But, almost all technologies can be used in a bad way...

Has complete prohibition ever done any good?

@billrhoasts5456

6 жыл бұрын

Very little.

@gman4074

4 жыл бұрын

Machine guns bombs nuclear. Plenty

@Morgan-ds2te

3 жыл бұрын

No their is not a complete prohibition.

One day we are going to look back at this and think about how it could of been stopped. When the people that aren’t modified are inferior and the divide between rich and poor is bigger than ever we are going to regret this. The idea is horrifying to me. I could not think of a more dystopian society then one where perfection is considered normal.

These videos are just what i been wanting to see. Glad someone posted this, ty

Why can't we have many more episodes about such topics??

I hope Krimsky knows he isn't fooling anyone with that comb-over.

@collinblatchford

3 жыл бұрын

Starts his opening by framing how the cons view designer babies. Apparently he got the mind reader gene

Good debate. I loved the dynamic arguments exchanged between both parties, hope to see more debates on this topic.

Really interesting and good debate ...!...thank you for sharing !

Its why I like professor Winston, despite the fact I'm swinging between both companies, he reads his position from his passion and expertise, instead of a piece of paper or a board.

@Dazzletoad

9 жыл бұрын

bigchunk1 I am not sure how to respond to this. I will be back after a few minutes alone with the first half of your comment in mind. Maybe then I will have produced something. Ahhh, no no. Forget that, it sounds like I meant something else... *Gets coat and flees out the door.* *But on a serious note: Passion for the subject and his obvious education, I just meant I appreciate the product which is a dynamic flow of discourse.

How can any society prohibit scientific advancement?

@christenzered9621

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe because we have different perspective about certain topic. But when I read this I was just 17 years old. I was amazed and now I'm 20 years old first year college. My teacher in science don't know it existed. She just known about third gender babies cross breeding. She don't believe on this baby existence

going to debate about this tomorrow at microbiology class tomorrow.

Is there a transcript of this anywhere?

Great, fair and relevant debate. I'm for genetic engineering, but it should be limited to serious diseases. I don't think we can just "ban it", this subject needs to be seriously discussed.

Wow! Excellent job!

"Sounds like a good mouse to me..." That summarizes the main point, which is, "Who's to say what's 'good'?"

What is this debate about again I didn’t catch that part

thanks for the confusing double negative

At the 21:38 mark in a video on the science network, she comments on Sam's recollection. A link to it can be found on project reason forums.

Great debate

After watching the debate, I'm left wanting. They don't as much argue the particular points that may sway the viewer as much as articulating that there are, in fact, two valid sides two the issue. E.g.: instead of referring generally to "what kind of society would that be" if A, B or C - which is what each side argued at least once -why not articulate the exact ethical dilemmas of such a society, and why that would be a good or bad idea, and which side of the dilemma should we choose. After all, is that not the purpose of the debate? Or, perhaps additionally, even while arguing why one side would lead to a dangerous or abhorrent society, is it not our duty to determine where to draw the line and decide precisely how far we should go? Is it not a very lazy, albeit convenient form of thought to declare a new application of a science definitively dangerous or good merely by what might potentially come to pass in some future generation - to argue based on the end of a long chain to decapitate the beginning? Is that not a purpose of the debate? Admittedly, there's no reason to believe that scientists would have those answers; perhaps ethicists and moralists should be included on the panel. But than again, maybe that's why we got a synopsis of Genetic Engineering in humans, instead of an actual debate.

Great debate.

UOIT?

anyone know where this debate took place?

@eashton42

9 жыл бұрын

They're usually held at the Kaufman Center in Manhattan (Upper West Side near Lincoln Center). It's a nice venue. Occasionally they hold them elsewhere, but they tend to mention it when that is the case. So I'd say the Kaufman Center is a good bet.

Another great debate by IQ^2

Governments should stay out of science & let progress happen.

@Altonzo1

10 жыл бұрын

That would be anarchy...

@kmica2008

10 жыл бұрын

without governments there is no science, fucko

@Fidel_Cashflow

10 жыл бұрын

Andrew Dodds Anarchy is a lack of government. Not a lack of government involvement in science. Government existed long before the scientific method.

@billrhoasts5456

6 жыл бұрын

I think he meant "Anarchy in the field of science".

The debate is not over whether we have genetic engineering or not. The debate is over how we genetically engineer our children. This is going to happen no matter what. Any country that refuses to do this will become a third world nation struggling to survive as they are outcompeted by countries that do.

i feel bad watching debates where i know that it would be next to impossible to deter me from my opinion

Interesting there wasn't much mention of computer simulations. Technically, you should be able to simulate massive chunks of DNA for effects and crosstalk. Computers can vastly reduce the uncertainty.

