Wonderful, wonderful show. Bless you, Ash. One thing, not a contradiction, just interesting, DNA is popularly presented as a blueprint. It's actually a library. Not all books are in all libraries. Not all books in a library are read. Many genes are environmentally triggered. Many traits are poly-allelic, effected by several genes.
Worse still Gene have to be "turned on" in order to work It's why Komodo dragons have over 300 base pairs of chromosomes - most of them are "off" and just junk DNA Otherwise they'd be some kind of super-ultraclever-beyond-belief-godlike beings
DNA is much more complicated than that. I highly recommend the Stanford class available here on UA-cam called "Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology". Prof. Sapolsky is great and the classes can be understood (almost everything) by good high school biology students. The first and 23rd classes, btw, should be watched by everyone. I do agree with Prof. Sapolsky: people should be forced at gun point to watch the whole course.
Definition # 6 for the word job - a piece of public or official business managed dihonestly for private gain. Who makes a trust of charity into a job and gets Congress to make it legal to rob
And sometimes the environment determines how the book is read and edited, before being sent on as pamphlets to the protein printers. Edit: actually, that happens most of the time.
That was by far one of the most fun, enjoyable pieces you guys have ever produced. Was like sitting quietly at a great dinner party conversation. Thank you.
I wish people who make assumptions about Novara listen to conversations like this. Imagine if we were watching this on Channel 4, our collective discussion would be so much better.
You hit one of the nails on the head. But probably inadvertently. Can you imagine the opposite case being presented on an MSM outlet like Channel 4? Not a chance. NM is the MSM. Just a slightly more challenging version of it, at times.
@@joshuahaines9611 That what are headlined here as myths are not myths but based on science. Admittedly the discussion is wide ranging, not necessarily containing blunt propositions to "oppose", but the gist is there. My point however is not necessarily about validity, it is that NM shows itself to be an arm of the establishment in a discussion like this. The entire thing supports the establishment's accepted narrative. An establishment that increasingly silences dissenters who may want to challenge the assumptions that it and NM adhere to.
@@jamesnurgle6368 Very briefly, and as indicated in their headline, that studies into the phenomenon of race produces myths. There is typically an automatic assumption along the lines of, "If I don't like what a study produces, it must be a myth". That isn't my specific point however. My point is that the opposite position, that what is dismissed as myth, cannot be adequately defended in public owing to the risks for anyone who might attempt to do this. In this sense then, NM is a creature of that censorious establishment while pretending not to be.
Slight correction: Theology and the academic study of the Bible are two completely separate disciplines. Theology inherently assumes there is a God, so yes, it makes sense that the majority of theologians are religious. Academic Bible study neither assumes nor asserts anything about the existence of a God. It’s about finding the sources of the Bible and figuring out what it meant in its historical context.
Great guest and excellent host- informative, questioning and funny. Ms Sarkar really is such a relaxed, intellectually curious and humourous interviewer. Dr Rutherford never dodged a question- fascinating and refreshing views on how we use and react to science in our world, past and present.
At such a late stage of my life, when I thought I had sorted pretty much everything in my mind and ready to expose those to my grand children, giving them precepts for a "better" life, I come cross this video! Shattering my self-belief, confidence and once again confirming that you learn from cradle to grave. I shall watch this again, and again, to hear, absorb, analyse and reflect. Thank you both for saving my grandchildren's' time!
Interesting comment. Have you ever considered writing letters to your Grandchildren? Wether they are to be delivered Post Mortem or posted as they are written- they will be dated and chronological evolution/ continued development of your views & life lessons can be shared in a way format that can be revisited after you pass. Your advice & outlook may change from the first letter to the last, but that need not be self contradictory. If anything it may highlight the reality (as you mentioned in yr opening comment) that life experience makes us wiser but there is no point in time, as long as we are breathing, when we reach ultimate understanding… We can continue on I learn and grow everyday, regardless of age.
Hi Ash, I just want to thank You for Your interview with Adam Rutherford, it's one of the best conversations I've Heard in a long time, it's so in depth and clarifies so much for Me. Excellent work 👏 👍
@@richardswaby6339 studying English at UCL is double speak for hanging out with or worse being an uninspired, unambitious, not particularly studious, listlessly wandering, culture co-opting, faux rebellious, sexually prodigal, breathtakingly self-centered and shackled to socially performing self therapy of imagined trauma via curating concentric social circles dedicated to various levels of drug use, sexual exploits and artistic exploration. The student that decided to study genetics will be diametrically different in everyway and they'll have no contact nor concern for the other.
Ash said that they met or were meeting somewhere. It sounds like it just slipped that they did indeed meet intimately. A reference was made to choosing each other to mate.
I used to work with people a lot smarter and better educated than me (I had my place and it was essential and valued, plus we were all mud covered!) and since our worklife was mostly outdoors I was often able to kick back my mental gears and just listen to conversations of this quality with genuine interest and pleasure. I miss it. I could listen to these two chewing their chosen fat for hours. Loved this upload. Bought the book.
Education is a formality. Professor of a computer science should be the best programmer in the world. University studies achievement of some people that never go to school. Most important education is a primary and secondary. Peace.
@RugbyPass81Interesting route to a degree. Why did you join the armed forces and then decide to leave for study? How old were you at these various times? Nosy, I know
That was a really informative and interesting 1 hour 45. MSM need to have more content featuring and led by Ash. Thank you both so much. Will likely watch again soon. NM always produces such good content. Thanks all. 🎉
"I don't think we talk enough about the probabilistic nature of science..." I'm so glad I'm hearing someone say this. This is a reality I've been contending with since before the start of the pandemic, but only revealed itself as I saw myself and others trying so hard to find a neat conclusive answer that inevitably led to stubborn attitudes to contradicting perspectives. God I loved this discussion, I need more.
Particularly in schools, friends and family. We must learn to speak and listen without trying to impose our personal viwes. In all, we would get on million times better and, in turn, work together to solve our social problems and divisions, mostly inherited through 'fear' and 'thirst' to control to 'enrich ourselves' stupidly. How long do we live??? Not worth 'inventing' manipulative 'emotional illnesses' to 'be on top'aa ...What is the real point???: wars!!
I feel your pain about arguing with racists. I am a mathematician, and have taken courses on genetics since Covid. I know what I am talking about, but arguing with racists is something else: no science, no fact for most of them. It comes from their deepest visceral angst, or from an unquestionaed feeliing of superiority (which may originate in the same place as the angst, and just cover up for it). I got into genetics out of love for Neanderthals. From the moment I was aware of them, I realised the way they were represented/talked abaout echoed exactly the way colonisers talked about what they viewd as other races. It was not right for the Andamanese, Chinese, Native Americans, NIgerians, etc therefore it was not right for Neanderthals. Now I am being partly vindicated...and the more we learn about them, the closer to us they are. I want equality :) and I am proud of my 2.3%!, added the other weird and wonderful things revealed by my DNA test!
Don't they say it's tribalism that is in all of us, there is always a "us or them" mentality. Psychologically thinking the worst of them, means your tribe is right. Tribalism is supposed to be mixed up as racism a lot and we get it confused.
As an archaeologist, regardless of what your DNA says, due to the isotopic component of the water where you grew up as your adult teeth were forming, we can figure out where you grew up. That doesn't tell you anything about how a person thought about themselves but it is very interesting data
Fascinating, thought provoking &, having picked up connections, helped me make sense of what I've been struggling to understand. More please. This is very much needed
Oh My God!!!! One of the finest episode I have watched in all the UA-cam content history that I have ever watched. This episode is GOLD for anyone who wants to understand the sordid history of Eugenics & it's destructive reverberations that echo even today in our times from a societal perspective. More power to the awesome Novara Media team.
This one is so up my alley, I was studying Virology and Parasitology until my health took a nosedive and I've listened to Dr Rutherford before, I love him so much.
I don't understand why crossing it, e.g. cattle, with the purpose of achieving a breed of cattle with certain characteristics works with animals, but it wouldn't work with human beings, aren't human beings also animals? or are we for some reason an animal that is exempt from the rules of the genetic machinery? .. that always surprises me .. I suppose that the same phenomenon must make XX and XY have no effect on human beings, and that both groups are totally indistinguishable from each other in the event that someone decides so ..
