Noah King Then again, how many people die from disease every year? If we could erase disease (simplified I know) how many people would have to die from disease before we considered it not unethical not to pursue a solution through genetic engineering.
TimeOfSin What if the attempts at cures cause more death, pain, and suffering than the diseases ever did? What if there are horrible side effects? What if they mutate beyond what we know and end up killing all of humanity? There are many more things that go into research than just can it cure them.
Firstly, let me say how much I love the Orphan Black references! Secondly, I'll say that I think the idea that human genetic engineering is somehow "unethical" is absolutely absurd. People are so afraid of biohacking Hitlers--using it to create a "master race"--or a reality of The Island--harvesting clones for body parts (spoiler alert, sorry)--that they're failing to see all the wonderful ways in which the technology could help us (curing diseases--even in the germ line!; enhancing nutrition, including in developing areas; and even more frivolous things like changing aesthetics as wanted). I am 100% in favor of human genetic engineering progress because as much as I am cynical of human behavior, I don't assume the worst sci-fi dystopias would come true simply by allowing an extension of existing technology to be explored.
I watch your videos all the time, appreciate the hard work you do and really respect you and your work that you're doing here, keep up the good work , It's really enjoyable watching your videos .
I think if two people got together and decided to genetically modify their unborn child, fully accepting the fact that it may die, then that should be their decision.
Vincent Lachance good point, but people against your argument would use the same statement they use against abortion. And then, again, the circle of ethics debate starts over..
Nyxato Somethig esential for evolution is some kind of filter that make sure to kill the ones that not posses the adecuate genes. But that filter don't exist anymore in the mothern world, almost all people reproduce, all genes are passed to the next generation. And with that, we are curently not evolving. So either, do it or don't do it, we don't know the pros and cos. Because we never have not evolve, or modify our genes.
being able to alter the sequences in theory could be amazing, "if" done for good. Of course no matter what is made there will be people who will try to abuse it
Joe / It's Okay To Be Smart crew! Please do not ever stop making videos! Every week, I wait for your videos and was a bit scared that a video hadn't come out last week. Joe, please continue being the host of this show because you're doing an amazing job! I dread the day that you might leave this company/youtube. The way Joe's way of speaking is so captivating and I'm always so inetersted in whatever he says and whenever a new episode comes out. Please keep doing what you're doing! ☺️ PLEASE DON'T LEAVE OR EVER STOP VIDEOS! FOR ME AND ALL THE FANS OUT THERE! ☺️
This could create a bright new age for humanity with low risk of diseases, faster muscle and brain growth,, customized metabolisms and the genes for regeneration, temperature resistance and even infrared vision, though until clones can have as long a life span as members of a species it shouldn't be used.
The problem is that we don't know enough about genetics yet. Genes affect more than one thing, so while you think you're speeding up metabolism, you accidentally give them a genetic disease. Also, genetic variety is necessary for human survival, so we can't all pick the same genes, so how would they regulate that?
Breanna May I do know that genes have advantages and disadvantages such as fast metabolisms needing more food and having more risk of weight loss when sick and cicle cell anemia preventing malaria or regeneration exausting the body and increasing the risk of cancer though with advancements in bioinformatics and genetic engineering it will become possible to see the results of a gene without having to insert it. Also different people would still want different genes such as skin colour, eye colour, resistance for the local diseases and metabolism and growth choices for their life style, diet and budget. If anything apart from the existence of blindness or low vision like I have or mental diseases their will be more diversity.
+Sebastian McIntyre That's why I said yet. We will learn those things, but it will take a while. Humans follow trends, so people will choose whichever genes are popular at the time. This will lead to generations with only one eye colour, or hair colour, etc.
Breanna May Whilst I see what you mean about popularity, just as there is the seperation of PC, Mac or Linux or Steam OS based on preference there will be people that choose different eye colours and metabolic rates.
I think cloning is kinda like AI. It can do amazing things, but it can get horrible in the wrong hands. I mean, cloning is directly tied to bioengineering (btw, you promised to do an episode on that in your goat episode), and the possabilities are endless; we can get rid of genetic diseases, give people good genes, make animals produce certain chemicals, grow organs, make cows always produce the hormone that makes them produce milk, buy super-creepy bioengineered pet _things_ , the list goes on. We have already made *spider goats! SPIDER GOATS!* and _glowing pigss_ and even bacteria that produce insulin for people with diabetes so we don't have to use horse insulin. But this is also connected to making deadly viruses in warfare, and basically can get hay-wire in the wrong hands.
