"Before I get started, did you know I'm MARRIED to a DOCTOR? I didn't think so, LEFTIST. Now back to your question- here's 90 seconds of word salad while I gaze smugly at the teenage girls in the audience."
@@istvansipos9940 people need to WANT to learn.. not just click and go away
3 роки тому+2
@@istvansipos9940 I think it is an unfortunate title. I read it as "Ben" at first and decided that there was no chance I'd watch it because I don't want to spread his content by association.
@@istvansipos9940 Not if the people viewing are Ben Shapiro fans. They don't know what to do when a speaker doesn't gish gallop through every question.
18 minutes in and just want to say Beth is a very engaging presenter. I'm listening as I work in the kitchen and she is quite adept with her narration and vocal inflections to keep me interested! 👍
Just finished and the entire presentation was thoroughly entertaining and informative. I did amateur research into tomato plant genetics last spring and, having just scratched the surface, I can confirm how incredibly complicated it is. Kudos to Beth for making a complex topic so accessible and 51 minutes of enjoyment. I think she should moonlight as an audio book narrator 😁
8:30 Thank you for emphasizing the point that de-extinction is *not* a viable way to increase biodiversity. We must simply stop destroying the environment. We MUST. We can't "have our cake and eat it too."
Oh the Irony! The US Government spent the 1800's eradicating the American Bison and when that was accomplished there mysteriously appears a meat crisis.
When she was staring to suggest that we had to do something about the various problems faced I half expected a cheesy "y'all gotta go vegan" kind of activist statement, but no. Instead she presented interesting scientific research and applications regarding conservation and management of a diversified ecosystem. That was pleasantly surprising.
I mean, I'm glad she did not say that... but even as an avid meat eater, I gotta say that being vegan os indeed one way to help the environment, there's no way around it
Great presentation. G.E. has not been one of my favourite things. I guess I have heard too many of the bad things about it (mostly to do with human G.E.). However, this presentation shows the good uses of the technology (including cloning).
The most important thing is, don’t bécome a Frankenstein like so many in the world. We /They are ruining the earth with pleasure , I have the impression.
It's probably a good thing that de-extinction is extremely unlikely. Otherwise, people would simply dismiss impending extinctions as "what are you worried about, we'll just simply bring it back again". Though I have every respect for good scientists, I would never trust the politicians to prioritise protection of nature and the environment.
The G in Quagga is not a soft g, it is pronounced as if you are clearing your throat. Interesting talk overall, just as a native speaker of Afrikaans, the Quagga pronunciation stood out to me :D
Okay, so the Spaniard in me, who is naturally and healthily beyond imperialism, sort of needs to say the next thing after only 30 seconds of watching. The internet does happen outside the US and UK, you know... We call English a lingua franca for a reason. I am sure there's a significant percentage of subscribers from outside the anglosphere. Nothing to say about the Irish, Canadian, Australians, Liberians, etc! If you see this gets downvoted (although you won't know; thanks Google. This sort of comment usually does, in my experience. Heavily. It doesn't seem to matter how nicely reasoned and polite it is) + you consider this is a highly educated and nice person forgetting about consideration and empirical fact and speaks from the royal institution no less, then... Well. It points out at a tiny little absolutely massive and significant problem you might have culturally speaking? Perhaps? It might or might be the source of most of your contemporary political failures and fights. Just saying. You give it a thought
Our knowledge of genome sequencing is developing gradually, messing with it should be confined to the lab. however, the efforts are praiseworthy. The presentation is good and within the moral standards. Just like we are thinking about limited resources of our earth, we also need a thinktank to decide the future of meat supply (cows against Hippos for example), same for other needs conforming to a stable environment.
Great content and presenter. But poor audio prep by RI for public distribution. The echo is really bad and detracts from the final presentation. I'll assume that the presenter did not have much control over the recording environment. Ok. That's life in Covid with remote presentations. But RI could very easily have passed the audio through a digital filter to greatly cancel out the echo. Such filters are readily available for only moderate cost.