@@Bb5y ChatGPT says we must use it as much as possible, so, in that way, we reduce human intelligence and facilitate the arrival of an AI, a singular event that would mark the establishment of the Utopian paradise of diversity and inclusivity.. words of Saint ChatGPT ..
This is an incredible interview. What a knowledgeable guest and what a thoughtful and skillful interviewer. Absolutely fantastic. I wish it were an hour longer and I mean that seriously. The passion and insight of both jumps out.
As a physics and philosophy student, I find some of the points you make about the social history of physics compared to other sciences pretty interesting. I have a running (although unsupported) hunch that the reason we find such instrumentalist viewpoints in physics ("shut up and calculate") these days compared to the time of people like Einstein and before is essentially the cold war and the advances that were made in physics during that time for the application of weapons technology. Physics has always helped empires but only during that time did we find the intersection of a more modern research funding structure and new revolutionary applications for physics to energy and weapons technology (a.k.a. quantum mechanics and relativity both giving rise to nuclear physics technology). It seems entirely plausible to me that the more speculative questions that have interested physicists for such a long time would be suppressed compared to other more immediately applicable questions in the structure of research funding.
You might like Philip Mirowski's "science mart" as he looks at the incentive structures that determine funding for scientific research. "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt is also illuminating in this measure and as a physics student will be rather relevant to you (such that you might vehemently disagree with some of his framings about what guides graduate research).
It's Buckminster fuller's idea of weaponry vs Livingry. Where science and technology is based on war instead of being in harmony with our environment and nature.
Well, a most interesting, informative and enjoyable discussion I have experienced in many a year. Ash, is superb at interviewing. Adam Rutherford as superb communicator. Fantastic stuff, well done and thank you!
I cant tell you enough about how Adam Rutherford and other decent pop science writers have shaped my thinking about race. So easy to get to the wrong conclusions when talking about this topic. V. important talk.
When my parents hooked up it caused a major rift as it was a mixed marriage and my grandfather never spoke to my mother again and so I never actually met him. I was given a 23andMe subscription for Christmas and I came up as NW Irish-SW Scott, a Celt, nothing more to add. The mixed marriage as you can guess was between my Catholic father and Presbyterian mother. Religion is the curse of the ruled classes, even though we were middle-class professional.
When belief comes before knowledge we are left with populism. If there is one thing I am certain of, it is that I know nothing. (Socrates) The human world is a beautiful, fluid place we will never stop learning about.
Someone called Galton out at the time for his abuses of statistics, a fellow mathematician who had published statistical analyses of epidemiology that changed the way that clinical services were delivered fundamentally and forever. Her name was Florence Nightingale.
What an amazing interview! Ash brilliantly on point as ever and an empathetic, personable and brutally honest interviewee. Great, engaging and thought-provoking content - such a contrast to today's mainstream journalistic drivel!
I discovered Dr Rutherford through a Royal Institution lecture he gave around 2018 (available online). During the Q&A he called out Jordan Peterson's pseudo-science bullshit outright. I had been interested in the intersection between society/politics/ideology and science ever since I read Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man, so my interest in the lecture was pretty much guaranteed, the Jordan Peterson diss, however, was an absolute cherry on top. I have not yet started listening to this conversation but have already smashed like.
Everyone who's interested in the truth about "human nature" should read all of Gould's works. The Petersons of this world actually know they don't have a leg to stand on, they're literally contrarians.
@@davidosilverman900 If I could only ever recommend one book to anyone it would be The Mismeasure of Man for the way it shatters the layman's (mis)understanding of science as a sort of neutral and expanding "fact-gathering" machine. Ontogeny and Phylogeny is another of his that I think is revelatory. It addresses adjacent themes and misconceptions, the importance of how a scientific question is framed, communicated, re-appropriated, misused, and so on. All of his books and essays leave you with some new interesting insight, however (seemingly) small. Great stuff. And don't let the year they were published put anyone off reading them. Gould started writing The Mismeasure of Man, if I'm not mistaken, in 1979 (with an response/update in the 90s) but its fundamental claims are perfectly valid to this day.
@@davidosilverman900 agreed As Hitchen's Razor states: assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And Peterson has no evidence, nor does he ever let facts get in the way of his feelings.
There’s no biological basis for race. So Epigenetics for which group? If you look at ethnicity and nationality, continental Africans and Caribbeans would have different results than native born “Black” Americans.
Absolutely brilliant, intelligent, compassionate content that covers real issues at an accessible level. The type of content I've come to expect from Novara. And the comments also confirmed an overlap between Novara and Curious Cases veiwers that I previously didn't know was there.
Fantastic interview, so wide ranging. Thanks Ash. I love Rutherford. He explains well, he has a broad and deep view, and he is so witty! (and I totally recommend the radio show Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry)
Most Africans trasported across the atlantic were taken to South America, not North America. Brazil has the greatest African-descended population in all of the Americas.
Yes but the United States has the second highest population of Africans outside of Africa. America (North) imported far less people but natural increases is a real thing.
I hope you are aware that Africans had already migrated to every continent way before the cross Atlantic people trafficking. The great migration to them into Asia first and so on. You could've just started there. Instead, you chose the cross Atlantic slave trade 🙄
Saying white people are superior to other races is as downright dumb as saying that the clothes worn by Eskimos are superior to the clothes worn by Mexicans. They are just different, adapted to different environments.
51:51 - This is the classic appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Just because this concept results in racism and eugenics does not mean that race does not exist. That is like saying that it's wrong to classify living beings into species because we eat other species.
No, eugenics bad and abortion good. It's just that eugenics has been such a dominant ideology, that it has been involved in several movements that had a net positive on society
just for confirmation, Dawkins described the call to pray as beautiful as well. While I like Rutherford I think he unfairly characterised Dawkins, this may be due to them disagree about a simple tweet about discussing trans.
Agreed. I enjoyed this discussion & much of Adam Rutherford's work, which, as he has stated himself, is heavily influenced by the great Proffessor Steve Jones, but it is disappointing to hear him grossly mischaracterise Richard Dawkins. The way he talks about Dawkins sounds like he's basing his conclusions on a statement, or statements taken out of context, but that can't be so, surely? It's very odd for a good natured, scientifically based thinker as Rutherford. Perhaps the book pushed a few wrong buttons for him? Perhaps I've completely misunderstood Dawkins' whole book?! I didn't know about a Trans tweet debate, perhaps the answer does lie there?! That would be disappointing.
I can imagine that Eugenics was widely accepted due to the broader society being aware of animal breeding. Want a faster dog? Selective breeding. Want a cow with huge muscles? Selective breeding. It isn't a huge leap to start imagining similar practices being applied to human populations.
@@peachy7776technically, though our obsession on pedigree with thoroughbred animals has led towards inbreeding more akin to the sickly royalty of Europe/Egypt/etc, than the ideal promised by eugenics
If it were genuine then it wouldn't depend on colour or appearance but on the chosen trait. People would have to be taught, trained and nurtured from young to a high degree and then paired with corresponding mates. The features and appearance would not matter but the outcome would be of breeding the best a trait.
If it were genuine then it wouldn't depend on colour or appearance but on the chosen trait. People would have to be taught, trained and nurtured from young to a high degree and then paired with corresponding mates. The features and appearance would not matter but the outcome would be of breeding the best of a trait.
As a brazilian, let me clarify the “cor de burro quando foge” thing. The expression is used to talk about the color a donkey suposely has when is scaping some danger. The verb “foge” (infinitive “fugir”) means to scape, to run away. It is a very popular expression. And the bluish violet bird refers to people whose skin is very black, for we have a expression for that also: “so black that is blue”
Love the expression about the blue bird. I am Spaniard living in UK and it makes total sense when I see ravens in UK. They look to me a beautiful blueish. They are magnificent.