Me and everyone I've ever cared about will be long dead before this becomes relevant (I hope), but bioengineering could be our only hope of dodging certain extinction events ... provided we learned how to code in DNA as if it were Java. When talking about evolution, teachers tend to focus on the bright side: organisms gradually adapt to varying environmental forces. What this fails to take into account is the 99.99% of all species that have ever existed ... which currently do not. It doesn't take a PhD in biology to see that a human can't adapt to environmental changes as quickly as a bacterium. Forget cockroaches: bacteria will always be the last life form to go extinct. Now, how awesome would it be if we could use bioengineering to fix evolution's many design flaws, and to make sure we _will_ adapt to anything we _can_ adapt, within a single generation? How realistic that is, I don't know. I'm practically daydreaming here. If only someone like C0nc0rdance would make a video on the topic ...
Des Viper - What I have in mind is decidedly more sci-fi. I'm talking about stuff like creating a human whose laryngeal nerve isn't uselessly long and tangled for example. I doubt anyone knows which chromosome to edit, or what changes to make, in order to effect that change. And because I'm _really_ clueless when it comes to bioengineering, I don't know whether what I mentioned could be done by 2050, 2500, or at all!
The fact that we can't adapt to radical change in our environment isn't merely an issue of genetics. It's a question of how we structure our society. Humans who lived as nomads 50 000 years ago probably would handle climate change better. What happens to our civilization without infrastructure? Or ability to communicate at the speed of light? Our ancestors survived through a combination of adaptability, luck and a mobile yet sustainable society. We don't have the last one. I don't think catastrophic events (well maybe when our planet dies with the sun) will destroy our species but it might destroy civilization as we know it.
I think this sums up one of the biggest concerns: www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3717 Sure, we think we know now what traits would be good for our descendants to have. And in some cases, it's not controversial; we can be fairly safe saying that nobody is going to complain in the future that their ancestors eliminated a debilitating disease. But go beyond that, into the realm of making people "better" and not just "less obviously broken", and you have to worry about what we might be considering good just because of our culture, not because it actually is.
We, as humans, have spent the entire History understanding progress as a race to control what appeared to be arbitrary events. Now we're working to control the human construction event and I think we have to understand that process as another step to master an arbitrary event. If we lose ourselves doing circles around the ethics debate, we might be replicating our Middle Age mistakes, e.g.: the one with the Geocentric Model.
ofc it's "unethical" and laws forbid it, imagine the economical loss from all the medicine and doctor bills, cant allow such a thing as healthy humans! that's outrageous!
lol, well some doctors are thinking about clones to be used such the clone would be taken care of as a subject and if you ever need a heart, or any other organ you will be using your clone's organ so it does sound unethical when you think about it but there are others that are thinking about a way to clone a human organ too for future use if the original needed it. Making another human just to be used does sound unethical
Caleb Cave This is real life, not some Hollywood movie. I therefore suspect reality will be somewhere in-between those two extremes. Granted, such extremes will no doubt exist in some locations though said things will very probably still be the minority of occurrences.
Caleb Cave +Elround4 If you think war of the classes is ridiculous now, imagine when the upper class is genetically engineered, any one else will be lesser by design. I see no good coming from the furthering of this science.
iinRez That depends upon how safe & practical various degrees of genetic engineering is on people. To have something as dramatic as you've described occur within our lifetimes would necessitate human trails in experiments, of which is currently viewed as too unethical to do. Furthermore, genetically improving traits such as intelligence is also a lot more difficult varied of an issue than most people think (this also heavily depends on how one defines "intelligence" and its relation to genetics vs what is learned/improved). Thus, with both the ethical issues involved with getting dramatic results and still remaining unknowns/obscurities, I'd posit that it is far more realistic to wager that this approach is far more likely to have slower incremental stages than the 'lego genetics' ( tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics ) as seen in science fiction. Additionally, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a previous stage may become affordable or even standardized for the middle class once another stage has occurred. Said stages would likely be restrained by both what science can achieve with humans and the ethical restraints of society; leading to initial stages predominantly being based around realistic improvements to health and exceedingly far future ones perhaps being like what we see in had scifi which explores this topic. As for its potential ups and downs, I still adhere to the view that--as in reality--it will be a mixed bag. Realistically, by the time the rich can be greatly improved over others medical procedures using this technology would have already meant that the grand majority of first world nations' would have vastly improved lives compared to today. Cybernetic based improvements, assuming they ever become sufficiently safe/practical, would also serve to balance things out once they too become more affordable. But, like today, there will still be some people in said nations lacking even the most basic of its 'boons.' Instead, I see the real drastic disparity being between poorer countries and well-off ones. ; )
Elround4 Good points but I can't entirely agree for I see a very different country then you. I see that money decides the ethics, and transparency amongst the various echelons in this society scientific or otherwise. I don't think it would need to be a high level of enhancement (ie. Intelligence) before discrimination were to occur either, but more so on a superficial level of mere quality of licensing and financial standing just as it is currently. If eye color is so trivial of a genetic alteration already I can see aesthetics continuing to be at the forefront of this tech. With the growing movement of grass roots genetics labs the middle class may come to have affordable access to such technology, but the higher class will have better quality with more capability long before consumer access is on the horizon. But we shall see I suppose.
