47] like this, is it possible to manage?
[38:51] Unless, of course, there are
[38:53] specialized professionals—like
[38:55] nursing staff or caregivers trained
[38:57] specifically for Alzheimer's—or
[38:59] institutions dedicated to managing
[39:01] patients with dementia. There is a
[39:05] logical progression here: generally
[39:08] speaking, the end result for someone
[39:10] with dementia is becoming physically
[39:12] incapacitated. It is inevitable; as
[39:14] long as there is dementia, it will
[39:16] eventually lead to physical disability,
[39:18] so we often group them together and
[39:20] call them "dementia and disability"
[39:22] elderly. Once they reach this stage of
[39:24] physical incapacity, the caregiving
[39:26] burden becomes extremely heavy. Take my
[39:28] example: the most troublesome issue is
[39:29] that they don't know how to handle
[39:31] their bowel and bladder functions. This
[39:33] causes endless trouble because they
[39:35] never know if they need to go, are in
[39:37] the middle of going, or have already
[39:40] finished. They have no concept of the
[39:42] process.
[39:44] >> I remember watching a documentary on
[39:46] Alzheimer's disease about a university
[39:48] professor who developed it. His wife
[39:52] mentioned that she would often see him
[39:54] standing in the middle of the living
[39:57] room having wet himself. Why is that?
[40:00] Why does that happen? Because he
[40:02] intended to go to the bathroom, but
[40:04] halfway there, he forgot why he was
[40:06] walking, and so he just wet his pants.
[40:09] Everyone is involved in caregiving.
[40:11] This is truly what I want to convey,
[40:13] because I have categorized people into
[40:15] four groups: those who are already
[40:17] caregivers, those who are currently
[40:19] becoming caregivers, and those who will
[40:21] become caregivers. And then, those who
[40:24] must be cared for. People are just...
[40:26] >> Sooner or later, we will all become...
[40:28] >> People fall into these groups; the
[40:29] first three are all on the caregiving
[40:31] side.
[40:31] >> Oh, caring for others.
[40:33] >> Yes, exactly. When we say "will be,""
[40:36] are," or "have been," these all refer
[40:38] to the caregiving side, while the last
[40:40] category represents those who need care
[40:42] , like an Alzheimer's patient. So, I
[40:44] really want to say that no matter what
[40:46] roles you have in this society, you are
[40:49] either a caregiver or someone being
[40:51] cared for. You really cannot escape it.
[40:54] Few can escape this chain, so I wanted
[40:56] to title this "Everyone is involved in
[40:58] caregiving," but they insisted on using
[41:01] that "Peking University Professor"
[41:03] angle instead. Actually, when I tell
[41:04] people here, I say that this has
[41:06] nothing to do with being a Peking
[41:08] University professor; it’s equivalent
[41:09] to saying I am just an ordinary person.
[41:11] My parents are ordinary parents. And so
[41:14] , I am just doing what an ordinary
[41:16] person would do. That’s all.
[41:18] >> But I think it’s not so ordinary. If
[41:20] you weren't working at a university,
[41:22] you wouldn't have that flexible
[41:24] schedule. If this were an ordinary
[41:26] working-class family that needs to
[41:28] clock in and out, this...
[41:30] >> You are absolutely right. That is why I
[41:33] said that, to a large extent, I have an
[41:36] advantage over others, because a
[41:38] characteristic of university professors
[41:40] is having relatively flexible time. And
[41:43] I can set aside a lot of time. If that
[41:46] weren't the case, the demands on the
[41:48] caregiver would be far too high. Like
[41:50] the situation you mentioned, your
[41:52] brother might have a good job, but he
[41:54] has to struggle between his work and
[41:56] providing care. That said, he may not
[41:59] have financial issues, but for some, if
[42:01] they stop working, even the source of
[42:03] income needed to care for their parents
[42:05] disappears.
[42:06] >> Right.
[42:07] >> This is a huge problem.
[42:09] >> I really think it's what they call the
[42:10] "infantilization" of the elderly. When
[42:11] we were little, we were born naked, and
[42:13] our parents wiped our bottoms and
[42:15] cleaned up after us.
[42:15] >> Right.
[42:16] >> Right? But have you ever thought that
[42:19] one day we will all end up like that?
[42:22] When we, when we all have to be like
[42:25] that. I...my mother, two years ago, she
[42:28] also...it was roughly like a stroke,
[42:30] and she was essentially bedridden like
[42:33] a vegetative patient. I remember my
[42:37] father, whenever he would massage her
[42:39] or clean her in the hospital ward, he
[42:42] would cover her up. Even though my
[42:45] mother had no consciousness, I remember
[42:48] my father saying at the time, "Mom is a
[42:50] woman, too; she has her dignity." So,
[42:53] he would just...cover her up.
[42:56] >> Yes, exactly. But for elderly people
[42:59] with Alzheimer’s in the final stages,
[43:02] how do you view this matter of dignity?
[43:07] If that day comes for us, is this "
[43:09] dignity" about pretending to be strong,
[43:12] or about accepting the unbearable truth
[43:15] of what humans are? Alzheimer's is
[43:18] actually a disease that strikes at
[43:20] human dignity the most, but its cruelty
[43:22] lies in the fact that the person
[43:24] doesn't even know their dignity is
[43:26] being stripped away, because they no
[43:28] longer have the cognitive awareness of
[43:30] such things. But for those around, like
[43:32] me as a caregiver, I can see very
[43:34] clearly that their later life can
[43:36] neither be described as dignified, nor
[43:39] as having much meaning. You see, this
[43:41] is actually a huge mental burden in
[43:44] daily life. But, for instance, if their
[43:47] intelligence is like a child's, say,
[43:49] being a bit simple-minded, could it be
[43:52] that they aren't in such a bad mood, or
[43:54] that they think less, and many things
[43:57] just don't bother them anymore?
[43:59] >> Do you think they are happy?
[44:02] >> Well, strictly speaking, because they
[44:04] think less, their life has become
[44:07] extremely simple. So, in that simple
[44:11] sense, I think they are quite happy.
[44:14] >> At least not as painful as you might
[44:16] imagine. Yes, and for example,
[44:18] regarding some major events, like my
[44:21] father passing away last year. Actually
[44:23] , my mother didn't have a very clear
[44:25] understanding of this event. Because we
[44:28] would tell her that father went to
[44:30] another world, and sometimes when her
[44:32] mind wanders, she would suddenly ask me
[44:34] if my dad is doing well over there,
[44:37] because that is the core of who she
[44:39] cares about now, since I said her
[44:41] expressions are very limited. But she
[44:43] still has one very strong form of
[44:45] expression, which is that she often
[44:47] asks people if they are hungry or cold.
[44:49] Then she would ask me, "Is your dad
[44:51] hungry in that place? Is he cold?" And
[44:53] when you hear this, you feel very sad.
[44:58] Actually, it’s not that I am
[45:00] wondering if my dad is cold or hungry;
[45:03] it is just a, a sort of lingering habit
[45:06] of expression. Because she used to
[45:10] always ask her children, "Are you
[45:12] hungry? Are you cold?" Or to others,
[45:16] she would also often use questions
[45:19] about warmth, cold, or basic well-being
[45:22] to express her care as a, a, a, a, a
[45:25] woman. So, in that sense, you feel
[45:29] it’s actually a great relief to a
[45:32] certain extent. But for us caregivers,
[45:36] the real burden lies on our side, not
[45:39] on theirs. Sometimes when I get home, I
[45:44] feel like I’m treating her—because
[45:46] she’s over 80—like a two or
[45:48] three-year-old girl. You coddle her,
[45:54] you talk nonsense with her regardless
[45:57] of what she says, and sometimes you
[45:59] just turn on the TV or phone to show
[46:02] her images. She doesn't understand what
[46:08] those images are; she just sees things
[46:11] moving, hears sounds, and watches the
[46:13] screen, which keeps her occupied for
[46:15] half the day. Occupied for half the day
[46:20] , because I receive a lot of magazines
[46:22] from many people. Since I work in the
[46:24] media, you see. So I have a ton of
[46:27] magazines at home. And I often give
[46:29] them to her, saying, "Mom, why don't
[46:31] you read a book?" She’ll pretend to
[46:33] hold the magazine, but do you know what
[46:35] her main job actually is? Tearing the
[46:37] magazine into strips. But she can do
[46:40] that for a very long time. I don't know
[46:42] , Professor Xu, Manager Li, have you
[46:45] ever encountered these issues with
[46:47] elderly relatives who need physical
[46:49] care?
[46:50] >> I’m thinking about my own future.
[46:53] >> You’d prefer having no one to take
[46:55] care of you?
[46:56] >> Having no one to take care of me.
[46:58] >> What about your father? Was he a
[47:00] hospital director? No.
[47:02] >> He was a hospital director, and he
[47:04] passed away suddenly while playing
[47:05] mahjong.
[47:06] >> Oh, he did.
[47:07] >> I didn't even dare go back. That was
[47:10] actually a blessing for his descendants
[47:12] .
[47:12] >> He didn't cause any trouble for others.
[47:15] He just went. Anyway, don't we always
[47:18] judge the elderly by their age?
[47:22] Depending on their age, we feel there
[47:25] isn't too much regret. But you never
[47:28] know when someone will go. Do you know
[47:31] the benefit of heart disease? It’s
[47:34] that they go suddenly. Oh, you're
[47:36] thinking of your own situation, right?
[47:39] >> He won't, I’ve already told my
[47:41] daughter, "Don't worry, okay, I won't
[47:43] be a burden to you." Realistically
[47:47] speaking, the only solution I can think
[47:50] of is to hire a 24-hour caregiver.
[47:53] >> At the very least.
[47:54] >> Or if you can afford it, hire two.
[47:57] >> Right.
[47:58] >> Don't you agree? I...
[48:00] >> Xiao Lan will hire eight.
[48:02] >> It's not just home care; there are
[48:03] other functions as well. Right, right.
[48:06] >> I also know some famous scholars who
[48:08] were originally in the United States.
[48:09] But since their health wasn't good, and
[48:11] their health wasn't good, you couldn't
[48:13] do much in the US. So their children
[48:15] helped them buy a house in Zhuhai. And
[48:17] they hired more home care workers.
