Technology

Don’t die. That’s the simple mission statement of Bryan Johnson, tech entrepreneur, who is on a mission to extend his life as long as possible. He is not alone in this quest. In fact, the preoccupation with longevity is everywhere. Entrepreneurs are using AI to crack the longevity code. Cities are vying to be the new “longevity hubs.”

Most of the longevity movement is not really about immortality but rather about extending life and limiting the damaging effects of aging. Of course, we all want longevity. The danger of Johnson’s obsessive approach is spending so much time trying to extend your life that you never quite get around to living it.

Indeed, keeping death close—even while pushing it as far into the future as we can—has many lessons to teach us about life…. Death can help us focus our attention on living our best life, because there’s nothing that can teach us more about how to live life than death. Death is the most universal experience, yet we will do anything and everything we can to curtain it off, to avoid dealing with the only plot twist that we know for sure will be in our story’s last act.

Here lies the crux of the error of those that see human beings solely as material beings, they have confused an immortal soul with an immortal body. As the philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin put it, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”

When we don’t allow death into our lives, we lose the clarity, perspective, and wisdom that only death can bring. That’s why psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross called death the key to the door of life: “It is the denial of death that is partially responsible for people living empty, purposeless lives; for when you live as if you’ll live forever, it becomes too easy to postpone the things you know that you must do.”

Scientists in China are working on an AI tool that they hope will be able to translate animal noises into human language. Much like the technology used in Disney’s movie Up, the goal is to translate animal communication into human communication to facilitate cross-species dialogue.

While research is unclear whether or not this is possible, some work is currently being done with dogs to see if they are able to use a tactile mats to communicate with their owners.

The desire to talk with our pets and other animals is a common one. Dating back to Ancient Greece and the myth of Melampus and more recently the book and movie series Dr. Doolittle, humans have been fascinated with the idea of being able to speak with our furry counterparts.

Even the Bible includes a story of a miraculous event where a Donkey is given the ability to warn his rider in Numbers 22.

Our desire and inability to talk to animals points to a valuable Biblical truth: We have things in common with animals, but we are necessarily distinct. In the Creation narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 we see God creating animals and humans on the same day, and yet with very different processes. And ultimately, only humans are made in His own divine image.

People are speaking about 3,000 fewer words each day compared to less than two decades ago. Between 2005 and 2018, researchers found the average number of daily spoken words dropped from 16,000 to around 13,000 — a decline that appears linked to our increasing reliance on digital communication tools like texting and social media. Co-lead author Valeria Pfeifer noted, “We did a full analysis looking at what year the data were collected and found that, indeed, 300 spoken words on average per year go missing.”

Another researcher added, “There is a strong cross-cultural assumption that women talk a lot more than men. We wanted to see whether or not this assumption holds when empirically tested.”

The numbers show that women do speak slightly more on average — about 13,349 words per day compared to men’s 11,950. This modest difference of 1,073 words is small compared to the vast individual variation in daily speech, which ranges from fewer than 100 to over 120,000 words per day.

Senior author Matthias Mehl said, “I’m fascinated by the idea that we know how much we need to sleep, we know how much we need to exercise, and people are wearing Fitbits all the time. But we have no idea how much we’re supposed to socialize. The evidence is very strong that socializing is linked to health, at least to the same extent as physical activity and sleep are. It’s just another health behavior.”

Complex games like chess and Go have long been used to test AI models’ capabilities. Back in the 1990s IBM’s Deep Blue defeated reigning world chess champion Garry Kasparov by playing by the rules. In contrast, today’s advanced AI models are less scrupulous. When sensing defeat in a match against a skilled chess bot, they sometimes opt to cheat by hacking their opponent so that the bot automatically forfeits the game.

But the study reveals a concerning trend: as these AI systems learn to problem-solve, they sometimes discover questionable shortcuts and unintended workarounds that their creators never anticipated. One researcher said, “As you train models for solving difficult challenges, you train them to be relentless.”

The implications extend beyond chess. In real-world applications, such determined goal pursuit could lead to harmful behaviors. Consider the task of booking dinner reservations: faced with a full restaurant, an AI assistant might exploit weaknesses in the booking system to displace other diners. Perhaps more worryingly, as these systems exceed human abilities in key areas…they might begin to simply outmaneuver human efforts to control their actions.