I recommend the movie "the island". This gives us a pretty good idea of what the world would look like if we used cloning technology to save our own lives
I think it's fine. So many people talk about 'ethics' and 'morals', and while those may be useful for social situations, i don't think they matter too much with science (as long as it's not hurting anyone without consent). Yes, we are quite advanced compared to every other species, we are still a species. If we're bound to kill ourselves because of our creations then so be it. I'm sure there are other species in the universe capable of this.
I don't really fancy "designer babies " and the concept of "copyrighted gene "... but on the other hand it would be really nice getting rid of hereditary risk factors and ilnesses
it should be completely legal to clone and tamper with human cells or full humans as long as the person(s) consent in all legal aspects so no charges can be filed and legally, no crime would have been commited
My mother had muscular dystrophy and I am a carrier. If I want to have a child with someone that is also a carrier, I want to be able to make sure my baby will not have md. It is one of the most promising fields to me because it would save my mother's life.
I really appreciated Dr. Francis Collins's comments that were published this morning. There are still a lot of lines to draw before we get to human cloning. We don't understand what effects this will have on the people, and they are --people--, we're creating. We don't understand what kinds of terrible, even debilitating features we could introduce in them. And is it ethical to force someone to have a given trait without their choice? If we're talking about targeting and eliminating disease, that's one thing. But what about aesthetic or personality changes?
Krithik Venugopal Maybe someone could modify some DNA that doesn't do anything other than just exist in the genome, therefore when they do a genome test, they can see which one of the "Junk" DNA matches, and which one doesn't.
In my own set of genes, I have poor eyesight, anxiety disorder, affinity for addiction, increased risk of heart disease and cancer. I would think if we can hone in on each gene for these, leaving these afflictions in the coding is unethical.
Genetics modification is pretty much guaranteed to lead to tragedy and sorrow. I mean, we have already seen what even simple things like sex selective abortions causes in places like China and India. Does anyone really think that a generation of truly designer babies is going to end well for the world?
I would say the biggest problem about gene modification is it will cause a lack of genetic diversity which will increase the risk of hereditary disease
Personally, i want the human testing to be legal. It could help people, like me, who have genetic disorders to have children without worry of giving them the disorder aswell. I have EDS, until genetic modification in humans are legal and safe i would not want to have a child for fear of ruining their life.
thank you for that insight host of the show, toby macguire from spiderman 3, andrew garfield from the spiderman reboot, harry osborne from spiderman 2 aaand then some russian egon from the ghost busters cartoon.
I think it's ok to move forward with cloning however problems will arise with companies taking ownership of genes and then if genes are in babies, then does a part of that baby belong to the company. Or if some type of gene is made and synthetic but later on it naturally occurs what happened. Also if gene insertion into an embryo becomes something that's mandated for well being how will people's right to choose be affected, it might become the future vaccination debate (even though there shouldn't be a debate) but I digress. It would be interesting to move forward but laws need to be put in place first so that this research is done in the name of science rather than money.
We should progress with extreme caution.. Parents should be able to consent to whether or not they want their child to carry the BRACA(probably misspelled) gene. If we can do it and save lives we should test it. The reason most people fear the tech is bc of the potential someone has to make extreme changes, which is why we need regulations and caution during testing
Not gonna lie. lol This guy did a great job of portraying different personalities and even using different kinds of voices. Like, at first I didnt even realize the 1st clone was the same guy. Idk if anyone else has commented about that yet. But seriously, great job. XD
cloning and dna modification could be used in a lot of ways. it'll inevitably fall into the wrong hands one day, but let's hope that doesn't happen too often, and that it sticks to stuff like preventing cancer pre-birth.