[48:20] >> By hiring people to look after them,
[48:22] sometimes they're still mentally aware
[48:24] and lucid.
[48:25] >> Right.
[48:26] >> So
[48:27] >> That's considered good; the children
[48:29] have done their part.
[48:31] >> For the elderly, this is also good.
[48:33] Relatively speaking, 24-hour home care
[48:36] is easier to find than in the US. Ah,
[48:38] it’s just not professional, but that
[48:41] goes without saying. Yes.
[48:43] >> But what other options do you have?
[48:45] What other solutions can you possibly
[48:47] find?
[48:47] >> I'll tell you.
[48:48] >> The other way is sending them to a
[48:49] nursing home, right.
[48:50] >> Yes, I
[48:51] >> Nursing homes also rely on people to
[48:53] provide care.
[48:54] >> It also depends on those, for instance,
[48:56] professional caregivers are always in
[48:57] short supply, and it relies on people
[48:59] doing this job, though they aren't
[49:01] actually that professional, but they
[49:03] are willing—actually, many people are
[49:05] very unwilling to care for those
[49:06] suffering from illness.
[49:07] >> There is another, there is one more
[49:10] method, which is
[49:11] >> When you're young, when you're
[49:12] middle-aged, you work hard.
[49:14] >> Earn more and save more money.
[49:16] >> Right.
[49:17] >> You know, I recently read an article
[49:20] saying what people pursue now is living
[49:23] long, getting sick late.
[49:25] >> Hmm.
[49:27] >> And the last part is dying quickly.
[49:29] >> Dying quickly, I guessed it. Now that
[49:32] I'm at this age, I suddenly feel, oh,
[49:34] dying quickly is also a kind of...
[49:36] >> But thinking like that, thinking like
[49:37] that doesn't have much meaning, because
[49:39] this isn't up to you to decide.
[49:40] >> Right.
[49:41] >> But we can sense, I just think about my
[49:44] age and what I might face now. Hearing
[49:46] you guys talk, my parents haven't
[49:48] reached that stage yet, so I think of
[49:50] the only experience I have like that,
[49:52] which is with my own grandmother. My
[49:55] grandmother was doing okay, it wasn't
[49:57] that severe. But, she would be lucid
[49:59] one moment, and then...My own feeling
[50:02] is that it is truly painful. Suffering
[50:05] is left for those who are still lucid.
[50:07] Every time I looked at my grandmother,
[50:10] because I was very close to her and
[50:12] grew up by her side, I just felt, how
[50:14] could this person I love so much
[50:16] suddenly become someone I don't
[50:18] recognize? But then, the way she looks
[50:20] at you when she's lucid, you feel that
[50:22] she's still there, and when she's
[50:24] confused, she's constantly—also, she
[50:27] always feels that she herself. When I
[50:29] go home to take care of her, she might
[50:31] have wet herself. I’ll help her get
[50:34] changed and tell her to rest for a bit,
[50:36] but she immediately insists on
[50:38] something else. She still has that
[50:41] intent, but when you go to help, she
[50:43] denies it, so sometimes I do feel a
[50:46] little impatient. Whenever I get
[50:48] impatient and have to leave, like when
[50:50] I go back to Beijing for work, I fall
[50:53] into a state of deep guilt, wondering
[50:55] why I couldn't have been more patient
[50:57] with her. And it’s always like this.
[51:00] >> Caught in this cycle, I sometimes try
[51:02] to convince myself, saying:
[51:04] >> My grandmother was such a wonderful,
[51:06] incredibly kind, and sweet-tempered
[51:09] person. So I tell myself that she is
[51:11] saying goodbye to me in this way.
[51:13] Because if she were still that gentle
[51:15] person who never lost her temper and
[51:17] never said a harsh word to us children,
[51:19] I wouldn't be able to bear it if she
[51:21] were to leave suddenly. I have to think
[51:23] that she is saying goodbye to all of us
[51:25] this way, so that when the day comes
[51:27] for her to go, our grief might have
[51:29] slowly faded. Sometimes I wonder, is
[51:31] this person in front of me still the
[51:33] one I loved? It’s like she has turned
[51:35] into someone else.
[51:36] >> That is something I think about often.
[51:38] Right, I’m also curious—is your
[51:40] relationship with your mother now just
[51:42] a matter of duty? Or are there still
[51:45] feelings involved?
[51:46] >> It’s like this: since I study
[51:48] artificial intelligence,
[51:50] >> Right.
[51:53] >> Yes, a key aspect of AI is actually its
[51:57] similarity to the human brain. And so
[52:03] we often discuss a question, which in
[52:05] philosophy is called "personal identity
[52:08] ." Because, for example, when you wake
[52:11] up every morning and look in the mirror
[52:14] —going from sleeping last night to
[52:16] looking in the mirror this morning—we
[52:18] can ask to what extent the "you" in the
[52:21] mirror today is the same "you" from
[52:23] last night. Because you certainly
[52:25] aren't exactly the same, as your cells
[52:27] are changing and you are aging, but...
[52:30] Those who study personal identity argue
[52:32] that you must be the same person,
[52:35] because what defines that identity is
[52:37] whether your psyche and your memory
[52:39] have continuity. So, as long as there
[52:42] is continuity, you can say without
[52:44] hesitation that the "me" today is the
[52:46] same as the "me" yesterday. When it
[52:48] comes to this issue, for my mother, it
[52:50] doesn't hold up—it doesn't hold up at
[52:52] all, because in every sense, all her
[52:54] memories of the past have vanished.
[52:56] >> Her consciousness is interrupted, and
[52:58] that even applies to the relationship
[53:00] between us, even though I am her
[53:02] youngest son. And she loved me most
[53:04] when I was growing up. My pain stems
[53:06] from the fact that now, many times, she
[53:09] doesn't even recognize me, let alone
[53:11] recall those scenes of a mother and son
[53:14] back then, or all the years we spent
[53:17] together. To her, none of that exists
[53:19] anymore. But if I believe in this
[53:22] so-called consistency of psychological
[53:24] experience. Then I should say she isn't
[53:26] the same person, right? Because she has
[53:28] lost it.
[53:29] >> Yes.
[53:30] >> She has lost it.
[53:31] >> She doesn't know you're her son anymore
[53:32] .
[53:32] >> Ah.
[53:33] >> Isn't that right?
[53:34] >> Yes.
[53:35] >> Are you saying
[53:36] >> that sooner or later, she wouldn't know
[53:37] she had a son?
[53:38] >> Just no sense of connection.
[53:39] >> But you still know she is yours.
[53:41] >> I know she is my mother, so my
[53:43] confusion is that if, according to this
[53:45] "self-identity," she is already a
[53:47] different person, why do I still feel
[53:49] she is the same person? So there must
[53:51] be something else. Yes, I feel that
[53:54] perhaps judging whether one person is
[53:56] the same as another isn't just about
[53:59] this "consistency of psychological
[54:02] experience"; there must be, for example
[54:04] , bodily consistency. Because I know
[54:07] her appearance clearly, and I even joke
[54:09] about it, because I often do one thing
[54:11] with her. When I get home, the first
[54:14] thing I basically do is hold her hand,
[54:16] and we keep our hands together for a
[54:19] long time; it's a way for me to
[54:20] maintain physical contact with her.
[54:23] Because, for example, I go out, and
[54:25] when I return home I always do this,
[54:27] and then she often says, "Your hands
[54:29] are so cold." She says, "Let me warm
[54:32] them for you." Because when she's at
[54:34] home, her hands are warmer. So I say,
[54:36] perhaps for me, it's the consistency of
[54:39] her hand, because this hand is still
[54:41] here, and I am so familiar with it. Or
[54:44] from another perspective, maybe it's
[54:47] the consistency of scent, because
[54:49] living together for so long, you
[54:51] discover that the other person has a
[54:53] unique scent that you can recognize. So
[54:57] , given that, maybe this issue of
[55:00] self-identity isn't as simple as
[55:02] philosophers think.
[55:04] >> It's not that simple.
[55:06] >> Finally proved that your mom is your
[55:08] mom. Yes, proving I am my mom is
[55:11] extremely difficult. That’s why
[55:14] I’ve said, this whole process keeps
[55:16] making you wonder who exactly I am, and
[55:19] what kind of relationship I have with
[55:21] my mom.
[55:22] >> The identity you're talking about, the
[55:24] way I understand it,
[55:25] >> is only confirmed through interpersonal
[55:28] relationships. It could even be said
[55:30] that this identity is related to your
[55:32] subjective judgment. Yes.
[55:34] >> Exactly, right? She no longer
[55:37] understands the meaning of holding
[55:40] hands, or perhaps your recognition of
[55:42] her body and hands is something
[55:44] happening inside your own mind. Yes,
[55:48] that’s why Jung said that we can only
[55:50] be ourselves through others. Like you
[55:53] said, without others, maybe this "self"
[55:56] doesn't even...
[55:57] >> Without others, you cannot recognize
[55:59] the self.
[56:00] >> Yes, exactly. In Buddhist terms, it
[56:03] repeatedly proves that the "I" is a
[56:05] false concept. It's false, the "I" is
[56:08] false, because the self of yesterday is
[56:10] not the self of today. To be more
[56:12] precise, the cells in your body are all
[56:15] replaced after a few years. Look at
[56:17] Alzheimer’s, when all memories are
[56:19] lost,
[56:20] >> what are you? You are what society
[56:22] gives you via an ID card. It’s a
[56:25] social identity saying you are still
[56:27] you, and your son thinks you are still
[56:29] you, but what about your inner sense of
[56:31] self?
[56:31] >> There are some very interesting things
[56:33] there. For example, because she is an
[56:35] elderly person, she is still receiving
[56:37] her pension. The agency that issues the
[56:40] pension—because we grew up on a farm
[56:42] in Heilongjiang—the farm would
[56:44] eventually say, "You need to send a '
[56:46] proof of survival' for your mother."
