Thanks for this fantastic debate, great moderation and really enjoyed the viewers opinion. To argue genetic manipulation can improve wellbeing is a valid point made by Julian. We live in a world where everybody is strongly coerced into making great archievments, climbing the ladder at all costs etc. because only then we are, with regard to public perception, truely valued as a productive member of society. These measures of success are very narrow, which in regard of this debates topic, drives the fear to stop genetic engineering in the first place. But if you disengage the term "wellbeeing" from this narrow capitalist "high archiever" mindset I can see great strides liberating humans for them to really explore what is emphaty really, on an indiviual and societal perception. Cognitive capabbilities for expl. is a very high valued trait because its sparse in nature, has a strong genetic component to it etc. If you suddenly can set you cognition with a simple gene therapy or neuromodulation device I can envision a far more even society because rationallity would then prevail and thererefore wellbeing!
It's so discouraging to see such a slow advance in this discussion. IQ needs to be more thoroughly discussed because it is likely that cognitive trade offs will exist, for example, certain high IQ traits may lead to an increase in lifelong dissatisfaction, greater levels of depression, decreased social tendencies, worse memory, worse olfactory perception, higher probabilities of schizophrenia etc. I think in the next decades we will be surprised by how stable the genetic distribution of IQ is when balanced with other traits. Separately If we are looking to significantly change human lifespan we will need to accept the inevitability of having smaller segments of the population in each age category. This will have broad reaching ramifications on the economy. The housing market for first time home buyers, for example. The education system will inevitably extend as well as the age of leaving the house and having a child. We cannot simply give away indefinite longevity, but we should allow ourselves to gradually extend lifespans over the course of several generations. Heritable disease and embryo selection is the last point I'll touch on. In the case of cycle cell anemia a heterozygous genotype will lead to increased fitness under certain circumstances (malaria exposure), while homozygous individuals will not carry sufficient oxygen in their blood there may be many more genes with a similar heterozygous advantage. We see severe handicaps arising in certain inbred populations, for example. This occurs due to a high degree of homozygosity. Those handicapped individuals will likely not reproduce and those genes will be removed from the population. If someone were to do a genetic analysis of the parents of that inbred child they may conclude that the parent carried risk factors for heritable illness, while, in fact, they may reap some advantages from carrying only one copy. Both of these examples allude to a risk in being overzealous with our tampering, on the other hand in cases where recessive homozygous traits are desirous engineering would be the case scenario however it would lead to a need for successive generational gene therapies to maintain the genotype, assuming a heterogeneous population. Jamie's position is that we should embrace this state of constant embryo selection over successive generations, and I know that the culture that adopts this strategy will produce the most fit population, however, we as humans must retain the option to have children through natural means. It should be up to you if you want to have children or not. In a brave new world most of the children were born sterile in large batches. That is not the future we want. There should be some group of people who will always retain a stable genetic balance that will not need to be interfered with if they decide to reproduce naturally. It is unnerving to see such an ill-equipped debater on stage with heavyweights like that. If a panel is to be fair the panel membership matters, and I don't feel that the side favoring the moratorium was capable of defending the position properly.
@@AlexanderKarseev for him to link genes with schizophrenia and IQ illustrates he has no idea what he's talking about. Why have all papers linking genes with schizophrenia been retracted and defined as nonsense? IQ is not genetically deterministic, racism reduces IQ, cultural diversity affects IQ, there is clearly far more factors to human traits than genes, genes have extremely little to do with diseases.
I'm sorry but poverty and hunger are the most important problem at first - lack of resources for a good education and healthy enough lifestyle are the problems that follow. In order for life to be sustainable sexual reproduction should be a topic of education into anybody. And then, in the end, if a possibility for a high enough culture of the individuals can be achieved so that I stead of choosing merely to reproduce, but focus also on having the best conditions of living for their babies - both their personal health, as well as the health of the environment and social affairs - these, all if them, are necessary lo be solved by any individual who wants to have a baby now. It has been stopping some if us to have babies for years, in order to work on ourselves and our conditions if living, to enable a life of less suffering for any other human we may be a parent to. It's tough but worth striving for. Food is not the main thing that sustains life from one point on. We need culture, art, sports - many factors, not merely products and material things, to be happier. Human relationships and being able to travel in a clean environment being the most healing and recreating. Everything needs to be considered, and every decision - implemented in a balanced way.
