I have a seizure disorder that is genetic and passed down to offspring. It would be really fantastic to be able to avoid passing that onto my own children. There is no "culture" built upon epilepsy or seizure disorders. Most epileptics would be grateful to get rid of their disability in a heartbeat.
I live in Florida few years back before the gmo mosquito release it was unbearable to go and sit outdoors in a minute you'll be covered with these pests. Now since three years past we have no more issues. I can only thank these scientists for stabilizing the population of nuisance pests.
@@avancalledrupert5130 None. Since these mosquitoes are not native to Florida. They were imported with goods from Africa. There most likely even more damaging to wildlife in Florida then to humans. You have to experience swarming with thousands of these at once to really understand what they capable of.
@@TonyC-pq7bp You acknowledge that nature is immensely powerful, and that even the tiniest error (i.e., importing the wrong fruit) can devastate the ecosystem. Knowing that, why would you possibly imagine that genetic engineering isn't equally prone to error?
As a partially deaf person I can not understand why anyone would rather maintain their disability and call it culture. Left ear deafnesses is hereditary on my father’s side. If I could have gene 🧬 editing that could give me perfect hearing I would take that immediately! Why would anyone not accept that. They could still use sign language with their deaf friends and family.
as a sufferer of a disfiguring genetic skin disease, i would be thankful to have genetic edits...i dont understand when abortion is supported why oppose genetic editing
@prajnana exactly. like getting rid of pest with pouring agriculture with chemical pesticide that causing the rise in autism, many other disease, killing microorganism in soil, resistant pest, etc. now they invent a new patch with no known side effects, again! the list goes on
A lot of the arguments here seem absurd. Label GM produce as such, and let people decide. If there are no normal bananas, people will choose between GM bananas and no bananas, and I can already tell you what the vast majority is going to choose. And curing deafness is a "threat of dissolving" the deaf community?! Just because someone build their entire identity around a disease does not mean more people need to suffer from a treatable disease so the sick can have a community!
@@sajjadaxe1 GMO should be labeled and you are free to not consume it. But you should not be free to ban GMOs for everyone else. We have played with nature for the entire history of mankind. Have you seen the difference between our domesticated crops and the wild counterparts they originate from?
Then , the disease might be used to created more fear to produce more GM foods , history has proved some diseases are fraud for / from pharmaceutical industry complex benifits
I only see 1 problem with GMO seeds, most of them are owned by big corporations and you might get sued if by some accident some of your neighbour crops can be found on your farm + most of the seeds manufacturers don't let you re-use your seeds you must buy new for the next season. I do believe that the technology is remarkable and climate change will force us to continue evolving the crops. I also think that most of the hate GMO have is because of Monsanto.
@@ristekostadinov2820 can u please explain to me how climate change...lol changes the crops. Stop crying on corporations because thats the way the system works. They are not villains of this game. When normal tomato is juice why you want GMO. period
I'm surprised nothing was mentioned about what other harmful effects GMO crops help counteract, such as the use of pesticides that are harmful to human health and fertilizers soil degradation. At the end of the day, consumers should have the choice to buy whichever food they want.
yep, very bad journalism. scientific problems over simplified. I hope the Economist hire some scientist to cover and educate the readers\viewers about GMO and why the scaremongering should be left in the 20th century.
honestly, there is probably so much pushback against GMOs precisely because most lay-peoples experience with them is through the lense of heavy pesticide/herbicide/insecticide abuse. Although the potential for eugenics definitely does not help.
As a partially blind person (hereditary) there is nothing I fear more than passing my issues to my children. So I am very upset about the Deaf Professors reluctance to this type of technology. Although I am sure there are some who appreciates life as blind or deaf I am pretty certain nearly all would give anything to change their circumstances; and more than that the circumstances of their children.
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
People are scared of change. It's natural. They said the same about phones and cars, vaccines and antibiotics, and even writing... Everything is dangerous to these people. Don't worry. Progress will come. I'm hoping so, as i have a rare and frightening autoimmune disease that basically eats my body, and a history of them in my family. Gene editing would mean people wouldn't have to go through the pain I'm going through even if it doesn't help me.
@@braddo7270 it's not that we shouldn't have or use it, its just that it should be under the most stringent legislation imaginable. Or the alternative is a nightmare beyond imagination
Yeah, I think that assuming gene editing becomes so advanced that we can edit out hereditary diseases, genetic disorders and birth defects without negative unintended consequences I think we owe it to our offspring and descendants that we edit those genetic defects out. After all, nobody asks to be born. Therefore, when we decide to bring new people into the world we owe it to them to give them the best start possible to the best life possible.
Why would they if they're being paid to push an agenda. First comes gene editing, next comes selective breeding, next comes eugenics (population control)
I honestly feel like the is similar to the myth of the Titanic - it was call the ship that would never sink. You really think that they can make people never deaf? I think she was just low key trying to say, don't use us as an excuse to experiment on people....
@@bpavilion8994 What an intellectually inferior person! If there is no experimentation, how can we know it is healing deaf people? Have you ever heard of trial-and-error? You might wanna read about this when it comes to medicine. Besides, if parents agreed to medical experimentation, the same way cancer patients agree to new drugs, the same way some people agree to donate their corpses to be studied after they die, what's the harm in that? And your comparison with the Titanic is laughable. Geriatrics will never stop amazing me.
I'm truly baffled by anyone that thinks gene editing correcting certain hereditary disabilities is wrong. Why wouldn't you want people to live to their full potential? Nobody is going to "dissolve" you as people for simply allowing others the opportunity you didn't have. That logic alone implies that you value more the sense of community given by that disability rather than a person's individual rights and choices. That isn't a community, that is a cult.
u fckn idiot.. they are using hereditary disabilities as their main ethical campaign to gloss over other more less ethical applications that are more akin to eugenicist agendas, further degrading our quality of food through technology and lab chemicals and so on. Nothing postitve here. Ppl need to analyse things not just with their heads but with their hearts and 6th sense
Don’t you think it’s selfish to genetically modify Gods creation without knowing of the long term repercussion to others?
2 роки тому+53
@@ShepherdMinistry It would be more selfish if you DON'T make anything knowing you'll bring an ill human being into this world even though you have the option to not eliminate the disseases.
15:40 Wait a minute, and not trying to offend anyone here, but are there really people out there who would argue against the elimination of genetic disorders such as Down syndrome? Why anyone would want another human being to endure this is beyond me. Do they know the huge amounts of energy, time and money that are involved in properly taking care of a child with Down syndrome? It is certainly no joke, not for the kid, nor for the parents. Moreover, surely people can see the difference between "exterminating" people with Down syndrome and *preventing* people with Down syndrome from being born. The former is eugenics and social Darwinism whereas the latter is a proper use technological progress.
There was an outrage a few years ago because island had no down sydrom case for more than a dacade. I'm happy for the islandic families that they have a choice and all diagnostics are covered by public health care!
@@kunikloy477not really. No one is saying we should discriminate against people with genetic diseases or be phobic of them. Simply help cure the diseases. The equivalent would be *opposing* using this technology to alter genes responsible for a genetic predisposition to obesity eg those involved in hormonal/appetite/impulse regulation.
As a person with genetic disease I am all for this. But everything has to be done in moderation. If the child would be born sick fix it but not if the only thing you want to fix is your childs eye color for aestetics. Unless health would be compromised in a minor I say let every person decide if they want it or not. Its their body after all.
There are people today who do plastic surgery to change their appearance. It comes with the technology. But if everyone is smarter and kinder and stronger, this problem could not exist, with people being serene and culture being beneficial.
Yeah, there are concerns but also likely necessary. We pretty much did with crops mainly to resist toxic pesticides and various diseases. Who would want a child that is diabetic and cancerous resistant or diabetes free... make me wish to have that myself. But of course, there will be setbacks and flaws in the process... don't know what it'll be but still... We should give it a shot.
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
No you're not educated enough to fully understand the opposition to GMO's since you rely on media that is privately funded and paied to make documentary like this one that manipulates you into thinking what you think. One of their best tricks lately has been to make you think that your poorly informed opinion was the mark of being highly educated. GMO's are a probelm and a threat for many reason , the main one would be the complete licencing of crops and living things.
You got it backwards, people aren't educated and simply buy into whatever they hear as layman truth. Like woke is the new bad like term progressive was.
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another." Richard Lewontin Professor of Genetics/Harvard
They've been modifying the weather and climate for seven decades. That is what climate change is, intentional, shocking part is so much time later people still don't see what's going on over their heads.
What about the thousands of years of experience with radically changing DNA with selective breading? Why would that be different? What about the decades of experience with GMO? Anti-GMO arguments sound like anti-vaxxers': what if there are side effect,...something about scientists paid by corporations...science is bad...
@@FranFerioli Don't throw that dumb anti-science accusation around blindly. It shows your own ignorance of the subject matter, ironically. I'll explain, if you have a scientific mind. Imagine, from your point of view and outwards, other rooms, then streets, trillions of leaves, plants, trees, birds, electromagnetic waves, gravity fields flowing through and through, air, animals, interplanetary energy waves, an infinite upon infinite sea of processes................. all PERFECTLY connected and balanced as one. As above. Now try to perceive the exact same vasteness within... Every. Single. Atom/Cell. Of. Every Single. Universe. So when Nature makes change, it does so in balance with the infinite. We make changes that usually balance out until the tip of our nose, because we can't perceive beyond a certain point the ripples of those changes. So you must be VERY careful when dealing with the planetary sciences... For example, currently we're considering slowing the Earth's rotation down "for science benefits." But on the other side, if the planet's rotation is actually reversed, it would fulfill a Doomsday-trigger. "That day, the Sun will rise from the West, instead of the East. That is the day all the portals to repentance will be closed." So, scientifically sincere individuals would usually pause and ponder for a very long time before they press buttons on the cosmic switchboard like Dee-Dee in Dexter's Lab.
@@firsthre3e2second Yep, just like anti-vaxxers: gibberish. It's not the cosmic switchboard: we have doing for thousands of years with selective breading. If you have a scientific paper published in a top-tier, peer-review scientific journal proving harmful effect of GMOs, link it. If you don't, after decades of using GMOs, you don't have a point.
The whole "deaf community" thing is just absurd imo, any reasonable person would agree that curing diseases is a positive change. What will be much more controversial though, is when we'll be able to change things that are related to race/ethnicity, hair or eye color for example. Imagine a gene editing tech that can change black hair: some black women pay money to get straight hair, maybe some of them would want that? Then there will probably be a big controversy about whether people should gene-edit out some characteristics of their race, or whether those characteristics should be normalised/accepted instead.
....."curing diseases is a positive change." But is it really "positive" if you eliminate one disease, which will then have to be replaced by another disease ? You can't eliminate disease entirely, we need diseases, as humans are here to suffer as well, not just enjoy themselves. This is perhaps the essence of why we have Covid. Too many other diseases(including the Flu) were apparently disappearing.
black woman geting straight hair is not a problem , they already do this, white women curls their hair also. The problem will be when they enhance IQ and physical capacities, what will happen to the people born one year before the practice, or anyone born outside of the market. You'll have to pay to make a "super babie" , only elites will be able too , and you'll get two classes of human beings. This is what they plan on doing, don't get mistaken. They will own human reproduction.
@@backintimealwyn5736 They won't need the working classes once the fully autonomous robots become 100% fully operational. In fact 20 or 30 years from now robots will start designing themselves too.
I don't understand why race deniers care so much about modification on superficial traits when they don't even pretend to be interested in them. Why don't let just people decide what features they want to get?
"This kind of community needs to continue ; we can't continue if we have the threat of dissolving us as a people" - quote from the deaf bioethicist. Like always, everyone will protect themselves/their community, no matter the cost to others (like the kids that the bioethicist seems to want to be born deaf?? or the whole ecosystem we spray dead because of the mosquitoes??) You can increase the amount of times you walk to the well, or make it deeper every year. Or you invent desalination. The one that doesn't invent anything protects their community by going to journalists, complaining about the risks of the invention.
@@danieldewilson I honestly feel like this is similar to the myth of the Titanic - it was call the ship that would never sink. You really think that they can make people never deaf? I think she was just low key trying to say, don't use us as an excuse to experiment on people....