[56:49] That’s because they need to ensure
[56:50] you aren't claiming a pension under
[56:52] someone else's name. So at a certain
[56:54] point, they require you to send a proof
[56:56] of survival. I find these four
[56:58] characters quite profound, because a
[57:00] so-called proof of survival requires
[57:02] you to hold a calendar in one hand, and
[57:04] for example, today—what is today’s
[57:07] date? Today is April 24th, so you turn
[57:11] the calendar to April and point to the
[57:14] 24th. And at this time, you hold up the
[57:18] ID card. Then you have to take a photo
[57:20] of her, just to prove that her physical
[57:22] body still exists. Is it proof of
[57:24] identity or proof of survival?
[57:25] >> Proof of survival. Proof of survival.
[57:28] >> It’s called proof of survival, not
[57:30] proof of identity. They need to ensure
[57:31] that this person is still alive, and
[57:32] therefore, they should still pay out
[57:33] her pension for the month.
[57:34] >> Have you thought about it?
[57:36] >> It's usually done once a year.
[57:37] >> Our photos are old-fashioned; you have
[57:39] to endure it for your driver's license.
[57:42] These things happen all the time; now
[57:44] they want you to hold an ID card and
[57:46] take a photo.
[57:47] >> Taking a photo like this by yourself in
[57:49] the mirror. So, this Alzheimer's
[57:52] prompts us to reflect on ourselves, but
[57:55] as you said, the conscious ones are the
[57:58] ones who feel sad—actually, not just
[58:00] sad, but angry too. For example, when
[58:04] we can't figure out what's going on
[58:06] with our father, because he has a lot
[58:08] of mental breakdowns or whatever, I'd
[58:10] say, "Why are you so anxious? You have
[58:13] to remember he's a patient; you can't
[58:16] treat him like a normal person, right?"
[58:18] I said that to my brother, but guess
[58:21] what? After I took care of him for a
[58:23] few days, I was the same way. People
[58:25] really...I'm telling you, being a
[58:27] filial son doesn't solve anything. It
[58:30] doesn't...
[58:30] >> And you only say those things when your
[58:32] brother is the one doing the caretaking
[58:34] .
[58:34] >> Right, and when I was caretaking, I'd
[58:36] say, "You can't get impatient with him.
[58:38] " Take my older brother, for example.
[58:40] The couple living with the elderly
[58:42] parent—it’s not just the son—the
[58:44] mental symptoms he brings actually push
[58:46] the caregiver to the point where you
[58:48] can't survive, not just that you can't
[58:50] live.
[58:51] >> Exactly.
[58:52] >> He and his wife were taking care of the
[58:54] elderly parent. The old man in their
[58:56] house wouldn't sleep at night, watching
[58:58] by the door. His wife would say that
[59:00] the woman went inside. He’d ask, "
[59:03] What are you two doing in there?"
[59:05] >> Right, then he'd say, "I'm watching you
[59:07] ; don't think you can hide anything
[59:09] from me." All night long, just like he
[59:11] said, their days and nights were
[59:12] flipped, all night long like this...
[59:14] >> And he had paranoia.
[59:15] >> He had paranoia; you just...the couple
[59:18] who were taking care of him, in the end
[59:21] ? He said my wife told me, "I have to,
[59:23] I have to go back to my hometown; I
[59:25] can't take it." He said, "You have to
[59:28] understand that mom is just like this
[59:30] person, you have to know he has
[59:31] Alzheimer's," even showing her the
[59:33] information about it. But his wife said
[59:36] , "Well, he's your father, but why
[59:38] should I have to endure this suspicion
[59:40] every single day?""My normal married
[59:43] life is impossible to maintain." So, in
[59:45] the end, they were forced to live apart
[59:47] .
[59:47] >> Yes.
[59:48] >> My brother ended up just living with my
[59:51] mother; he said, "From now on, I'll
[59:52] just live with her."
[59:54] >> Yes, what Wentao said, I truly have a
[59:56] deep understanding of that. Like I just
[59:59] said, for example, I actually feel that
[60:01] among all caregivers, I'm still quite
[60:02] lucky, even though the whole process
[60:04] has been very difficult, but it depends
[60:06] on who you compare it to, right?
[60:08] >> Why are you lucky? We already mentioned
[60:11] one point earlier, which is that I'm a
[60:12] university teacher. I have relative
[60:14] freedom, yes, I don't work shifts, so I
[60:17] can spend a lot of time accompanying my
[60:19] parents. Secondly, I'm not an only
[60:21] child; I also have an older brother and
[60:24] an older sister. At least on this
[60:26] matter, the three of us are quite
[60:28] united. Although I am the primary
[60:31] caregiver, my sister is a teacher, you
[60:33] see. Whenever it's winter or summer
[60:36] break, she basically stays with us;
[60:38] since she lives near me, she'll come
[60:40] over. That's to help relieve my usual
[60:43] burden. And it even affected her
[60:49] retirement; she didn't have to retire,
[60:51] but she decided to do so. Yes, in order
[60:57] to do this. Then, because I have a bad
[61:00] back, and the thing with the elderly is
[61:03] , eventually, you can barely lift them.
[61:05] Because they put all their weight onto
[61:08] you. They don't exert any strength
[61:10] themselves.
[61:11] >> Oh. Right, so when you handle them,
[61:14] it's a huge test for your back and your
[61:16] overall physical strength. So for all
[61:18] these tasks, I let my brother do them
[61:20] because he is stronger than me. He's
[61:22] also taller than me, much taller.
[61:24] >> A lot of his advantages come into play.
[61:26] >> He's also sturdier, much sturdier. So,
[61:29] this is the kind of unity we have among
[61:32] siblings. This process really, if
[61:34] everyone participates, can actually
[61:37] enhance the bond between siblings; you
[61:39] face something together and need to
[61:41] solve it, and another very practical
[61:43] issue is that my own family has to
[61:45] support me. Right?
[61:47] >> Family.
[61:49] >> Yes, because I spend a large amount of
[61:50] time here, which means I will
[61:51] inevitably reduce the time I spend with
[61:53] my spouse and children.
[61:54] >> Exactly, exactly.
[61:56] >> They have to understand me and endure
[61:58] many times, like you said, the
[62:00] separation, or not being together.
[62:02] >> Yes, exactly. So these are actually
[62:04] favorable conditions. Why are we
[62:06] putting this on the table to discuss?
[62:08] You have to consider that, for example,
[62:10] there are many people who have fallen
[62:12] out with their siblings over this.
[62:14] >> Right.
[62:15] >> Just like you said, there are many
[62:18] cases of marital discord.
[62:19] >> Right.
[62:21] >> Or children feeling neglected or
[62:23] ignored—these kinds of things.
[62:26] >> Right. The reason I say this is an
[62:30] unsolvable issue is that bringing it up
[62:33] at least prepares people, or gives them
[62:35] some hope that maybe society, the state
[62:38] , or the government can do something,
[62:40] but in reality, I think it’s very
[62:42] difficult. You must realize that as
[62:46] someone who currently feels good about
[62:48] life and successful in your career, if
[62:51] your elderly parents face misfortune,
[62:53] it could very likely lead not just to
[62:55] the loss of your life and career, but I
[62:58] think to total destruction—to being
[63:00] completely defeated.
[63:02] >> You are still speaking from the
[63:04] perspective of being a caregiver. The
[63:06] deeper tragedy is when you become the
[63:09] one being cared for. That path is just
[63:12] unimaginable.
[63:14] >> Let’s say, I know you’re just
[63:17] playing along, let’s say, as no one
[63:19] can avoid it.
[63:20] >> If it comes to that, where you need
[63:22] your children to help you with basic
[63:23] bodily functions. What do we do?
[63:25] >> Oh my.
[63:27] >> The young beauty hasn't thought about
[63:28] these issues yet. You know what? I
[63:30] treat being on your show as a form of
[63:32] therapy. In psychology, there’s a
[63:34] concept called desensitization; the
[63:35] more you avoid talking about something,
[63:37] the more you force yourself to discuss
[63:39] it, and over time you...
[63:40] >> You become desensitized. I was actually
[63:43] unwilling to face these things before.
[63:46] Even to Professor Hu, I’ll be honest,
[63:48] although I saw the topic, the moment I
[63:50] clicked and saw mentions of the smell
[63:53] in the house, I quietly closed it.
[63:55] >> Right, a kind of ostrich mentality.
[63:57] >> Exactly. I want to enjoy the days I
[64:00] don't think about it, but rationality
[64:02] tells me I must think about it now. If
[64:04] we look at it optimistically, I think
[64:06] this is progress in human development.
[64:08] I saw data the other day showing the
[64:10] average life expectancy in the 80s was
[64:12] only 68.
[64:13] >> Yes, exactly.
[64:14] >> That’s not long at all.
[64:16] >> This shows that the aging problem has
[64:18] emerged, and society hasn't really made
[64:20] the corresponding preparations. As you
[64:22] said, 90%still rely on home-based care,
[64:25] not to mention good nursing homes. How
[64:27] much does that cost? Aren't there all
[64:29] sorts of rumors? You have to save
[64:31] millions first, then think about the
[64:33] monthly expenses, not to mention
[64:34] whether you can even afford to pay for
[64:36] it. It's just that there aren't that
[64:37] many hospital beds available, honestly.
[64:39] Even if you have the money, there
[64:41] aren't enough beds. Secondly, I
[64:43] personally wasn't prepared for this
[64:46] either, because I saw a statistic
[64:49] saying that the prevalence of
[64:51] Alzheimer's after age 85 is 50%. If you
[64:54] have a couple where both are over 85,
[64:56] one of them will definitely have to
[64:58] take care of the other. This can be
[65:00] seen as a positive perspective,
[65:02] implying that Alzheimer's is also a
[65:04] reflection of increased human longevity
[65:06] ; it really is just...
[65:07] >> An unchangeable historical pattern.
[65:10] >> When you live longer, your functions
[65:12] decline, and the probability of
[65:14] Alzheimer's rises sharply after 65.
[65:17] >> It starts rising after 60, rises even
[65:20] more sharply after 85, and I recall
[65:23] that the aging ratio in China will
[65:26] reach one in three people by the 2030s.
[65:30] Being elderly means being over 60,
[65:32] which brings along corresponding cases
[65:34] of the disease.