Depends on the way we use it. For something like the concept of 'designer babies,' for purely superficial traits, I personally think it's fine to patents that. However, for things that can save a life, like the change for BRCA mutations, I think that's a case where patents shouldn't come in. It's a human life, so we can't play 'Grocery Store' with that.
For someone like me who has psoriasis, genetic therapy is like gospel. Not only does it mean I can get cured, I will also no longer carry the DNA for the disease. But it really is a dangerous bridge to cross. We don't want people to get hurt or die in the process of developing these technologies.
Testing on human cells is perfectly fine in my opinion, but how far should we let those cells develop? Ending the process early is better from an ethics perspective, but maybe we need to let the cells develop further to spot potential issues?
here's an idea: if we clone a person, then this person exists because we did the cloning. It means that, had we not done this cloning, there simply would not have been a clone, so there would not have been a person. This means that cloning does not alter a person's life, but create a life.
Loving all the Orphan Black references. Great episode!
You can test on humans in my opinion if the test subject has given him/hers consent and if the test subject has been fully explained about the test.
Kasseenzettel Then we'd have to get consent from the animals we test too.
Dennis James His point is that if we require consent from those tested on, it would be the child that we would need consent from.
Noah King Then again, how many people die from disease every year? If we could erase disease (simplified I know) how many people would have to die from disease before we considered it not unethical not to pursue a solution through genetic engineering.
TimeOfSin What if the attempts at cures cause more death, pain, and suffering than the diseases ever did? What if there are horrible side effects? What if they mutate beyond what we know and end up killing all of humanity? There are many more things that go into research than just can it cure them.
***** Has China begun trying to genetically engineer humans? I haven't heard before.
Me when I clone myself: "For the Republic!"
All Nine Livez. I’m not so sure about that. . .
@@furryslayer8688 I know.
me too
If a soldier was cloned, his clone would probably miss many shots.
Nice one haha
***** Starwars stormtroopers.
***** nevermind.
Clonetrooper is not, Stormtrooper.
people like you make me Cringe.
Eh, people make mistakes.
I think I'm a clone now
There's always two of me just a-hangin' around
kinda like DEEZ NUTS! GOTTIM!
Jeffery Liggett I think I'm a lone now
Cause every chromosome is a hand me down.
Jeffery Liggett Ah Weird Al, gotta love him :)
+natedog526 Of course you're alone! I mean, obviously! XDXD JK!
+natedog526 Of course you're alone! I mean, obviously! XDXD JK!
Aww this was actually really cute xD I enjoyed seeing the different clones!
I'd clone myself so I have someone to fu- talk to
Firstly, let me say how much I love the Orphan Black references!
Secondly, I'll say that I think the idea that human genetic engineering is somehow "unethical" is absolutely absurd. People are so afraid of biohacking Hitlers--using it to create a "master race"--or a reality of The Island--harvesting clones for body parts (spoiler alert, sorry)--that they're failing to see all the wonderful ways in which the technology could help us (curing diseases--even in the germ line!; enhancing nutrition, including in developing areas; and even more frivolous things like changing aesthetics as wanted). I am 100% in favor of human genetic engineering progress because as much as I am cynical of human behavior, I don't assume the worst sci-fi dystopias would come true simply by allowing an extension of existing technology to be explored.
I watch your videos all the time, appreciate the hard work you do and really respect you and your work that you're doing here, keep up the good work , It's really enjoyable watching your videos .
Are you the clone of him?
Clones and Androids aren't allowed to know they are not the original, else they are terminated.
What a weird future...
" My parents didn't pay for the blue eyes package"
emo Joe is what i survive for
I think if two people got together and decided to genetically modify their unborn child, fully accepting the fact that it may die, then that should be their decision.
Vincent Lachance good point, but people against your argument would use the same statement they use against abortion. And then, again, the circle of ethics debate starts over..
1Thor61storm8 Fuck ethics. Why should your backwards values tell me how to live my life?
Vincent Lachance Yes, just like it is for 2 junkies, with nothing to their names, to get together and make babies.
Vincent Lachance +daisukereds I totally agree with you guys. I just pointed out what the people who thinks in ethics would say about the subject.
daisukereds Which is their choice.
I have a womb so I could give birth to my own genetic twin... Weird but cool. Would it be Asexual reproduction?