I don't think it's racist to regard the English as an ethnic group. That is literally the definition. It is the same for other ethnicities. I don't think there can be many pure English left in fact. Their culture is still pervasive though. The Yoruba and Igbo are both Nigerian but one wouldn't claim the ethnicity of the other even if born and totally assimilated into their culture. We have genetic and usually also cultural heritage from our parents. If this is from outside England that is the degree to which we are not English. Probably most Brits today have some roots elsewhere which is why it is ridiculous of them to be racist. Personally I have always taken it as a compliment when told " You don't seem very English". I don't object to being British though. That has become more of a geographical description. It seems less ambiguous. I'm just thinking out loud really. Please correct me if I'm factually wrong.
Is it wrong that the bit that made me think the most was the bit about time, how we measure the duration of a "day"? How our methodology doesn't accurately reflect/represent the natural rotation of the Earth as it orbits the Sun, and whether it even matters? The question of what's more valuable, the accuracy with which a constructs reflects nature, or its utility, highlights the tension (to my mind at least. Edit: Apparently not just mine lol) between the two sometimes conflicting demands. And how unsatisfying the compromise can be, regardless of its utility. I have to admit, I find science a much less "unsatisfying" compromise than religion. Really enjoyed this discussion, on many levels.
Good interview. I thought they were a bit unfair with Dawkins though, criticizing him for not having a background in theology. If you don't believe that the very foundation upon which theology is built is credible then why would you bother studying it? It's like saying that you can't be critical of astrology unless you have spent years studying it. By the way I disagree with Dawkins about some aspects of his work; religion is a great comfort blanket for people and helps them make it through rough patches in their lives even though it can do great harm.
Funny, Gandhi in South Africa advocated for the separation of Indians from blacks and complained to the pm that Indians had to use the same toilets as blacks. You want race awareness in South Africa, go to South African Indian communities
I don't want to mansplain Hey, Baby It's Cold Outside but my understanding is it was written by a heterosexual couple together as a joke, and they would perform it ironically together. I think they were much more in on the problematic aspects of it as a conscious joke than modern people assume. It definitely made me feel better about the song! I used to feel like it was pretty cringe but knowing that they were being ironic changed my view.
My mother had dark hair, brown eyes like her father, her mother was blonde with blue eyes. She married our father who was blond with blue eyes. My brother and sister had brown hair, one very dark, the other medium brown and both had brown eyes, some flecks of grey. But I did not look much like my mother, except my features look like her in part, moreso now as I am 70 years old. She called me defective. And we are all Caucasian. I have done all I could to distance me from the stupid notion my mother had. Her lovely daughter would not take care of her or our dad when they got to being of frail health, I took care of them. I finally got one “I love you, Sally” before she died. My dad had Alzheimer’s disease. And he fell on me and I was in a wheelchair. Yes, she was totally right, my selfish sister did not get injured. I did all the work, got no pay, inheritance was 50/50 and my sister came back to California were we all lived, when she could get her inheritance. If there was a defect here in my family, there was a defect in refusing to see character and who loved and who didn’t. My sister loved her parents so much she never wanted to see them. So I can tell you that my accomplishments never meant anything to my mother. I won best of show in my college art show. There stood everyone else’s parents, and where were mine? They were buying flowers for my lovely sister’s voice recitals. These recitals happened once a year for her. My parents felt they spent to much on my sister’s wedding so guess who paid for her own? Me. And why? Because I was blonde with blue eyes. When I pointed out to my brother and sister that our grandmother was also blonde with blue eyes as well as our dad, they both answered that “they are both defective also, but we like you anyway.” Gee wiz that hurt! Some people won’t like you no matter what you say or do, even if you are their own child. Guess what, my best friend is a Black woman who is part American Indian and we both love one another. We have loads of interests which are similar. We talk for hours every week. I was not brainwashed as I saw the utter stupidity of it. Scientists cannot make life in the lab and what of it if they did, what it would prove is that it takes intelligence to make life. It is foolish. There are orchids which look like specific species of bumble bees. Tell me, how evolution creates that.
Around 1:13:37 -- "The colour of a donkey when it runs away" -- "cor de burro quando foge" -- is a very common expression in Portugal, I had no idea it was used in Brazil as well. It's a playful or impatient way of not being able to adequately describe or recall something's colour, or of being dismissive to someone for having asked in the first place. There are a few theories on its origin: one is that when somebody lost their donkey -- while out searching for it and asking if anyone had seen it -- it was futile to try to describe its colour, for how can you do it to a degree that would make it sufficiently distinct from all the others'. Another hypothesis is that originally it was "corro de" ("I run from"), not "cor" (colour), which would make the expression a warning to be careful around a donkey when it's running/fleeing, lest you wanted to risk getting kicked: "I run/sprint from a donkey when it's fleeing". Eventually, "corro de" became "cor de" by misuse, changing the meaning altogether. I prefer the former explanation, but we don't know.
We are always evolving and the idea of eugenics as removing unwanted traits based on political or racial bias is deplorable. Eugenics in my opinion is about about improving the human race, with longer life span, increased mental capacity, disease resistance, and removing weakness like genetic disease.
@@Barklord very clear but kinda unchallenging. I would surmise that anyways and for such a potentially contraversial discussion I found it added to the severe tameness all around.
@@bruceparker805 Well, my aunt is a white supremacist and taught public school for 35+ years. It might be necessary to explain the basics even if you think it's easy. The resurgence of 'race science' has been a factor in the justification for political choices in my family.
The strangest thing is that 400 years ago our ancestors were not of our present race ( by existing race descriptions be they right or wrong). 400 years from now our descendants won't be again of our present race unless they are purposefully bred.
@user-kd9ld3rn4b You are , of course, correct that Natural Selection means that populations become adapted to their environments, so that subsequent generations become successively better adapted to the environment that population lives in.
You're right. There's a great video about this by the channel Marcus Gallo titled "You DON'T descend from all your ancestors". Basically 400 ahead, on average, more than 99% of the genes and individual passes would have been shuffled out by randomness during meiosis.
400 hundred years ago, there was no conception of the ideas we take as normal today? Because they were invading and killing off many indigenous populations, with others being shifted or subsumed? This factor is not mentioned as it should be at all.
That’s why African and REAL black history should be taught in schools it’s nothing new what he’s saying. Very ethically diverse in Africa yet people think all black people are the same … alas great interview
Science is a method for description of the universe. It's not truth on the same way that spoken words are not truth. They are a descriptive tool. They can help you to find the truth
Be fair to Grease. There’s as much about a man trying to change to win the love of a woman. And the “did she put up a fight?” lyric was surely a reference to women being generally more coy than men, rather than to the man overcoming her will by violence.
I say, just jumping in to this conversation by chance, having an pre-assumption of it might by some boring wokism, I found myself totally intrigued by those two individual's very interesting questions and viewpoints. I am so happy I found this interview and I learned a lot. Thanks Ash and Adam! 🙏🙏
I don't see what is wrong with saying that someone might be culturally English, and politically British, but not ethnically English. There is an ethnic group called "the English", just like there is an ethnic group called "Bengalis". They are not social constructs, but peoples, ethno-linguistic groups.
Do you mean "politically" or "nationality" British? Yes, there can be a difference between someone's nationality and ethnicity. It's not a big deal, but some like to make it so because they think that ethnicity and nationality should be the same.
No, actually, ethnicity is a social construct. It has no basis in genetics but is a purely cultural/linguistic construct, and it is often misused as a mechanism for racism. This is easily demonstrated. Two examples, one will be hypothetical, the other will be actual. First, the hypothetical: Suppose there are two people in the 1800s: A person from Germany, and a person from India, they both end up living in the UK. They integrate perfectly, but by pure chance, all the people in their family line end up marrying and reproducing with other immigrants of the same nationality. Fast-forward to today, and their family history is lost to time as so often happens. Are their descendants now ethnically english? The "german" doesn't know about any german ancestry, he is perfectly integrated into british society as english. He identifies as ethnically english and is recognized so by others, even documented as such. He has for all intents and purposes become ethnically english, despite having no actual english ancestry. The "indian"? Not so lucky. His appearance makes it very obvious that he is not of european descent. He might identify with every aspect of english culture, even self-identify as ethnically english, but this identification is denied to him because of his appearance. Both people have a similar lack of english ancestry, yet only one is denied "ethnic english" status, and it's no coincidence that this happened along racial lines. Now, the example from the real world: For hundreds of years, Austrians self-identified and were recognized by others as "german". After World War II, austrian society began to sharply distance itself from german identity. The entire population went from identifying as and being viewed by others as german, to being recognized as their own distinct ethnicity - austrian. Their genetics didn't change, the only thing that changed was how they viewed themselves and how others viewed them. It's an identity category. Hence, ethnicity is distinct from genetics, it is a social construct that describes shared cultural and linguistic aspects. The only reason genetics is even a part of this discussion is because humans tend to pass those things down to their progeny.