[65:37] >> It’s not just a symptom, it's a
[65:40] long-term, dragging illness, so I was
[65:43] curious and asked my doctor what the
[65:45] long-term prognosis would be. He said
[65:52] that in the end, if the patient doesn't
[65:54] recognize anyone, his view was that the
[65:57] family would no longer be capable of
[65:59] care, and it would be better to find a
[66:01] specialized facility for Alzheimer's
[66:03] care. But after he finished, he added
[66:09] that he couldn't think of any suitable
[66:11] ones right away, noting that they seem
[66:14] quite rare in our country and even the
[66:16] existing ones don't seem very
[66:18] professional. Why haven't you
[66:20] considered it? You must have thought
[66:22] about it. At first, I did want to send
[66:24] her to a nursing home, but it was
[66:26] vetoed by my wife. Back then, she had
[66:28] mild symptoms, and mild means she still
[66:31] had her own will. She knew what I was
[66:33] trying to do. She was very clear during
[66:35] the whole process when I took her to
[66:37] the nursing home, chatting with the
[66:39] director, the doctors, the nursing
[66:41] staff, and even eating their food. To
[66:43] get a feel for their meals. Then, after
[66:46] all that, she said she wouldn't go, and
[66:49] of course, there was nothing else I
[66:51] could do; you can't just drag her into
[66:54] a nursing home. So at that time, you
[66:56] could say she was the one who made the
[66:58] decision not to go to the nursing home.
[67:00] >> So you chose to respect that.
[67:02] >> But later, regarding the earlier part,
[67:04] I was just respecting her wishes.
[67:06] Actually, since she has reached this
[67:08] stage, I could send her away because
[67:09] she is not big,
[67:10] >> At this point, it is I myself
[67:12] >> who don't want to send her away. Why?
[67:16] >> Because, in the end, it's just like the
[67:18] example you just gave, where that
[67:20] expert suggested that if she doesn't
[67:23] recognize anyone in the family at all,
[67:25] then send her away. Right? And I feel
[67:29] now that my mom still knows that she
[67:32] and I have this kind of close
[67:34] connection. Actually, a lot of the time
[67:37] , you know, this feeling is real. To
[67:40] give a very simple example, I have a 24
[67:43] -hour caregiver. When this caregiver
[67:45] asks her to do many things, my mom
[67:47] won't even pay her any attention. She
[67:49] might even show some violent behavior,
[67:51] like grabbing her hand and refusing to
[67:53] let go. But after I arrive, I say, "Mom
[67:56] .""It's time for you to eat now.""You
[67:59] need to, for example, go to sleep now."
[68:02] As soon as I say it, she listens
[68:04] immediately. She will immediately nod,
[68:07] smile, and agree. She actually knows I
[68:10] am a very unique
[68:11] >> kind of existence to her. So, at this
[68:14] moment, I
[68:14] >> can't bear to,
[68:16] >> yes, can't bear to. I find it quite
[68:18] hard to imagine her lying in a strange
[68:20] bed, surrounded by nothing but
[68:22] strangers.
[68:22] >> It's like sending her into another
[68:24] place in advance, yes. Yes, it is. Then
[68:27] perhaps my question is even crueler.
[68:30] What if it gets more serious and she
[68:32] can't even perceive this? Actually,
[68:35] regarding what Professor Xu said, I
[68:37] might also have some...well, I want to
[68:40] express some gratitude. I really think
[68:43] that any caregiver who can take care of
[68:46] your family members at home is truly
[68:48] hard to find.
[68:51] >> Let's put it bluntly; for people like
[68:53] us, if we didn't have the help of these
[68:56] people at all, you wouldn't be able to
[68:58] handle anything. You really couldn't
[69:01] manage; you would collapse immediately.
[69:03] So, strictly speaking, first, if I can
[69:05] still find a caregiver who does their
[69:07] best to look after my mother—because
[69:09] we have a lot of experience with this,
[69:11] like frequently having to change people
[69:13] , or them not wanting to do the job
[69:15] anymore, or us thinking they aren't
[69:17] doing it well.
[69:18] >> But as long as you can still find
[69:20] someone and you can maintain this
[69:22] situation to a certain extent with this
[69:25] person, I probably wouldn't make that
[69:27] decision. Because strictly speaking,
[69:29] it's basically equivalent to the
[69:31] caregiver and me working together to
[69:33] deal with my mother. Because my brother
[69:35] and sister will still come by. But, I'm
[69:38] the primary caregiver, so the two of us
[69:40] are dealing with this together—my
[69:42] mother. And, well, it's an extremely
[69:47] fragile balance. I often say that it
[69:51] might be running today, but tomorrow it
[69:54] might not. There's that movie that just
[69:57] came out, Miyazaki's*The Boy and the
[70:00] Heron*; there's a scene in it where
[70:02] that old man keeps building a tower of
[70:04] wooden blocks. That tower is teetering
[70:07] on the brink of collapse. When I see
[70:09] that, I feel like my whole life is
[70:11] teetering too, because I can manage
[70:13] today, but only just today. Tomorrow,
[70:16] for example, my mom’s mind isn't good
[70:18] right now, but she hasn't been
[70:20] diagnosed with, say, cancer. Because
[70:23] cancer would be a completely different
[70:25] path; she might not have it yet, or
[70:27] perhaps she's currently at home,
[70:29] shuffling along an inch at a time,
[70:31] still able to walk and get out of bed.
[70:33] But one day, she might not be able to
[70:35] get out of bed anymore.
[70:37] >> Right.
[70:38] >> Completely bedridden; not only is the
[70:39] caregiving burden heavy, but it also
[70:41] causes lung issues.
[70:42] >> Right.
[70:43] >> And a lot of people die from that.
[70:45] >> Right.
[70:46] >> So, in fact, if those situations arise
[70:48] ...Or if I don't keep an eye on her for
[70:50] a second and she falls. She ends up
[70:52] straight in bed, and at her age, she
[70:55] can't have any surgery, so the life I
[70:57] currently seem to be maintaining would
[70:59] immediately collapse. So the question
[71:02] you asked me is indeed very cruel;
[71:04] honestly, I'd say you can never prepare
[71:07] for this issue, you can never be ready
[71:09] enough, and you can never be prepared
[71:12] enough. You can only say that once it
[71:14] collapses, you'll figure out a way to
[71:16] deal with it then; what else can you do
[71:18] ?
[71:18] >> People say, "there's always a way out,"
[71:21] but I think in life, sometimes you
[71:24] really do reach a dead end. Like you
[71:26] said, a nanny is amazing and so
[71:29] important, but finding the right one is
[71:31] too hard. And there are even situations
[71:34] where the elderly, especially with
[71:36] Alzheimer's, develop mental issues, and
[71:38] there are some elderly who just can't
[71:41] accept it.
[71:41] >> Some even have violent tendencies.
[71:44] >> Right, they can't accept a caregiver.
[71:46] >> They drive away seven or eight of them,
[71:48] and in the end, it just—well, some
[71:49] elderly people eventually insist on it
[71:51] being only their son or daughter. Right
[71:53] .
[71:54] >> For me, I can only accept having family
[71:56] with me; outsiders are not accepted.
[71:58] And you know, there are many who have
[72:00] to be tied to their beds, because when
[72:01] they get up, they can be extremely
[72:03] violent. They might grab something and
[72:05] truly cause serious injury to someone
[72:07] else; all of that is possible.
[72:08] >> Mm.
[72:09] >> Right.
[72:10] >> So, besides the public drama you
[72:12] mentioned, there’s another film where
[72:14] I found we share a mutual feeling,
[72:16] which is "The Father."
[72:17] >> I always say, if you want to understand
[72:19] this condition, you should watch that
[72:21] movie; you can imagine his inner world.
[72:24] It’s essentially what we call being
[72:26] unable to distinguish the real from the
[72:28] false. Unable to distinguish between
[72:31] reality and falsehood. Or between
[72:33] dreams and reality.
[72:35] >> Unable to distinguish dreams from
[72:37] reality. What he often says might imply
[72:39] he mistakes someone who has already
[72:42] passed away for someone standing right
[72:44] in front of him. You just...he lives in
[72:47] a...so sometimes I find it strange, too
[72:49] —is it a delusion, or is he actually
[72:52] seeing someone who doesn't exist?
[72:55] >> We are currently training students for
[72:57] jobs that we don’t even know will
[72:59] exist in the future.
[73:00] >> In the future, they will use
[73:02] technologies we don't yet know exist to
[73:04] solve problems we don't yet know are
[73:06] problems.
[73:06] >> Mm.
[73:07] >> This is the era we are in; for everyone
[73:09] , the idea of just "biding your time"
[73:10] no longer works. If you keep biding
[73:12] your time, eventually you won't be able
[73:13] to do anything, and you'll just end up
[73:15] in the recycling bin.
[73:15] >> You might have spent many years deep in
[73:17] a profession, only to suddenly find
[73:19] that this profession has been phased
[73:20] out. Take a mobile phone, for example;
[73:22] you might have made it incredibly
[73:23] sturdy and durable.
[73:24] >> You might have made a pager
[73:25] exceptionally well. Then you realize,
[73:27] in the blink of an eye, it’s been
[73:29] eliminated. So, I don't think you can
[73:30] say, "As long as you just keep going,
[73:32] you can achieve the sense of security
[73:34] you imagine." I feel that for young
[73:36] people today, their life isn't about
[73:38] stacking blocks; it’s like Tetris—
[73:40] overnight, that whole thing can just
[73:42] disappear. You’ve made it clear for
[73:44] me. I’ve realized that in the past,
[73:47] when I was in a state-owned unit, I
[73:49] truly never thought about the next step
[73:52] .
[73:52] >> Mm.
[73:53] >> I just didn't think about the future.
[73:55] >> Everything was already arranged for you
[73:56] .
[73:56] >> For you, for example, it was just a
[73:58] matter of living in a 7-square-meter
[74:00] bachelor dorm today, and even thinking
[74:01] about when you eventually start a
[74:03] family,
[74:03] >> if the station was supposed to provide
[74:05] housing and didn't, many couples would
[74:07] just temporarily live in that 7-
[74:09] square-meter bachelor dorm,
[74:10] >> but it was stable, or rather, as my
[74:13] years of service accumulated,
[74:15] >> Right.