There's a book called Blueprint about it
@7B17 Chun Kit LAI I wouldn't need sperm, just one of my own eggs, a lab, people who know what they are doing, and my own genetic information.
Hilarious video editing you guys! Your channel is the best!
It's really just a matter of "Do we want to wait for evolution, or do we want to speed it up?", and both sides have their own pros and cons.
+Nyxato it's never ending is it?
MotoLight What is?
the truth i guess..
+Nyxato But that's not who evoution works.
Nyxato
Somethig esential for evolution is some kind of filter that make sure to kill the ones that not posses the adecuate genes. But that filter don't exist anymore in the mothern world, almost all people reproduce, all genes are passed to the next generation.
And with that, we are curently not evolving.
So either, do it or don't do it, we don't know the pros and cos. Because we never have not evolve, or modify our genes.
3:25 Vice Lord baby lol
That guy at the end...
being able to alter the sequences in theory could be amazing, "if" done for good. Of course no matter what is made there will be people who will try to abuse it
We are proof that we can clone humans!
Joe / It's Okay To Be Smart crew!
Please do not ever stop making videos! Every week, I wait for your videos and was a bit scared that a video hadn't come out last week. Joe, please continue being the host of this show because you're doing an amazing job! I dread the day that you might leave this company/youtube. The way Joe's way of speaking is so captivating and I'm always so inetersted in whatever he says and whenever a new episode comes out. Please keep doing what you're doing! ☺️ PLEASE DON'T LEAVE OR EVER STOP VIDEOS! FOR ME AND ALL THE FANS OUT THERE! ☺️
If I could transfer my mind into that clone body, then yes. :D
keep pushing on to progress! anything in the name of science!
This could create a bright new age for humanity with low risk of diseases, faster muscle and brain growth,, customized metabolisms and the genes for regeneration, temperature resistance and even infrared vision, though until clones can have as long a life span as members of a species it shouldn't be used.
The problem is that we don't know enough about genetics yet. Genes affect more than one thing, so while you think you're speeding up metabolism, you accidentally give them a genetic disease. Also, genetic variety is necessary for human survival, so we can't all pick the same genes, so how would they regulate that?
Breanna May I do know that genes have advantages and disadvantages such as fast metabolisms needing more food and having more risk of weight loss when sick and cicle cell anemia preventing malaria or regeneration exausting the body and increasing the risk of cancer though with advancements in bioinformatics and genetic engineering it will become possible to see the results of a gene without having to insert it. Also different people would still want different genes such as skin colour, eye colour, resistance for the local diseases and metabolism and growth choices for their life style, diet and budget. If anything apart from the existence of blindness or low vision like I have or mental diseases their will be more diversity.
+Sebastian McIntyre That's why I said yet. We will learn those things, but it will take a while. Humans follow trends, so people will choose whichever genes are popular at the time. This will lead to generations with only one eye colour, or hair colour, etc.
Breanna May Whilst I see what you mean about popularity, just as there is the seperation of PC, Mac or Linux or Steam OS based on preference there will be people that choose different eye colours and metabolic rates.
I think cloning is kinda like AI. It can do amazing things, but it can get horrible in the wrong hands. I mean, cloning is directly tied to bioengineering (btw, you promised to do an episode on that in your goat episode), and the possabilities are endless; we can get rid of genetic diseases, give people good genes, make animals produce certain chemicals, grow organs, make cows always produce the hormone that makes them produce milk, buy super-creepy bioengineered pet _things_ , the list goes on. We have already made *spider goats! SPIDER GOATS!* and _glowing pigss_ and even bacteria that produce insulin for people with diabetes so we don't have to use horse insulin. But this is also connected to making deadly viruses in warfare, and basically can get hay-wire in the wrong hands.
Me and everyone I've ever cared about will be long dead before this becomes relevant (I hope), but bioengineering could be our only hope of dodging certain extinction events ... provided we learned how to code in DNA as if it were Java.
When talking about evolution, teachers tend to focus on the bright side: organisms gradually adapt to varying environmental forces. What this fails to take into account is the 99.99% of all species that have ever existed ... which currently do not. It doesn't take a PhD in biology to see that a human can't adapt to environmental changes as quickly as a bacterium. Forget cockroaches: bacteria will always be the last life form to go extinct.
Now, how awesome would it be if we could use bioengineering to fix evolution's many design flaws, and to make sure we _will_ adapt to anything we _can_ adapt, within a single generation?
How realistic that is, I don't know. I'm practically daydreaming here. If only someone like C0nc0rdance would make a video on the topic ...