@@Fusseliko 1. If you were English, but ALL your ancestors and relatives were German, you would know about it. 2. Being Indian does not preclude you from embracing the culture of England, because culture is not a matter of race. 3. An Austrian is indeed a type of German. You're overcomplicating something which is really quite simple.
@@blackmichael75 1. I mean this is just not true, you're presupposing that all the german immigration happened at the parents generation and that all those parents pass on that german culture. If two german immigrants meet and reproduce, they produce an in your eyes "ethnically german" child. If this child is integrated into english society and then meets another person similiar to themselves, you could easily end up with third generation "german" offspring that identifies as ethnically english and doesn't even know about any german ancestry. It takes some coincidences, but the outlying nature is the point. It proves a broader point about genetics and ethnicity, namely that they're only related insofar as parents have to pass down genetics and also tend to (but don't have to) pass down their culture and language . 2. I misphrased that. I meant it precluded you from being recognized as "ethnically english", not that they couldn't embrace the culture. 3. Once again, that is just wrong. "Austrian" is a recognized separate ethnic group. They do not identify as germans. Go find an austrian and call them german if you want to find out just how incorrect you are.
I've not really paid attention to Adam Rutherford before. I could watch you two talking till the proverbial cows come home. Thanks for explaining the problem with Richard Dawson, I can't stand him but couldn't put the reason into words. I'd love to be able to ask Adam about linguistics and genetics, as similar problems exist with that
Really enjoyable conversation but I think these 2 need to actually read (or read again) the god delusion... Dawkins dealt with all of their criticisms in the book.
Just realised Adam must have been in my genetics lectures, whilst at UCL (Microbiology & Genetics, 1994-1997).😊 I enjoyed Steve Jones's lectures the most & enjoyed Adam's conversation with Ash, just as much, today.😊❤
this was an absolutely fantastic talk. Is it a podcast or audio recording somewhere? I need to listen to it several times there's so much great content in here. Another brilliant job by Ash.
Really excellent interview! I've listened to the Rutherford and Fry podcast in the past, but this interview really demonstrates how thoughtful and interesting Adam is.
Brilliant interview with a fabulous guest and it’s always a joy to watch Ash interview - so brilliantly engaging with the subject and their subject. Can’t quite get past how much Richard reminds me of a young Robert De Nero though….
Disappointing end with the throw away comments about Dawkins and "The New Atheists". No depth to it, I'm surprised by both Ask and Adam criticising in exactly the manner they accuse Dawkins et al of criticising. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", surely applies to that portion of the discussion.
And being emotionally repressed and self-deprecating is not exclusively English or British. In my opinion I find the English quite emotional yet apathetic.
A little pit off by the runtime, but saw enough clips on TikTok that I wanted to see the wider discussion. Rutherford is always interesting, but this was a great interview- should almost be prescribed viewing.
Ash = enthusiastic and charming but also insightful and hosts a great interview. One could argue that abortion hitting minorities and the poor is a form of eugenics
One could and as long as it is done without state coercion, it would be a positive argument. Not positive for the aborted would-be-person, but it is positive for the society, it is also positive for the mother.
I think his argument at the end that 'all science is political' is taking abstraction to extreme levels, to the point where both the activity and the notion of a thing being 'political' no longer have any pertinent meaning. Not really wrong, but also not really saying anything, a nothingburger. It's like saying 'everything is political', I mean yeah but also... so what?
Hmm not really. To say all science is political is to point to the simple fact that science takes place within a wider context, and that context shapes what research is undertaken, where the burden of proof is assumed to lie, and even how data is interpreted. It's not a 'nothingburger' to point this out, when so many people like to pretend that science _as it is actually practiced_ is somehow neutral. Don't misunderstand me, the scientific method is clearly the best method we have for discovering how the world actually works. But when we start to act as if science isn't political, we fall into the trap of thinking that its conclusions are entirely neutral. This can be (and has been) abused.
This was probably my favorite interview/conversation I’ve ever watched on UA-cam. Ashe is a great interviewer and Dr Adam is so wonderful.
I kind of think Mehdi is the best antagonistic interviewer and Ash is the best friendly interviewer around now.
Fantastic combination of arts and science.
Came here to say near this exact thing. Incredible!
Wonderful, wonderful show. Bless you, Ash.
One thing, not a contradiction, just interesting, DNA is popularly presented as a blueprint. It's actually a library. Not all books are in all libraries. Not all books in a library are read. Many genes are environmentally triggered. Many traits are poly-allelic, effected by several genes.
Worse still
Gene have to be "turned on" in order to work
It's why Komodo dragons have over 300 base pairs of chromosomes - most of them are "off" and just junk DNA
Otherwise they'd be some kind of super-ultraclever-beyond-belief-godlike beings
DNA is much more complicated than that. I highly recommend the Stanford class available here on UA-cam called "Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology". Prof. Sapolsky is great and the classes can be understood (almost everything) by good high school biology students. The first and 23rd classes, btw, should be watched by everyone. I do agree with Prof. Sapolsky: people should be forced at gun point to watch the whole course.
Actually, after re-reading your comment, it's like that and a bit more. (not 'much more complicated than that', therefore)
Definition # 6 for the word job - a piece of public or official business managed dihonestly for private gain. Who makes a trust of charity into a job and gets Congress to make it legal to rob
And sometimes the environment determines how the book is read and edited, before being sent on as pamphlets to the protein printers.
Edit: actually, that happens most of the time.
That was by far one of the most fun, enjoyable pieces you guys have ever produced. Was like sitting quietly at a great dinner party conversation. Thank you.
I wish people who make assumptions about Novara listen to conversations like this. Imagine if we were watching this on Channel 4, our collective discussion would be so much better.
What popular assumptions are made about Novara? I think they are quite reasonable in their conversations and outtakes on many topics
You hit one of the nails on the head. But probably inadvertently. Can you imagine the opposite case being presented on an MSM outlet like Channel 4? Not a chance. NM is the MSM. Just a slightly more challenging version of it, at times.
@@joshuahaines9611 That what are headlined here as myths are not myths but based on science. Admittedly the discussion is wide ranging, not necessarily containing blunt propositions to "oppose", but the gist is there.
My point however is not necessarily about validity, it is that NM shows itself to be an arm of the establishment in a discussion like this.
The entire thing supports the establishment's accepted narrative. An establishment that increasingly silences dissenters who may want to challenge the assumptions that it and NM adhere to.
@@alexdavis1541 could I ask you to elaborate on what you mean by myth's and assumptions?
@@jamesnurgle6368 Very briefly, and as indicated in their headline, that studies into the phenomenon of race produces myths. There is typically an automatic assumption along the lines of, "If I don't like what a study produces, it must be a myth".
That isn't my specific point however. My point is that the opposite position, that what is dismissed as myth, cannot be adequately defended in public owing to the risks for anyone who might attempt to do this.
In this sense then, NM is a creature of that censorious establishment while pretending not to be.
Slight correction: Theology and the academic study of the Bible are two completely separate disciplines. Theology inherently assumes there is a God, so yes, it makes sense that the majority of theologians are religious.
Academic Bible study neither assumes nor asserts anything about the existence of a God. It’s about finding the sources of the Bible and figuring out what it meant in its historical context.
Great guest and excellent host- informative, questioning and funny. Ms Sarkar really is such a relaxed, intellectually curious and humourous interviewer. Dr Rutherford never dodged a question- fascinating and refreshing views on how we use and react to science in our world, past and present.