[74:15] >> Right, I could live like this my whole
[74:17] life, eating beef chow fun forever, and
[74:19] nobody would mind. I was in a taxi once
[74:21] , listening to a guest on the radio
[74:23] recalling why he left his stable job.
[74:25] He was a Beijinger, very humorous. He
[74:27] said, "At that office, I knew every
[74:29] intersection on the way to Babaoshan
[74:31] Cemetery." So he felt he couldn't take
[74:33] it anymore and had to quit, but this is
[74:35] the kind of life so many people dream
[74:37] of today.
[74:37] >> But looking back, there is actually a
[74:40] problem with your experience.
[74:41] >> It's as if you want to tell young
[74:43] people that at every stage, you should
[74:45] just look at yourself and say, "My
[74:46] ability is only at this level, so I'll
[74:48] stay here."
[74:48] >> Right, enjoy the things your abilities
[74:50] can afford you.
[74:51] >> Only catch as many fish as the size of
[74:52] your pond allows.
[74:53] >> But the problem is, your story is one
[74:55] of constant upward mobility.
[74:56] >> Right.
[74:57] >> So, the next question those kids will
[74:59] immediately ask is, "How can I follow
[75:01] your path upward? Why are you
[75:03] successful and I'm not?"
[75:04] >> No, my point is exactly the opposite of
[75:07] "upward mobility." It's that back when
[75:09] I was eating beef chow fun...
[75:10] >> I thought it would be like that for the
[75:12] rest of my life. You thought it would
[75:15] be, but the problem is, today's young
[75:17] people aren't looking at the "you"
[75:19] eating beef chow fun; they want to see
[75:21] the "you" who is sitting here today.
[75:24] >> How did you get from the beef chow fun
[75:27] phase to here? That's what they care
[75:29] about first. I think that's a desire
[75:31] everyone has, and it can't be
[75:33] extinguished. But you just mentioned
[75:36] job instability, which has long been
[75:38] the greatest consequence brought about
[75:40] by globalization. Otherwise, why do we
[75:42] see so many Trump supporters in the
[75:44] U.S., including many young people, or
[75:46] the return of the right-wing in various
[75:48] European countries, or the rise of
[75:50] trade protectionism? It's all because
[75:53] society feels too insecure. So now,
[75:55] nationalist trends in many countries
[75:57] around the world are becoming stronger
[75:59] —for example, it's very intense in
[76:00] India and many other nations. Why is it
[76:03] so intense? It's because when there is
[76:05] nothing in society that makes you feel
[76:07] secure, the only thing left to give you
[76:09] a sense of stability is your identity.
[76:10] >> My national identity, my only sense of
[76:13] certainty.
[76:14] >> A couple of years ago, the conductors
[76:17] on the 300 bus line expressed their
[76:19] wishes because, with the advent of card
[76:22] payments, conductors are no longer
[76:24] needed on buses.
[76:25] >> Right.
[76:26] >> So they lost their jobs.
[76:28] >> Hmm.
[76:28] >> Yeah.
[76:29] >> They want to keep their jobs; they're
[76:31] saying that Europe should also save
[76:32] some jobs for humans.
[76:32] >> And in the future, you'll be worse off.
[76:35] For instance, after AI develops and
[76:36] mechanization takes hold, even more
[76:37] people will be unemployed. Take
[76:39] actuarial science, for example. Two
[76:40] years ago, I remember many were still
[76:42] studying it.
[76:43] >> Yeah.
[76:43] >> It was very popular, and how hard it is
[76:46] to study actuarial science! You have to
[76:48] study for years and constantly take
[76:49] exams, but now, maybe starting next
[76:51] year, the profession will gradually
[76:53] fade away. There was a news photo years
[76:55] ago of a certain stock exchange. When
[76:57] it was built, it was a massive hall of
[76:59] over a thousand square meters.
[77:01] >> It was filled with thousands of people
[77:03] and computers, but now, that big hall
[77:06] just has one computer standing silently
[77:08] in the middle.
[77:10] >> And if you look at why things like paid
[77:13] knowledge or self-help programs are so
[77:15] popular now, if you look closely, they
[77:18] aren't just teaching you simple skills
[77:20] like how to make a PPT; they emphasize
[77:23] that it's because the future is just
[77:25] too insecure.
[77:26] >> You never know what kind of person you
[77:28] need to prepare to be.
[77:30] >> It’s not just that the future is
[77:31] insecure; what you’re saying makes me
[77:33] realize the present is too.
[77:34] >> Exactly.
[77:35] >> Back then, if you lost your job, you
[77:36] still had your house, right?
[77:38] >> You didn't have heavy monthly mortgage
[77:39] payments pushing you.
[77:40] >> But what about young people today if
[77:41] they lose their jobs?
[77:42] >> Yeah. Yes, if I were to go back to my
[77:45] early days, the platform or medium I
[77:48] worked for might not even survive today
[77:50] ; it could be replaced by other media
[77:52] at any moment. You might not even be
[77:54] able to make a living; that’s the
[77:56] real problem.
[77:57] >> A while back, when my daughter turned
[77:59] 100 days old, I hired a photographer.
[78:01] >> That photographer happened to be
[78:03] someone from a weekly magazine I used
[78:04] to really like back then.
[78:05] >> Mm.
[78:06] >> A designer—no, a photojournalist.
[78:08] That guy...the magazine eventually
[78:10] stopped publication, so he came to
[78:11] Beijing to work for a commercial
[78:12] company. He ended up...
[78:20] >> It's like when I asked someone involved
[78:22] in blockchain, why they were so
[78:23] desperate to jump on it. He said that
[78:26] because he missed out on real estate
[78:28] speculation and the internet startup
[78:30] boom, he felt if he didn't get on the
[78:32] blockchain train, he would be left
[78:33] behind and completely eliminated.
[78:37] Exactly, and now, this kind of feeling
[78:40] about the future...Take someone like an
[78:43] internet mogul I heard, talking quite
[78:45] nonchalantly, saying how excited he is,
[78:48] you know, about blockchain and all that
[78:50] lately. He says, "I'm telling you guys,
[78:57] starting tomorrow..." This guy
[78:59] definitely doesn't have insomnia; he
[79:02] has no idea what a luxury sleep is.
[79:05] >> Right, if you suffer from insomnia,
[79:07] you'll know that not being able to
[79:09] sleep is an even bigger waste of time,
[79:11] you know? But his point seems to be,
[79:13] well, you know.
[79:15] >> People more successful than you are
[79:17] working even harder than you. Right,
[79:19] and then, speaking of, let's say,
[79:22] Brother Six, returning to the most
[79:24] primal state, a person works first to
[79:26] support themselves, never mind hobbies.
[79:31] >> I think in a typical stable
[79:33] organization, a large company, if you
[79:35] work hard. Endure and hold your tongue,
[79:38] get along with those around you, don't
[79:40] offend your boss or colleagues.
[79:41] >> And complete the work assigned to you
[79:44] diligently. I feel like, isn't that
[79:46] stable? Couldn't that last for a long
[79:49] time?
[79:49] >> Not easy, and why is that? Because in
[79:52] that organization, resources are
[79:54] limited, leading to a zero-sum game or
[79:55] whatever you call it, right?
[79:57] >> For instance.
[79:58] >> There's only one promotion opportunity.
[80:00] >> Mm-hmm.
[80:01] >> What do you do?
[80:02] >> Exactly.
[80:03] >> If you don't get it, you'll be in a
[80:05] miserable spot. Some people have
[80:06] hobbies, like growing flowers or
[80:08] keeping fish to balance their mindset,
[80:10] but the people around them won't have
[80:12] it—your wife won't have it, your
[80:14] elders won't have it, and your children
[80:16] won't have it either; they're all
[80:18] competing too. So that leads to this
[80:20] person's...And you know, my feeling now
[80:23] is that our market competition is
[80:26] becoming increasingly fierce. I feel
[80:29] like there's this issue where
[80:31] maintaining the status quo is
[80:33] impossible. Sometimes when I deal with
[80:36] people in the business world, I find
[80:38] that their employees are under immense
[80:41] pressure.
[80:41] >> This huge pressure makes us feel like
[80:43] we used to at the TV station, always
[80:45] being chased by ratings like dogs,
[80:47] right? It's just...
[80:49] >> The problem lies in the layers of
[80:51] pressure, what is it really? For
[80:53] example, you made a profit.
[80:54] >> Mm-hmm.
[80:55] >> That's good, right?
[80:57] >> But the target.
[80:58] >> The department manager told me that
[81:00] their incentive mechanism works like
[81:02] this.
[81:02] >> I must increase by 10%in the first two
[81:05] months of the second half of the year.
[81:07] Once I improve by 10%, my position will
[81:10] be promoted, and the current
[81:11] distribution mechanisms are so flexible
[81:14] that I could even get company shares.
[81:16] >> But if I don't have this 10%...I might
[81:19] not even be able to stay here, right?
[81:21] >> I'd just be cast aside.
[81:23] >> So I feel like this is troublesome;
[81:25] there’s never a happy day.
[81:27] >> You've made progress in your work,
[81:29] >> Yeah,
[81:30] >> But it doesn't stop there; next month
[81:31] you have to be even better.
[81:33] >> Does becoming a civil servant solve
[81:34] everything? No, there are issues there
[81:36] too. Are civil servants okay?
[81:38] >> Civil servants are considered
[81:40] relatively more stable, I suppose. But
[81:42] there are still things, and there are
[81:44] risks, which is why I prefer a boss
[81:47] like Brother Liu, right? He lets me, as
[81:50] an employee, feel like I can take a
[81:52] breather for a while. For example, his
[81:55] "Duku" platform has encountered trends
[81:58] and such, but he didn't jump on that
[82:00] bandwagon.
[82:01] >> Right? You just keep doing things this
[82:05] way; is it really impossible to have
[82:07] stable profits from what you do today?
[82:09] As long as my income and expenses can
[82:11] balance out.
[82:12] >> With a small table,
[82:13] >> I can just keep doing it this way
[82:15] forever. Why wouldn't that work? Why
[82:17] does everyone want more? This month has
[82:19] to beat last month, next month has to
[82:21] beat this month. Don't you think this
[82:23] is endless? It is.