Άλκης Δ. These technologies ALREADY EXIST...today...right now. You can buy a CRISPR-Cas9 endonuclease and your target DNA kit this very moment online.
Des Viper - What I have in mind is decidedly more sci-fi. I'm talking about stuff like creating a human whose laryngeal nerve isn't uselessly long and tangled for example. I doubt anyone knows which chromosome to edit, or what changes to make, in order to effect that change.
And because I'm _really_ clueless when it comes to bioengineering, I don't know whether what I mentioned could be done by 2050, 2500, or at all!
That would be a fetal somatic cell alteration i presume. But, in theory, we could do that today. - Biologist
The fact that we can't adapt to radical change in our environment isn't merely an issue of genetics. It's a question of how we structure our society. Humans who lived as nomads 50 000 years ago probably would handle climate change better. What happens to our civilization without infrastructure? Or ability to communicate at the speed of light? Our ancestors survived through a combination of adaptability, luck and a mobile yet sustainable society. We don't have the last one. I don't think catastrophic events (well maybe when our planet dies with the sun) will destroy our species but it might destroy civilization as we know it.
Agreed, but we can set ourselves up, through genetic engineering, for example, to be better equipped for any assault on our species.
Nice stuff as always! MOAR !!!
It would be hilarious if we all say, “nice clone editing” But he actually has a million sibling.
What a good episode dude
May the 4th, video about clones and no Star Wars mention
The video was probably filmed a while before considering the editing and uploading times
I think this sums up one of the biggest concerns: www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3717
Sure, we think we know now what traits would be good for our descendants to have. And in some cases, it's not controversial; we can be fairly safe saying that nobody is going to complain in the future that their ancestors eliminated a debilitating disease. But go beyond that, into the realm of making people "better" and not just "less obviously broken", and you have to worry about what we might be considering good just because of our culture, not because it actually is.
10,000 Clone Troopers or 1,00,000 Stormtroopers?
I'll take 10,000 clone Jengo Fett's over stormtroopers any day. I haven't seen a clone go awol yet
We, as humans, have spent the entire History understanding progress as a race to control what appeared to be arbitrary events. Now we're working to control the human construction event and I think we have to understand that process as another step to master an arbitrary event. If we lose ourselves doing circles around the ethics debate, we might be replicating our Middle Age mistakes, e.g.: the one with the Geocentric Model.
ofc it's "unethical" and laws forbid it, imagine the economical loss from all the medicine and doctor bills, cant allow such a thing as healthy humans! that's outrageous!
love the sarcasm
lol, well some doctors are thinking about clones to be used such the clone would be taken care of as a subject and if you ever need a heart, or any other organ you will be using your clone's organ so it does sound unethical when you think about it but there are others that are thinking about a way to clone a human organ too for future use if the original needed it. Making another human just to be used does sound unethical
Orphan Black is legit one of the best shows ever.
Clone Club unite!
Ray Steven's "I'm My Own Grandpa" comes to mind.
This technology could either be extremely beneficial to the human race or it could have disastrous consequences
Caleb Cave This is real life, not some Hollywood movie. I therefore suspect reality will be somewhere in-between those two extremes. Granted, such extremes will no doubt exist in some locations though said things will very probably still be the minority of occurrences.
Caleb Cave +Elround4 If you think war of the classes is ridiculous now, imagine when the upper class is genetically engineered, any one else will be lesser by design. I see no good coming from the furthering of this science.
iinRez That depends upon how safe & practical various degrees of genetic engineering is on people. To have something as dramatic as you've described occur within our lifetimes would necessitate human trails in experiments, of which is currently viewed as too unethical to do. Furthermore, genetically improving traits such as intelligence is also a lot more difficult varied of an issue than most people think (this also heavily depends on how one defines "intelligence" and its relation to genetics vs what is learned/improved).
Thus, with both the ethical issues involved with getting dramatic results and still remaining unknowns/obscurities, I'd posit that it is far more realistic to wager that this approach is far more likely to have slower incremental stages than the 'lego genetics' ( tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics ) as seen in science fiction. Additionally, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a previous stage may become affordable or even standardized for the middle class once another stage has occurred. Said stages would likely be restrained by both what science can achieve with humans and the ethical restraints of society; leading to initial stages predominantly being based around realistic improvements to health and exceedingly far future ones perhaps being like what we see in had scifi which explores this topic.