@b pavilion gene therapy and cell regeneration are very much close to being available to people. I disagree. I think that they understandably don't want to part with their identity and community that they have embraced. I think that's silly. They can soon regain their sense of hearing but decide to push back based on fear of losing a social part of their lives. They can feel free not to get the therapy, but pushing back may rob others of their opportunity to hear again. All ailments with organs that are being targeted, not just hearing. Those without the ability to hear are not the only people who will benefit from having their damaged organs and bad health addressed by these therapies. We will soon be able to cure disability entirely.
@@danieldewilson You really believe that they want to use this to help ill humans to cure them? Or are they using this as an excuse to experiment on humans under the disguise of helping others in order to make money? You really can't tell anymore, because look at how long they've had the cure for cancer... Plus the gmo foods that they have made, are they really contributing to hungry or are they just making people more sick? Starting to notice that a lot of people and getting allergic to foods they haven't been allergic to before... I use to could eat peanuts, now it's causing autoimmune problems...
@@bpavilion8994 You're far too cynical for me to feel like this is worth my time. I've spent years following trends in tech and there are mant different companies that are working in helping people. The cure for cancer hasn't actually existed before. That's a conspiracy theory.
My only concern is the fact that this technology moves so fast, and there is a lot of chance for error. We don't know far more than what we do, when it comes to genome sequencing. When I started my masters 5 years ago we used Sage a lot. They don't even teach people about it now, because it is already redundant technology. It is just happening so fast, without enough checks and balances. That is the problem.
I find that a bit moot considering that there are so many checks with exhaustive research before any medical technologies are used in the field. Also, there are many volatile treatments that people take in order to stave off disease or treat a condition. Like anything you work to minimize risk and present people with the option and then let them make an informed decision. But to say there aren't enough checks and balances within medicine....this is why trials exist, papers, research, medical boards, and governing bodies.
It's more than fear... It is a reasonable skepticism. Emphasizing the benefits doesn't mean they know what they are doing... Epigenetic research is still relatively new and the number of variables is still not known.
sounds more like absurd irrational fear of growth and progress. its like when they invented trains. "no this is evil, women become hysteric and have miscarriages, we need to ban trains immediately!!!!"
Neo luddites . And what are the ethics of not curing deafness for those who want it, because others feel it makes them special? Has the Economist done a deep dive behind the scenes of the opposition to gene editing? Look to see if group or persons are coordinating the opposition and what their motives may be?
The solution for the impossible mathematics of death is more research and more policy on developments. Apease the fear and promote scientific advancements.
They mean in scenarios where it affects most people regardless of whatever like the mosquito thing will affect people who want it and those who don’t and they believe it a important to consent and regulate which I agree with. I think however in severe scenarios like in africa with starvation, we just need to supply when with the gmo food but the Individual most be consent and be educated the food their are eating. Most priority the poor wouldn’t care and would just eat it whether gmo or not I think most or all will say yes. And for eradication of disease, they should eradicate it but consent need to come when it reaches the individual if they want it
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
Mr. H from Germany liked eugenics too. This would cause a massive divide between those who can and cannot afford this eugenics process, eventually an upper-class people with no disabilities vs lower-class population full of them in comparison. Yes let's make a class of perfect people to reign over the disabled masses.....
I have been consuming few fruits like Papaya, new varients have come in market with long shelf life & different shape & colour & taste. But old variety which existed 3 to 5 decades ago has simply vanished which had juicy soft pulp & very high sweetness & distinct flavor. Recently I have purchased 100 kg of Rice called JIRGA & Ghansal variety, semi-polished, from Kolhapur & Kokan region of Maharashtra of INDIA, This variety is ancient Has Government GI (Geographical Identification) Tag, Taste & aroma of Indian Basmati rice is too second to it. Look at the grapes, Grapes with seeds no one grows & sells & will vanish slowly. Same holds true for older corn varieties, now you get only Sweet Corn, So go ahead with technology but preserve & produce old varieties too.
It is hard to know how to connect your comment with genetic modification. None of the things you said, even if they are true, has any connection with genetic engineering.
I bought a GMO bread 3.5 months ago still in it's ORIGINAL PACKAGING sitting on top of my counter looking as if I bought it yesterday, no mold. Bet it will be here after we humans are annihilated and GMO robots or AI takes over.
Nothing is ever free- then learn how to make it on your own Nothing is ever perfect- trial and error has always existed Everything has a cause and effect. Not every effect has a bad outcome.
"gene editing" of sorts has been here for some time. like 15:43 in iceland they have practically removed down syndrome with abortion screening. women themselves wanted so, no government forcing of any kind is involved.
Screening out a generic defect is noble idea, But next steps like choosing hair or eye color. Or even racial features definitely on road to ethical suicide.
That's not gene editing though. Gene editing is changing the genes that are problematic... Not eliminating the person all together. Abortion is just the choice to not have the baby at all. Gene editing could actually hypothetically save babies like that by fixing their chromosomes.
That isn't gene editing, that's aborting the baby who has down syndrome so that the baby with is is never born in the first place. It takes out the baby with down syndrome altogether, it never cures it, it just kills the child who has it.
What is unacceptable about gmos is that they can be patented, and small farmers can be and do get sued if those patented seeds end up in their field and they sell food from it. Often times, the seeds blew over from a neighboring gmo filled field! Patenting these things is evil. A lot of these seeds have been altered to never give seeds as well so that farmers are forced to buy new seeds every year. Farmers are already in crisis and every year it gets worse for them.
When I first heard this story, I was shocked about how unfair it was. Only later did I learn that it was simply not true, a made up piece of propaganda. Here's how I know that. There's an organization called Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA). They claimed (accurately or not, I don't know) that many of their customers were reluctant to buy seeds from their member companies, because they were afraid that they would be sued if patented GMO crops accidentally showed up in their fields. (Right off, there are numerous patented plants that are not GMO plants, but there doesn't seem to have been a rash of farmers being sued when they show up accidentally. ) OSGATA demanded that Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds, make a pledge to never sue farmers when GMOs accidentally show up in their fields. Monsanto made such a pledge, but with the reservation that they could still bring suit when the evidence was very strong that it was cheating, not accident, that the GMO plants were in the farmer's field. Then OSGATA sued Monsanto. When the judge was hearing the case, he asked OSGATA's lawyer if he could give an example of such a lawsuit by Monsanto against an innocent farmer. Anyone would expect that the lawyer, preparing his case, would answer that question. OSGATA itself, in numerous press conferences, names such (apparently phony) cases. But lying in court could get a lawyer disbarred. So he said that he knew of no such lawsuits. The judge then dismissed the case. That by itself convinced me that the story of the unfair lawsuits was fake. But it went further. It is clear that OSGATA never expected or intended to win its lawsuit, but was suing to get its fake story before the public. So they appealed the dismissal to a higher court. More changes for press coverage - about innocent farmers victimized by a large and powerful corporation. The judge in that appeal upheld the dismissal, but he did something else. He declared that suing a farmer for accidental presence of a patented crop would be illegal. So, in losing its case, OSGATA actually got what they claimed they wanted. But what they really wanted was more publicity, more news conferences and press releases to spread the fake tale even further. So they appealed again, to the US Supreme Court, which declined to accept the appeal.
Even if we are worried, technology can't be stopped. If Europe or US makes a rule to slow down technological process, China will do it. If China stops it, then Russia will do it. If Russia stops it, then Japan will do it. There's not stop in technological advancement.
True. But we can implement limits on technology. Think about how humanity developed rules and restrictions about chemical and nuclear weapons after the world wars. I just hope it doesn't take millions of deaths to get the that point with new technologies.
Not only that. CRISPR is very cheap, anyone with 50k USD can turn his/her kitchen into a laboratory. CAS9 is cheaper than chicken protein today. It is better to advance research in all fronts, with policy, than turn a blind eye and hope NIMBY will stop the process.
@@AJX-2 I think that the non-use of nuclear and chemical weapons is primarily caused by the current world system (we are living in the most peaceful time in history), where everyone depends on international supply chains and wars between top-tier nations don't happen. Just look at a map from 1980 and now, and you will realize that nations basically don't conquer each other anymore. But without a globalized economic system (and someone acting as a "global policeman") it will become the norm again for nations to cannibalize each other. Once that happens, I don't think using gas and nukes will be unthinkable any more (it will fall out of someone's desperation about not getting conquered).
The biggest issue is unforseen or unintended consequences. These could potentially be deadly or cause severe damage to society. We need to tread very carefully and thoughtfully.
Right. Now consider this. Millions die every year from malaria, 500k children. Every year. What ecological catastrophe justifies not using GMO mosquitos? What could be that potential damage to society, even death? While we tread carefully, millions more die. What moral ground justifies not acting right now? By the time you finish to read this, 5 more died.
We need to not go through with this because we will cause death and damage to society with this technology. Humans are geniuses in one sense but idiots in another sense. We can create ground breaking technology, but we cannot see the unintended consequences. This happens all the time. This technology is far too dangerous.
I don't understand how these could be deadly if they are for some sort treating various disease of certain individual, and augmenting the life of disabled people.
@@Zenith6000 You could accidently create man made prions or a super disease like transmissible cancer. Crispr's being used for tooth regrowth and hair loss treatment research atm, the problem is keeping it localised to the target area and not letting it become systemic and having unintended consequences for the patient like teeth growing on their femurs. The technology has the potential to make people biologically immortal but there's a reason it was the inspiration for the t-virus in resident evil.
If I could afford, I would totally edit my child. I don't care about the ethics behind this. I want the child to be born with whatever advantages it would bring her or him.
This is a great topic, however, it barely scratches the surface. I would suggest to read Code Breaker by Isaac. It’s one of the most comprehensive yet technically researched book about gene editing and CRISPR, albeit, more focus on Doudna but most of the people that interview on this video where also there.
Ethics is the last thing they will think of when it comes to the needs of poor people who struggle to have something to eat or die with some easily avoidable disease. The "ethical" discussions are rich and healthy people game, for they do not suffer the results of famine and early death threats today. There shall be better regulations? Yes. But we have to speed up solutions and make them available for those who really require them. By the way, congratulations on the excellent video. It's very informative.
@@bpavilion8994 thats also a factor but if we could produce crops that grow faster, require less care and are pest resistant, they would be sold at a lower price, enabling poor people to afford them. Religion is a huge factor in anti-gmo beliefs and its gone far enough. I've always disliked religion but not curing people's diseases because of it is too far.
@@shadowslayer9988 they seem to forget that in the medieval age when most people believed in religion (most prominently islam and christianity) the infant mortality rate was at least 30% (low estimate). So if we did not have vaccines and develop hospitals to give birth in they would likely be dead.
How ethical were governors, hospital admin & doctors and Health debts in America when they began stuffing older people into civil infested senior care homes??? How ethical are Moderna & Pfizer scientists & Dr. FAUCI, CDC, FDA for allowing mRNA in vaccines for supposed covid viruses pandemic??? We not buying any of it.
With all due respect to that deaf professor. But any disability is a disease that needs to be cured. I mean, isn't it a great thing learning that one day cancer communities won't exist, shouldn't it be the same with deafness?
I imagine it would not be preferable for all those specialising in cancer treatment. Some industries make profits from unfortunate happenings, that the disappearance of such issues seems like a threat for them.
How can you compare deafness to cancer. Deaf people have their own language and culture. They have some minor inconveniences but are not suffering. Many deaf people are proud of their unique perspective of the world.
I’m sorry that such research might end the need for institutions that cater to people with certain disabilities but there is a difference between accepting imperfections in others vs opposing elimination of these conditions. Being deaf is not akin to being a member of a racial group or gender. It’s a defect that this technology can cure.
Did you see the part that reads " combating climate change, “ We’ve hears the song and danced the dance about curing disease and cancer for decades, this is eugenics not for the betterment of man, this is for transhumanism to control people remotely and connect them to the IoB. It’s not too difficult to see that this is a deceptive attempt at a social engineered consent, get the people to demand it. “ gene-editing technologies have the potential to transform lives. “ Transform them into what? Of course you all sell the positive twist, when it’s about transhumanism turn man into a machine
Why not? It's true that stress comes from environment and would always be there but how much body is potent to handle it definitely comprises of genes as a factor
Absolutely, it also can be designed to target certain groups of ppl with mild or severe mental illness and wipe them out to reduce governments’ financial burden
If you have some sort of illness that literally differentiates you from others, then you will for sure agree to this. People who don't live a day to day life being different won't understand, how genetically passed down disease can alter one's behavior. Your competence is always overshadowed by the illness. People thinking you have princess attitude just because you can't do certain things, or even not being able to eat sugary things even moderately if not your whole body will suffer. They got lucky and try to sabotage the unlucky. That's sad.