[82:25] >> Uh, because my own philosophy is called
[82:27] "what you gain is what you lose," right
[82:29] ? Whatever you gain, you will lose
[82:31] something else. For me, I feel like I
[82:33] had already gained enough at that time,
[82:35] so I didn't need to pursue more,
[82:36] because if you keep pursuing, you end
[82:38] up being pursued—you seem to be
[82:40] chasing them, but actually, they are
[82:41] chasing you.
[82:42] >> Mm.
[82:43] >> So if I lower my own desires, you find
[82:46] that you live quite well, and you don't
[82:48] need to report to anyone anymore. If
[82:52] you want to grow big and strong and
[82:54] compete early on, you will enter a
[82:57] state where, once you're on that train,
[82:59] it's very uncomfortable. That's right,
[83:04] so last time I met an investor, and I
[83:06] thought he was quite interesting. He
[83:09] asked me, he said, "Are you preparing
[83:11] for financing or something?" He said, "
[83:13] But, Teacher Du, let me give you a
[83:15] heads-up," and he gave the example of
[83:17] another big shot in the industry. He
[83:20] asked, "Are you prepared to change your
[83:22] current life?" I asked what he meant,
[83:25] and he said that once you get financing
[83:27] and scale up, someone who didn't use to
[83:29] have to go to work...
[83:31] >> Now you’re at the office every
[83:33] morning by 8.
[83:34] >> And you might not leave until 10 at
[83:36] night.
[83:36] >> Doing what? Just meeting all kinds of
[83:39] people all day long, because you have
[83:41] to balance everyone's interests, deal
[83:44] with them, socialize with them, report
[83:46] to whoever is in charge, keep up with
[83:48] performance targets, and produce your
[83:50] show at the same time. He says you have
[83:52] to make up your mind: if you want to
[83:54] make big money, do you—do you really
[83:55] want to live this life? Yeah.
[83:58] >> Right.
[83:59] >> Once you’ve raised capital, I call
[84:01] that being in debt.
[84:02] >> What do you mean?
[84:03] >> You mean being in debt as in...
[84:06] >> Owing money, right?
[84:08] >> Yes, it’s really quite painful, very
[84:11] painful, but...
[84:12] >> Maybe you’ll end up liking it. I feel
[84:14] like the situation my own company faces
[84:16] isn't really about people jumping ship;
[84:18] that's actually fine. The real issue is
[84:20] ...I can clearly feel that Beijing's
[84:22] problem is actually...
[84:23] >> Mm.
[84:24] >> More and more brilliant, talented young
[84:27] people today come to Beijing for two or
[84:29] three years, maybe finish school here,
[84:32] or find a job here. Or come from
[84:34] somewhere else to find opportunities.
[84:36] Uh, they might find a partner, get
[84:38] married, or even have kids. At that
[84:41] point, they choose to leave Beijing.
[84:43] I’m finding this is happening more
[84:44] and more. You’re saying...
[84:46] >> That this place starts to...
[84:47] >> Earn money in Beijing, then go live
[84:49] somewhere else.
[84:49] >> No, the biggest reason they leave our
[84:51] company is simply because they can no
[84:53] longer afford to stay in Beijing.
[84:54] >> Oh.
[84:55] >> Because the cost of living in Beijing
[84:57] is too high, they head elsewhere.
[84:59] I’ve noticed a lot more young people
[85:01] making this choice lately.
[85:02] >> You mentioning this reminds me of a
[85:04] speech he gave somewhere, where he
[85:06] asked people, "What tier do you
[85:08] consider your city to be?"
[85:09] >> Oh, right, right, exactly. That’s
[85:11] quite interesting.
[85:12] >> Mm. Uh. Why did I even wonder about
[85:16] that? Because I discovered—one day I
[85:18] realized by chance that most of my
[85:19] authors aren't from Beijing, Shanghai,
[85:21] or Guangzhou, even though, in theory,
[85:23] people from those cities are the most
[85:24] talented.
[85:25] >> Mm.
[85:26] >> They love culture.
[85:27] >> They love culture, but why isn't it
[85:29] them? Because people in those cities
[85:30] can no longer write such long-form
[85:32] pieces.
[85:32] >> It’s impossible for them to work on
[85:34] things without caring about the ROI.
[85:36] True, and it’s so easy for them to
[85:37] make money; you attend planning
[85:39] meetings all day, go to press
[85:40] conferences, collect a red envelope—
[85:42] who’s going to do this grueling work
[85:44] anymore? So, most people just...
[85:46] >> Mm.
[85:47] >> Do you support yourself, or should you
[85:48] support yourself in a smaller city?
[85:49] >> Yeah, just...
[85:51] >> In second-or third-tier cities, build
[85:53] up your knowledge and enrich your mind,
[85:55] >> or throw yourself into Beijing and let
[85:57] it drain your blood and sweat. Yeah.
[86:00] >> Or just continue living a
[86:02] >> comfortable life locally.
[86:04] >> I mean, there's also this concept where
[86:06] people always talk about first-tier,
[86:08] second-tier, and third-tier cities.
[86:10] >> But
[86:11] >> have you ever thought about people?
[86:12] >> Are you a first-tier person, a
[86:14] second-tier person, or a third-tier
[86:15] person?
[86:16] >> How do you explain that?
[86:17] >> I think, uh, if we set aside things
[86:20] like discrimination,
[86:22] >> we are all Chinese. Right, because it's
[86:26] not about that; people definitely
[86:28] differ in their outlook, bearing, and
[86:31] personal style.
[86:32] >> Yeah.
[86:34] >> Some people live in a first-tier city
[86:36] but are third-tier people. Some people
[86:39] live in a third-tier city, yet they
[86:40] could be first-tier people.
[86:42] >> Right, exactly. Of course, we're not
[86:44] necessarily encouraging Beijing.
[86:46] >> The difference between first and third
[86:47] tier is about perspective, vision, and
[86:49] interests. I can't even define it
[86:51] clearly. Maybe the person you see as
[86:53] first-tier is just third-tier to
[86:55] someone else; this whole "first or
[86:57] third tier" thing is very subjective.
[86:59] >> Put it this way, let's put it this way.
[87:01] >> Let me put it simply: I'm talking about
[87:03] being reliable or unreliable.
[87:05] >> For instance, when I hire employees,
[87:08] what I mean by "reliable" is—well, I
[87:10] don't know, maybe for some highly
[87:12] specialized jobs, I don't understand
[87:14] the skills they need, but for many jobs
[87:17] I've encountered, I've found it all
[87:19] comes down to whether the person is
[87:21] reliable or not. To be honest, for
[87:23] things like whether you know how to
[87:25] write news, you can learn that very
[87:27] quickly. But you'll find, and I often
[87:31] tell my colleagues this, that I've
[87:33] noticed some differences between you
[87:36] all. Some people are just different,
[87:38] you know? It's about being thorough in
[87:40] your work; just because I said it
[87:42] doesn't mean you heard it. Yeah, yeah.
[87:44] >> Uh-huh.
[87:45] >> Just because I did it doesn't mean I
[87:47] achieved it. I often tell people this,
[87:49] because I've found that when many
[87:51] people mess things up, they just say, "
[87:52] But I told them."
[87:53] >> Yeah.
[87:54] >> But you'll find other colleagues who,
[87:56] because of their personality—or
[87:57] should I say their caliber—are
[87:59] different; they will say, "
[88:00] >> Fangzhou, did you understand?""
[88:02] >> Be here tomorrow at three.""
[88:04] >> Right, getting upstairs might take some
[88:07] time, so you'll need an extra ten
[88:09] minutes to get here."
[88:10] >> I feel like wherever such people go,
[88:12] everyone likes to use them.
[88:14] >> It’s like, when you're held
[88:16] accountable for something afterward,
[88:18] many people say, "Oh, I did it, I
[88:19] didn't know it would turn out this way.
[88:21] " I'm saying that just doing something
[88:23] doesn't mean you've achieved the result
[88:25] .
[88:25] >> Don't make excuses for it; we're not
[88:27] even talking about first-rate or
[88:28] second-rate people here. Sometimes, you
[88:29] can spot the difference among employees
[88:31] at a very basic level.
[88:32] >> Some people can even clean a bathroom
[88:33] better than anyone else.
[88:34] >> Right.
[88:35] >> That’s just their capability,
[88:37] that’s their quality. I remember
[88:38] reading Levi, an Italian writer—I
[88:40] think he was Italian—who was sent to
[88:43] a concentration camp. He noted that the
[88:45] Jewish prisoners would build walls—
[88:47] even the walls of their own prison—
[88:49] incredibly well, even though it was
[88:51] meant to contain them.
[88:52] >> And it was the place where they would
[88:54] eventually be executed.
[88:55] >> Right, but they were so meticulous in
[88:57] their work because that was simply
[88:59] their habit.
[89:00] >> For instance, we have an employee who
[89:02] works with us. Let me give you an
[89:04] example: while we’re recording here,
[89:06] I’m more sensitive to heat than any
[89:09] of you; I really hate sweating. Mhm.
[89:12] >> So I asked them to tell me what the
[89:14] temperature was—you can see it in my
[89:16] WeChat.
[89:16] >> They took a thermometer, placed it here
[89:19] , and took a picture to show me it was
[89:21] 22 degrees.
[89:22] >> But then they also wrote to me, saying,
[89:25] "However, we are boiling water for tea
[89:27] here,"
[89:28] >> adding that when I drink that tea, my
[89:30] body temperature might rise a bit.
[89:33] >> Now, do you want an employee like that
[89:35] or not? Mhm.
[89:37] >> Yes.
[89:38] >> It’s very simple; just look at the
[89:40] task and how the person approaches it.
[89:42] That’s why I’m so interested in
[89:44] what he says. Of course, there are many
[89:47] social factors at play, which we must
[89:49] acknowledge, but on the other hand, why
[89:51] are there bankrupt companies but no "
[89:54] bankrupt" individuals?
[89:55] >> Sometimes you feel that you shouldn't
[89:57] end up struggling; if you are that kind
[89:58] of person, I don’t believe you’ll
[90:00] ever go hungry.
[90:01] >> Even if you were delivering meals, you
[90:03] wouldn't...