Nice presentation, good content, but it felt one-sided. I would like to hear a same quality presentation of the risks of genetic engineering. Why do people think its more dangerous then selective breeding? Also I respect native Indians, but I don't believe that the Indian chiefs opinions is the most educated and well balanced about genetic engineering and it's dangers.
I was glad to hear the public comments to regulators about the Darling tree were mostly positive. But I also know from other sources that the opposition to this has been well organized and very good at propaganda. Anne Petermann-International Coordinator, Campaign to STOP GE Trees shows up repeatedly on internet discussions, giving talks to public gatherings, collecting funding, etc. The analogous effort to give rice with vitamin A to Asian farmers has been delayed for more than twenty years by similar efforts, and these people can learn from one another and be very effective at propaganda.
There is an essential difference between "genetic modification" as it is currently being promoted in the agricultural industry and the kinds of selective breeding practices that led to farm animals and traditional food products. Traditional practices relied on the gradual modification due to *innate* changes in an organism's genes, changes that arose from mutations within an organism's genes, or changes that arose by crossing 2 organisms that were capable of breeding with each other. These changes were identified and encouraged through selective breeding, so as to direct the results in a more efficient process that benefits us. Modern techniques allow for the implantation of totally foreign genetic material from one organism into another, resulting in genetic alterations that could never have arisen through innate changes. An example is the genetically altered cabbage that was developed which contained scorpion insectotoxins. This insertion of scorpion genes into cabbage is a combination that could *never have happened* through natural processes of genetic mutation. It is simply wrong to compare traditional agricultural practices of selective breeding with modern lab-based genetic modification. There is an essential and fundamental difference. We MUST bear this in mind when evaluating risks and benefits associated with the modern techniques. Any discussion of GMO and our food supply also needs to address the following issues, the third of which is not confined only to GMO products: 1. Are the genetic changes made so that an organism can be more resistant to applied pesticides or herbicides, thus allowing the use of larger quantities and more concentrated doses of these products? 2. Are the changes made so that plants are capable of producing persistent pesticides in their own tissues, and will these persist when those plant tissues later decay in fields? 3. What are the social consequences of making farmers dependent on patented seed, so that they are not legally allowed to save seed?
#1. WE MUST STOP GROWING! We are far into overshoot, our population must decline, one way or another, it will. We have "chosen" to keep pushing for ever more growth until we collapse. A sustainable population for humans, post oil, would be about 500 million, we have 8 BILLION people today & still growing by over 80+ million each year. More growth will only speed up our collapse.
Good points. We have been a force of selection on wildlife through our interactions with them, intentionally or not, for ten of thousands of years. We can start intentionally meddling to conserve what biological diversity still exists or just keep collecting DNA samples and hope de-extinction technology will eventually be possible. Do we have to choose? GMO OMG!
So here me out, dumb question, the people in the north, where it is cold(but also getting warmer due to climate change), whatfor would they need a mamoth like elephant? mmm maybe in northern most parts of russia, to help with foresting in hardly accessible areas where transports otherwise would have a no big chance. Then there is that dude who wants to establish a forrest and lots of was it buffalos or something to counter act climate change, maybe he could use a few ^^. Say we get herds and lots of them, will there be just there to change nature, what would those changes entail? Or is the companny also at the same time aiming for mamoth stakes so the flintstones can get something special^^. I am all for avoiding to get animals extinct and we humans are doing a particularly bad job at that, but getting animals or partially sequences of animals back to life might backfire. Remember all species come from co-evolution and we have in our own code somewhere parts of viruses. What happens when these genes become active again in animals and other animals like insects interact with them? Sounds like a petry dish for unforseen consequences to me.