Couldn't have said it better. It's worse when they downplay your experiences with discrimination like oh it can't be that bad or I'm sure it's just you overimagining.
I really like the Golden Rice and malaria-free mosquitoes ideas. That could save so many people. And I don't feel it's as "threatening" as GMing humans.
@@marcelpatrick9982 The first time I READ ABOUT THAT, I saw a potential flaw. Many people in poor countries eat A LOT of rice. Some eat barely anything but rice. Vitamin A is not a vitamin that you can take as much of as you want. It is fat souluable, which means that while not getting it is bd, getting to much can been even worse, causing liver toxicity. You can control the dose in vitamin pills. But it's not so easy when it is in your main source of food.
@@marcelpatrick9982 Golden rice didn‘t really „fail“, the plants did what they were supposed to perfectly fine. It‘s just that apparently the plan and it‘s problems weren’t very well thought through.
Unless you're getting seeds from an old original source, you're eating GMOs. I believe over 80% seeds worldwide are GMO now. Even if you did happen to get GMO free seeds, there's no guarantees your plants weren't cross pollinated with GMO plants that are everywhere. Taste shouldn't be affected anyway. All GMO means is that the plant was bred to be a certain way ... No different than breeding domestic animals we eat & have as pets. Home gardeners can do their own GMO process... They do all the time by cross pollination, saving the seeds, splicing, etc.
If all doctors in human history would have done only things that are safe and that don't go against mainstream opinions, then our medical development would be somewhere in 1900s level or worse. Nowadays people have forgotten how many thousands have died to save millions today.
There are millions of researches ongoing in the world. How many must go through people's review and acceptance? Who should decide and based on what criteria? I think those are key questions to answer first before designing a more targeted campaign to educate people. I wouldn't go down the path that for any research, we must first get acceptance from people, but at the same time i would emphasize on the role and responsibilities of the researchers.
Most research is based on making a profit. He was only concerned about making a banana resistant to disease, not how that change to the fruit's dna will affect humans after humans consume it. Don't believe that they care about human hunger.
To answer your question, when a scientist wants to publish their results they usually send them to a journal. The journal then reaches out to several scientists in the relevant field who then review the data and establish if the experiments done were rigorous enough for the claims being made (this is the peer-review process). If the data is accepted, it is published and shared. However, these days almost anyone can set up a journal via a website and publish whatever they want. This data may or may not be reviewed. This is all to say that reputable sources of information ensure that the facts are straight (or at least make an honest attempt), and so the data is usually trustable.
why....do you think the people typing comments here...know how the coding behind the algorithm works...many probably don't even know how to fix a system bug.....they still use it right?.....so what's this excuse about educating everyone....do people how farming works?...they still eat right?.....taking opinion on scientific research from the average person belonging to any of these vocal groups is akin to explaining quantum computing to a chimpanzee....both their opinions or thoughts on the matter are worthless....they dont want it dont use it as simple as that!!...
@@waleedkhalid7486 taking public opinion is VERY VERY different than the peer review process you described......people having contrary opinions need to be PEERS!!!....researchers/PHD holders on the subject....not some random high school drop out on the street...holding a sign!!!
Cancer and many other chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, alzheimers) can already be prevented and even cured using just four simple and cheap practices: sleep well; eat healthy; exercise regularly; and fast occasionally.
Human with no genetic defects or illness are not allowed to judge and decide for us to reject the chance to remove those serious medical conditions that we suffered. They don't understand the pain we grow up with and the desire to be separated from such illness.
Unfortunately that is absolutely not true but the opposite. Please check out GMO corn and the need of special Pestizides in Latin America. The impact is dramatically and not in favor to the the farmers nor the people in general. It’s only all about money. Besides - there are plenty of other kinds of bananas.
The farmers don't matter. We're moving away from the old world. Genetic engineering would change the course of the world forever. Curing diseases, life extension, animals with more meat in them, etc.. none of these things bring harm to us. GMO has no proven risk to human health. If it is done correctly, nothing will happen to a human. You eat animals that have genetic changes in them due to evolution. Bacteria in your stomach constantly have evolutionary changes and some become resistant to medicines. Changing genes is just accelerating evolution.
@@abel3557 Your are confusing gene modification with evolution. There are risks in gene modifictaion and a lot of them are proven. There are also fields gene modification might be useful for instant fight micro plastic. But for sure GMO corn, GMO wheat, tomatoes and so one are none go those. It's proven that the soil is bleeding out due to extensive use of customized pesticides and fertilizers, that it is disastrous for insects and human beings who are forced to work with it. Also the social implications since the farmers or who ever you call them in the new world are depending on the big corporates. Monsanto lost several cases in court exactly dealing with this problems.
@@katrinweigel1044 gene modification is simply rapid evolution. Evolution is very random. Bacteria constantly evolve to survive antibiotics when it's used on them. Nearly all of them will die but some will rarely have a genetic mutation that lets them handle it. It's the same thing here but now we can harness these modifications at will and not at random
@@katrinweigel1044 pesticides and fertilizers are used for any plant. Gmos do not have a single proven negative effect on human health unless you already had allergies to the vegetable. Gmos do not harm the soil either. It actually allows for pesticides that do not harm the soil to be used.
Controversial take: what’s the issue with gene editing to increase intelligence? (if the tech is equally distributed). Society is already unfair, and people with higher cognitive abilities have a massive advantage at accumulating wealth. Additionally, imagine how many diseases we could cure and lives we could save if we were smarter
True. That is very well explained in the book “The Meritocracy Trap”. However I imagine allowing gene editing would widen the gap even more, as this would be obviously accessible only to the very rich.
@@ev.c6 I agree with you that gene editing could result in an even greater divide between the rich and poor. That’s a serious risk we need to address. However, it will be very hard to stop everyone around the world. I imagine a ban could result in the creation of a black market, which might make the treatments even more inaccessible for the poor. I think we should focus on distributing this technology as quickly and equally as possible (once it is safe and reliable enough)
Designer babies, ...all these genetic modifications 🤔 Interesting enough, we have no long term research on the affect on humans...not to mention epi genetics that has a profound effect on everything.
@@lamontpeterson5193 You´re just selfish, like most people are. Why do you need the child to have your genes are you someone very special, with some incredible genetic pool? Even the famous people like Lionel Ritchie, Anjelina Jolie adopted kids in need and Angelina has some genes to give next generation. Just look at her offsprings, just the way they look. I have fostered a child and there´s no difference between blood and not blood. I was lonely father with two kids one blood and one not, there was no diference, only the boy who doesn´t have my blood is healthy in every way. Both kids are smart, but my daughter has all the genetic issues I gave her and it´s pretty bad, If I was young again and knew what I know now, I would not have any kids of my own. Watching your one of your kids suffer because you gave them life and know the next generation will have it the same. I am autistic, need blood thinners if ill and she has ADHD and every pregnancy need daily injection of blood thinners. The older grandson is autistic and younger has ADHD. My son is healthy, he only has genetic eye condition when he used to need very strong glasses and as he grew older and older they ware less and less needed. As an adult he has vision 20/20. His eyes weren´t developed properly and there´s a chance his own kid would have the same. He is with girl, that has Bipolar in family and other mental issues, she herself has clinical depressions, so they do not plan to have their genetic kids. It´s very responsible of them and at the end it really doesn´t matter.
GMO mosquitos can save 500k children every year from dying. On what moral terms anyone can say we mustn't do it? What ecological catastrophe, what human harm, what suffering justifies not taking action on CRISPR scissors and save million upon millions of human beings??
Yes it is, they are basically putting feelers out and using this as apart of an engineered consent operation. Much like they did with Thunberg. Note they speak of climate change, as our weather and climate is modified and controlled and has been since the mid 1940s.
Its amazing to me that there is backlash over this??? Almost as if it’s more profitable to live with mutations than to eradicate them. No other way around it. I cannot think of a single other argument.
3 things: great content but I feel the screen-shake-transition was not needed, it would be great to see names of people talking in text at the bottom of the video, and it would be nice to see references to the research in "show more" or as text in the video w/ dates.
"Science never solves a problem without creating ten more." George Bernard Shaw That goes for the Model T Ford, the problems that have arisen from cars are countless, we only hear about the benefits, adverts to buy more are suffocating.
THANK YOU... YOU ARE THE ONLY VOICE OF REASON AND WISDOM ON HERE. The rest of the ppl commenting here are a bunch of brain dead, non critical fools who are the most programmed and foooled
Really? Tell that to women from over 100 years ago that died from childbirth. Or to cancer survivors. Or to generations that didn't have to go through polio. I don't understand these weird anti science opinions, while the same 9/10 people writing them wouldn't cut it in the past... Or might not even have been born at all. Sitting at home, using the internet, using electricity, etc., Without having to live in a tent, but yeah, science = nothing but bad 🙄
Biologically, I think it is very dangerous because the original genes for a person have already been established. Trying to change or tamper that into something different I believe can disrupt and possibly severely damage the whole structure built around the original genes; immune system, organs, blood streams, etc. But then an argument would be for the sake of people born with disorders that shorten their lifespan. Overall there is a pro and con to everything. But then again it is up to the person interested in gene editing.
You're very correct about safety concern. And you should know this is the only ethic that is really keeping this tech go mainstream. But when it's safe enough, you would experience its use skyrocketing
You're kinda wrong, changing a tiny section of a gene won't cause that much of a problem most of the time and definitely doesn't have a ripple effect like you make it out to be.
This video doesn't feature any discussion or information on the technology at all it is just a marketing piece for people who would stand to profit from it, not necessarily in the interest of the general population.
An objective video would equally present both sides of the story. This is mainly gene-editing propaganda, promoting 90% the benefits and kind of disregarding or even kind of ridiculing the concerns.
A key factor to accelerating this technology is getting the risk factor related to performing the procedure significantly below the risk of the faulty genes expressing illness. For example: robotic automation of the procedure may increase accuracy. Every failure in gene editing will cause huge social backlash so must be minimized. Move fast and break things does not apply here- sorry zuckerberg
Unbelievable that some deaf people want to prevent curing babies from deafness, just so they will have a larger cohort of deaf people for their community.
This is brilliant and what we need! Let's do this right now. What are we leaving all the works and the privileges to the future generations? Now is the time!! I'm sure it will keep going better then yesterday everyday!!
What disturbs me is the way that Genetic technology is the only solution to climate change and problems around agriculture, how about agriculture itself such as the failures of monoculture etc. A bit myopic in my opinion
Gene therapy and gene editing is already a reality, a paradigm shift in biology and medicine, but the first gene therapy treatment for LUXTURNA blindness is worth €700,000, we hope that these new treatments reach everyone but the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in CURE.
There's another huge problem with GMO, which is ownership by patent. New crops might have no other problem other than some awful corporation might hike up the price once people are dependent on the new strain. Even farmers who's non-GMO crop cross-pollinates with nearby GMO crops can end up facing legal action over ownership of their crop. Why should people accept corporate ownership of seed when previously seed belonged to no-one? And no we don't trust corporations, we've already seen them act unconscionably when it comes to putting profit before humanity. And what if a human becomes a GMO by the inclusion of patented technology? Now that's a deep and dark rabbit hole.
Baby editing is inevitable. It's a matter of when. Even if every country agrees not too, a few countries such as China will disagree. Also, the oligarch super rich will use it illegally in secret. A future in which genetically engineered people dominate society is inevitable. They will be the new ruling class. This is coming soon and is similar to an nuclear arms race. Countries and organization will panic and accelerate their gene editing because others already have genetically superior children.
@@bpavilion8994 if you're taking about Gattaca and want to base your entire perception about future based on a movie with thoughts of few people, you're in wrong direction
I am always nervous about 'ethics' as often it is just a smoke screen to impose religious ideology, or other social ideologies, onto the wider community. And it often is based on the view that people, if they are allowed to choose, (for example, in relation to their children) will not choose what the 'ethicists' (sic) or activists want so, in their view, society needs to take away their right to choose.
Ethics are blind utopian 'rational' socialist belivers who don't like to look into problems of people they don't have control over and would want to them just cope by therapies or try to be 'happy' in life
It is part of God's plan to allow death and suffering to keep humanity humble after all. Death and suffering also help bring dictatorship and control if it brings an end to death and suffering. There is insanity on every side.