At such a late stage of my life, when I thought I had sorted pretty much everything in my mind and ready to expose those to my grand children, giving them precepts for a "better" life, I come cross this video! Shattering my self-belief, confidence and once again confirming that you learn from cradle to grave. I shall watch this again, and again, to hear, absorb, analyse and reflect. Thank you both for saving my grandchildren's' time!
Interesting comment.
Have you ever considered writing letters to your Grandchildren?
Wether they are to be delivered Post Mortem or posted as they are written- they will be dated and chronological evolution/ continued development of your views & life lessons can be shared in a way format that can be revisited after you pass.
Your advice & outlook may change from the first letter to the last, but that need not be self contradictory.
If anything it may highlight the reality (as you mentioned in yr opening comment) that life experience makes us wiser but there is no point in time, as long as we are breathing, when we reach ultimate understanding… We can continue on I learn and grow everyday, regardless of age.
@pedclarkemobile I thank you for your words of wisdom. I will take to pen and paper.
I'm glad you're still learning ❤
I think Ash is enjoying Rutherford's blush as much as I am. Unexpected icing on the cake of this excellent conversation. Thanks for this interview!
❤
Hi Ash,
I just want to thank You for Your interview with Adam Rutherford, it's one of the best conversations I've Heard in a long time, it's so in depth and clarifies so much for Me. Excellent work 👏 👍
Insanely good interview, Ash! A solid 10/10 as bloody usual!!!!
Do these 2 know each other from another life? They get along very well. I’d watch a weekly podcast of these 2.😎
Flirting? Much?
They went to the same University but at different times and they have some cross over knowledge.
@@richardswaby6339 studying English at UCL is double speak for hanging out with or worse being an uninspired, unambitious, not particularly studious, listlessly wandering, culture co-opting, faux rebellious, sexually prodigal, breathtakingly self-centered and shackled to socially performing self therapy of imagined trauma via curating concentric social circles dedicated to various levels of drug use, sexual exploits and artistic exploration.
The student that decided to study genetics will be diametrically different in everyway and they'll have no contact nor concern for the other.
Positive chemistry.
Ash said that they met or were meeting somewhere. It sounds like it just slipped that they did indeed meet intimately. A reference was made to choosing each other to mate.
I used to work with people a lot smarter and better educated than me (I had my place and it was essential and valued, plus we were all mud covered!) and since our worklife was mostly outdoors I was often able to kick back my mental gears and just listen to conversations of this quality with genuine interest and pleasure. I miss it. I could listen to these two chewing their chosen fat for hours. Loved this upload. Bought the book.
It's crammed with information
Those of us with out Degrees often can be as knowledgeable as those with degrees.
Biology?
Education is a formality. Professor of a computer science should be the best programmer in the world.
University studies achievement of some people that never go to school.
Most important education is a primary and secondary. Peace.
@RugbyPass81Interesting route to a degree. Why did you join the armed forces and then decide to leave for study? How old were you at these various times? Nosy, I know
That was a really informative and interesting 1 hour 45. MSM need to have more content featuring and led by Ash. Thank you both so much. Will likely watch again soon. NM always produces such good content. Thanks all. 🎉
"I don't think we talk enough about the probabilistic nature of science..." I'm so glad I'm hearing someone say this. This is a reality I've been contending with since before the start of the pandemic, but only revealed itself as I saw myself and others trying so hard to find a neat conclusive answer that inevitably led to stubborn attitudes to contradicting perspectives.
God I loved this discussion, I need more.
Particularly in schools, friends and family. We must learn to speak and listen without trying to impose our personal viwes. In all, we would get on million times better and, in turn, work together to solve our social problems and divisions, mostly inherited through 'fear' and 'thirst' to control to 'enrich ourselves' stupidly. How long do we live??? Not worth 'inventing' manipulative 'emotional illnesses' to 'be on top'aa ...What is the real point???: wars!!
Yeah. People confuse science with scientism more often than not.
The funny thing is science says nothing. People interpret it, and time proves them right or wrong
Personally trying to understand truths
If you're not questioning it, it's not science.
I feel your pain about arguing with racists. I am a mathematician, and have taken courses on genetics since Covid. I know what I am talking about, but arguing with racists is something else: no science, no fact for most of them. It comes from their deepest visceral angst, or from an unquestionaed feeliing of superiority (which may originate in the same place as the angst, and just cover up for it). I got into genetics out of love for Neanderthals. From the moment I was aware of them, I realised the way they were represented/talked abaout echoed exactly the way colonisers talked about what they viewd as other races. It was not right for the Andamanese, Chinese, Native Americans, NIgerians, etc therefore it was not right for Neanderthals. Now I am being partly vindicated...and the more we learn about them, the closer to us they are. I want equality :) and I am proud of my 2.3%!, added the other weird and wonderful things revealed by my DNA test!
Don't they say it's tribalism that is in all of us, there is always a "us or them" mentality. Psychologically thinking the worst of them, means your tribe is right. Tribalism is supposed to be mixed up as racism a lot and we get it confused.
As an archaeologist, regardless of what your DNA says, due to the isotopic component of the water where you grew up as your adult teeth were forming, we can figure out where you grew up. That doesn't tell you anything about how a person thought about themselves but it is very interesting data
Such an interesting and enlightening interview. Thank you NM & Ash - really enjoyed that… more please :)
Fascinating, thought provoking &, having picked up connections, helped me make sense of what I've been struggling to understand. More please. This is very much needed
Oh My God!!!! One of the finest episode I have watched in all the UA-cam content history that I have ever watched.
This episode is GOLD for anyone who wants to understand the sordid history of Eugenics & it's destructive reverberations that echo even today in our times from a societal perspective.
More power to the awesome Novara Media team.
An excellent interview - so informative and entertaining.
Thanks for this, it's like my two favourite things meeting for something that is greater than the sum of its parts.
This one is so up my alley, I was studying Virology and Parasitology until my health took a nosedive and I've listened to Dr Rutherford before, I love him so much.
Totally agree, i trust his opinions, and on Curious Cases he makes me laugh
I don't understand why crossing it, e.g. cattle, with the purpose of achieving a breed of cattle with certain characteristics works with animals, but it wouldn't work with human beings, aren't human beings also animals? or are we for some reason an animal that is exempt from the rules of the genetic machinery? .. that always surprises me .. I suppose that the same phenomenon must make XX and XY have no effect on human beings, and that both groups are totally indistinguishable from each other in the event that someone decides so ..
@@huveja9799 should of used chat gpt mate
@@Bb5y ChatGPT says we must use it as much as possible, so, in that way, we reduce human intelligence and facilitate the arrival of an AI, a singular event that would mark the establishment of the Utopian paradise of diversity and inclusivity.. words of Saint ChatGPT ..
@@huveja9799 - humans ARE humans
I can see why you're confused
Rediscovered NM recently mainly due to their long play interviews. Now catching up. Wonderful programmes and journalism. Enlightenment. Thankyou.
This is an incredible interview. What a knowledgeable guest and what a thoughtful and skillful interviewer. Absolutely fantastic. I wish it were an hour longer and I mean that seriously. The passion and insight of both jumps out.
As a physics and philosophy student, I find some of the points you make about the social history of physics compared to other sciences pretty interesting. I have a running (although unsupported) hunch that the reason we find such instrumentalist viewpoints in physics ("shut up and calculate") these days compared to the time of people like Einstein and before is essentially the cold war and the advances that were made in physics during that time for the application of weapons technology.
Physics has always helped empires but only during that time did we find the intersection of a more modern research funding structure and new revolutionary applications for physics to energy and weapons technology (a.k.a. quantum mechanics and relativity both giving rise to nuclear physics technology). It seems entirely plausible to me that the more speculative questions that have interested physicists for such a long time would be suppressed compared to other more immediately applicable questions in the structure of research funding.
You might like Philip Mirowski's "science mart" as he looks at the incentive structures that determine funding for scientific research. "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt is also illuminating in this measure and as a physics student will be rather relevant to you (such that you might vehemently disagree with some of his framings about what guides graduate research).