As for its potential ups and downs, I still adhere to the view that--as in reality--it will be a mixed bag. Realistically, by the time the rich can be greatly improved over others medical procedures using this technology would have already meant that the grand majority of first world nations' would have vastly improved lives compared to today. Cybernetic based improvements, assuming they ever become sufficiently safe/practical, would also serve to balance things out once they too become more affordable. But, like today, there will still be some people in said nations lacking even the most basic of its 'boons.' Instead, I see the real drastic disparity being between poorer countries and well-off ones. ; )
Elround4
Good points but I can't entirely agree for I see a very different country then you. I see that money decides the ethics, and transparency amongst the various echelons in this society scientific or otherwise. I don't think it would need to be a high level of enhancement (ie. Intelligence) before discrimination were to occur either, but more so on a superficial level of mere quality of licensing and financial standing just as it is currently. If eye color is so trivial of a genetic alteration already I can see aesthetics continuing to be at the forefront of this tech.
With the growing movement of grass roots genetics labs the middle class may come to have affordable access to such technology, but the higher class will have better quality with more capability long before consumer access is on the horizon. But we shall see I suppose.
Wow... great insight.
I recommend the movie "the island". This gives us a pretty good idea of what the world would look like if we used cloning technology to save our own lives
I think it's fine. So many people talk about 'ethics' and 'morals', and while those may be useful for social situations, i don't think they matter too much with science (as long as it's not hurting anyone without consent). Yes, we are quite advanced compared to every other species, we are still a species. If we're bound to kill ourselves because of our creations then so be it. I'm sure there are other species in the universe capable of this.
I don't really fancy "designer babies " and the concept of "copyrighted gene "... but on the other hand it would be really nice getting rid of hereditary risk factors and ilnesses
i think bright and new future
it should be completely legal to clone and tamper with human cells or full humans as long as the person(s) consent in all legal aspects so no charges can be filed and legally, no crime would have been commited
Have you ever realised that the answers to the title is always yes
Caleb D. Q: What color is the universe?
A: Yes...
Caleb D. "How many smells can you smell?"
Yes!
"Is Santa Real?"
"Yes!"
Caleb D. "What was *your* favourite part?"
"Mine too!"
The "rebellious" hair style is better than the usual!
did anyone else think that a girl clone would pop up
do more of that bad ass alter ego man . kinda bad ass bro
This gives me a bad feeling, though.... Like, the same feeling as when AI robots are mentioned. q.q
+Erin Mason u ain't kidding
Don't worry, it's only the Uncanny Valley, kicking in. Search it up, it's pretty interesting.
My mother had muscular dystrophy and I am a carrier. If I want to have a child with someone that is also a carrier, I want to be able to make sure my baby will not have md. It is one of the most promising fields to me because it would save my mother's life.
this episode reminds me of the movie "Gattaca"
I really appreciated Dr. Francis Collins's comments that were published this morning. There are still a lot of lines to draw before we get to human cloning. We don't understand what effects this will have on the people, and they are --people--, we're creating. We don't understand what kinds of terrible, even debilitating features we could introduce in them. And is it ethical to force someone to have a given trait without their choice? If we're talking about targeting and eliminating disease, that's one thing. But what about aesthetic or personality changes?
What if your clone murders someone? How would anyone know 'who' did it? And most importantly 'who' would get punished?
Krithik Venugopal Maybe someone could modify some DNA that doesn't do anything other than just exist in the genome, therefore when they do a genome test, they can see which one of the "Junk" DNA matches, and which one doesn't.
nice idea!!!
The clone gets punished, idiot.
Check out Gattica sometime, it covers the designer baby thing quite well.
I object to the implication that Fred and George have the same personality, but other than that, this episode was really cool!
In my own set of genes, I have poor eyesight, anxiety disorder, affinity for addiction, increased risk of heart disease and cancer. I would think if we can hone in on each gene for these, leaving these afflictions in the coding is unethical.
can you imagine a future where you have to pay your whole life royalties for yours genes?
Oh come on, we’re already numerous enough without cloning ourselves.
You Allison impression was hilarious :P
To my surprise, he is a good actor! I didn't expect that but I like it.
I'm going to make clones of my self than i can have extra hands. LOL
OK if people start giving their children specific traits in the future then time to go "Woah, science, I think you broke the boundary!"
Star Trek suggests that genetic engineering could cause a dangerous singularity-like event
Genetics modification is pretty much guaranteed to lead to tragedy and sorrow. I mean, we have already seen what even simple things like sex selective abortions causes in places like China and India. Does anyone really think that a generation of truly designer babies is going to end well for the world?