This is interesting. Especially as some genes thought to be defective such as those that code for autism or sickle cell trait may also have evolutionary advantages. For example people with sickle cell trait have natural immunity to malaria, a disease that is becoming increasingly difficult to treat today as the malaria parasite increases in resistance against conventional medicines. We also wouldn't have Microsoft or Tesla (Bill Gates and Elon Musk) without autism. Simon Baron Cohen's book The Pattern Seekers talks about the evolutionary advantages of autism that biases autistic people towards inventing new technologies. It would be ironic if, in our quest to create a gold standard human, without disease or defects, we end up editing back in many of the genes we are now seeking to eradicate.
Animals and plants naturally adapt to what ever Mother Nature gives earth mischief like human beings. Let Mother Nature do its work. Why are we modifying Mosquitoes. Find ways to eradicate them. There’s no use for them
In listening to this story it becomes very clear that there is a group of people called bioethicist's who are activly working to slow or stop any advancement in gene editing. These people are not scientists but liberally trainined mid level psudo-experts on what is ethical or unethical. We have the ability to learn how to overcome many genetic diseases and conditions and it would be devistating to millions who will not have the choice over the views of a small minority.
It's already to late. We have modified farm animals and food crops like Soybeans, Corn, Wheat and many flowers plants species for over 60years. Dow Chemicals and Monsanto have easily gotten past any regulation. How have these foods affected our children and grandchildren?
People suffering from a hereditary illness or disability are pro gene editing, I understand/sympathize that it comes from their suffering but they forget the issues that comes with this…later it will not be about who suffers but a luxury and worse who/what society “allows”. Unfortunately humans are not meant to make those decisions, we mess it up.
They speak about peoples distrust but distrust is the smartest thing to do, especially if all the pros and cons are not displayed openly - so why should people trust specialists who are not transparent or whoes values they don't even know. What if the value of the researcher is to earn money wherever and to say whatever but not to share their true opinion or cure people? How should a non-expert know? It is recless to demand from people a stance without providing them full information. Intransparancy, and the not knowing why experts are pro or con an idea (what is their agenda) is the main problem.
I'm going to start off saying that I am in favor of genetic editing. Mostly because it is going to be inevitable, given the advances in genetic therapy Now, no one is going to argue against removing a genetic predisposition towards cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, etc.... The gray area in genetic area lies in when parents start deciding that they want to edit their unborn childs dna to give them blue eyes and blond hair, or remove the family's large Dumbo ear gene. These aren't going to create anything crazy, as it is genetics that occur naturally in human beings. As well as tweeking their athletic potential or intelligence The dark side is when people decide that they want to splice their genes with animals for one reason or another to give them inhuman abilities or appearance. These do not exist naturally and could lead to unexpected consequences Now, at the start I said it is inevitable. Even people were to outlaw it, those that have the means to get around the law by money or going to another country that does allow it will I will use gender transitioning as an example. When it first came out people had to go to Europe to get it done, until the United States realized that there was not preventing it and just relented We stand on the edge of the same problem with abortion. The Republicans think that if they get control of Congress they will ban abortion nationwide. But that just means that those with the means will just leave the country to get it done and those that don't will resort to unnecessary risks
I usually agree with transhumanist ideas, except the combination with AI. Imagine a super intelligent human with an easier capability to gain muscle, as well as other abilities, it'd be fascinating. Reminds of the book 'All Tomorrows'
Like everything Genetic Editing is a double edged sword. Genetic Editing could cure all diseases including cancer. But on the otherhand Genetic Editing could be used to make (Super-Soldiers / People with enhanced abilities) or it could be used for Population Control.
The thing that we know about humans is we know some stuff but often not all the ramifications. Ie invent and use cfcs and then find hole in the ozone and skin cancers all round. Create a greenhouse gas economy and be stuck trying to fix climate change without being able to leaving that way of living. Or even like endochrine disruptors in cosmetics or the obesity epidemic from processed foods. These were just little alterations I just find it terrifying that any unforeseen impacts from alterations are in germ lines then for all of human history there forward. I think they are doing the right thing in having a large amount of hesitancy and tight regulations around this technology.
The reward outweighs the risk. And the average person will never understand the science behind GM. Sadly, our natural negativity bias will also influence public opinion. Hard decisions have to be made free of emotion for the best long term outcome.
I got Li-Fraumeni syndrome and survived 2 malignant tumours before age of 40. Please , even if just a small subset of us born with genetic diseases/cancers, at least approve gene editing worldwide for genetic diseases. i don't mind even being a guinea pig if it helps future generations of children who will be born with these conditions.
Sadly this economic crisis means more inflation. My condolences to anyone like myself retiring this year. I need my money off the bank and invested on something more prolific and as such need help in diversifying my 250k. I'm open to all recommendations
The Federal Reserve takes a sanguine view, saying it expects inflation to average 2.4 percent this year and decline to 2.1 percent by 2023. Inflation at that level would be no big deal. Long-term investors with well-diversified portfolios could pretty much ignore it.
I'll best advice you get a Financial Professional who will help you with intelligent plans to make returns off your money. I partner with Anna Kristine a professional whose experience has made me great returns. So far I've achieved over 600k working with her. Give this a try and get into success
These people are insane. No amount of editing genes will replace hard work and experience. Everyone is capable of genius it is more a matter of how you structure your own thinking and access the information you have learned. It is something that is trained not something that happens just because of genetics. Genetics only determine potentiality. Effort and belief create actuality.
I beg to differ. We could edit genes in such a way that you perceive ultrasound, see ultra-violet, survive huge amounts of radioactivity, glow in the dark, have a 1-in-a-billion IQ, possess animal-like reflexes and abilities etc etc; no amount of work can replace that. We do already genetically engineer goats to produce spider silk instead of milk and grow viable human organs inside pigs. The possibilities are endless and way beyond one's imagination. Experience simply cannot make use of something that nature hasn't provided first. Skills, talent and genius are the superstructure built upon a biological infrastructure without which nothing is possible. No amount of work can make you observe reality like Einstein, see the world like Picasso, feel music like Mozart, or play a basketball like Jordan. This is why genius expresses itself very young, often before the occurrence of any type of meaningful experience that could explain it: geniuses are geniuses before they have the time to learn anything. The result is symphonies as pre-pubescent child or PhDs at 14 years old and such. Can't beat that with sheer will.
Everyone is capable of being successful but genius. Just like every short person can play basketball and get a name but taller still would have unnecessary advantage
people have little trust left, and if there is some health problem, caused by genetic editing of bananas, we all know business will chose profit over anything else
great news. now it is time for highly educated people to make physical events and bringing it to our economy and publicize them as the best future science around us
there is a natural way to crossbreed plants like is done for hundreds of years and there is the gmo way puting genes from animals insects into plants where they dont belong .
I have a seizure disorder that is genetic and passed down to offspring. It would be really fantastic to be able to avoid passing that onto my own children. There is no "culture" built upon epilepsy or seizure disorders. Most epileptics would be grateful to get rid of their disability in a heartbeat.
I use to suffer from seizures too dont know what caused it
@Robin Spence your thing is worded weirdly so I’m confused if you think satilites and drones cause radiation
@Robin Spence yes I understand what I was doing was trying to see if I read it wrong or if you were saying that satellites curse radiation
Is it possible to change the genes of hair and make it masque?
@@ليثمحمدجبريل-ظ8خ theoryetircly it is possible if a creature can have that then with gene editing they can
I live in Florida few years back before the gmo mosquito release it was unbearable to go and sit outdoors in a minute you'll be covered with these pests. Now since three years past we have no more issues. I can only thank these scientists for stabilizing the population of nuisance pests.
How many things that used to eat them will go extinct now.
@@avancalledrupert5130 None. Since these mosquitoes are not native to Florida. They were imported with goods from Africa. There most likely even more damaging to wildlife in Florida then to humans. You have to experience swarming with thousands of these at once to really understand what they capable of.
Like Zika gmo mosquitoes??
@@DreamBuild3r more like paranoia mosquitos.
@@TonyC-pq7bp You acknowledge that nature is immensely powerful, and that even the tiniest error (i.e., importing the wrong fruit) can devastate the ecosystem. Knowing that, why would you possibly imagine that genetic engineering isn't equally prone to error?
As a partially deaf person I can not understand why anyone would rather maintain their disability and call it culture. Left ear deafnesses is hereditary on my father’s side. If I could have gene 🧬 editing that could give me perfect hearing I would take that immediately! Why would anyone not accept that. They could still use sign language with their deaf friends and family.
as a sufferer of a disfiguring genetic skin disease, i would be thankful to have genetic edits...i dont understand when abortion is supported why oppose genetic editing
@@zion3335 great point, they oppose abortion so much but once the baby is born nobody cares and they tell you you shouldn’t have had children.
@prajnana no its not...
@prajnana exactly. like getting rid of pest with pouring agriculture with chemical pesticide that causing the rise in autism, many other disease, killing microorganism in soil, resistant pest, etc. now they invent a new patch with no known side effects, again!
the list goes on
Why would we need representation for deaf people when deafness can be eradicated? That arguement is flawed
A lot of the arguments here seem absurd.
Label GM produce as such, and let people decide. If there are no normal bananas, people will choose between GM bananas and no bananas, and I can already tell you what the vast majority is going to choose.
And curing deafness is a "threat of dissolving" the deaf community?! Just because someone build their entire identity around a disease does not mean more people need to suffer from a treatable disease so the sick can have a community!
I am against it, dont play with created things. Nature has given us humans all the things we dont need GMO's. period
@@sajjadaxe1 GMO should be labeled and you are free to not consume it.
But you should not be free to ban GMOs for everyone else. We have played with nature for the entire history of mankind. Have you seen the difference between our domesticated crops and the wild counterparts they originate from?
Then , the disease might be used to created more fear to produce more GM foods , history has proved some diseases are fraud for / from pharmaceutical industry complex benifits
I only see 1 problem with GMO seeds, most of them are owned by big corporations and you might get sued if by some accident some of your neighbour crops can be found on your farm + most of the seeds manufacturers don't let you re-use your seeds you must buy new for the next season. I do believe that the technology is remarkable and climate change will force us to continue evolving the crops. I also think that most of the hate GMO have is because of Monsanto.
@@ristekostadinov2820 can u please explain to me how climate change...lol changes the crops. Stop crying on corporations because thats the way the system works. They are not villains of this game. When normal tomato is juice why you want GMO. period
I'm surprised nothing was mentioned about what other harmful effects GMO crops help counteract, such as the use of pesticides that are harmful to human health and fertilizers soil degradation. At the end of the day, consumers should have the choice to buy whichever food they want.
yep, very bad journalism. scientific problems over simplified. I hope the Economist hire some scientist to cover and educate the readers\viewers about GMO and why the scaremongering should be left in the 20th century.
No you don’t have to, it’s “Economist”, see who’s at the back.
honestly, there is probably so much pushback against GMOs precisely because most lay-peoples experience with them is through the lense of heavy pesticide/herbicide/insecticide abuse. Although the potential for eugenics definitely does not help.
@@Radhaun why not? why not allow choice? what happened to my body my choice?
True
As a partially blind person (hereditary) there is nothing I fear more than passing my issues to my children. So I am very upset about the Deaf Professors reluctance to this type of technology.
Although I am sure there are some who appreciates life as blind or deaf I am pretty certain nearly all would give anything to change their circumstances; and more than that the circumstances of their children.
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
People are scared of change. It's natural. They said the same about phones and cars, vaccines and antibiotics, and even writing... Everything is dangerous to these people. Don't worry. Progress will come. I'm hoping so, as i have a rare and frightening autoimmune disease that basically eats my body, and a history of them in my family. Gene editing would mean people wouldn't have to go through the pain I'm going through even if it doesn't help me.
@@braddo7270 it's not that we shouldn't have or use it, its just that it should be under the most stringent legislation imaginable. Or the alternative is a nightmare beyond imagination
@@suedenim6590 whatever nightmare you imagine I assure you history can display worse.
Yeah, I think that assuming gene editing becomes so advanced that we can edit out hereditary diseases, genetic disorders and birth defects without negative unintended consequences I think we owe it to our offspring and descendants that we edit those genetic defects out. After all, nobody asks to be born. Therefore, when we decide to bring new people into the world we owe it to them to give them the best start possible to the best life possible.
An actual discussion of the risks of gene editing is completely missing here.
Why would they if they're being paid to push an agenda. First comes gene editing, next comes selective breeding, next comes eugenics (population control)
They do not care as long as they gain Transhumanism which is Satan’s plan to ruin God’s creation.