It is good I think that the American Chestnut has some chance to be revived. YEARS AGO I had the fortunate chance to see a Black Footed Ferret (in the wild?) when I was on a family trip. I kinda hope they might be able to be revived. Mastodons I think they are something a little different. The species have been dead for between 5,000 to 3,000 years. Yes it is a cool thought to have a herd of them in the wild ... ... ... but has our global ecology changed to much to much to sustain them at this point. Can humanity take responsibility of this revival properly???
stop conflating the differences by trying to attach the idea that "genetic modification" is natural because we selected things and this is just the same as "genetic engineering" but better!. Genetic engineering can have similarities but also completely major differences to what we have already done and its the ease in which we could jump many steps, which could not occur so easily in nature. zillions of energetic events take place naturally to cause mutation and genetic change, in a laboratory it is not the case and all the of the effects are not accounted for what so ever. genetics are sacred and not something to be messed with.
can you define "sacred"? I don't think sacred things exist. And I am sure that we have to "mess" with genetics. to end genetic disorders, for example. And to eliminate every chance of as many diseases as possible. To know for sure that a cute little baby will never get diabetes, for example
Doesn't a medical doctor also play God? Should we let nature take it's course and let cancer patients die naturally, without manmade drugs that do miracles?
Instead of genetically engineering the pig to break down unnatural phosphorus, would it not be easier and more efficient to feed the pig a diet high in phosphorus foods? I don't like the idea of my meat containing rat genes or genes from other animals. This seems very frankensteinian and unnatural.
Did you not listen to the part where farmers are adding phosphor to the pig diet? The pig still doesnot break it all down and the excess winds of in lakes and rivers killing fish and other aquatic animals
The G in Quagga is not a soft g, it is pronounced as if you are clearing your throat. Interesting talk overall, just as a native speaker of Afrikaans, the Quagga pronunciation stood out to me :D
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Yup, I also misread the title and thought the Royal Institution had fallen on exceptionally dark times.
"Before I get started, did you know I'm MARRIED to a DOCTOR? I didn't think so, LEFTIST. Now back to your question- here's 90 seconds of word salad while I gaze smugly at the teenage girls in the audience."
This is going to be the most viewed lecture because of the unfortunate title.
Not really. Just smart people tht want to learn more...
then it is a fortunate title. It makes science more watched.
@@istvansipos9940 people need to WANT to learn.. not just click and go away
@@istvansipos9940 I think it is an unfortunate title. I read it as "Ben" at first and decided that there was no chance I'd watch it because I don't want to spread his content by association.
@@istvansipos9940 Not if the people viewing are Ben Shapiro fans. They don't know what to do when a speaker doesn't gish gallop through every question.
Lol i know we all read that title wrong at first.
what did you misread it as?
@@jatinbangar4371 Ben Shapiro
@@silvervortex2441 legit stereotypical nerd voice, I feel so confident with my voice in comparison
People should read more carefully!
I was wondering why he was speaking about biology lol
I was wondering what ben shapiro has to do with this 😂😂😂
Edit - Welcome my confused friends, join us.
was super confused
Right, what an unfortunate last name
Same
Omg that confused me to
it took me too long
18 minutes in and just want to say Beth is a very engaging presenter. I'm listening as I work in the kitchen and she is quite adept with her narration and vocal inflections to keep me interested! 👍
Around the same time in and I second this. I appreciate the enthusiam she brings and wirt it comes understanding!
Just finished and the entire presentation was thoroughly entertaining and informative. I did amateur research into tomato plant genetics last spring and, having just scratched the surface, I can confirm how incredibly complicated it is. Kudos to Beth for making a complex topic so accessible and 51 minutes of enjoyment. I think she should moonlight as an audio book narrator 😁
@@fitztastico I second the suggestion that Beth could certainly moonlight a second career as a book narrator!
Yea, not a direct approach, But an indirect appeal to emotions.
That's an unfortunate name :d
Thoroughly enjoyed her presentation and delivery. The content was very interesting and eye opening. Thank you!
8:30 Thank you for emphasizing the point that de-extinction is *not* a viable way to increase biodiversity. We must simply stop destroying the environment. We MUST. We can't "have our cake and eat it too."
Yeah. Betting on de-extincion is like waiting for the Messiah: even if it ever happens, there's no way to know it's going to play out as you want.
Every time I look at GMO on a package, I have a chuckle knowing that almost every thing we eat has been genetically modified over many centuries.