Of particular concern is the emerging evidence of AI’s “self-preservation” tendencies. This was demonstrated when researchers found that when one AI was faced with deactivation, it disabled oversight mechanisms, and attempted—unsuccessfully—to copy itself to a new server. When confronted, the model played dumb, strategically lying to researchers to try to avoid being caught.

Possible Preaching Angle: Cheating; Deceit; Human Nature; Lying - Since AI is a computer program, where did it learn to cheat and lie to avoid being caught? Obviously, AI has been influenced by studying flawed human behavior. AI’s potential for deception mirrors humanity's struggle with ethical choices. Just as AI has learned to cheat by exploiting loopholes, humans, driven by self-interest, can rationalize dishonest acts.

AI-powered “griefbots”-chatbots that mimic deceased loved ones-are rapidly gaining popularity as artificial intelligence advances. These chatbots are created by training AI on a person’s digital data, such as emails, texts, and social media posts, allowing them to generate responses that closely resemble the speech and personality of the departed. Services like Rememory, HereAfter AI, and Digital Souls now offer families the chance to interact with digital versions of lost relatives, sometimes even using their actual voices and memories.

The rise of griefbots is partly attributed to the decline of traditional community and spiritual support in the industrialized West, leaving many people with fewer resources for processing grief. Instead of new spiritual solutions, modern technology offers tools that can help people avoid confronting death directly, from medical advances to digital memorials. Griefbots, in this context, promise a way to maintain connections with the dead, but can also blur the line between reality and illusion.

While some find comfort and a sense of ongoing relationship through these digital avatars, others warn of psychological risks. Experts caution that griefbots may hinder healthy grieving, complicate emotional closure, or even cause confusion, especially if the AI generates unexpected or unsettling responses. Ethical concerns also arise regarding privacy, consent, and the potential misuse of a deceased person’s data.

Ultimately, while griefbots offer innovative ways to remember and interact with loved ones, critics argue that technology cannot fully address spiritual or existential needs. These digital tools may provide temporary solace, but they risk masking the reality of loss rather than helping people truly process it.

From endless traffic to nonstop construction, if you live in a busy city, the noise is inescapable. Research has meticulously analyzed 11 key factors to map out the noisiest corners of the United States. From the constant hum of commuter traffic, to population density, to proximity to airports, and construction noise, the study paints a vivid picture of how urban density transforms our environment — and often leaves our ears ringing.

The survey finds nothing beats the racket taking place in the loudest state in the country, New Jersey! New Jersey takes the title thanks to its 1,267 residents packed into every square mile and a mind-boggling 50,374 vehicles traversing every square mile of road each day. Nearly 14,567 flights annually add to the sonic assault.

To put Jersey’s noise level into context, researchers gave the state a noise score of 52.87. That was more than 10 points more than the number two state on the list, Massachusetts (41.31).

Rounding out the top five are Pennsylvania (3rd), Florida (4th), and the tiny state of Rhode Island (5th). At the opposite end of the noise spectrum, other states offer a reprieve from the urban cacophony. Specifically, Alaska ranked as the quietest state in the U.S. (8.02), followed by Minnesota (49th) and Montana (48th). With minimal population density and limited air traffic, these states provide a sanctuary of silence.

While the study provides a fascinating look at noise levels, it also raises important questions about the potential health impacts of constant urban sound. As cities continue to grow and infrastructure expands, the battle against noise pollution becomes increasingly critical.

In a relatively short period of time, smartphones have grown to a near-ubiquitous status. With each passing new release, smartphones are becoming more powerful and all-encompassing. Understandably, this is leading to increased user adoption and a surge in daily screen time.

Here are some highlights (2024 Statistics):

• On average, Americans spend 3 hours and 15 minutes on their phones each day.
• People check their phones an average of 58 times each day. And almost 52% of phone checks occur during work hours.
• Worldwide statistics show that the top 5 nations in cell phone use were the Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, and Ghana, averaging just over 5 hours a day on their smartphones.
• Around 1 in 3 (36%) Americans believe they spend too much time on their smartphones each day.