It's Buckminster fuller's idea of weaponry vs Livingry. Where science and technology is based on war instead of being in harmony with our environment and nature.
Well, a most interesting, informative and enjoyable discussion I have experienced in many a year. Ash, is superb at interviewing. Adam Rutherford as superb communicator. Fantastic stuff, well done and thank you!
I cant tell you enough about how Adam Rutherford and other decent pop science writers have shaped my thinking about race. So easy to get to the wrong conclusions when talking about this topic. V. important talk.
When my parents hooked up it caused a major rift as it was a mixed marriage and my grandfather never spoke to my mother again and so I never actually met him. I was given a 23andMe subscription for Christmas and I came up as NW Irish-SW Scott, a Celt, nothing more to add. The mixed marriage as you can guess was between my Catholic father and Presbyterian mother. Religion is the curse of the ruled classes, even though we were middle-class professional.
btw, most ppl cant comprehend, that earth is a huge farm. WE are the cattle.
When belief comes before knowledge we are left with populism. If there is one thing I am certain of, it is that I know nothing. (Socrates) The human world is a beautiful, fluid place we will never stop learning about.
"The desire for narrative satisfaction " ! Nailed it ! This is a huge problem right across the board. Not just in the ancestry racket but everywhere.
Someone called Galton out at the time for his abuses of statistics, a fellow mathematician who had published statistical analyses of epidemiology that changed the way that clinical services were delivered fundamentally and forever. Her name was Florence Nightingale.
Have you heard of Ignacio Semmelweis?
@@happinesstan Yeh! Father of antiseptic theory. Tragic life.
What an amazing interview! Ash brilliantly on point as ever and an empathetic, personable and brutally honest interviewee. Great, engaging and thought-provoking content - such a contrast to today's mainstream journalistic drivel!
You are making a huge difference Ash. Sis keep doing you.
I discovered Dr Rutherford through a Royal Institution lecture he gave around 2018 (available online). During the Q&A he called out Jordan Peterson's pseudo-science bullshit outright. I had been interested in the intersection between society/politics/ideology and science ever since I read Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man, so my interest in the lecture was pretty much guaranteed, the Jordan Peterson diss, however, was an absolute cherry on top. I have not yet started listening to this conversation but have already smashed like.
Everyone who's interested in the truth about "human nature" should read all of Gould's works. The Petersons of this world actually know they don't have a leg to stand on, they're literally contrarians.
@@davidosilverman900 If I could only ever recommend one book to anyone it would be The Mismeasure of Man for the way it shatters the layman's (mis)understanding of science as a sort of neutral and expanding "fact-gathering" machine. Ontogeny and Phylogeny is another of his that I think is revelatory. It addresses adjacent themes and misconceptions, the importance of how a scientific question is framed, communicated, re-appropriated, misused, and so on. All of his books and essays leave you with some new interesting insight, however (seemingly) small. Great stuff. And don't let the year they were published put anyone off reading them. Gould started writing The Mismeasure of Man, if I'm not mistaken, in 1979 (with an response/update in the 90s) but its fundamental claims are perfectly valid to this day.
And does Rutherford have any evidence to declare JP to be pseudoscientific. Quite rich for a geneticist who has no idea on psychology.
@@MrMattias87 Peterson's bullshit is self-denouncing. It's based on statistical methodologies that are basically confirmation bias.
@@davidosilverman900 agreed
As Hitchen's Razor states: assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And Peterson has no evidence, nor does he ever let facts get in the way of his feelings.
Great interview. Would have liked to hear their thoughts on epigenetics and biological weathering due to racism experienced by black people.
Yes. This would make an even stronger case for reparations for Black Americans , although one isn’t needed
There’s no biological basis for race. So Epigenetics for which group? If you look at ethnicity and nationality, continental Africans and Caribbeans would have different results than native born “Black” Americans.
I don’t generally agree with NM’s politics, but I believe they deserve better exposure than they currently have. Very informative.
Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, interesting and thought provoking.
Absolutely brilliant, intelligent, compassionate content that covers real issues at an accessible level. The type of content I've come to expect from Novara.
And the comments also confirmed an overlap between Novara and Curious Cases veiwers that I previously didn't know was there.
Fantastic interview, so wide ranging. Thanks Ash. I love Rutherford. He explains well, he has a broad and deep view, and he is so witty! (and I totally recommend the radio show Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry)
Just watched/listened again and loved it just as much. Definitely worth a second visit.
When did "class" get conflated into a concept of 'race' - is it religious ethics?
"you didn't know me in my second year of uni!" Gold 😂
That line fully made me belly laugh. The chemistry between these two is outrageous
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview, the breadth of the topic. Well done Ashe, your enthusiasm is so palpable.
Most Africans trasported across the atlantic were taken to South America, not North America. Brazil has the greatest African-descended population in all of the Americas.
Yes but the United States has the second highest population of Africans outside of Africa. America (North) imported far less people but natural increases is a real thing.
@kudjoeadkins-battle2502 no it doesn't less africans slaves went to united States millions went to carribean
The increases were deliberate. Part of chattal slavery in the USA was breeding plantations. @@kudjoeadkins-battle2502
@kudjoeadkins-battle2502 Nope Brazil, stop ✋️ lying
I hope you are aware that Africans had already migrated to every continent way before the cross Atlantic people trafficking. The great migration to them into Asia first and so on. You could've just started there. Instead, you chose the cross Atlantic slave trade 🙄
MAN !!!!!! This is absolutely a fantastic pod cast…..so interesting and informative even riveting ….the connection between you two is truly awesome !
Saying white people are superior to other races is as downright dumb as saying that the clothes worn by Eskimos are superior to the clothes worn by Mexicans. They are just different, adapted to different environments.
51:51 - This is the classic appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Just because this concept results in racism and eugenics does not mean that race does not exist. That is like saying that it's wrong to classify living beings into species because we eat other species.
Wow! Why don’t we hold “the kindest” as a thought after trait over “the smartest”?
Perhaps because kindness doesn't cure cancer, intelligence does.
fascinating - I could have listened to that conversation weave on and on all night. Brilliant. Thank you 👍
As both an Anthropology minor and a Black American, I found this talk very interesting to watch!
So Eugenics bad, abortion for Eugenical reasons good? 😕
No, eugenics bad and abortion good. It's just that eugenics has been such a dominant ideology, that it has been involved in several movements that had a net positive on society
@@UnfortunatelyTheHunger Abortion yields no positive outcomes for its victims.
just for confirmation, Dawkins described the call to pray as beautiful as well. While I like Rutherford I think he unfairly characterised Dawkins, this may be due to them disagree about a simple tweet about discussing trans.
Agreed. I enjoyed this discussion & much of Adam Rutherford's work, which, as he has stated himself, is heavily influenced by the great Proffessor Steve Jones, but it is disappointing to hear him grossly mischaracterise Richard Dawkins.
The way he talks about Dawkins sounds like he's basing his conclusions on a statement, or statements taken out of context, but that can't be so, surely? It's very odd for a good natured, scientifically based thinker as Rutherford. Perhaps the book pushed a few wrong buttons for him? Perhaps I've completely misunderstood Dawkins' whole book?! I didn't know about a Trans tweet debate, perhaps the answer does lie there?! That would be disappointing.
I can imagine that Eugenics was widely accepted due to the broader society being aware of animal breeding. Want a faster dog? Selective breeding. Want a cow with huge muscles? Selective breeding. It isn't a huge leap to start imagining similar practices being applied to human populations.
Well it works in exactly the same way, thats why it terrified us
@@peachy7776technically, though our obsession on pedigree with thoroughbred animals has led towards inbreeding more akin to the sickly royalty of Europe/Egypt/etc, than the ideal promised by eugenics
If it were genuine then it wouldn't depend on colour or appearance but on the chosen trait. People would have to be taught, trained and nurtured from young to a high degree and then paired with corresponding mates.
The features and appearance would not matter but the outcome would be of breeding the best a trait.
If it were genuine then it wouldn't depend on colour or appearance but on the chosen trait. People would have to be taught, trained and nurtured from young to a high degree and then paired with corresponding mates.