Really? Where did you see that?

Is anyone gonna tell him they didn't cut where he made a mistake?

Thanks!

The last speaker has the best information, Ron Silver .

"Who said anything about slowing down?" -u said "it's a matter of transitioning to it", as if it would happen overnight if we don't manage it better. then u said we need failsafes, which is also confusing, but it seems like ur saying we need things to counter the negative consequences that are sure to come about. so i pointed out a few such programs that are apparent to even a layperson that could offset negative consequences, and u responded by nitpicking one of them with irrelevant points.

I like IQ^2 :) Thank you!

hopefully we will focus more and more on aiding those who need it as time goes on so nobody's lives are ruined by the deflation of their professional fields. that' a much better plan than stopping progress.

I guess the title is supposed to be changed. "IQ2" is Intelligence squared. "13" probably has to do with 2013. "h264" is a type of MPEG-4 encoding for videos.

2:01 - 2:35 pfppfffffzzz.. lol jeez, smooth fucking edit bro!

What about the extra 2 and the extra 13?

I think it's fantastic that we have the technology to do this things and it's foolish to hesitate on improvement.

01:19:40 what did he say? The Gannicus scenario?

@Benstyping

4 жыл бұрын

No Gattaca a film

for those in the medical field this is a great breakthrough, only if they could be proven safe and ethically sound, for the good of everybody and for the environment. Just thinking, in medicine as of the moment , diseases symptoms are just likely being managed rather than eradicating the root of all cause, taking out the susceptibility of the child to this disease by gene modification does not guarantee the absolute freedom to any other disease. Any new breakthrough in different fields only satisfies our curiosity to something we dont have when in fact getting rid of problems like hungerness or the basic physiologic needs are deprived to so many so as to result with imbalances in our society, in our life, in our health. Chain reaction.

we can think what we want regarding genetical manipulation but it will remain an existential problem

if this technology is proven to be precise and edit the exact gene that we want, I think that, at first, it should be limited to single gene diseases like Cystic fibrosis and then, as knowledge progresses it could be expanded to double gene, triple gene... etc poligenic diseases.

Nobody thinks that this modifications will have an obvious cost obeying supply and demand on society? Everybody will want it therefore they will charge a ridiculous price for , and wealth people will have babies with way more advantages.... Average class babie will have no chance of getting into a top university or become a great artist or sportman ...And will have to make twice as effort to get crumbs of the wealth in every single aspect of life.

good debate.

what do you have against transhumanism?

People said the human genome project would take hundreds of years because they did not take into account advances in other fields. They based it upon what tools are present today and not what will be on the market tomorrow. There were people saying the same about space travel and human flight. At one point people thought it was impossible to travel above 100 MPH. You have to take into account advancements in other technology fields.

0:34:03 "Nature is engaged in all-out warfare against us"............ I don't think this man will ever be happy; his life is a constant war. How can we ever be satisfied with who we are, when, in our own offspring, all we see is room for improvement.

1:12:00 "I don't know if there's going to be a back alley geneticist hahaha" - my recollection is that there were a few back alley doctors performing abortions during the 50s and 60s

We are also debating other issues, so that's ok, we have time for this one as well. It's a matter of being proactive rather then reactive to a situation. Imagine if we were able to debate nuclear weapons, in a public forum viewed by millions online, 20 years before they were created?

Intentionally ironic that he gave a shout-out to James Watson before discussing the scar of eugenics?

There is a vague boundary between your concern and a supporting argument. But however I think your first fear is actually true and possibilities are high that this technology will be misused by the rich people with their riches.I agree with you that the problems should be taken care of.But I don't agree with your fear of a future society and see a logical path to that plain conclusion because I think there will arise a complex situation.And I believe everyone will be benefited in the long run.

Like any new technology, it carries risk. Main points for are "If we can help, we should.". Main points against are "We don't understand how it works, and we could cause harm." The only way to understand is to experiment, and that will require human subjects. Therefore, the question is really "Are we willing to perform clinical trials on humans in order to develop this technology to a safe level? Or should we abandon the entire field?" In short, does the end justify the means?

Was Aldous Huxley right? Its looking like (a raving mad) Brave New World...

I believe the Zeitgeist movement shoots for this to an extent. Replacing basically all manual labor with machines, removing money from the equation, and remaining projects and contributions are voluntary. It might sound like a pipedream, but you figure Firefox and Linux are programmed on spare time and given away for free. Great feats can be accomplished when the work is done for its own sake, and uninterested or lazy people aren't shoving themselves into the mix just to get a paycheck.