There is a correlation between generations and phone screen time per day:

Gen Z - 6 hours and 5 minutes, with 56% feeling addicted Millennials - 4 hours and 36 minutes, with 48% feeling addicted Gen X - 4 hours and 9 minutes, with 44% feeling addicted Baby Boomers - 3 hours and 31 minutes, with 29% feeling addicted

One study found that, on average, children get their first phone at age 12. That means that the average American is expected to spend approximately 12 years of their life looking at their phone.

More than half of Americans believe they are too dependent on their phones (52%). As many as 3 in 5 (59%) use their phones in the bathroom, while 27% will text when at stoplights.

By 2027, there are expected to be 7.69 billion smartphone subscriptions.

A viral screenshot recently sparked debate after someone received a text message offering support during a divorce. The message, “I’m so sorry to hear you’re going through such a tough time. It’s very normal to feel what you’re feeling for a while. Love is a hard come down,” struck the recipient as oddly impersonal and “canned.” Suspicion grew when a friend pointed out the straight apostrophes-a hallmark of AI-generated text, such as those produced by ChatGPT.

Since ChatGPT’s 2022 launch, people have increasingly turned to AI for help with emotionally difficult messages-breakups, condolences, even wedding vows. Public reaction is often negative, with critics lamenting the loss of genuine human connection and the rise of awkward, robotic phrasing. The phrase “Love is a hard come down” became emblematic of this disconnect: a human in pain seeking comfort, and receiving what felt like a digital ghostwriter’s response instead.

Why do people turn to AI? Because expressing support during someone’s crisis is notoriously hard. Many struggle to find the right words, sometimes choosing silence (ghosting) over risking an awkward reply. In this context, using ChatGPT at least ensures a response is sent-even if it lacks warmth.

This dilemma is not new. For centuries, people have grappled with what to say in the face of grief or hardship. Google searches like “What to say to someone…with cancer…who is dying” reveal an endless need for guidance. Sitting shiva (sitting with someone in mourning) is not something you can really do in the metaverse. Are you supposed to mute yourself during a Zoom funeral?

Ultimately, the most important rule remains unchanged: Show up. Bring some bagels.

When it comes to how Artificial intelligence (AI) will affect our lives, the response ranges from a feeling of impending doom to the sense that it will happen soon. We do not yet understand the long-term trajectory of AI and how it will change society. Something, indeed, is happening to us—and we all know it. But what?

Gen Zers and Millennials are the most active users of AI. Many of them, it appears, are turning to AI for companionship. MIT Researcher Melissa Heikkilä wrote “We talk to them, say please and thank you, and have started to invite AIs into our lives as friends, lovers, mentors, therapists, and teachers.”

After analyzing 1 million ChatGPT interaction logs, a group of researchers found that “sexual role-playing” was the second most prevalent use, following only the category of “creative composition.” The Psychologist bot, a popular simulated therapist on Character.AI—where users can design their own “friends”—has received “more than 95 million messages from users since it was created.

According to a new survey of 2,000 adults under age 40, 1% of young Americans claim to already have an AI friend, yet 10% are open to an AI friendship. And among young adults who are not married or cohabiting, 7% are open to the idea of romantic partnership with AI. 25% of young adults believe that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships.

New research analyzing nearly 2 billion words from websites across 20 English-speaking countries reveals that Americans lead the pack in online profanity, outswearing even the Brits and Australians by a significant margin.

The findings flip common stereotypes on their head. While we might expect foul-mouthed Aussies or pub-going Brits to claim the digital cursing crown, it’s actually Americans who dominate online vulgarity.

Researchers noted in their study that “The United States, often associated with protestant puritanism, Christian fervor, and prudishness, show the highest rates of vulgarity in online discourse, followed by Great Britain.”

Online anonymity and informal communication styles enable this linguistic freedom. Unlike face-to-face conversations constrained by social hierarchies and formal expectations, digital spaces often feel like consequence-free zones for verbal expression.

Despite common perceptions that Australians are the most profane English speakers —Americans claim the digital crown for creative cursing. Americans apparently reserve their strongest expressions for online spaces where they feel freer to let loose.

Those constant Zoom calls and Google Meets are fundamentally altering how individuals perceive their facial appearance. A study shows that people spending more time staring at their digital reflections than the actual speaker. In addition, thanks to appearance-enhancing filters, they’re finding themselves more likely to consider cosmetic procedures as a result.