No one talked about how genetic anomalies or diseases stem from poor nutrition and environment which a lot of functional doctors have already established after researching across disciplines. It has always been said, yes we are carrier of certain genes but these will be only expressed in response to the environment and what our parents consume. We do want our children to be healthy so the middle ground can be genetic planning and prediction that can guide couples who want to have to children to tailor their lifestyle in accordance to certain guidelines.
@T A I think some people do not have a choice as you've mentioned due to the lack of money. But in the very least, the goal should be to make information available and healthy lifestyle affordable. Genetic modifications will only mask injustices perpetuated by those companies making genetically modified products, ultraprocessed foods, environmentally induced toxins which affect many other thinks aside from genetic impairments.
1:02:50 this guys point is backwards and hyperbolic. Institutional agencies have created viruses in the world we've seen that has been the danger, not some random civilian being a fringe scientist; what.
Mexican Spanish traduction... Pienso que la mayoría escogió en ya usar esta tecnología y en regularizarla en contra de la minoría de no usarla la tecnología crispr cas9.
Now we don't have the ability for genetically improve the human race ...we are equal ? I think that the argument of equality is hypocritical. The access to this technology should be regardless of your financial status however.
@Doha Debates Here is the problem with predicting the future. Very smart people analyze the problems and desires of today assume they will be constant and then project that over decades and centuries. In reality, the way it works is that technology solves a problem that creates a new desire. This new desire creates a completely new problem and on and on. You cannot stop progress only delay it. People will edit their children which will create a new arms race. However different issues will arise. I can live to be 150 so why work so hard when I will be young for so long. Why get married? Why have children like in the old days? Children are a somewhat selfish way of living forever. Well, now we can actually live forever. Why have children that eat into my wealth (Kings of old actually feared the male children taking power)? Should I protect the world and forego wealth considering I will need this world for centuries compared to decades for the people in 2020. If you consider the new problems and desires each piece of tech creates then predicting the future is relatively straight forward.
Ethics need to evolve too, the idiotic religious dogma has been always delaying the progress. We need smarter people, we need to expand our thinking and capabilities beyond the social structure we currently have around money (should be irrelevant in human well-being) and power of the few.
Quite the contrary actually, The Neurodiversity Movement is prevalent opposing ableist eugenics. Now that there's people self-diagnosing more people are shunning your discriminatory eugenics against autistic people, ADHDers, dyslexics, LGBTQ+ and Peter Singer's claim you should have the right to murder all disabled people.
I have truoble with the skin on my feet heat and friction make it burn and blister i has made me embitteted i got it from my deceased mom genes i will never forgive her for doing this to me i am for gene editing
I would approve of gene editing if informed consent was required. I am entirely against taking authority over another person's life not allowing them their say. If you imposed your values onto offspring, when the offspring grows your values may be devalued by cultural evolution and as a result, the offspring will be devalued and discriminated. I am severely disabled, I don't want to be cured. So-called disorders only have 1 thing in common which has nothing to do with health, social deviation (not health deviation). Left-handedness, protesting against slavery (drapetomania), LGBTQ+, poverty, criminality all seen as pathological disorders and all of them deviate from the social norm. Until a valid and legitimate definition of disorder/disease/disability is re-established like before the eugenics movement not based on cultural biases it is no different to racist eugenics. I am autistic, in 1996 they still called it Asperger's Syndrome when I were diagnosed. I don't see why autistic people are not entitled to be born, the same for Down Syndrome, they're not fatal and the suffering doesn't stem from autism or Down Syndrome but from stigmatisation of social deviation and cultural prejudice. I would approve of using it to cure sickle cell anemia, under 1 condition. That it is up to the person in question whether they receive treatment or not, I will never support disallowing someone human autonomy.
This was very professionally done, great speakers and such an amazing topic. Thanks for doing this debate.
1:04:44 1:15:00
Thanks for this fantastic debate, great moderation and really enjoyed the viewers opinion. To argue genetic manipulation can improve wellbeing is a valid point made by Julian. We live in a world where everybody is strongly coerced into making great archievments, climbing the ladder at all costs etc. because only then we are, with regard to public perception, truely valued as a productive member of society. These measures of success are very narrow, which in regard of this debates topic, drives the fear to stop genetic engineering in the first place. But if you disengage the term "wellbeeing" from this narrow capitalist "high archiever" mindset I can see great strides liberating humans for them to really explore what is emphaty really, on an indiviual and societal perception. Cognitive capabbilities for expl. is a very high valued trait because its sparse in nature, has a strong genetic component to it etc. If you suddenly can set you cognition with a simple gene therapy or neuromodulation device I can envision a far more even society because rationallity would then prevail and thererefore wellbeing!