I agree Hugh kaaf that gene must go. Great debate. Permitting genetical modification opens many doors in the advancement of the human race , but we must be careful not to misuse the technology.

the things i mentioned to help counter the negative consequences are just some obvious ideas. obvsly there are many more technical ideas thatll unfold as we start dealing w/ these issues more. and u were nitpicking about one of the things i brought up and said irrelevant things like "free education isnt actually free" which of course is true bc nothing is free. im obvsly talking about the gov paying tuitions. and of course we'll have major discussions for years about "failsafes." we're not blind

John Donvan is definitely a smart and impartial man. We couldn't dream of a better moderator.

Even the dead ones?

1:23:46 _"The issue of genetically modified food is an interesting one because it shows you how you can develop a technology, patent it, and then control it through monopoly control like some of the companies do."_ Precisely. And the fact that lineages can have a genetic monopoly is disgusting. They shouldn't be allowed to own their DNA and prevent other people from using it. The fact that this guy doesn't understand his own statement is baffling.

Havent watchted it until now but before i do i already know they shouldve invited david pearce for the side against the motion. Extremely convincing arguments for designer babies.

The greatest thing we can change is our self!!! We could have naturally modification where we can choose the best of our own heritage. Natural enhancement I am all for this!

HE JUST SAID "most of us would help our children be the best and HELP THEM GET aHEAD."

Free markets and free peoples decide the path we take,or free peoples will go some where they can be free! When my wife and I had IVF done 2008,we noticed many Europeans using the clinic at Wake Forest ....People will not be limited,they will travel!!

19:30

It worries me that you think 20 years is a long time.

only because somebody used the idea of eugenics wrong in the past does not mean it is wrong concept. Why shouldn't you get a child that has a physique and gamestratergy capability like an athlete, the mind of a genius,talent of your favourite musician or painter, the character style of george clooney, leadership quality like john f kennedy, be very beautiful, be nice and thoughtfull like nelson mandela, and never become ill. I want my species to flourish, and be capable to councer the stars and galaxies. I think people are afraid of eugenics because of what happend in the past, but also i think that people know that they themselfs aren t perfect, and think that the world works perfectly without perfect people. Give your children a strong bases with genetic engineering, if your children are capable to become everything,or manything at once through genetics, than you can give them the right enviromental stimulus (education, sport training, musique lessons etc) and they be really capable become everything.

@Altonzo1

10 жыл бұрын

(Respectful tone) That's like saying just because people used the idea of pillage and rape in the past that it's not wrong. Eugenics is as wrong as it gets, you can't really use it in a positive way. It might seem like a good idea at first and cool to have a perfect kid, but the principle that you get rid of "bad" traits like being short is amoral.

@lornegran8323

10 жыл бұрын

Andrew Dodds (condescending tone) Straw man alert. It is unforgivably foolish to assert that improving the odds of producing healthy people is immoral, and wildly ignorant to claim that everyone will act according to your internal fiction. Why do you think people will choose to eliminate shortness? Comically, you're the first person here to imply negative stigma to it. How in your universe is it immoral (morality: the set of principles that best allow a community to flourish, with respect to the intrinsic nature and desires of its individuals) to promote health, intelligence, athleticism, whatever with the resources we have available? If you honestly equate equality and its correct pursuit with random chance you are intellectually bankrupt on the subject.

@Qstandsforred

6 жыл бұрын

Andrew - I know this is an old comment, but negative eugenics is nowhere near equatable to positive eugenics. Negative eugenics subtracts genes from the gene pool by preventing people from breeding. Positive eugenics, on the other hand, promotes the propagation of desirable genes (e.g. sperm/egg donors). It is wrong for _you_ to decide what traits parents will pass on. If short parents want to obliterate shortness, let them. If they think shortness builds character, fine. Telling people how to procreate is just as bad, if not worse, than telling them their not allowed to. Furthermore, if Nazis hadn't given eugenics a bad name, then we could have prevented billions of people from suffering, so don't go around thinking you know what is right and what is wrong.

Good Debate, but wtf is IQ2 13 13 h264?

Agree with the above.

Thoughts before the debate only issue I see here is any advancement will most definitely be used for something terrible. I mean what if you get a person from another country that does this the secretly botches the job in favor of one government over another? ... I mean we outsource everything else... so what is to keep a foreign power from poisoning the well? ...what is to keep the government from tweaking things to develop a more docile population... I mean parents have no way of knowing they are getting what they asked for or if they are getting Private Pile from FMJ.... I see you have to way the the good and the bad for sake of doign so... but do I think that should prevent us from expanding our knowledge and remain in ignorance... I think not... You cannot have the benefits without the Note: You had kids in the audience and I have my doubts their opinions are going to be anything of use vs a more mature population sample group that can look at it better than ... their family pet being reborn or something else silly like that? ... honestly there are way too many kids that are more interested in the next hashtag whatever craze there is...