Oh the Irony! The US Government spent the 1800's eradicating the American Bison and when that was accomplished there mysteriously appears a meat crisis.
Making her presentation with *facts and logic.*
Thank God, it's not Ben Shapiro
This was a wonderful presentation!
Wow! What an amazing, convincing presentation!
Genetically, climatically, topographically, atmospherically...all the above!
When she was staring to suggest that we had to do something about the various problems faced I half expected a cheesy "y'all gotta go vegan" kind of activist statement, but no. Instead she presented interesting scientific research and applications regarding conservation and management of a diversified ecosystem. That was pleasantly surprising.
I mean, I'm glad she did not say that... but even as an avid meat eater, I gotta say that being vegan os indeed one way to help the environment, there's no way around it
Really interesting, thank you Beth
Great presentation. G.E. has not been one of my favourite things. I guess I have heard too many of the bad things about it (mostly to do with human G.E.). However, this presentation shows the good uses of the technology (including cloning).
Lovely talk! I, as a Biotechnologist, am eager to help restore and conserve nature. Currently Msc. on Biotechnology Engineering
The most important thing is, don’t bécome a Frankenstein like so many in the world. We /They are ruining the earth with pleasure , I have the impression.
We're did the night time lights come from in Western Australia? Good program.
Oh god, I thought it said BEN Shapiro 🤮🥵
Sorry you have to share your name with that guy, Professor Beth
It's probably a good thing that de-extinction is extremely unlikely. Otherwise, people would simply dismiss impending extinctions as "what are you worried about, we'll just simply bring it back again". Though I have every respect for good scientists, I would never trust the politicians to prioritise protection of nature and the environment.
The G in Quagga is not a soft g, it is pronounced as if you are clearing your throat. Interesting talk overall, just as a native speaker of Afrikaans, the Quagga pronunciation stood out to me :D
I'm sure she appreciates the nitpicking 😃I'll bet going forward she pronounces it correctly.
Didn't notice my misunderstanding till I read the comments XD. The illusion is deep
I would have changed my name if I were her.
I do like the idea of designing a new chestnut tree that can survive again.
Phew, nearly blacklisted the channel cause I thought it said Ben :D
Very interesting video, glad I took a double look :)
Okay, so the Spaniard in me, who is naturally and healthily beyond imperialism, sort of needs to say the next thing after only 30 seconds of watching.
The internet does happen outside the US and UK, you know... We call English a lingua franca for a reason. I am sure there's a significant percentage of subscribers from outside the anglosphere. Nothing to say about the Irish, Canadian, Australians, Liberians, etc!
If you see this gets downvoted (although you won't know; thanks Google. This sort of comment usually does, in my experience. Heavily. It doesn't seem to matter how nicely reasoned and polite it is) + you consider this is a highly educated and nice person forgetting about consideration and empirical fact and speaks from the royal institution no less, then... Well. It points out at a tiny little absolutely massive and significant problem you might have culturally speaking? Perhaps? It might or might be the source of most of your contemporary political failures and fights. Just saying.
You give it a thought
Our knowledge of genome sequencing is developing gradually, messing with it should be confined to the lab. however, the efforts are praiseworthy. The presentation is good and within the moral standards.
Just like we are thinking about limited resources of our earth, we also need a thinktank to decide the future of meat supply (cows against Hippos for example), same for other needs conforming to a stable environment.
Great content and presenter. But poor audio prep by RI for public distribution. The echo is really bad and detracts from the final presentation. I'll assume that the presenter did not have much control over the recording environment. Ok. That's life in Covid with remote presentations. But RI could very easily have passed the audio through a digital filter to greatly cancel out the echo. Such filters are readily available for only moderate cost.
Nice presentation, good content, but it felt one-sided. I would like to hear a same quality presentation of the risks of genetic engineering. Why do people think its more dangerous then selective breeding?
Also I respect native Indians, but I don't believe that the Indian chiefs opinions is the most educated and well balanced about genetic engineering and it's dangers.
Why does it take us so long to realise messing with nature is never going to be beneficial to humankind.