[90:03] >> Right, you would still stand out. For
[90:06] example, the real estate agent I used
[90:08] to buy my house—a big reason I chose
[90:10] him was that he looked incredibly loyal
[90:12] , like a trustworthy young man. And
[90:14] another thing, his observation skills
[90:16] were exceptional. He noticed when I
[90:18] left the complex, when I wasn't around,
[90:21] what kind of car I drove, and even
[90:22] offered to find me a parking spot. He
[90:25] was just extremely observant. Every
[90:27] Spring Festival, he gives out rice,
[90:29] spring couplets, and flowers. You later
[90:31] realize that among his peers in the
[90:33] real estate industry, he’s the one
[90:35] who gets promoted the fastest. I wonder
[90:38] if anyone watching our show remembers a
[90:40] small cold-skin noodle stall near
[90:42] Jianguomen about ten years ago. Oh, it
[90:45] left such a deep impression; you were
[90:47] willing to travel a long way just to
[90:49] buy his noodles. He was always dressed
[90:51] so clean and decent, and his whole
[90:53] operation was just...
[90:54] >> Professional.
[90:56] >> Exactly. You just felt that he was
[90:58] truly worthy of your respect.
[91:00] >> Mhm.
[91:01] >> For example, I read about Wang
[91:02] Yung-ching, the former richest man in
[91:04] Taiwan. What industry did he start in?
[91:06] I forgot. It was selling rice.
[91:09] >> Selling rice. He and his brothers sold
[91:12] rice on a street in, I think, Taipei.
[91:14] Some city in Taiwan, where that whole
[91:16] street was full of rice shops.
[91:17] >> What was his unique ability? It was
[91:20] simple. He noticed that at the time, a
[91:22] lot of the rice sold in Taiwanese rice
[91:24] shops was mixed with a lot of sand.
[91:26] >> So, before cooking, Taiwanese people
[91:28] had to put in a lot of effort to sift
[91:31] through the rice to remove the sand.
[91:33] Mhm. After realizing this, he made sure
[91:36] to pick his rice as clean as possible.
[91:38] People would say, "The rice from Wang
[91:40] Yung-ching's shop can be washed and
[91:42] cooked directly; you don't need to go
[91:44] through that whole sifting process."
[91:45] >> And then, he thought further, saying, "
[91:48] I can deliver it to your home," which
[91:50] was very early for that time, right?
[91:52] >> Now, you could call him sly, or maybe
[91:55] not. When he delivered to their homes,
[91:57] he would check their existing stock.
[92:00] >> He was so detail-oriented that he would
[92:02] say, "Let’s pour out the old rice you
[92:05] have,""
[92:06] >> Pour the new rice at the bottom,""
[92:08] >> And put the old rice on top,""
[92:10] >> To prevent the old rice from going bad.
[92:11] ""
[92:12] >> To prevent the old rice from going bad.
[92:14] "
[92:14] >> By doing things this way, people kept
[92:15] buying from him, his rice shop became a
[92:17] hit, and eventually, he was able to
[92:18] build a much larger business.
[92:20] >> So, what I’m saying is, it really
[92:22] involves two sides.
[92:23] >> Objective conditions exist, but you
[92:25] also find that there are always certain
[92:27] individuals.
[92:28] >> You realize they don't necessarily need
[92:30] to be some kind of genius like Da Vinci
[92:33] . I’m not saying you need to be some
[92:35] grand genius; it’s not about that at
[92:37] all. It’s just that often, I’ve
[92:39] worked with many people—including
[92:40] publishers and editors—and the level
[92:42] of detail they show is just incredible!
[92:44] They are so thoughtful, even when
[92:46] changing just one word for you.
[92:48] >> They will discuss it with you first,
[92:49] for fear that you might have a
[92:50] different meaning.
[92:51] >> That’s how Lao Liu makes his edits,
[92:54] hmm. But then, some people will just
[92:56] delete it all without even asking you;
[92:58] that’s where the difference lies.
[92:59] >> Hmm.
[93:00] >> So, that's why I sometimes pay
[93:02] attention, for instance, when I often
[93:04] stay in hotels. I’ve truly discovered
[93:06] that in hotels, everyone thinks of the
[93:08] housekeeping staff cleaning the rooms.
[93:10] >> Yeah, right.
[93:12] >> They’d be unconvinced, as everyone
[93:14] sees it as just a very entry-level
[93:16] service job, right? But actually, even
[93:18] in this kind of work, some people are
[93:20] just different. And because I stay at
[93:22] the same few hotels year-round, I’ve
[93:24] witnessed this difference. At first, I
[93:26] noticed this person cleaning—for
[93:27] example, I got used to it—every day
[93:30] when they came to clean my room, when
[93:32] I’d return, I’d see their...they
[93:34] would notice my habits. For example,
[93:36] the blankets, don’t many hotels tuck
[93:38] them in? They saw I always pulled them
[93:40] out, so later they stopped tucking them
[93:42] in, but still kept the bed perfectly
[93:44] made underneath. Hmm.
[93:45] >> Once, I saw—who is this? I noticed
[93:48] them at a hotel many years ago, and
[93:49] when I went back to stay a few years
[93:50] later, they had already become the
[93:51] manager of the entire housekeeping
[93:53] department.
[93:53] >> Right.
[93:54] >> People like this, it reminds me of
[93:56] nearly 30 years ago, when I was
[93:58] interviewing a Hong Kong summer camp. A
[94:00] group of Hong Kong middle school
[94:02] students came to the mainland, and we
[94:04] had a joint event with a school summer
[94:06] camp from a mainland city.
[94:08] >> Hmm.
[94:09] >> Everyone was talking about their dreams
[94:11] . The mainland children’s dreams were
[94:13] all very lofty and ambitious.
[94:15] >> Hmm.
[94:16] >> One kid from Hong Kong said their dream
[94:17] was to be an "excellent ordinary person
[94:19] ."
[94:19] >> Hmm.
[94:20] >> Hmm.
[94:21] >> Hmm.
[94:23] >> And honestly, think back to the 80s and
[94:25] the early 90s, the phrase "excellent
[94:28] ordinary person" was almost
[94:30] non-existent in our history.
[94:32] >> Hmm, right.
[94:34] >> Exactly. We were, at that time, they
[94:37] were...
[94:37] >> How could an ordinary person be
[94:39] excellent?
[94:39] >> Hmm, I think maybe an excellent person
[94:42] is, just as Wentao was saying earlier,
[94:44] in today's society, you never know what
[94:47] you're doing or where you might be seen
[94:49] by someone. It’s like, because of
[94:51] social media and such, we always seem
[94:54] to show our best side to others. But
[94:57] sometimes, it’s those unintended
[94:59] details in your life, or those moments
[95:02] that trigger a change, that happen when
[95:04] you're not being watched, and you're
[95:07] inexplicably seen by someone. Take my
[95:10] career for example; it’s because Mr.
[95:12] Feng, the boss of that magazine,
[95:15] watched one of my shows and thought, "
[95:17] Hey, let's go interview him." After
[95:19] interviewing me, he just thought, "Why
[95:21] don't you come work for us?" Then after
[95:23] I started, he said, "How about being
[95:24] the deputy editor-in-chief?" This was
[95:26] completely unexpected. So, it's the
[95:28] things you don't think are being seen,
[95:30] the things you don't notice, even your
[95:32] aimless work—those details just might
[95:34] ...Actually, I also want to remind
[95:38] young people today that the education
[95:40] we received from middle school through
[95:42] university isn't very good.
[95:43] >> Right.
[95:45] >> Some of it is even contrary to the
[95:47] demands of their future careers and
[95:49] professional training.
[95:50] >> So, a young person needs enough courage
[95:53] to "wash" themselves clean.
[95:55] >> Mhm.
[95:56] >> They have to get rid of the concepts
[95:58] and habits formed during middle school
[96:00] and university.
[96:03] >> For instance, I think, how a person
[96:06] actually works.
[96:07] >> Mhm.
[96:08] >> Right? Universities probably never
[96:11] taught that.
[96:11] >> That's right, I think so.
[96:12] >> How to get along with colleagues.
[96:14] >> Exactly.
[96:15] >> How to express your thoughts, how to
[96:17] understand what others are saying—
[96:18] these are the basics that we never got
[96:20] in university.
[96:21] >> I completely agree, because I feel that
[96:23] , for example, as I travel between Hong
[96:25] Kong and Beijing, what strikes me most
[96:27] is that the kids in Beijing who just
[96:28] graduated from college—everyone is
[96:30] very hardworking, they are all college
[96:32] graduates, mhm.
[96:33] >> The kids who just graduated from
[96:35] college here often don't have the
[96:37] ability to enter the workplace
[96:38] immediately.
[96:39] >> You feel they still need to spend some
[96:41] time.
[96:42] >> Because they never learned what work
[96:43] actually means, or what attitude to
[96:45] take toward work. This point really
[96:47] surprises me.
[96:48] >> Yes.
[96:49] >> Yes, and on the contrary, I even think
[96:52] one can draw inferences from this.
[96:54] >> That is, regarding this "excellent
[96:56] ordinary person" you mentioned, I think
[96:58] there is a type of person in human
[97:00] society who is called "having
[97:02] personality," right? They don't follow
[97:04] the norm, and we also find them quite
[97:06] endearing.
[97:06] >> Unique talents.
[97:08] >> Genius types or those who don't sweat
[97:10] the small stuff, I really like that
[97:12] kind of person, many of my friends are
[97:14] like that, but it seems they are also
[97:17] more likely to stumble. Generally
[97:19] speaking, I feel like, for instance,
[97:21] what we were just saying, a person who
[97:23] is reliable in their work. Mm-hmm,
[97:26] >> And then, it’s really about being
[97:27] responsible toward others,
[97:29] >> Like Fang Zhou said, it’s not
[97:30] something you intentionally put on,
[97:32] >> It’s that it has become a habit,
[97:34] it’s how you treat people and deal
[97:37] with matters, and it’s the same with
[97:39] your work. Even in the end, when you
[97:41] make friends, you might not have such a
[97:44] big personality, but over time, friends
[97:46] feel that this person is trustworthy,
[97:49] responsible for me, thoughtful, caring
[97:51] about how I feel, looking after a
[97:53] friend’s heart. If you go on living
[97:56] like this, I don't think you need to
[97:58] have grand ideals.