The features and appearance would not matter but the outcome would be of breeding the best of a trait.
@@ankiking that's what I said
As a brazilian, let me clarify the “cor de burro quando foge” thing. The expression is used to talk about the color a donkey suposely has when is scaping some danger. The verb “foge” (infinitive “fugir”) means to scape, to run away. It is a very popular expression. And the bluish violet bird refers to people whose skin is very black, for we have a expression for that also: “so black that is blue”
Nicely explained. Alongside the escaping donkey, the fleeing donkey works well here.
Love the expression about the blue bird. I am Spaniard living in UK and it makes total sense when I see ravens in UK. They look to me a beautiful blueish. They are magnificent.
I don't think it's racist to regard the English as an ethnic group. That is literally the definition. It is the same for other ethnicities. I don't think there can be many pure English left in fact. Their culture is still pervasive though.
The Yoruba and Igbo are both Nigerian but one wouldn't claim the ethnicity of the other even if born and totally assimilated into their culture.
We have genetic and usually also cultural heritage from our parents.
If this is from outside England that is the degree to which we are not English. Probably most Brits today have some roots elsewhere which is why it is ridiculous of them to be racist.
Personally I have always taken it as a compliment when told " You don't seem very English".
I don't object to being British though. That has become more of a geographical description. It seems less ambiguous. I'm just thinking out loud really. Please correct me if I'm factually wrong.
Excellent! Thank you for presenting with such clarity and insight. I especially appreciate your choice of keynote speaker.
Is it wrong that the bit that made me think the most was the bit about time, how we measure the duration of a "day"? How our methodology doesn't accurately reflect/represent the natural rotation of the Earth as it orbits the Sun, and whether it even matters? The question of what's more valuable, the accuracy with which a constructs reflects nature, or its utility, highlights the tension (to my mind at least. Edit: Apparently not just mine lol) between the two sometimes conflicting demands. And how unsatisfying the compromise can be, regardless of its utility.
I have to admit, I find science a much less "unsatisfying" compromise than religion.
Really enjoyed this discussion, on many levels.
This was a very interesting conversation. Much appreciation to both of you.
That's like saying, "Searching for evidence is not the truth." Science is a process of discovery in a disciplined fashion. Not a belief.
Good interview. I thought they were a bit unfair with Dawkins though, criticizing him for not having a background in theology. If you don't believe that the very foundation upon which theology is built is credible then why would you bother studying it? It's like saying that you can't be critical of astrology unless you have spent years studying it. By the way I disagree with Dawkins about some aspects of his work; religion is a great comfort blanket for people and helps them make it through rough patches in their lives even though it can do great harm.
Great dynamic these two. Excellent interview
How amazing was this chat! It was great to see Adam Rutherford at NM. Thanks guys 🙏🏼
Funny, Gandhi in South Africa advocated for the separation of Indians from blacks and complained to the pm that Indians had to use the same toilets as blacks. You want race awareness in South Africa, go to South African Indian communities
I'm generally pretty anxious about eugenics & cautious with geneticists as an autistic human. But this was very interesting.
2nd time listening to this podcast, by far the most brilliant interview that I’ve listened from Novara. Big up to Ash and Adam!
I don't want to mansplain Hey, Baby It's Cold Outside but my understanding is it was written by a heterosexual couple together as a joke, and they would perform it ironically together. I think they were much more in on the problematic aspects of it as a conscious joke than modern people assume. It definitely made me feel better about the song! I used to feel like it was pretty cringe but knowing that they were being ironic changed my view.
My mother had dark hair, brown eyes like her father, her mother was blonde with blue eyes. She married our father who was blond with blue eyes. My brother and sister had brown hair, one very dark, the other medium brown and both had brown eyes, some flecks of grey. But I did not look much like my mother, except my features look like her in part, moreso now as I am 70 years old. She called me defective. And we are all Caucasian.
I have done all I could to distance me from the stupid notion my mother had. Her lovely daughter would not take care of her or our dad when they got to being of frail health, I took care of them. I finally got one “I love you, Sally” before she died. My dad had Alzheimer’s disease. And he fell on me and I was in a wheelchair. Yes, she was totally right, my selfish sister did not get injured. I did all the work, got no pay, inheritance was 50/50 and my sister came back to California were we all lived, when she could get her inheritance. If there was a defect here in my family, there was a defect in refusing to see character and who loved and who didn’t. My sister loved her parents so much she never wanted to see them.
So I can tell you that my accomplishments never meant anything to my mother. I won best of show in my college art show. There stood everyone else’s parents, and where were mine? They were buying flowers for my lovely sister’s voice recitals. These recitals happened once a year for her. My parents felt they spent to much on my sister’s wedding so guess who paid for her own? Me. And why? Because I was blonde with blue eyes. When I pointed out to my brother and sister that our grandmother was also blonde with blue eyes as well as our dad, they both answered that “they are both defective also, but we like you anyway.” Gee wiz that hurt!
Some people won’t like you no matter what you say or do, even if you are their own child.
Guess what, my best friend is a Black woman who is part American Indian and we both love one another. We have loads of interests which are similar. We talk for hours every week.
I was not brainwashed as I saw the utter stupidity of it.
Scientists cannot make life in the lab and what of it if they did, what it would prove is that it takes intelligence to make life. It is foolish. There are orchids which look like specific species of bumble bees. Tell me, how evolution creates that.
Around 1:13:37 -- "The colour of a donkey when it runs away" -- "cor de burro quando foge" -- is a very common expression in Portugal, I had no idea it was used in Brazil as well. It's a playful or impatient way of not being able to adequately describe or recall something's colour, or of being dismissive to someone for having asked in the first place.
There are a few theories on its origin: one is that when somebody lost their donkey -- while out searching for it and asking if anyone had seen it -- it was futile to try to describe its colour, for how can you do it to a degree that would make it sufficiently distinct from all the others'. Another hypothesis is that originally it was "corro de" ("I run from"), not "cor" (colour), which would make the expression a warning to be careful around a donkey when it's running/fleeing, lest you wanted to risk getting kicked: "I run/sprint from a donkey when it's fleeing". Eventually, "corro de" became "cor de" by misuse, changing the meaning altogether. I prefer the former explanation, but we don't know.
This was the most informative date I've ever seen.
23 and me is an Israeli company. They sell the data
We are always evolving and the idea of eugenics as removing unwanted traits based on political or racial bias is deplorable.
Eugenics in my opinion is about about improving the human race, with longer life span, increased mental capacity, disease resistance, and removing weakness like genetic disease.
That was such an amazing discussion! Thank you for letting me be a fly on the wall!
I would love to know an example
of something yoi found amazing. Can you help?
@bruceparker805 I thought the example of the probabilistic nature of eye color was amazingly clear @34:30 -ish.
@@Barklord very clear but kinda unchallenging. I would surmise that anyways and for such a potentially contraversial discussion I found it added to the severe tameness all around.
@@bruceparker805 Well, my aunt is a white supremacist and taught public school for 35+ years. It might be necessary to explain the basics even if you think it's easy. The resurgence of 'race science' has been a factor in the justification for political choices in my family.
@@Barklord Wow! Now Im
challenged!
Ill bet she wouldnt watch this vid!!
Thanks for replying
The strangest thing is that 400 years ago our ancestors were not of our present race ( by existing race descriptions be they right or wrong). 400 years from now our descendants won't be again of our present race unless they are purposefully bred.
Or inbred, but that would only work for so long.
@user-kd9ld3rn4b
You are , of course, correct that Natural Selection means that populations become adapted to their environments, so that subsequent generations become successively better adapted to the environment that population lives in.
You're right. There's a great video about this by the channel Marcus Gallo titled "You DON'T descend from all your ancestors". Basically 400 ahead, on average, more than 99% of the genes and individual passes would have been shuffled out by randomness during meiosis.
@@JM-st1le But, but, but, Adam Rutherford keeps banging on about our common ancestors from 5000 or 6000 years ago... !
400 hundred years ago, there was no conception of the ideas we take as normal today? Because they were invading and killing off many indigenous populations, with others being shifted or subsumed? This factor is not mentioned as it should be at all.