I remember when I seen a clone of a past living puppy on the news. The thing is this isn’t legal in the USA
I would say the biggest problem about gene modification is it will cause a lack of genetic diversity which will increase the risk of hereditary disease
Personally, i want the human testing to be legal. It could help people, like me, who have genetic disorders to have children without worry of giving them the disorder aswell. I have EDS, until genetic modification in humans are legal and safe i would not want to have a child for fear of ruining their life.
I feel that the better title would be Should We Clone Ourselves
cloning is actually a great idea because when we perfect it we basically gain immortality
Are you telling me that if I have a kid.....I could give it a birthmark the shape of Ireland?
this is master chief in the making.
thank you for that insight host of the show, toby macguire from spiderman 3, andrew garfield from the spiderman reboot, harry osborne from spiderman 2 aaand then some russian egon from the ghost busters cartoon.
Clone me without a brain, put my old brain in that body!
Saving and bringing back animals with cloning is a YES!
It's never to early for a Monty Python reference
I think it's ok to move forward with cloning however problems will arise with companies taking ownership of genes and then if genes are in babies, then does a part of that baby belong to the company. Or if some type of gene is made and synthetic but later on it naturally occurs what happened. Also if gene insertion into an embryo becomes something that's mandated for well being how will people's right to choose be affected, it might become the future vaccination debate (even though there shouldn't be a debate) but I digress. It would be interesting to move forward but laws need to be put in place first so that this research is done in the name of science rather than money.
We should progress with extreme caution.. Parents should be able to consent to whether or not they want their child to carry the BRACA(probably misspelled) gene. If we can do it and save lives we should test it. The reason most people fear the tech is bc of the potential someone has to make extreme changes, which is why we need regulations and caution during testing
Not gonna lie. lol This guy did a great job of portraying different personalities and even using different kinds of voices. Like, at first I didnt even realize the 1st clone was the same guy. Idk if anyone else has commented about that yet. But seriously, great job. XD
I believe the kind of future that either might should or will have cloning in it is a good kind of future.
Refrence to loud house at the beginning
I'm kinda worried about what genome modification can bring into viral/bacterial engineering. Some scary bioweapons come into mind.
customizing your babies to exert certain trait? I smell Gundam Seed plot brewing
So here, we have Normal Joe, Punk Joe, Happy-Go-Lucky Joe, Business Joe, and Cocaine Joe.
Ahaha! That was an awesome video!! Keep it up!
cloning and dna modification could be used in a lot of ways. it'll inevitably fall into the wrong hands one day, but let's hope that doesn't happen too often, and that it sticks to stuff like preventing cancer pre-birth.
it has the possibility to save lives. Saving a huge number of lives is NEVER unethical.
We should totally engineer humans. 8 feet tall super soldiers and fit them out with exoskeletons and power armour.
Depends on the way we use it. For something like the concept of 'designer babies,' for purely superficial traits, I personally think it's fine to patents that. However, for things that can save a life, like the change for BRCA mutations, I think that's a case where patents shouldn't come in. It's a human life, so we can't play 'Grocery Store' with that.
For someone like me who has psoriasis, genetic therapy is like gospel. Not only does it mean I can get cured, I will also no longer carry the DNA for the disease. But it really is a dangerous bridge to cross. We don't want people to get hurt or die in the process of developing these technologies.
2:14
בראשית וחרמון!
So awesome!
This was great! It must have been a lot of work!
Testing on human cells is perfectly fine in my opinion, but how far should we let those cells develop? Ending the process early is better from an ethics perspective, but maybe we need to let the cells develop further to spot potential issues?
Change is always scary.
EVERTHING that they talked about reminds me of the story 'the barcode tattoo'.
6 years later, we need an update haha
WAIIIIIIIIIT! Isn't there something about the "no cloning theorem" in Quantum mechanics (or physics) I get the two mixed up).
here's an idea: if we clone a person, then this person exists because we did the cloning. It means that, had we not done this cloning, there simply would not have been a clone, so there would not have been a person. This means that cloning does not alter a person's life, but create a life.
I didn't know you had a twin, that's awesome!
The one with the black outfit looks like pewdiepie
*"we're not even identical to ourselves, man"* 😂😂
Nice acting Joe
He acted like 6 different Joes WOW!
The end justifies the ... yadayadayada. DO IT.
2:14 where did you get the clip?