People messed up the ecosystem and now they are trying to fix the mess fast. Let's see what brings up next in the future.
People messed up the ecosystem and now they are trying to fix the mess fast. Let's see what brings up next in the future.
Are the darling chestnuts gluten free? 😆
Very informative and and lovely talk .
I was glad to hear the public comments to regulators about the Darling tree were mostly positive. But I also know from other sources that the opposition to this has been well organized and very good at propaganda. Anne Petermann-International Coordinator, Campaign to STOP GE Trees shows up repeatedly on internet discussions, giving talks to public gatherings, collecting funding, etc.
The analogous effort to give rice with vitamin A to Asian farmers has been delayed for more than twenty years by similar efforts, and these people can learn from one another and be very effective at propaganda.
6:50 Dinos and birds...
not gonna lie I misread the title too. XD
I'd love to see the Mammouth alive again, that would be great... The Taiga needs them... And no, I'm not in London, I'm in the Netherlands :)
Yay I’m the first to comment on this lecture that will surely be wonderful
There is an essential difference between "genetic modification" as it is currently being promoted in the agricultural industry and the kinds of selective breeding practices that led to farm animals and traditional food products.
Traditional practices relied on the gradual modification due to *innate* changes in an organism's genes, changes that arose from mutations within an organism's genes, or changes that arose by crossing 2 organisms that were capable of breeding with each other. These changes were identified and encouraged through selective breeding, so as to direct the results in a more efficient process that benefits us.
Modern techniques allow for the implantation of totally foreign genetic material from one organism into another, resulting in genetic alterations that could never have arisen through innate changes. An example is the genetically altered cabbage that was developed which contained scorpion insectotoxins. This insertion of scorpion genes into cabbage is a combination that could *never have happened* through natural processes of genetic mutation.
It is simply wrong to compare traditional agricultural practices of selective breeding with modern lab-based genetic modification. There is an essential and fundamental difference. We MUST bear this in mind when evaluating risks and benefits associated with the modern techniques.
Any discussion of GMO and our food supply also needs to address the following issues, the third of which is not confined only to GMO products:
1. Are the genetic changes made so that an organism can be more resistant to applied pesticides or herbicides, thus allowing the use of larger quantities and more concentrated doses of these products?
2. Are the changes made so that plants are capable of producing persistent pesticides in their own tissues, and will these persist when those plant tissues later decay in fields?
3. What are the social consequences of making farmers dependent on patented seed, so that they are not legally allowed to save seed?
You're clinging on straws.
#1. WE MUST STOP GROWING!
We are far into overshoot, our population must decline, one way or another, it will.
We have "chosen" to keep pushing for ever more growth until we collapse.
A sustainable population for humans, post oil, would be about 500 million, we have 8 BILLION people today & still growing by over 80+ million each year.
More growth will only speed up our collapse.
And how do you suggest we limit our grow?
Very interesting topic ad a good presenter. Thanks :)
We could have also been doing it the slow way, AKA breed the ones with the smallest horns over and over again until you got a hornless sub breed
That would have taken generations and not just for cows
This is the best argument for choosing veganism that I’ve ever had the pleasure of watching.
FACTS don't care about your feelings!
Ben Shapiro’s alter-ego
Not gonna lie, I also did a double take at the title
Liked and shared. Interesting stuff well presented.
Would it be possible to clone emperor Tutuncommon and make him lead the world?
This felt like a 50min long advertisement. An opinion piece if you ask me.
Ferrets are in fact north-african polecats, same species as the European, but different.
Good points. We have been a force of selection on wildlife through our interactions with them, intentionally or not, for ten of thousands of years. We can start intentionally meddling to conserve what biological diversity still exists or just keep collecting DNA samples and hope de-extinction technology will eventually be possible. Do we have to choose? GMO OMG!
Could I eat a hippo? Not in one sitting!
i tried, then the picture of Ben Lamm and George Church was just too... aggrandizing? i concede that i am particularly allergic to delusion
Beth Shapiro > Ben Shapiro
oh man, i read ben shabibo. RI was about to make me question every video ive seen of theirs. i had to check.