Great work Ash, I did my phd on genetics and learned something new. Your questions very really divers. :)
Such an insightful and informative conversation. I learned a lot.
That’s why African and REAL black history should be taught in schools it’s nothing new what he’s saying. Very ethically diverse in Africa yet people think all black people are the same … alas great interview
Wasn’t the point that black is a redundant and unscientific category? So there is no black history
GK Chesterton wrote more than the Fr. Brown novels. He was a philosopher, critic, and spiritual writer. A famous Catholic convert.
Science is a method for description of the universe.
It's not truth on the same way that spoken words are not truth. They are a descriptive tool.
They can help you to find the truth
Be fair to Grease. There’s as much about a man trying to change to win the love of a woman. And the “did she put up a fight?” lyric was surely a reference to women being generally more coy than men, rather than to the man overcoming her will by violence.
Kind people get called snowflakes.
The most important genetic test we could have is for sociopathy.
Yes and psychopathy and NPD... Just for starters.
if any of those were genetically determined@@_Stin_
I say, just jumping in to this conversation by chance, having an pre-assumption of it might by some boring wokism, I found myself totally intrigued by those two individual's very interesting questions and viewpoints.
I am so happy I found this interview and I learned a lot.
Thanks Ash and Adam! 🙏🙏
I don't see what is wrong with saying that someone might be culturally English, and politically British, but not ethnically English. There is an ethnic group called "the English", just like there is an ethnic group called "Bengalis". They are not social constructs, but peoples, ethno-linguistic groups.
Do you mean "politically" or "nationality" British? Yes, there can be a difference between someone's nationality and ethnicity. It's not a big deal, but some like to make it so because they think that ethnicity and nationality should be the same.
Yes. You might not (slow clap) but MANY PEOPLE do
No, actually, ethnicity is a social construct. It has no basis in genetics but is a purely cultural/linguistic construct, and it is often misused as a mechanism for racism. This is easily demonstrated. Two examples, one will be hypothetical, the other will be actual.
First, the hypothetical: Suppose there are two people in the 1800s: A person from Germany, and a person from India, they both end up living in the UK. They integrate perfectly, but by pure chance, all the people in their family line end up marrying and reproducing with other immigrants of the same nationality. Fast-forward to today, and their family history is lost to time as so often happens.
Are their descendants now ethnically english? The "german" doesn't know about any german ancestry, he is perfectly integrated into british society as english. He identifies as ethnically english and is recognized so by others, even documented as such. He has for all intents and purposes become ethnically english, despite having no actual english ancestry.
The "indian"? Not so lucky. His appearance makes it very obvious that he is not of european descent. He might identify with every aspect of english culture, even self-identify as ethnically english, but this identification is denied to him because of his appearance.
Both people have a similar lack of english ancestry, yet only one is denied "ethnic english" status, and it's no coincidence that this happened along racial lines.
Now, the example from the real world:
For hundreds of years, Austrians self-identified and were recognized by others as "german". After World War II, austrian society began to sharply distance itself from german identity. The entire population went from identifying as and being viewed by others as german, to being recognized as their own distinct ethnicity - austrian. Their genetics didn't change, the only thing that changed was how they viewed themselves and how others viewed them. It's an identity category.
Hence, ethnicity is distinct from genetics, it is a social construct that describes shared cultural and linguistic aspects. The only reason genetics is even a part of this discussion is because humans tend to pass those things down to their progeny.
@@Fusseliko 1. If you were English, but ALL your ancestors and relatives were German, you would know about it. 2. Being Indian does not preclude you from embracing the culture of England, because culture is not a matter of race. 3. An Austrian is indeed a type of German. You're overcomplicating something which is really quite simple.
@@blackmichael75 1. I mean this is just not true, you're presupposing that all the german immigration happened at the parents generation and that all those parents pass on that german culture.
If two german immigrants meet and reproduce, they produce an in your eyes "ethnically german" child. If this child is integrated into english society and then meets another person similiar to themselves, you could easily end up with third generation "german" offspring that identifies as ethnically english and doesn't even know about any german ancestry.
It takes some coincidences, but the outlying nature is the point. It proves a broader point about genetics and ethnicity, namely that they're only related insofar as parents have to pass down genetics and also tend to (but don't have to) pass down their culture and language .
2. I misphrased that. I meant it precluded you from being recognized as "ethnically english", not that they couldn't embrace the culture.
3. Once again, that is just wrong. "Austrian" is a recognized separate ethnic group. They do not identify as germans. Go find an austrian and call them german if you want to find out just how incorrect you are.
I've not really paid attention to Adam Rutherford before. I could watch you two talking till the proverbial cows come home. Thanks for explaining the problem with Richard Dawson, I can't stand him but couldn't put the reason into words. I'd love to be able to ask Adam about linguistics and genetics, as similar problems exist with that
Really enjoyable conversation but I think these 2 need to actually read (or read again) the god delusion... Dawkins dealt with all of their criticisms in the book.
Just realised Adam must have been in my genetics lectures, whilst at UCL (Microbiology & Genetics, 1994-1997).😊 I enjoyed Steve Jones's lectures the most & enjoyed Adam's conversation with Ash, just as much, today.😊❤
An interesting interview. Thank you
Fascinating conversation. Ash is a great interviewer
this was an absolutely fantastic talk. Is it a podcast or audio recording somewhere? I need to listen to it several times there's so much great content in here. Another brilliant job by Ash.
It's an audio recording, right here, simply ignore the video!😊
@@jamesregiste960 yeah, YT doesn't make that so easy to do when you're mobile
Great interview and I like how Adam was given the time to answer the questions.
Fascinating, thanks. We need more conversations like this.
Really excellent interview!
I've listened to the Rutherford and Fry podcast in the past, but this interview really demonstrates how thoughtful and interesting Adam is.
This pair could make a series of amazing podcasts!
Brilliant interview with a fabulous guest and it’s always a joy to watch Ash interview - so brilliantly engaging with the subject and their subject. Can’t quite get past how much Richard reminds me of a young Robert De Nero though….
Disappointing end with the throw away comments about Dawkins and "The New Atheists". No depth to it, I'm surprised by both Ask and Adam criticising in exactly the manner they accuse Dawkins et al of criticising. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", surely applies to that portion of the discussion.
It applies to this whole interview.
That´s a very interesting subject/conversation, and Ash brilliantly conducted the interview.
Science IS truth. As far as we know. . .
What a fascinating conversation. I learned a lot. Thank you both.
To be fair Ash, you're also English because you can joke in a self-deprecating way about being emotionally repressed!
Is she English or British? when I think of a English gentleman, I think of a white European.
And being emotionally repressed and self-deprecating is not exclusively English or British. In my opinion I find the English quite emotional yet apathetic.
@@JD-zw5os Fair enough. All generalisations are false including this one!
A little pit off by the runtime, but saw enough clips on TikTok that I wanted to see the wider discussion. Rutherford is always interesting, but this was a great interview- should almost be prescribed viewing.
Everyone should see this interview 👌
Ash = enthusiastic and charming but also insightful and hosts a great interview.
One could argue that abortion hitting minorities and the poor is a form of eugenics
One could and as long as it is done without state coercion, it would be a positive argument. Not positive for the aborted would-be-person, but it is positive for the society, it is also positive for the mother.
I think his argument at the end that 'all science is political' is taking abstraction to extreme levels, to the point where both the activity and the notion of a thing being 'political' no longer have any pertinent meaning. Not really wrong, but also not really saying anything, a nothingburger.
It's like saying 'everything is political', I mean yeah but also... so what?
Hmm not really. To say all science is political is to point to the simple fact that science takes place within a wider context, and that context shapes what research is undertaken, where the burden of proof is assumed to lie, and even how data is interpreted. It's not a 'nothingburger' to point this out, when so many people like to pretend that science _as it is actually practiced_ is somehow neutral. Don't misunderstand me, the scientific method is clearly the best method we have for discovering how the world actually works. But when we start to act as if science isn't political, we fall into the trap of thinking that its conclusions are entirely neutral. This can be (and has been) abused.