@@kittycat8222 cry about it.
@@KossolaxtheForesworn the tears are for those who deny the truth.
@@kittycat8222 oooh I love your title creation!!
Healing deafness is "controversial." Give me a break (:
Bioconservatism is the enemy!!
I honestly feel like the is similar to the myth of the Titanic - it was call the ship that would never sink. You really think that they can make people never deaf? I think she was just low key trying to say, don't use us as an excuse to experiment on people....
@@bpavilion8994 What an intellectually inferior person! If there is no experimentation, how can we know it is healing deaf people? Have you ever heard of trial-and-error? You might wanna read about this when it comes to medicine. Besides, if parents agreed to medical experimentation, the same way cancer patients agree to new drugs, the same way some people agree to donate their corpses to be studied after they die, what's the harm in that?
And your comparison with the Titanic is laughable. Geriatrics will never stop amazing me.
GM tech can also used as weapons targeting certain groups of ppl , racial , age, gene cleansing … for political and geopolitical warfare
They see themselves as Jesus christ or John the baptise.
I'm truly baffled by anyone that thinks gene editing correcting certain hereditary disabilities is wrong. Why wouldn't you want people to live to their full potential? Nobody is going to "dissolve" you as people for simply allowing others the opportunity you didn't have. That logic alone implies that you value more the sense of community given by that disability rather than a person's individual rights and choices. That isn't a community, that is a cult.
It was a bit strange, as if deafness were a positive trait and needed to be saved from eradication.
u fckn idiot.. they are using hereditary disabilities as their main ethical campaign to gloss over other more less ethical applications that are more akin to eugenicist agendas, further degrading our quality of food through technology and lab chemicals and so on. Nothing postitve here. Ppl need to analyse things not just with their heads but with their hearts and 6th sense
Agree.
People cannot understand each other, just imagine. Try to imagine what another sense feels like, impossible.
If there are no deaf people. she'll lose her job. She needs them
that lady who wanted to stop the gene editing for curing deafness carries way too many genes for selfishness
Don’t you think it’s selfish to genetically modify Gods creation without knowing of the long term repercussion to others?
@@ShepherdMinistry It would be more selfish if you DON'T make anything knowing you'll bring an ill human being into this world even though you have the option to not eliminate the disseases.
@@ShepherdMinistry Should we give diabetics insulin?
@@ShepherdMinistry do you consider syndromes and diseases god’s creation?
@@crashbunks We know that doesn’t cause long term problems. Giving insulin is not altering genes.
15:40 Wait a minute, and not trying to offend anyone here, but are there really people out there who would argue against the elimination of genetic disorders such as Down syndrome? Why anyone would want another human being to endure this is beyond me. Do they know the huge amounts of energy, time and money that are involved in properly taking care of a child with Down syndrome? It is certainly no joke, not for the kid, nor for the parents.
Moreover, surely people can see the difference between "exterminating" people with Down syndrome and *preventing* people with Down syndrome from being born. The former is eugenics and social Darwinism whereas the latter is a proper use technological progress.
I'm sorry but "preventing people with down syndrome from being born" is the essence of Eugenics.
Because wokism dude.
There was an outrage a few years ago because island had no down sydrom case for more than a dacade. I'm happy for the islandic families that they have a choice and all diagnostics are covered by public health care!
It's the same logic as the so-called "fatphobia". If you try to lose weight, your are fatphobia, lol
@@kunikloy477not really. No one is saying we should discriminate against people with genetic diseases or be phobic of them. Simply help cure the diseases. The equivalent would be *opposing* using this technology to alter genes responsible for a genetic predisposition to obesity eg those involved in hormonal/appetite/impulse regulation.
As a person with genetic disease I am all for this. But everything has to be done in moderation. If the child would be born sick fix it but not if the only thing you want to fix is your childs eye color for aestetics. Unless health would be compromised in a minor I say let every person decide if they want it or not. Its their body after all.
Learning how to CRISPR yourself isn't that hard.
There are people today who do plastic surgery to change their appearance. It comes with the technology. But if everyone is smarter and kinder and stronger, this problem could not exist, with people being serene and culture being beneficial.
Yeah, there are concerns but also likely necessary. We pretty much did with crops mainly to resist toxic pesticides and various diseases. Who would want a child that is diabetic and cancerous resistant or diabetes free... make me wish to have that myself. But of course, there will be setbacks and flaws in the process... don't know what it'll be but still... We should give it a shot.
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
@@suedenim6590 Well then the answer is surelly going back to our caves and never ever using fire. Since all technology can be misused.
The public is not aware/educated enough yet to properly interface with GMO and technology like it. But, the public wants the benefits.
We want to be lied to. We prefer it over education. Because education is hard work. But, we also refuse to be ignored.
No you're not educated enough to fully understand the opposition to GMO's since you rely on media that is privately funded and paied to make documentary like this one that manipulates you into thinking what you think. One of their best tricks lately has been to make you think that your poorly informed opinion was the mark of being highly educated. GMO's are a probelm and a threat for many reason , the main one would be the complete licencing of crops and living things.
You got it backwards, people aren't educated and simply buy into whatever they hear as layman truth. Like woke is the new bad like term progressive was.
Its so much better, there is no reason not to. Its 99% plus, 1% minus.
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Richard Lewontin
Professor of Genetics/Harvard
They've been modifying the weather and climate for seven decades. That is what
climate change is, intentional, shocking part is so much time later people still don't see what's going on over their heads.
This.
What about the thousands of years of experience with radically changing DNA with selective breading? Why would that be different? What about the decades of experience with GMO?
Anti-GMO arguments sound like anti-vaxxers': what if there are side effect,...something about scientists paid by corporations...science is bad...
@@FranFerioli Don't throw that dumb anti-science accusation around blindly. It shows your own ignorance of the subject matter, ironically.
I'll explain, if you have a scientific mind.
Imagine, from your point of view and outwards, other rooms, then streets, trillions of leaves, plants, trees, birds, electromagnetic waves, gravity fields flowing through and through, air, animals, interplanetary energy waves, an infinite upon infinite sea of processes................. all PERFECTLY connected and balanced as one.
As above.
Now try to perceive the exact same vasteness within... Every. Single. Atom/Cell. Of. Every Single. Universe.
So when Nature makes change, it does so in balance with the infinite.
We make changes that usually balance out until the tip of our nose, because we can't perceive beyond a certain point the ripples of those changes.
So you must be VERY careful when dealing with the planetary sciences...
For example, currently we're considering slowing the Earth's rotation down "for science benefits."
But on the other side, if the planet's rotation is actually reversed, it would fulfill a Doomsday-trigger. "That day, the Sun will rise from the West, instead of the East. That is the day all the portals to repentance will be closed."
So, scientifically sincere individuals would usually pause and ponder for a very long time before they press buttons on the cosmic switchboard like Dee-Dee in Dexter's Lab.
@@firsthre3e2second Yep, just like anti-vaxxers: gibberish. It's not the cosmic switchboard: we have doing for thousands of years with selective breading.
If you have a scientific paper published in a top-tier, peer-review scientific journal proving harmful effect of GMOs, link it.
If you don't, after decades of using GMOs, you don't have a point.
The whole "deaf community" thing is just absurd imo, any reasonable person would agree that curing diseases is a positive change. What will be much more controversial though, is when we'll be able to change things that are related to race/ethnicity, hair or eye color for example. Imagine a gene editing tech that can change black hair: some black women pay money to get straight hair, maybe some of them would want that? Then there will probably be a big controversy about whether people should gene-edit out some characteristics of their race, or whether those characteristics should be normalised/accepted instead.
....."curing diseases is a positive change." But is it really "positive" if you eliminate one disease, which will then have to be replaced by another disease ? You can't eliminate disease entirely, we need diseases, as humans are here to suffer as well, not just enjoy themselves.
This is perhaps the essence of why we have Covid. Too many other diseases(including the Flu) were apparently disappearing.
black woman geting straight hair is not a problem , they already do this, white women curls their hair also. The problem will be when they enhance IQ and physical capacities, what will happen to the people born one year before the practice, or anyone born outside of the market. You'll have to pay to make a "super babie" , only elites will be able too , and you'll get two classes of human beings. This is what they plan on doing, don't get mistaken. They will own human reproduction.
@@backintimealwyn5736 They won't need the working classes once the fully autonomous robots become 100% fully operational. In fact 20 or 30 years from now robots will start designing themselves too.
I don't understand why race deniers care so much about modification on superficial traits when they don't even pretend to be interested in them. Why don't let just people decide what features they want to get?
@@user-it5po2dq9w exactly
"This kind of community needs to continue ; we can't continue if we have the threat of dissolving us as a people" - quote from the deaf bioethicist.
Like always, everyone will protect themselves/their community, no matter the cost to others (like the kids that the bioethicist seems to want to be born deaf?? or the whole ecosystem we spray dead because of the mosquitoes??)
You can increase the amount of times you walk to the well, or make it deeper every year. Or you invent desalination. The one that doesn't invent anything protects their community by going to journalists, complaining about the risks of the invention.
l
@@danieldewilson I honestly feel like this is similar to the myth of the Titanic - it was call the ship that would never sink. You really think that they can make people never deaf? I think she was just low key trying to say, don't use us as an excuse to experiment on people....
@b pavilion gene therapy and cell regeneration are very much close to being available to people. I disagree. I think that they understandably don't want to part with their identity and community that they have embraced. I think that's silly. They can soon regain their sense of hearing but decide to push back based on fear of losing a social part of their lives. They can feel free not to get the therapy, but pushing back may rob others of their opportunity to hear again. All ailments with organs that are being targeted, not just hearing. Those without the ability to hear are not the only people who will benefit from having their damaged organs and bad health addressed by these therapies. We will soon be able to cure disability entirely.
@@danieldewilson You really believe that they want to use this to help ill humans to cure them? Or are they using this as an excuse to experiment on humans under the disguise of helping others in order to make money? You really can't tell anymore, because look at how long they've had the cure for cancer...
Plus the gmo foods that they have made, are they really contributing to hungry or are they just making people more sick? Starting to notice that a lot of people and getting allergic to foods they haven't been allergic to before... I use to could eat peanuts, now it's causing autoimmune problems...
@@bpavilion8994 You're far too cynical for me to feel like this is worth my time. I've spent years following trends in tech and there are mant different companies that are working in helping people. The cure for cancer hasn't actually existed before. That's a conspiracy theory.
My only concern is the fact that this technology moves so fast, and there is a lot of chance for error. We don't know far more than what we do, when it comes to genome sequencing. When I started my masters 5 years ago we used Sage a lot. They don't even teach people about it now, because it is already redundant technology. It is just happening so fast, without enough checks and balances. That is the problem.
what do you use now?
I find that a bit moot considering that there are so many checks with exhaustive research before any medical technologies are used in the field.
Also, there are many volatile treatments that people take in order to stave off disease or treat a condition. Like anything you work to minimize risk and present people with the option and then let them make an informed decision.
But to say there aren't enough checks and balances within medicine....this is why trials exist, papers, research, medical boards, and governing bodies.
No , it's not!!!
It's more than fear... It is a reasonable skepticism. Emphasizing the benefits doesn't mean they know what they are doing... Epigenetic research is still relatively new and the number of variables is still not known.
sounds more like absurd irrational fear of growth and progress.
its like when they invented trains. "no this is evil, women become hysteric and have miscarriages, we need to ban trains immediately!!!!"
Time to take risks for progress. It's never simple
Neo luddites . And what are the ethics of not curing deafness for those who want it, because others feel it makes them special? Has the Economist done a deep dive behind the scenes of the opposition to gene editing? Look to see if group or persons are coordinating the opposition and what their motives may be?
The solution for the impossible mathematics of death is more research and more policy on developments. Apease the fear and promote scientific advancements.
They mean in scenarios where it affects most people regardless of whatever like the mosquito thing will affect people who want it and those who don’t and they believe it a important to consent and regulate which I agree with. I think however in severe scenarios like in africa with starvation, we just need to supply when with the gmo food but the Individual most be consent and be educated the food their are eating. Most priority the poor wouldn’t care and would just eat it whether gmo or not I think most or all will say yes. And for eradication of disease, they should eradicate it but consent need to come when it reaches the individual if they want it
If your dog dies and you have it cloned is it the same dog? What if your child dies and you have it cloned is it the same child? Wheres the line with gene editing? In just a single generation, the rich will all be super healthy "super people" with the poor being disease ridden messes over time getting horrendously worse and the rich conversely better ending in a different species. Crispr is a gun in the hands of a toddler
Mr. H from Germany liked eugenics too. This would cause a massive divide between those who can and cannot afford this eugenics process, eventually an upper-class people with no disabilities vs lower-class population full of them in comparison. Yes let's make a class of perfect people to reign over the disabled masses.....