[97:59] >> You will have a circle of friends in
[98:01] society and in your work,
[98:02] >> It shouldn't be too bad,
[98:04] >> Right? Because I think there aren't
[98:06] many people like this, too few.
[98:08] >> Right?
[98:09] >> This kind of person, once they enter
[98:10] the workplace, doesn't necessarily have
[98:12] to butter people up or do those things
[98:14] to be considered a good employee.
[98:15] >> Right, they act with dignity and
[98:17] decency, taking responsibility for
[98:19] their own actions, right? Being
[98:21] responsible for your own choices is
[98:24] good enough. So, Brother Liu, even
[98:26] though you are in a third-tier city,
[98:28] you have to think, aren't the people in
[98:30] the first-tier cities changing?
[98:32] Including this, the West is actually
[98:35] changing too. I’ve been looking at
[98:37] some figures recently. I really doubt
[98:39] these figures.
[98:40] >> To the point where I question if
[98:42] they’re true, though they seem to be
[98:44] from authoritative sources.
[98:45] >> Mm-hmm. Can you imagine it? The
[98:48] International Labour Organization
[98:50] released the 2020 Global Employment
[98:52] Trends for Youth—it might be even
[98:54] worse now—out of 1.3 billion young
[98:56] people globally, about how many are not
[98:59] working? 267 million.
[99:02] >> That’s a lot.
[99:04] >> 267 million rely on their parents 'care
[99:07] and financial support. A 2023 survey in
[99:12] the U.S. targeting Gen Z shows this. Do
[99:17] you know what Gen Z is?
[99:19] >> 1995 to 2010, you see, it’s still
[99:22] quite clear, right? 65%of Gen Z and 74%
[99:25] of those born after 2000 believe that
[99:27] their financial progress is far behind
[99:30] that of their parents' generation.
[99:32] Mm-hmm,
[99:33] >> Do you know why? It’s that we used to
[99:36] think children were lazy and unwilling
[99:38] to endure hardship, but now, many young
[99:40] people in Shenzhen say, "I...you...the
[99:42] fact is, you were the generation that
[99:44] enjoyed the dividends of economic
[99:46] growth, while we young people now
[99:48] sometimes work harder than our parents
[99:50] and for longer hours, but we just can't
[99:52] make as much money.""In other words,
[99:54] you see, this is a global phenomenon.
[99:56] They feel their financial progress is
[99:58] far behind that of their parents '
[99:59] generation, and the percentage of them
[100:01] living with their parents is much
[100:03] higher than in the past. Alright, a
[100:04] China Family Panel Studies survey from
[100:07] Peking University regarding the rate of
[100:09] urban working-age adults relying on
[100:11] their parents. I—I cannot believe
[100:13] this number. It says this rate of
[100:16] reliance on parents soared from less
[100:19] than 2%in 2010 to over 40%in 2018.
[100:22] >> 40%. I—I think there might be a
[100:26] problem with their definition of"
[100:27] relying on parents. "Tell me, Professor
[100:29] Zidong, do you give your daughter money
[100:31] now? Jiahui, do you give your daughter
[100:34] money?
[100:34] >> I don't give my daughter money, but I
[100:36] remember a line from a movie, spoken by
[100:39] a daughter." You should cherish the
[100:41] fact that we still ask you for money. "
[100:43] >> Exactly, exactly.
[100:45] >> If my daughter actually asked me for
[100:47] money, I should cherish that
[100:48] opportunity, right?
[100:49] >> This was unthinkable when we were young
[100:52] .
[100:52] >> Just graduating from university. When
[100:54] we were in college, it was already very
[100:56] difficult for our parents to support us
[100:57] .
[100:58] >> What is the reason? Do you know? For
[101:01] most Chinese families today, the source
[101:03] of their wealth is property.
[101:05] >> And only our parents' generation—
[101:07] those now over 40 or 50—acquired
[101:10] property during this transition period.
[101:13] But today's young people, those under
[101:15] 30, find it extremely difficult to buy
[101:17] a house solely on their own income.
[101:20] Therefore, once property became the
[101:22] primary family asset, the younger
[101:23] generation could no longer surpass
[101:25] their parents.
[101:26] >> Yes, exactly, that's true.
[101:28] >> You can't surpass your parents, no
[101:30] matter how hard you try.
[101:31] >> Even if your salary is very high, you
[101:33] might not be able to surpass your
[101:35] parents, which is why we have this 40%
[101:37] figure. But an even more concerning
[101:40] situation is—as you mentioned earlier
[101:42] , I recently met a friend from France.
[101:46] He is the only Asian, or Chinese,
[101:48] person in a high-level administrative
[101:51] position at a European university. I
[101:54] asked him," When did young people in
[101:57] Europe start feeling that tomorrow
[101:59] won't be better? "He said," Since the
[102:02] 90s. "
[102:03] >> Hmm.
[102:06] >> He said that since the 90s, young
[102:08] people in Europe don't think about
[102:10] whether the world will be better in 20
[102:12] years; they think," I won't be able to
[102:15] live like my parents did. ""
[102:18] >> I won't be able to have a house like
[102:20] theirs. "They—they aren't people who
[102:23] struck it rich, you know?
[102:24] >> They weren't businesspeople; they
[102:26] probably worked in a profession after
[102:28] graduating from university. By the time
[102:31] they were 50 or 60, they generally had
[102:33] two homes—one in the city, one in the
[102:36] suburbs, and so on. But young people,
[102:39] those in their twenties and thirties
[102:41] now, feel that they won't have it as
[102:43] good when they get old, and I don't
[102:46] have the luxury of handing over one of
[102:48] my houses to you, with two sons waiting
[102:50] for it. Think about it, you live better
[102:54] than your parents did, but have you
[102:56] thought about whether your children can
[102:58] expect to live like you in the future?
[103:02] This is a global issue; it is a...
[103:06] >> Just listen to me, let me ask you, look
[103:09] at our kids—not yours and Tie Ren's,
[103:12] I mean our kids—they're so adorable,
[103:15] seven and five years old.
[103:17] >> Of course, let's not talk about
[103:19] conditions in Northern Europe, let's
[103:21] say here in China, then...
[103:23] >> People see that Tie Ren has a good job
[103:25] and makes good money, you have property
[103:28] and savings, but when this child grows
[103:30] up, the money they earn might only
[103:32] allow them to live a...a relatively
[103:34] average life, for example. What if they
[103:37] want to pursue their ideals, go back to
[103:40] school, or even just drift for a few
[103:42] years, even until they're thirty? But
[103:45] you clearly can afford to support them,
[103:47] can't you?
[103:48] >> Afford to?
[103:50] >> Earlier, Teacher Zong said I might not
[103:53] necessarily leave a house for my son,
[103:55] right? Actually, I have discussed this
[103:57] with Tie Ren, saying we might not be
[103:58] able to say like our parents did," Oh,
[104:00] here's a house for you. "But I want to
[104:02] give him the chance to choose. What I
[104:05] mean is, if he says today that he wants
[104:07] a house, I might not be able to give it
[104:09] , but if you tell me you're short on
[104:11] money and want to study abroad, or want
[104:13] to drift for a few years—as long as
[104:15] you aren't just staying home—I hope
[104:17] my efforts now can give you the
[104:19] opportunity to choose; logically, one
[104:21] should create this opportunity
[104:22] themselves.
[104:23] >> Right? You should support yourself or
[104:26] something. So, as I said, building upon
[104:29] the foundation you've been given is
[104:32] reasonable, but relying entirely on it
[104:35] —that, I think, is not okay. I mean,
[104:37] if he says he'll come back to take care
[104:39] of me, I don't want that. After I had
[104:41] children, I studied psychology.
[104:43] Studying psychology after having kids
[104:44] —is it because there was a
[104:45] psychological problem? No, just after
[104:47] having kids.
[104:48] >> Because you know, I'm super afraid that
[104:50] one day, since parents are like this—
[104:52] the love is so intense—but have you
[104:54] thought that giving so much love means
[104:56] that one day you have to let them go?
[104:58] And it's best if they don't look back.
[105:00] Like a bird spreading its wings to fly
[105:02] high, right? It just leaves us. Yes,
[105:05] without looking back or lingering;
[105:08] that’s what successful education is,
[105:11] right? You have to let go. I don’t
[105:14] want to use my tears, or my own
[105:15] emotional instability later on, to make
[105:18] them feel guilty, thinking," I
[105:19] shouldn't have left, I shouldn't have
[105:21] flown away, I shouldn't have gone so
[105:23] far, I should keep coming home to see
[105:26] them. "Not at all; my feeling is that I
[105:28] need to be independent myself first.
[105:30] And then, let you fly comfortably,
[105:32] right? That’s why I say I studied
[105:35] psychology. If you want to come back,
[105:37] as I said before, there are no
[105:39] financial strings attached; it’s
[105:41] purely about having a clean
[105:42] relationship. If you truly feel that
[105:44] this home brings you mental happiness
[105:47] and support, and you want to come back,
[105:49] then we absolutely will.
[105:51] >> What if they don’t want to work?
[105:53] >> Will you keep supporting them?
[105:55] >> So the values we want to cultivate now
[105:57] are—you know, I lived at home until I
[105:59] was 27 before I left to live in Hong
[106:02] Kong. Before that, I didn't think there
[106:04] was any problem with a girl living at
[106:06] home until 27; I wasn't married. But
[106:08] when I got to Hong Kong and now abroad,
[106:11] when people hear that I lived at home
[106:13] until 27, everyone is in disbelief,
[106:15] saying," How could you stay that long?
[106:17] "I was 27, not 12, right? And I would
[106:20] ask," What’s the problem with that? "
[106:22] It’s very normal in Asia. They say,
[106:24] but if you don't leave—if the bird
[106:26] doesn't leave the nest—you won't know
[106:28] the situation outside, you won't know
[106:30] your own strength. In other words,
[106:32] these children at home are very
[106:33] comfortable, and everyone just takes
[106:35] what they need, right? But I think you
[106:37] end up forgetting your own capabilities
[106:38] , and you lose the opportunity to
[106:39] experience setbacks. y