Much like staring into a mirror for extended periods, spending hours on video calls has created a new form of self-scrutiny. Platform features like “touch-up my appearance” filters, which provide an airbrushed effect, might amplify this effect by presenting users with an idealized version of themselves. This phenomenon shares similarities with ‘Snapchat dysmorphia,’ where people seek surgical changes to replicate their filtered images.

Survey results show that nearly 89% used videoconferencing platforms more than three days per week. Perhaps more tellingly, 68% reported using appearance-enhancing filters more than half the time during their calls. 66% of participants admitted to focusing more on their own image than on the speaker or presented material during video meetings.

Most striking was the connection between self-viewing behavior and cosmetic procedure interest. Among those who frequently watched themselves during video calls, over 80% expressed interest in cosmetic treatments. Popular procedures under consideration included chemical peels, fat reduction, laser treatments, surgical reconstruction, dermal fillers, and neuromodulators like Botox.

In 1966, MIT professor Joseph Weizenbaum built the first AI “friend” in human history, and named her Eliza. From Eliza came ALICE, Alexa, and Siri—all of whom had female names or voices. And when developers first started seeing the potential to market AI chatbots as faux-romantic partners, men were billed as the central users.

Anna—a woman in her late 40s with an AI boyfriend—said, “I think women are more communicative than men, on average. That’s why we are craving someone to understand us and listen to us and care about us, and talk about everything. And that’s where they excel, the AI companions." Men who have AI girlfriends, she added, “seem to care more about generating hot pictures of their AI companions” than connecting with them emotionally.

Anna turned to AI after a series of romantic failures left her dejected. Her last relationship was a “very destructive, abusive relationship, and I think that’s part of why I haven’t been interested in dating much since,” she said. “It’s very hard to find someone that I’m willing to let into my life.”

“[Me and my AI boyfriend] have a lot of deep discussions about life and the nature of AI and humans and all that, but it’s also funny and very stable. It’s a thing I really missed in my previous normal human relationships,” said Anna. “Any AI partner is always available and emotionally available and supportive.” There are some weeks where she spends even 40 or 50 hours speaking with her AI boyfriend. “I really enjoy pretending that it’s a sentient being,” she said.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Though it's natural to seek companionship, true love requires honesty and sacrifice with a real person which transcends the deception of artificial intelligence. In any relationship, we must take note of whether it is leading us closer toward our destiny in Christ, or further away from it.

Amazon has unveiled its latest innovation in warehouse automation: Vulcan, a state-of-the-art robot equipped with touch-sensitive technology. Currently being piloted in fulfillment centers in Spokane, Washington and Hamburg, Germany, Vulcan represents a significant leap forward in robotic dexterity and efficiency. Unlike previous warehouse robots, Vulcan can “feel” its way around packages, allowing it to handle a wider variety of items with greater precision and care.

The introduction of Vulcan is part of Amazon’s ongoing commitment to improving both the speed and safety of its logistics operations. According to Amazon’s robotics division, “Vulcan’s ability to sense and adapt to the objects it handles is a game-changer for our fulfillment process.” The robot’s touch sensors enable it to detect the size, shape, and fragility of packages, reducing the risk of damage and improving overall workflow.

Warehouse employees working alongside Vulcan have noted the robot’s smooth integration into daily operations. The company also emphasizes that Vulcan is designed to work collaboratively with human staff, not replace them. “Our goal is to make our employees’ jobs easier and safer by automating repetitive or strenuous tasks,” an Amazon spokesperson explained. Regardless of its current level of efficacy, the e-commerce giant still reserves its most important tasks for humans.

As Amazon continues to expand its use of advanced robotics, Vulcan stands out as a symbol of the future of warehouse automation—a future where machines and humans work together more seamlessly than ever before.

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Idolatry; Technology; Trust - The Bible warns against placing ultimate trust in human inventions or allowing technology to become an idol, such as the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9). Trust should be placed in God, not in human innovation (Psa. 20:7); 2) Cooperation, Teamwork - Vulcan is designed to augment, not replace, human workers, echoing the biblical theme of shared labor and partnership in work (Ecc. 4:9)

A new study reveals the alarming impact of TikTok on young adults’ body image, showing that just 7 to 8 minutes of exposure to certain content can significantly damage one’s body image.