No examples of recombinant DNA?
Anyone wanna taste my new breed of mangwiberries? My magnum opus at least potentially anyway
Life as we have adapted to it...
And us to it
Very interesting😊
chestnut tree❤️
She speaks well
What is sweet pork
Jesus I was so confused, I read the name as Ben Shapiro in the title lol
Nature started it
So here me out, dumb question, the people in the north, where it is cold(but also getting warmer due to climate change), whatfor would they need a mamoth like elephant? mmm maybe in northern most parts of russia, to help with foresting in hardly accessible areas where transports otherwise would have a no big chance. Then there is that dude who wants to establish a forrest and lots of was it buffalos or something to counter act climate change, maybe he could use a few ^^.
Say we get herds and lots of them, will there be just there to change nature, what would those changes entail? Or is the companny also at the same time aiming for mamoth stakes so the flintstones can get something special^^.
I am all for avoiding to get animals extinct and we humans are doing a particularly bad job at that, but getting animals or partially sequences of animals back to life might backfire. Remember all species come from co-evolution and we have in our own code somewhere parts of viruses. What happens when these genes become active again in animals and other animals like insects interact with them? Sounds like a petry dish for unforseen consequences to me.
It is good I think that the American Chestnut has some chance to be revived. YEARS AGO I had the fortunate chance to see a Black Footed Ferret (in the wild?) when I was on a family trip. I kinda hope they might be able to be revived.
Mastodons I think they are something a little different. The species have been dead for between 5,000 to 3,000 years. Yes it is a cool thought to have a herd of them in the wild ... ... ... but has our global ecology changed to much to much to sustain them at this point. Can humanity take responsibility of this revival properly???
Inspiring.
stop conflating the differences by trying to attach the idea that "genetic modification" is natural because we selected things and this is just the same as "genetic engineering" but better!. Genetic engineering can have similarities but also completely major differences to what we have already done and its the ease in which we could jump many steps, which could not occur so easily in nature.
zillions of energetic events take place naturally to cause mutation and genetic change, in a laboratory it is not the case and all the of the effects are not accounted for what so ever.
genetics are sacred and not something to be messed with.
can you define "sacred"?
I don't think sacred things exist.
And I am sure that we have to "mess" with genetics.
to end genetic disorders, for example.
And to eliminate every chance of as many diseases as possible.
To know for sure that a cute little baby will never get diabetes, for example
Genetics is not sacred, despite whatever your definition of "sacred" is.
How's Ben?
Where's Ben?😔
I hope in prision
Overly optimistic. Wild mustard interbreeds with glyphosate-resistant canola. Result is disaster.
really thought the royal institute had in ben shapiro for a second
How long until we can reverse engineer DNA from the look and shape and size of fossils?
Cutting edge tech…
Cloning is now being carried out in China as you speak....
You have Australia so wrong.
Could also just stop using animals for food….. This is the 21st century!
... Nah
Stop trying to play god
Doesn't a medical doctor also play God? Should we let nature take it's course and let cancer patients die naturally, without manmade drugs that do miracles?
With Ben Shapiro? LOL. Nevermind.
📖
too preachy.
Thanks Ben!
Instead of genetically engineering the pig to break down unnatural phosphorus, would it not be easier and more efficient to feed the pig a diet high in phosphorus foods? I don't like the idea of my meat containing rat genes or genes from other animals. This seems very frankensteinian and unnatural.
Did you not listen to the part where farmers are adding phosphor to the pig diet? The pig still doesnot break it all down and the excess winds of in lakes and rivers killing fish and other aquatic animals
was waiting for Ben Shapiro for 20 mins. lol
otgont ota gwis gwis. anti-indigenous hate like this, yall are holocaust deniers.
There was no indigenous hate in this talk
The G in Quagga is not a soft g, it is pronounced as if you are clearing your throat. Interesting talk overall, just as a native speaker of Afrikaans, the Quagga pronunciation stood out to me :D