@@forposterity4031 it will be cheap in a few decades.
I have been consuming few fruits like Papaya, new varients have come in market with long shelf life & different shape & colour & taste. But old variety which existed 3 to 5 decades ago has simply vanished which had juicy soft pulp & very high sweetness & distinct flavor. Recently I have purchased 100 kg of Rice called JIRGA & Ghansal variety, semi-polished, from Kolhapur & Kokan region of Maharashtra of INDIA, This variety is ancient Has Government GI (Geographical Identification) Tag, Taste & aroma of Indian Basmati rice is too second to it. Look at the grapes, Grapes with seeds no one grows & sells & will vanish slowly. Same holds true for older corn varieties, now you get only Sweet Corn,
So go ahead with technology but preserve & produce old varieties too.
Right! Yes bring back seeds in my fruit!
It is hard to know how to connect your comment with genetic modification. None of the things you said, even if they are true, has any connection with genetic engineering.
I bought a GMO bread 3.5 months ago still in it's ORIGINAL PACKAGING sitting on top of my counter looking as if I bought it yesterday, no mold. Bet it will be here after we humans are annihilated and GMO robots or AI takes over.
@@charlesmrader And you know this how?
Natural genetic variety and diversity will be our salvation. Not GMOs.
Nothing is ever free.
Nothing is ever perfect.
Everything has a cause & effect.
Nothing is ever free- then learn how to make it on your own
Nothing is ever perfect- trial and error has always existed
Everything has a cause and effect. Not every effect has a bad outcome.
"gene editing" of sorts has been here for some time. like 15:43 in iceland they have practically removed down syndrome with abortion screening. women themselves wanted so, no government forcing of any kind is involved.
Screening out a generic defect is noble idea, But next steps like choosing hair or eye color. Or even racial features definitely on road to ethical suicide.
Are all Icelanders perfect now? Blind hired blue eyed with no criminal tendencies??
That’s not gene editing, that’s eugenics… exterminating certain groups of people based on particular characteristics.
That's not gene editing though. Gene editing is changing the genes that are problematic... Not eliminating the person all together. Abortion is just the choice to not have the baby at all. Gene editing could actually hypothetically save babies like that by fixing their chromosomes.
That isn't gene editing, that's aborting the baby who has down syndrome so that the baby with is is never born in the first place. It takes out the baby with down syndrome altogether, it never cures it, it just kills the child who has it.
I think we’ve already crossed that ethical dilemma. It’s all out of control.
What is unacceptable about gmos is that they can be patented, and small farmers can be and do get sued if those patented seeds end up in their field and they sell food from it. Often times, the seeds blew over from a neighboring gmo filled field! Patenting these things is evil. A lot of these seeds have been altered to never give seeds as well so that farmers are forced to buy new seeds every year. Farmers are already in crisis and every year it gets worse for them.
When I first heard this story, I was shocked about how unfair it was. Only later did I learn that it was simply not true, a made up piece of propaganda. Here's how I know that.
There's an organization called Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA). They claimed (accurately or not, I don't know) that many of their customers were reluctant to buy seeds from their member companies, because they were afraid that they would be sued if patented GMO crops accidentally showed up in their fields. (Right off, there are numerous patented plants that are not GMO plants, but there doesn't seem to have been a rash of farmers being sued when they show up accidentally. ) OSGATA demanded that Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds, make a pledge to never sue farmers when GMOs accidentally show up in their fields. Monsanto made such a pledge, but with the reservation that they could still bring suit when the evidence was very strong that it was cheating, not accident, that the GMO plants were in the farmer's field. Then OSGATA sued Monsanto.
When the judge was hearing the case, he asked OSGATA's lawyer if he could give an example of such a lawsuit by Monsanto against an innocent farmer. Anyone would expect that the lawyer, preparing his case, would answer that question. OSGATA itself, in numerous press conferences, names such (apparently phony) cases. But lying in court could get a lawyer disbarred. So he said that he knew of no such lawsuits. The judge then dismissed the case.
That by itself convinced me that the story of the unfair lawsuits was fake. But it went further. It is clear that OSGATA never expected or intended to win its lawsuit, but was suing to get its fake story before the public. So they appealed the dismissal to a higher court. More changes for press coverage - about innocent farmers victimized by a large and powerful corporation. The judge in that appeal upheld the dismissal, but he did something else. He declared that suing a farmer for accidental presence of a patented crop would be illegal. So, in losing its case, OSGATA actually got what they claimed they wanted. But what they really wanted was more publicity, more news conferences and press releases to spread the fake tale even further. So they appealed again, to the US Supreme Court, which declined to accept the appeal.
Yes we should be worried. We do not know the long term implications or even side effects. There will always be consequences.
Even if we are worried, technology can't be stopped. If Europe or US makes a rule to slow down technological process, China will do it. If China stops it, then Russia will do it. If Russia stops it, then Japan will do it. There's not stop in technological advancement.
Probably true. I hope you have a high IQ then.
True. But we can implement limits on technology. Think about how humanity developed rules and restrictions about chemical and nuclear weapons after the world wars. I just hope it doesn't take millions of deaths to get the that point with new technologies.
Yup unless it is outlawed at UN or something it will be a disadvantage technology and economically for a country to not having it
Not only that. CRISPR is very cheap, anyone with 50k USD can turn his/her kitchen into a laboratory. CAS9 is cheaper than chicken protein today.
It is better to advance research in all fronts, with policy, than turn a blind eye and hope NIMBY will stop the process.
@@AJX-2 I think that the non-use of nuclear and chemical weapons is primarily caused by the current world system (we are living in the most peaceful time in history), where everyone depends on international supply chains and wars between top-tier nations don't happen. Just look at a map from 1980 and now, and you will realize that nations basically don't conquer each other anymore. But without a globalized economic system (and someone acting as a "global policeman") it will become the norm again for nations to cannibalize each other. Once that happens, I don't think using gas and nukes will be unthinkable any more (it will fall out of someone's desperation about not getting conquered).
The biggest issue is unforseen or unintended consequences. These could potentially be deadly or cause severe damage to society. We need to tread very carefully and thoughtfully.
Right. Now consider this. Millions die every year from malaria, 500k children. Every year.
What ecological catastrophe justifies not using GMO mosquitos? What could be that potential damage to society, even death?
While we tread carefully, millions more die. What moral ground justifies not acting right now?
By the time you finish to read this, 5 more died.
We need to not go through with this because we will cause death and damage to society with this technology. Humans are geniuses in one sense but idiots in another sense. We can create ground breaking technology, but we cannot see the unintended consequences. This happens all the time. This technology is far too dangerous.
I don't understand how these could be deadly if they are for some sort treating various disease of certain individual, and augmenting the life of disabled people.
@@Zenith6000 You could accidently create man made prions or a super disease like transmissible cancer. Crispr's being used for tooth regrowth and hair loss treatment research atm, the problem is keeping it localised to the target area and not letting it become systemic and having unintended consequences for the patient like teeth growing on their femurs. The technology has the potential to make people biologically immortal but there's a reason it was the inspiration for the t-virus in resident evil.
If I could afford, I would totally edit my child. I don't care about the ethics behind this. I want the child to be born with whatever advantages it would bring her or him.
You have the point, but eventually only the rich and powerful can afford it .
Yuck
We also need Gene editing for Corruption and hypocrisy in our society.
Gene edition will never harm people as much as video editing and press editing. Change my mind
This is a great topic, however, it barely scratches the surface. I would suggest to read Code Breaker by Isaac. It’s one of the most comprehensive yet technically researched book about gene editing and CRISPR, albeit, more focus on Doudna but most of the people that interview on this video where also there.
Ethics is the last thing they will think of when it comes to the needs of poor people who struggle to have something to eat or die with some easily avoidable disease. The "ethical" discussions are rich and healthy people game, for they do not suffer the results of famine and early death threats today. There shall be better regulations? Yes. But we have to speed up solutions and make them available for those who really require them.
By the way, congratulations on the excellent video. It's very informative.
The reason why people are starving is not because of a lack of food, it's because of greed...
@@bpavilion8994 thats also a factor but if we could produce crops that grow faster, require less care and are pest resistant, they would be sold at a lower price, enabling poor people to afford them. Religion is a huge factor in anti-gmo beliefs and its gone far enough. I've always disliked religion but not curing people's diseases because of it is too far.
@@krishmalhotratalks They seem to forget that science has gotten us farther than religion.
@@shadowslayer9988 they seem to forget that in the medieval age when most people believed in religion (most prominently islam and christianity) the infant mortality rate was at least 30% (low estimate). So if we did not have vaccines and develop hospitals to give birth in they would likely be dead.
How ethical were governors, hospital admin & doctors and Health debts in America when they began stuffing older people into civil infested senior care homes??? How ethical are Moderna & Pfizer scientists & Dr. FAUCI, CDC, FDA for allowing mRNA in vaccines for supposed covid viruses pandemic??? We not buying any of it.
With all due respect to that deaf professor. But any disability is a disease that needs to be cured.
I mean, isn't it a great thing learning that one day cancer communities won't exist, shouldn't it be the same with deafness?
Amen.
I imagine it would not be preferable for all those specialising in cancer treatment. Some industries make profits from unfortunate happenings, that the disappearance of such issues seems like a threat for them.
@@oktgrc structural unemployment is inevitable. It hapenned to the luddites, it must happen as well to big pharma and related industries...
Ableism at its finest 😑
How can you compare deafness to cancer. Deaf people have their own language and culture. They have some minor inconveniences but are not suffering. Many deaf people are proud of their unique perspective of the world.
I’m sorry that such research might end the need for institutions that cater to people with certain disabilities but there is a difference between accepting imperfections in others vs opposing elimination of these conditions. Being deaf is not akin to being a member of a racial group or gender. It’s a defect that this technology can cure.
Did you see the part that reads " combating climate change, “
We’ve hears the song and danced the dance about curing disease and cancer for decades, this is eugenics not for the betterment of man, this is for transhumanism to control people remotely and connect them to the IoB. It’s not too difficult to see that this is a deceptive attempt at a social engineered consent, get the people to demand it.
“ gene-editing technologies have the potential to transform lives. “
Transform them into what? Of course you all sell the positive twist, when it’s about transhumanism turn man into a machine
Late bloomer to Yotube eh, Doctor Nov 14, 2020
@@msheart2
Being on YT early is nothing to be proud of. It’s like saying I started using drugs years ago.
@@msheart2
They are doing wonderful things with mental health treatment!
Can anxiety disorders be cured by altering genes? If so I'll be a big fan of genetic engineering.
This video is so nice, very informative
Why not? It's true that stress comes from environment and would always be there but how much body is potent to handle it definitely comprises of genes as a factor
Absolutely, it also can be designed to target certain groups of ppl with mild or severe mental illness and wipe them out to reduce governments’ financial burden
@@blessnorthamerica7919 they would probably start with you
@@user-it5po2dq9w it’s just dNA technology facts , only ppl have mental health issues like you take it personal.
How is it different from brushing teeth? One can say that is also an artificial way invented by humas to make their teeth last longer.
Am a 25 year old addicted to watching documentary. Please bring more
Same
THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTRY! THIS video is a soft propaganda tool to desensitize people. What happened to cancer cure
There's simply no way possible that you can squeeze Climate Change into a discussion about genetics. And yet they succeeded.
UN Agenda 21/30
If you have some sort of illness that literally differentiates you from others, then you will for sure agree to this. People who don't live a day to day life being different won't understand, how genetically passed down disease can alter one's behavior. Your competence is always overshadowed by the illness. People thinking you have princess attitude just because you can't do certain things, or even not being able to eat sugary things even moderately if not your whole body will suffer. They got lucky and try to sabotage the unlucky. That's sad.
Couldn't have said it better. It's worse when they downplay your experiences with discrimination like oh it can't be that bad or I'm sure it's just you overimagining.
I really like the Golden Rice and malaria-free mosquitoes ideas. That could save so many people. And I don't feel it's as "threatening" as GMing humans.