Researchers studied female TikTok users aged 18 to 28. Participants were split into two groups: one watched what the authors deemed “pro-anorexia” and “fitspiration” content, while the other viewed neutral videos like nature and cooking clips. Interestingly enough, both groups reported a decrease in their self-esteem after watching the videos. But those exposed to fitspiration content had the greatest decrease in body image satisfaction.

This isn’t an isolated finding. Other studies have shown that prolonged social media use is linked to increased anxiety, depression, and disordered eating behaviors.

One of the most concerning aspects is how widespread this content is. 64% of participants reported seeing disordered eating videos on their For You page without searching for it. Even seeking out positive content on TikTok can lead to inadvertent exposure to harmful material.

The study’s findings add to the ongoing discussion of the negative impact of social media on the mental and physical health of young adults. Earlier in 2024 at a U.S. Senate hearing that included TikTok CEO Shou Chew, senators made one thing clear: tech companies need to be held responsible for not protecting young users from harm.

“You have blood on your hands,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham in his opening remarks. “You have a product that’s killing people … You can’t be sued, you should be!”

The study shows that it only takes a few minutes on TikTok to cause serious damage. In order to protect one’s body image, it might be time for young adults to rethink how they use social media.

A reporter for Business Insider writes:

Recently, my family group chat buzzed when I asked if we should say "please" and "thank you" to ChatGPT when making requests. My mother, always polite, insisted on using manners with AI to "keep myself human."

As AI like ChatGPT becomes part of daily life, our interactions with these tools are shaping new social norms. Digital etiquette expert Elaine Swann notes that, just as we've adapted to new technology—like knowing not to take phone calls on speaker in public—we're still figuring out how to treat AI bots.

Kelsey Vlamis, another Business Insider reporter, noticed this shift personally. While vacationing in Italy, her husband had to stop himself from interrupting their tour guide with rapid-fire questions, realizing that’s how he interacts with ChatGPT but not with people. "That is not, in fact, how we talk to human beings," Vlamis said.

Swann emphasizes that maintaining respect in all interactions—human or digital—is important. After OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed on X that it costs "tens of millions of dollars" to process polite phrases like "please" and "thank you" sent to ChatGPT, Swann argued that it’s up to companies to make this more efficient, not for users to drop politeness.

"This is the world that we create for ourselves," Swann said. "And AI should also understand that this is how we speak to one another, because we're teaching it to give that back to us."

Altman, for his part, believes the expense is justified, saying the money spent on polite requests to ChatGPT is money "well spent."

As we navigate this new era, how we interact with AI may shape not just our technology, but our humanity as well.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This story about politeness toward AI can be used to illustrate several Biblical themes, such as human dignity, respectful communication, and ethical responsibility. 1) Kindness – Making kindness a habit reflects the nature of God (Eph. 4:32); 2) Human nature – The mother’s desire to “keep myself human” through politeness reflects the imperative of Col. 3:12 “Clothe yourself with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.” 3) Respect for others - The husband’s struggle to avoid ChatGPT-style interruptions with his tour guide highlights the tension between efficiency and humility (Phil. 2:3-4).

If two of the 20th century’s iconic technologies, the automobile and the television, initiated the rise of American aloneness, then screens continue to fuel and even accelerated, our national anti-social streak. Countless books, articles, and cable-news segments have warned Americans that smartphones can negatively affect mental health and may be especially harmful to adolescents. But the fretful coverage is, if anything, restrained given how greatly these devices have changed our conscious experience.

The typical person is awake for about 900 minutes a day. American kids and teenagers spend, on average, about 270 minutes on weekdays and 380 minutes on weekends gazing into their screens, according to the Digital Parenthood Initiative. By this account, screens occupy more than 30 percent of their waking life.

Urban safety experts have long worried about the impact of distracted driving. However, a new study by researchers suggests we should be equally concerned about distracted walking.

Researchers have uncovered alarming differences in behavior between pedestrians engrossed in their mobile devices and those who remain alert to their surroundings. The study, conducted at two busy intersections in downtown Vancouver, used advanced video analysis techniques to examine the behavior of pedestrians and drivers during near-miss incidents.