While I understand that in theory we should no doubt modify the babies, I cannot help but see that the slippery slope arguement is (funny enough) a good one. Look at past ocasions of how our governments in first world countries have recently(!) bastardized eugenics to trivialize people who they believe to have a poor quality of life (despite their self reported happiness!). The idea of genitically engineering babies could more than easily fall victim to this sort of manipulation to the point where we see the fears of the "pro" side are realized.

Because history repeats itself

100.000 paying 2.000 for the bronze package( extra-protection against virosis) , 1.000 paying 100.000 for the gold package (bonze+full protection against cancer) , 50 paying 1.000.000 for the diamond package (gold+beaulty+ultra-atletic skill+inteligence), and so goes on.Thats what I am talking about ,it is a market without a price...Jut like the Health market.

why not in the first way look and search for alternative methods in increasing the health of dna ..... i think this should be the first step,before any technological treatement...

Why the people that are for genetic manipulation always using pity as an argument when we all know that there is only one thing they care about: their job and money..

DO NOT prohibit genetically enginered babies.

Darn it, Mr. Gorski.

Lol, anything for the better of mankind I suppose

that's big business and money talks.

Just a tip. Always like the video before you watch it.

I like Nita Farahanys genes :)

well once the machines COMPLETELY take over, wont we finally be able to just not work? like if we had machines that did everything, including maintenance and transportation labor, how could we justify the expectation that people have jobs? we could just build the matrix and go to town right?

the reality of it is even if you change the so-called genetics of someone's egg or whatever. here's a fact we live in a monetary system that means you have to spend money to actually buy something reality. so how would that work. I'm in favor using science to figure out fix a mental disorder or mental disability but we live in a monetary system and the monetary system is rigged because politicians like too get bride. now when people worship the Eugenics laws in the 1920s and want those be brought back and forcibly sterilizing people and they don't want it now that is long.

I saw an interview were they asked her that, and she didn't look pleased when they brought it up. But her response pretty much sounded like Sam Harris's assessment.

There will be a black market for this I promise you that.

the industrial revolution and its consequences

So not true, look how some people turned out.

as for transitioning, we have no other choice. nothing's going to happen overnight. and the failsafes for people losing their jobs are public education on the changing job market, free education in general (for people who might need to go back to school), and better welfare and healthcare programs. there's no need to slow down the speed of progress in order to make the transition even slower. imo it's not even fast enough...

Although it is amply clear from a holistic perspective, the questioner at 1:11:30 clarifies the most powerful argument against prohibition. Prohibition itself is the brute force tool of social engineering. I find it ironic that they propose this black and white solution while complaining that our tools and understanding of genetic manipulation are too crude and will never be sufficient to be ethically deployed...

Also everyone is so quick to imagine some Brave New World scenario (by the way I don't actually see why the Brave New World scenario is automatically evil, and that was my favourite book for years), or some "Nazi experiments," but no one imagines the possibility of eliminating psychopathy, for example, or making humans more empathetic and rational, and less violent. We can't handle our toys/tech now and those toys aren't going away, we need to change ourselves for any real progress.

Yea. Once we all have the same IQ we can start weeding out lazyness, deceitefullness, and criminality.

maybe. but the outcomes of not letting machines take more and more such jobs is much scarier. we'll adapt, don't worry.

I wonder how Nita Farahany feels about Sam Harris's comments of her. I also wonder if she agrees that she said the things he said she said.

What is human? This question has been arbitrarily defined by many societies very differently, several times in history. Our DNA continuously changes as generations pass. So, what's wrong if we take control of our destiny? We might not all agree on how to use that technology, but doesn't it make sense to have the technology in the first place? It is like the nuclear bomb... Sure it can be used for evil, but it has been used to help ppl too.

Enhancing evolution

People don't go in other countries because it is forbidden here but because it is too expensive in america..

Ultimately, this discussion is a debate over the naturalistic fallacy. You can hear it every time they say an "abnormal" mouse or an "abnormal" child. Genetic defects already exist - and they are "abnormal" but as natural as any other gene. Natural though they may be, they are harmful. Given the potential freedom to avoid those harms - a rational creature would use those tools. The problems that arise from the use of those tools are the problems we have to solve along the way.

old man don't like new idea

Genetic engineering already exists and there are whole fields of advancements in labs that are not main stream today. It is not that long ago that stem cell treatments were considered science fiction today we take them quite seriously and there are many advanced studies in Animals. We could ignore this and wait to it is on our door steps.

Why not we can make them better if want my kid to have the best advantage in life also there my partners and my genes so my control