GMO is threatening the ecosystem.....but apparently toxic pesticides are not......
Golden rice failed.
@@marcelpatrick9982 The first time I READ ABOUT THAT, I saw a potential flaw. Many people in poor countries eat A LOT of rice. Some eat barely anything but rice.
Vitamin A is not a vitamin that you can take as much of as you want. It is fat souluable, which means that while not getting it is bd, getting to much can been even worse, causing liver toxicity.
You can control the dose in vitamin pills. But it's not so easy when it is in your main source of food.
@@marcelpatrick9982
Golden rice didn‘t really „fail“, the plants did what they were supposed to perfectly fine.
It‘s just that apparently the plan and it‘s problems weren’t very well thought through.
Whats the cause? Were seeing the effect
To be honest, my garden-grown vegetables tasted a lot better than the supermarket GMO vegetables. It had a bit more flavour and was sweeter.
I think the flaver has more too do with the fact it was fresher.
I agree, there is a huge difference in the way they taste.
Way more nutritious, for me life changing. Home grown veggies became my medicine.
*( The GMO Produce i've Had Was · "TasteLess" ···· {If-Not·°￦ORSE} - & Have BasicaLLy *NO NutritionaL~VaLue ! ) 😕🙊😴 €¥£ ^
Unless you're getting seeds from an old original source, you're eating GMOs. I believe over 80% seeds worldwide are GMO now. Even if you did happen to get GMO free seeds, there's no guarantees your plants weren't cross pollinated with GMO plants that are everywhere.
Taste shouldn't be affected anyway. All GMO means is that the plant was bred to be a certain way ... No different than breeding domestic animals we eat & have as pets. Home gardeners can do their own GMO process... They do all the time by cross pollination, saving the seeds, splicing, etc.
In spite of what they say in public, I expect the most aggressive nations to secretly experiment with gene editing and perhaps pursue the unthinkable.
Well, what do you think the plandemic was all about?
@@RosyOutlook2 another idiot. Go back to your ignorance cave and grunt at your family more
If all doctors in human history would have done only things that are safe and that don't go against mainstream opinions, then our medical development would be somewhere in 1900s level or worse. Nowadays people have forgotten how many thousands have died to save millions today.
This remember the doctor who suggested washing your hands before handling a birth lost his licence
I agree.
There are millions of researches ongoing in the world. How many must go through people's review and acceptance? Who should decide and based on what criteria? I think those are key questions to answer first before designing a more targeted campaign to educate people. I wouldn't go down the path that for any research, we must first get acceptance from people, but at the same time i would emphasize on the role and responsibilities of the researchers.
Most research is based on making a profit. He was only concerned about making a banana resistant to disease, not how that change to the fruit's dna will affect humans after humans consume it. Don't believe that they care about human hunger.
@@bpavilion8994 we know how DNA works though. its not as if the DNA will magically start producing some evil poison.
To answer your question, when a scientist wants to publish their results they usually send them to a journal. The journal then reaches out to several scientists in the relevant field who then review the data and establish if the experiments done were rigorous enough for the claims being made (this is the peer-review process). If the data is accepted, it is published and shared. However, these days almost anyone can set up a journal via a website and publish whatever they want. This data may or may not be reviewed.
This is all to say that reputable sources of information ensure that the facts are straight (or at least make an honest attempt), and so the data is usually trustable.
why....do you think the people typing comments here...know how the coding behind the algorithm works...many probably don't even know how to fix a system bug.....they still use it right?.....so what's this excuse about educating everyone....do people how farming works?...they still eat right?.....taking opinion on scientific research from the average person belonging to any of these vocal groups is akin to explaining quantum computing to a chimpanzee....both their opinions or thoughts on the matter are worthless....they dont want it dont use it as simple as that!!...
@@waleedkhalid7486 taking public opinion is VERY VERY different than the peer review process you described......people having contrary opinions need to be PEERS!!!....researchers/PHD holders on the subject....not some random high school drop out on the street...holding a sign!!!
I am completely in favor for gene editing. I am not afraid. Its seems to be the only real cure for cancer.
Exactly
Cancer is cell poisoning which the evil 👿 sellling you this death have been doing for decades for money power and the devil 👿
Cancer and many other chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, alzheimers) can already be prevented and even cured using just four simple and cheap practices: sleep well; eat healthy; exercise regularly; and fast occasionally.
Human with no genetic defects or illness are not allowed to judge and decide for us to reject the chance to remove those serious medical conditions that we suffered.
They don't understand the pain we grow up with and the desire to be separated from such illness.
Unfortunately that is absolutely not true but the opposite. Please check out GMO corn and the need of special Pestizides in Latin America. The impact is dramatically and not in favor to the the farmers nor the people in general. It’s only all about money. Besides - there are plenty of other kinds of bananas.
The farmers don't matter. We're moving away from the old world. Genetic engineering would change the course of the world forever. Curing diseases, life extension, animals with more meat in them, etc.. none of these things bring harm to us. GMO has no proven risk to human health. If it is done correctly, nothing will happen to a human. You eat animals that have genetic changes in them due to evolution. Bacteria in your stomach constantly have evolutionary changes and some become resistant to medicines. Changing genes is just accelerating evolution.
@@abel3557 Your are confusing gene modification with evolution. There are risks in gene modifictaion and a lot of them are proven. There are also fields gene modification might be useful for instant fight micro plastic. But for sure GMO corn, GMO wheat, tomatoes and so one are none go those. It's proven that the soil is bleeding out due to extensive use of customized pesticides and fertilizers, that it is disastrous for insects and human beings who are forced to work with it. Also the social implications since the farmers or who ever you call them in the new world are depending on the big corporates. Monsanto lost several cases in court exactly dealing with this problems.
@@katrinweigel1044 gene modification is simply rapid evolution. Evolution is very random. Bacteria constantly evolve to survive antibiotics when it's used on them. Nearly all of them will die but some will rarely have a genetic mutation that lets them handle it. It's the same thing here but now we can harness these modifications at will and not at random
@@katrinweigel1044 pesticides and fertilizers are used for any plant. Gmos do not have a single proven negative effect on human health unless you already had allergies to the vegetable. Gmos do not harm the soil either. It actually allows for pesticides that do not harm the soil to be used.
Controversial take: what’s the issue with gene editing to increase intelligence? (if the tech is equally distributed). Society is already unfair, and people with higher cognitive abilities have a massive advantage at accumulating wealth. Additionally, imagine how many diseases we could cure and lives we could save if we were smarter
True. That is very well explained in the book “The Meritocracy Trap”. However I imagine allowing gene editing would widen the gap even more, as this would be obviously accessible only to the very rich.
Balance
@@ev.c6 I agree with you that gene editing could result in an even greater divide between the rich and poor. That’s a serious risk we need to address. However, it will be very hard to stop everyone around the world. I imagine a ban could result in the creation of a black market, which might make the treatments even more inaccessible for the poor. I think we should focus on distributing this technology as quickly and equally as possible (once it is safe and reliable enough)
@@ev.c6 E camilo, having all the rich being smart individuals is better than no one having it at all.
If you have the technology to make your kids smarter you should do it. Not doing so is higly unetical in my view..
Designer babies, ...all these genetic modifications 🤔
Interesting enough, we have no long term research on the affect on humans...not to mention epi genetics that has a profound effect on everything.
I wonder what is in those vaccines ppl took that I didn’t take lol crazy times we living in
it's better to take the chance of not being handicapped anyway
I would be very worry because one thing is for certain, just like taxes and death, humans always mess things up.
Always. Can't be trusted like I can trust my dog but not another human especially scientists since we know too many who done wrong to mankind.
I think you are providing us with proof that humans always mess things up. That's what you are doing now.
We were abusing this thing before it was even a cover story.
That's why we're so against genetic modification.
If I had the ability to make sure my child is born without any genetic defects, I’m going to exercise that ability.
Than do´t have any, adopt. Way too many kids are starving for love abandoned.
@@BJKage Eh. I’d rather have my own.
@@lamontpeterson5193 You´re just selfish, like most people are. Why do you need the child to have your genes are you someone very special, with some incredible genetic pool? Even the famous people like Lionel Ritchie, Anjelina Jolie adopted kids in need and Angelina has some genes to give next generation. Just look at her offsprings, just the way they look. I have fostered a child and there´s no difference between blood and not blood. I was lonely father with two kids one blood and one not, there was no diference, only the boy who doesn´t have my blood is healthy in every way. Both kids are smart, but my daughter has all the genetic issues I gave her and it´s pretty bad, If I was young again and knew what I know now, I would not have any kids of my own. Watching your one of your kids suffer because you gave them life and know the next generation will have it the same. I am autistic, need blood thinners if ill and she has ADHD and every pregnancy need daily injection of blood thinners. The older grandson is autistic and younger has ADHD. My son is healthy, he only has genetic eye condition when he used to need very strong glasses and as he grew older and older they ware less and less needed. As an adult he has vision 20/20. His eyes weren´t developed properly and there´s a chance his own kid would have the same. He is with girl, that has Bipolar in family and other mental issues, she herself has clinical depressions, so they do not plan to have their genetic kids. It´s very responsible of them and at the end it really doesn´t matter.
@@BJKage Sure. Some people adopt and others don’t. I happen to fall in the camp of people who don’t or wouldn’t adopt. Nothing wrong with that.
I am so excited to get into gene editing I hope the science doesn't move too fast. I want to go into it.
no matter how fast the science goes, genetics are a gigantic field that will take humanity it‘s time to understand, so you‘ll be alright.
We are still along long way from perfecting genetics so I wouldn’t worry
GMO mosquitos can save 500k children every year from dying.
On what moral terms anyone can say we mustn't do it?
What ecological catastrophe, what human harm, what suffering justifies not taking action on CRISPR scissors and save million upon millions of human beings??
COVID-19 is too genetically modified. Although proper caution is observed, you never know, upside down or downside up. Anything can happen.
Well, most people in the western world have had a taste of this gene editing technology already.
didn't bill gates fund that mosquito project❔
These people are absolutely lost. Their plot is so sickening!!!
Yes it is, they are basically putting feelers out and using this as apart of an engineered consent operation. Much like they did with Thunberg.
Note they speak of climate change, as our weather and climate is modified and controlled and has been since the mid 1940s.
Its amazing to me that there is backlash over this??? Almost as if it’s more profitable to live with mutations than to eradicate them. No other way around it. I cannot think of a single other argument.
3 things: great content but I feel the screen-shake-transition was not needed, it would be great to see names of people talking in text at the bottom of the video, and it would be nice to see references to the research in "show more" or as text in the video w/ dates.
Very much 100% this.
I'd use it to change my eye and hair color. 😂
Because why not?
But in all seriousness, gene editing should be used to treat genetic diseases.
What about if u have genetic female or male hair loss
@@kevinsamson1693 Then that's edited. You can genetically edit allopecia out of your genetic code.
@@Subject82 not happy with the way you're made??
@@Lavasparked I don't have alopecia.
@@Lavasparked if you edit alopecia out of your genetic code, you could have something much worse. What are you gonna do keep editing?
"Science never solves a problem without creating ten more." George Bernard Shaw
That goes for the Model T Ford, the problems that have arisen from cars are countless, we only hear about the benefits, adverts to buy more are suffocating.
THANK YOU... YOU ARE THE ONLY VOICE OF REASON AND WISDOM ON HERE. The rest of the ppl commenting here are a bunch of brain dead, non critical fools who are the most programmed and foooled
It solves way more problems than it creates. Just look at our lifespans and compare them to those of people some 100 years ago.
Really? Tell that to women from over 100 years ago that died from childbirth. Or to cancer survivors. Or to generations that didn't have to go through polio.
I don't understand these weird anti science opinions, while the same 9/10 people writing them wouldn't cut it in the past... Or might not even have been born at all. Sitting at home, using the internet, using electricity, etc., Without having to live in a tent, but yeah, science = nothing but bad 🙄
Like all technological breakthroughs this will be used and abused for various reasons, most of which will have to do with money. Fascinating video.
Very dangerous developments
Biologically, I think it is very dangerous because the original genes for a person have already been established. Trying to change or tamper that into something different I believe can disrupt and possibly severely damage the whole structure built around the original genes; immune system, organs, blood streams, etc.
But then an argument would be for the sake of people born with disorders that shorten their lifespan.
Overall there is a pro and con to everything.
But then again it is up to the person interested in gene editing.
You are right.