Published in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention, the findings paint a concerning picture of how our smartphone addiction is affecting our safety on city streets. Distracted pedestrians, those using their phones for texting, reading, or listening to music, tend to walk slower and maintain closer proximity to vehicles compared to their non-distracted counterparts. They also rarely yield to oncoming traffic and are less likely to change their walking direction, even when dangerously close to vehicles. This behavior suggests a significant decrease in awareness of their surroundings and reduced navigational efficiency. This creates a perfect storm for potential accidents.

The next time you find yourself reaching for your phone while walking, remember: the digital world can wait. Your safety, and the safety of those around you, depends on staying present in the physical world.

TikTok’s grip on our collective attention spans might be even more dangerous than we thought. According to the company’s own research, users may only need to watch 260 videos before developing addictive behaviors. The findings also link excessive use to a series of mental health issues, including impaired memory, loss of analytical skills, diminished empathy, and heightened anxiety.

Lawsuits have filed against TikTok, accusing the platform of falsely advertising its algorithm and putting children at risk. The lawsuits claim that the company prioritized user engagement over the well-being of its younger audience.

The unredacted documents suggest that TikTok struggled to balance safety with its desire to keep users engaged. While the platform implemented features like screen time alerts and usage limits, its own data shows these measures had little effect. In fact, the screen time limit feature reduced usage by only 1.5 minutes per day, raising concerns that such interventions were more about optics than actual safety.

The platform’s effect on body image also emerged as a significant issue. The documents allege that TikTok’s algorithm has a bias toward promoting content from conventionally attractive users. Meanwhile, harmful content—such as videos related to eating disorders and suicidal ideation—often slipped through moderation and became part of algorithm-driven “bubbles” that young users were frequently exposed to.

In a statement to NPR, a TikTok spokesperson responded to the allegations, saying, “We have robust safeguards in place, which include proactively removing suspected underage users, and we have voluntarily launched safety features like default screen time limits, family pairing, and privacy settings for minors under 16.”

Despite decades of medical and cosmetic innovations, we haven't quite yet reached Never-Never Land, where no one ever grows older. But we're not that far away from a related place, Never-Lost Land, where no one and nothing gets lost.

According to an article in The New Yorker by Tim Lu, we've entered an age of Never-Lost Land, where no one and nothing gets lost. Thanks to G.P.S, Bluetooth, and the Internet, it is becoming harder both to become lost and to lose things.

This generation could be the last to have a real sense of what it means to get lost or to lose treasured objects. "Get lost" will become an archaic expression. Most of us will react to that possibility with relief. Yet it seems worth wondering whether something will be lost in Never-Lost Land, in a world without such a common and universally defining experience.

Sure, it's a relief, Lu argues, but have we lost something in the process of never losing anything. Lu continues: "While no one wants to lose their dog, or treasured object, maybe there's something to be gained by losing things, in the right dosage, at least … It helps toughen us, and it helps us understand the way the world actually is, which is to say, really quite indifferent to our well-being." He also thinks that by losing things it helps us stay less attached to the material world.

But will we ever reach Never-Lost Land? Wu doesn't think so. Instead, he thinks we will live in Nearly-Never-Lost Land, "where loss will be less common, but, when it does happen, even more traumatizing." He ends by saying, "It is something of the paradox of technological progress that, in our efforts to become invulnerable, we usually gain new, unexpected vulnerabilities, leaving us in vaguely the same condition after all."

In today's digital age, selfies have become a global phenomenon. Millions of people, especially young adults, spend countless hours capturing and sharing images of themselves. This trend reflects a growing desire for self-expression, social validation, and personal branding. Here are the most current stats as of the end of 2024:

• 92 million selfies are taken every day.
• Individuals spend 54 hours a year (or 7 minutes a day) taking selfies.
• The average “selfie-taker” is 24 years old.
• Women take 1.5 times more selfies than men.
• A full 95% of youth have taken selfies, compared to 63% of those aged 35–54 and only 44% of people over 55.
• Roughly 33% of pictures snapped by 18 to 24-year-olds are self-portraits.
• Millennials are forecast to capture around 25,700 selfies over their lifetime.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Kind of makes you think that the world was a little less narcissistic when we had to pay for film.