Thank you..
made my quarantine something Interesting.
Amazing talk. Highly interested. The guy in the middle gets it 👍🏽
It's so discouraging to see such a slow advance in this discussion. IQ needs to be more thoroughly discussed because it is likely that cognitive trade offs will exist, for example, certain high IQ traits may lead to an increase in lifelong dissatisfaction, greater levels of depression, decreased social tendencies, worse memory, worse olfactory perception, higher probabilities of schizophrenia etc. I think in the next decades we will be surprised by how stable the genetic distribution of IQ is when balanced with other traits.
Separately If we are looking to significantly change human lifespan we will need to accept the inevitability of having smaller segments of the population in each age category. This will have broad reaching ramifications on the economy. The housing market for first time home buyers, for example. The education system will inevitably extend as well as the age of leaving the house and having a child. We cannot simply give away indefinite longevity, but we should allow ourselves to gradually extend lifespans over the course of several generations.
Heritable disease and embryo selection is the last point I'll touch on. In the case of cycle cell anemia a heterozygous genotype will lead to increased fitness under certain circumstances (malaria exposure), while homozygous individuals will not carry sufficient oxygen in their blood there may be many more genes with a similar heterozygous advantage. We see severe handicaps arising in certain inbred populations, for example. This occurs due to a high degree of homozygosity. Those handicapped individuals will likely not reproduce and those genes will be removed from the population. If someone were to do a genetic analysis of the parents of that inbred child they may conclude that the parent carried risk factors for heritable illness, while, in fact, they may reap some advantages from carrying only one copy. Both of these examples allude to a risk in being overzealous with our tampering, on the other hand in cases where recessive homozygous traits are desirous engineering would be the case scenario however it would lead to a need for successive generational gene therapies to maintain the genotype, assuming a heterogeneous population. Jamie's position is that we should embrace this state of constant embryo selection over successive generations, and I know that the culture that adopts this strategy will produce the most fit population, however, we as humans must retain the option to have children through natural means. It should be up to you if you want to have children or not. In a brave new world most of the children were born sterile in large batches. That is not the future we want. There should be some group of people who will always retain a stable genetic balance that will not need to be interfered with if they decide to reproduce naturally.
It is unnerving to see such an ill-equipped debater on stage with heavyweights like that. If a panel is to be fair the panel membership matters, and I don't feel that the side favoring the moratorium was capable of defending the position properly.
There's no scientist or doctor on panel??? no geneticists? i don't get it.
Savulescu has a background in medicine and neuroscience and completed his MBBS (Hons) and BMedSc at Monash University.
@@AlexanderKarseev for him to link genes with schizophrenia and IQ illustrates he has no idea what he's talking about.
Why have all papers linking genes with schizophrenia been retracted and defined as nonsense?
IQ is not genetically deterministic, racism reduces IQ, cultural diversity affects IQ, there is clearly far more factors to human traits than genes, genes have extremely little to do with diseases.
Very Professional Presentation.
I'm sorry but poverty and hunger are the most important problem at first - lack of resources for a good education and healthy enough lifestyle are the problems that follow. In order for life to be sustainable sexual reproduction should be a topic of education into anybody. And then, in the end, if a possibility for a high enough culture of the individuals can be achieved so that I stead of choosing merely to reproduce, but focus also on having the best conditions of living for their babies - both their personal health, as well as the health of the environment and social affairs - these, all if them, are necessary lo be solved by any individual who wants to have a baby now. It has been stopping some if us to have babies for years, in order to work on ourselves and our conditions if living, to enable a life of less suffering for any other human we may be a parent to. It's tough but worth striving for. Food is not the main thing that sustains life from one point on. We need culture, art, sports - many factors, not merely products and material things, to be happier. Human relationships and being able to travel in a clean environment being the most healing and recreating. Everything needs to be considered, and every decision - implemented in a balanced way.