I agree I think it’s only going to work if the gene of a human is edited from the egg
You're very correct about safety concern. And you should know this is the only ethic that is really keeping this tech go mainstream. But when it's safe enough, you would experience its use skyrocketing
You're kinda wrong, changing a tiny section of a gene won't cause that much of a problem most of the time and definitely doesn't have a ripple effect like you make it out to be.
@@gorbachevspizzahut the many failed human trials since the 90's says differently.
This video doesn't feature any discussion or information on the technology at all it is just a marketing piece for people who would stand to profit from it, not necessarily in the interest of the general population.
People are concerned but yet got vaccinated for COVID which have the mRNA doing the same thing to their body !
Not a vaccine, gene therapy!
An objective video would equally present both sides of the story. This is mainly gene-editing propaganda, promoting 90% the benefits and kind of disregarding or even kind of ridiculing the concerns.
Exactly! Thank you!
Someone finally educated enough to be aware of the issues.
These comments really make me think that humanity is doomed.
Governments and scientists will go as far as they want. No use worrying about it.
A key factor to accelerating this technology is getting the risk factor related to performing the procedure significantly below the risk of the faulty genes expressing illness. For example: robotic automation of the procedure may increase accuracy. Every failure in gene editing will cause huge social backlash so must be minimized. Move fast and break things does not apply here- sorry zuckerberg
Do you know much about CRISPR GENE EDITING ?
@@Mr.Goldenc I know about Crispr. It`s the tofu made in Taiwan.
Unbelievable that some deaf people want to prevent curing babies from deafness, just so they will have a larger cohort of deaf people for their community.
This is brilliant and what we need! Let's do this right now. What are we leaving all the works and the privileges to the future generations? Now is the time!! I'm sure it will keep going better then yesterday everyday!!
What disturbs me is the way that Genetic technology is the only solution to climate change and problems around agriculture, how about agriculture itself such as the failures of monoculture etc. A bit myopic in my opinion
There's no solution to climate change. Don't be deceived
@@verlania7539 of course there are solutions, don’t be deceived!
Regerative agriculture, not GMOs, is the only scalable solution to climate change.
The elephant in the room: genetically modified coronavirus
In this case it's the woolly mammoth in the room.
Gene therapy and gene editing is already a reality, a paradigm shift in biology and medicine, but the first gene therapy treatment for LUXTURNA blindness is worth €700,000, we hope that these new treatments reach everyone but the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in CURE.
There's another huge problem with GMO, which is ownership by patent. New crops might have no other problem other than some awful corporation might hike up the price once people are dependent on the new strain. Even farmers who's non-GMO crop cross-pollinates with nearby GMO crops can end up facing legal action over ownership of their crop. Why should people accept corporate ownership of seed when previously seed belonged to no-one? And no we don't trust corporations, we've already seen them act unconscionably when it comes to putting profit before humanity. And what if a human becomes a GMO by the inclusion of patented technology? Now that's a deep and dark rabbit hole.
Yes very true but human who have genetic disease should be helped
Yes but a human that was genetically modified would also be owned just like the seed. Look it up
@@sct1111 just like vaxxies, so what would change exactly?
Ashley and S C T. I do agree to your replies.
@@sct1111 that's why we are going to have government and laws to stop ownership of people remember everyone gets sick
So we can make our offspring stronger and give them 'genetic gift'
I am all for it.
Baby editing - what would stop parents from making bigger, strong, smarter children?
I saw a movie on this once... didn't end well...
Baby editing is inevitable. It's a matter of when. Even if every country agrees not too, a few countries such as China will disagree. Also, the oligarch super rich will use it illegally in secret. A future in which genetically engineered people dominate society is inevitable. They will be the new ruling class. This is coming soon and is similar to an nuclear arms race. Countries and organization will panic and accelerate their gene editing because others already have genetically superior children.
@@bpavilion8994 if you're taking about Gattaca and want to base your entire perception about future based on a movie with thoughts of few people, you're in wrong direction
So a cure to learning disabilities. Is that really so bad?
It will be a brave new world when those in power realizes that making everyone smarter, faster and stronger is superfluous.
I am always nervous about 'ethics' as often it is just a smoke screen to impose religious ideology, or other social ideologies, onto the wider community. And it often is based on the view that people, if they are allowed to choose, (for example, in relation to their children) will not choose what the 'ethicists' (sic) or activists want so, in their view, society needs to take away their right to choose.
Ethics are blind utopian 'rational' socialist belivers who don't like to look into problems of people they don't have control over and would want to them just cope by therapies or try to be 'happy' in life
@CrimeaIsUkraine you lack a brain
It is part of God's plan to allow death and suffering to keep humanity humble after all.
Death and suffering also help bring dictatorship and control if it brings an end to death and suffering.
There is insanity on every side.
This is interesting. Especially as some genes thought to be defective such as those that code for autism or sickle cell trait may also have evolutionary advantages. For example people with sickle cell trait have natural immunity to malaria, a disease that is becoming increasingly difficult to treat today as the malaria parasite increases in resistance against conventional medicines. We also wouldn't have Microsoft or Tesla (Bill Gates and Elon Musk) without autism. Simon Baron Cohen's book The Pattern Seekers talks about the evolutionary advantages of autism that biases autistic people towards inventing new technologies. It would be ironic if, in our quest to create a gold standard human, without disease or defects, we end up editing back in many of the genes we are now seeking to eradicate.
Animals and plants naturally adapt to what ever Mother Nature gives earth mischief like human beings. Let Mother Nature do its work. Why are we modifying Mosquitoes. Find ways to eradicate them. There’s no use for them
In listening to this story it becomes very clear that there is a group of people called bioethicist's who are activly working to slow or stop any advancement in gene editing. These people are not scientists but liberally trainined mid level psudo-experts on what is ethical or unethical. We have the ability to learn how to overcome many genetic diseases and conditions and it would be devistating to millions who will not have the choice over the views of a small minority.
It's already to late. We have modified farm animals and food crops like Soybeans, Corn, Wheat and many flowers plants species for over 60years. Dow Chemicals and Monsanto have easily gotten past any regulation. How have these foods affected our children and grandchildren?
No it's not too late. My other reply to you was censored.
Should we be worried? Absolutely!
why?
Why
As always, it is couched in philanthropy or proffered as the only solution to a contrived or exaggerated crisis.
People suffering from a hereditary illness or disability are pro gene editing, I understand/sympathize that it comes from their suffering but they forget the issues that comes with this…later it will not be about who suffers but a luxury and worse who/what society “allows”. Unfortunately humans are not meant to make those decisions, we mess it up.
They speak about peoples distrust but distrust is the smartest thing to do, especially if all the pros and cons are not displayed openly - so why should people trust specialists who are not transparent or whoes values they don't even know. What if the value of the researcher is to earn money wherever and to say whatever but not to share their true opinion or cure people? How should a non-expert know? It is recless to demand from people a stance without providing them full information. Intransparancy, and the not knowing why experts are pro or con an idea (what is their agenda) is the main problem.
I'm going to start off saying that I am in favor of genetic editing. Mostly because it is going to be inevitable, given the advances in genetic therapy
Now, no one is going to argue against removing a genetic predisposition towards cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, etc....
The gray area in genetic area lies in when parents start deciding that they want to edit their unborn childs dna to give them blue eyes and blond hair, or remove the family's large Dumbo ear gene. These aren't going to create anything crazy, as it is genetics that occur naturally in human beings. As well as tweeking their athletic potential or intelligence
The dark side is when people decide that they want to splice their genes with animals for one reason or another to give them inhuman abilities or appearance. These do not exist naturally and could lead to unexpected consequences
Now, at the start I said it is inevitable. Even people were to outlaw it, those that have the means to get around the law by money or going to another country that does allow it will
I will use gender transitioning as an example. When it first came out people had to go to Europe to get it done, until the United States realized that there was not preventing it and just relented
We stand on the edge of the same problem with abortion. The Republicans think that if they get control of Congress they will ban abortion nationwide. But that just means that those with the means will just leave the country to get it done and those that don't will resort to unnecessary risks
I usually agree with transhumanist ideas, except the combination with AI. Imagine a super intelligent human with an easier capability to gain muscle, as well as other abilities, it'd be fascinating. Reminds of the book 'All Tomorrows'
That's not how genetics work you can't just put another animals genetics in humans
Like everything Genetic Editing is a double edged sword. Genetic Editing could cure all diseases including cancer. But on the otherhand Genetic Editing could be used to make (Super-Soldiers / People with enhanced abilities) or it could be used for Population Control.
No
More depression and anxiety
Skin disorders
No recessed jaws
Symmetry face
No hairiness
If it can fix these issues I’ll be able to finally live
Yeah
Just start mewing bro
The thing that we know about humans is we know some stuff but often not all the ramifications.
Ie invent and use cfcs and then find hole in the ozone and skin cancers all round.
Create a greenhouse gas economy and be stuck trying to fix climate change without being able to leaving that way of living.
Or even like endochrine disruptors in cosmetics
or the obesity epidemic from processed foods.
These were just little alterations
I just find it terrifying that any unforeseen impacts from alterations are in germ lines then for all of human history there forward.
I think they are doing the right thing in having a large amount of hesitancy and tight regulations around this technology.
The reward outweighs the risk. And the average person will never understand the science behind GM. Sadly, our natural negativity bias will also influence public opinion. Hard decisions have to be made free of emotion for the best long term outcome.
I got Li-Fraumeni syndrome and survived 2 malignant tumours before age of 40.
Please , even if just a small subset of us born with genetic diseases/cancers, at least approve gene editing worldwide for genetic diseases.
i don't mind even being a guinea pig if it helps future generations of children who will be born with these conditions.
Where you vaccinated with SV40?
Sadly this economic crisis means more inflation. My condolences to anyone like myself retiring this year. I need my money off the bank and invested on something more prolific and as such need help in diversifying my 250k. I'm open to all recommendations
The Federal Reserve takes a sanguine view, saying it expects inflation to average 2.4 percent this year and decline to 2.1 percent by 2023. Inflation at that level would be no big deal. Long-term investors with well-diversified portfolios could pretty much ignore it.
@@hermannweber2441 Greatly said! If you don't mind, I really need help in diversifying my capital. I'll be grateful if you could help
I'll best advice you get a Financial Professional who will help you with intelligent plans to make returns off your money. I partner with Anna Kristine a professional whose experience has made me great returns. So far I've achieved over 600k working with her. Give this a try and get into success
ANNA KRISTINE SERVICES
@@hermannweber2441 Thanks so much for sharing this opportunity. I'll be delighted to take part on this great experience
These people are insane. No amount of editing genes will replace hard work and experience. Everyone is capable of genius it is more a matter of how you structure your own thinking and access the information you have learned. It is something that is trained not something that happens just because of genetics. Genetics only determine potentiality. Effort and belief create actuality.
I beg to differ. We could edit genes in such a way that you perceive ultrasound, see ultra-violet, survive huge amounts of radioactivity, glow in the dark, have a 1-in-a-billion IQ, possess animal-like reflexes and abilities etc etc; no amount of work can replace that. We do already genetically engineer goats to produce spider silk instead of milk and grow viable human organs inside pigs. The possibilities are endless and way beyond one's imagination. Experience simply cannot make use of something that nature hasn't provided first. Skills, talent and genius are the superstructure built upon a biological infrastructure without which nothing is possible.
No amount of work can make you observe reality like Einstein, see the world like Picasso, feel music like Mozart, or play a basketball like Jordan. This is why genius expresses itself very young, often before the occurrence of any type of meaningful experience that could explain it: geniuses are geniuses before they have the time to learn anything. The result is symphonies as pre-pubescent child or PhDs at 14 years old and such. Can't beat that with sheer will.
Everyone is capable of being successful but genius. Just like every short person can play basketball and get a name but taller still would have unnecessary advantage
Humans Need to learn to be kind and less distructive
A shame that the measles community was destroyed by vaccines :(
people have little trust left, and if there is some health problem, caused by genetic editing of bananas, we all know business will chose profit over anything else
great news. now it is time for highly educated people to make physical events and bringing it to our economy and publicize them as the best future science around us
📖
Also can it into bio weapons too
Then hugely benefit/ profit from poor suckered who fall prey.
I see Ugenics is still alive & well.
Eugenics
Beneficial for him making posison for us
there is a natural way to crossbreed plants like is done for hundreds of years and there is the gmo way puting genes from animals insects into plants where they dont belong .