No one talked about how genetic anomalies or diseases stem from poor nutrition and environment which a lot of functional doctors have already established after researching across disciplines. It has always been said, yes we are carrier of certain genes but these will be only expressed in response to the environment and what our parents consume. We do want our children to be healthy so the middle ground can be genetic planning and prediction that can guide couples who want to have to children to tailor their lifestyle in accordance to certain guidelines.
@T A I think some people do not have a choice as you've mentioned due to the lack of money. But in the very least, the goal should be to make information available and healthy lifestyle affordable. Genetic modifications will only mask injustices perpetuated by those companies making genetically modified products, ultraprocessed foods, environmentally induced toxins which affect many other thinks aside from genetic impairments.
100%
1:02:50 this guys point is backwards and hyperbolic. Institutional agencies have created viruses in the world we've seen that has been the danger, not some random civilian being a fringe scientist; what.
You can not, you're not supposed to draw line if possible because N. Korea and China and Russia will not draw any line, that's simple to understand
IPHONES COST ABOUT IN SOUTH AFRICA R19K THAT ALSO
INCREASES INEQUALITY
Mexican Spanish traduction... Pienso que la mayoría escogió en ya usar esta tecnología y en regularizarla en contra de la minoría de no usarla la tecnología crispr cas9.
Now we don't have the ability for genetically improve the human race ...we are equal ? I think that the argument of equality is hypocritical.
The access to this technology should be regardless of your financial status however.
Cystic fibrosis is autosomal recessive, isn't it?
The people that make this debate have money and connections but not a lot of views on you tube.
@Doha Debates Here is the problem with predicting the future. Very smart people analyze the problems and desires of today assume they will be constant and then project that over decades and centuries. In reality, the way it works is that technology solves a problem that creates a new desire. This new desire creates a completely new problem and on and on.
You cannot stop progress only delay it. People will edit their children which will create a new arms race. However different issues will arise. I can live to be 150 so why work so hard when I will be young for so long. Why get married? Why have children like in the old days? Children are a somewhat selfish way of living forever. Well, now we can actually live forever. Why have children that eat into my wealth (Kings of old actually feared the male children taking power)? Should I protect the world and forego wealth considering I will need this world for centuries compared to decades for the people in 2020.
If you consider the new problems and desires each piece of tech creates then predicting the future is relatively straight forward.
Enhancing intelligence is the only thing you guys should be talking about
Ethics need to evolve too, the idiotic religious dogma has been always delaying the progress. We need smarter people, we need to expand our thinking and capabilities beyond the social structure we currently have around money (should be irrelevant in human well-being) and power of the few.
In future every one will laugh on that lady didn't she knows how it felt like to get up 5.1 dark women to to everyone who is not beautiful
Quite the contrary actually, The Neurodiversity Movement is prevalent opposing ableist eugenics. Now that there's people self-diagnosing more people are shunning your discriminatory eugenics against autistic people, ADHDers, dyslexics, LGBTQ+ and Peter Singer's claim you should have the right to murder all disabled people.
I have truoble with the skin on my feet heat and friction make it burn and blister i has made me embitteted i got it from my deceased mom genes i will never forgive her for doing this to me i am for gene editing
I would approve of gene editing if informed consent was required.
I am entirely against taking authority over another person's life not allowing them their say. If you imposed your values onto offspring, when the offspring grows your values may be devalued by cultural evolution and as a result, the offspring will be devalued and discriminated.
I am severely disabled, I don't want to be cured.
So-called disorders only have 1 thing in common which has nothing to do with health, social deviation (not health deviation).
Left-handedness, protesting against slavery (drapetomania), LGBTQ+, poverty, criminality all seen as pathological disorders and all of them deviate from the social norm.
Until a valid and legitimate definition of disorder/disease/disability is re-established like before the eugenics movement not based on cultural biases it is no different to racist eugenics. I am autistic, in 1996 they still called it Asperger's Syndrome when I were diagnosed. I don't see why autistic people are not entitled to be born, the same for Down Syndrome, they're not fatal and the suffering doesn't stem from autism or Down Syndrome but from stigmatisation of social deviation and cultural prejudice.
I would approve of using it to cure sickle cell anemia, under 1 condition. That it is up to the person in question whether they receive treatment or not, I will never support disallowing someone human autonomy.
Domnul Dumnezeu o sa distrunga tot Babilionul vostru
Amin
Nimic nu o sa ramana din voi