I think "CrashCourse'' is the only channel that subtittles with the same words that ones listen, that is very importan to spanish spoken...Congratulations.
@@nihilozero Yes, unfortunately. Right now it would be easy for a well established lab (right people, right equipment) to create a very deadly bioweapon. I'm sure many governments already have. But that doesn't concern me too much. They're not likely use it due to the international repercussions and danger to their own citizens. But the lone crazy person, bent on destroying the world... that's what worries me. And recent advances in molecular biology are making it easy enough for a single person, with access to the right equipment, to do it. I worked in genetic labs in the early/mid 2000s and security was pretty relaxed. Hopefully it's different now.
@@PwntifexMaximus Or, you know, you don't leave them behind? It's possible to improve the whole of humanity, you know. But you lot wouldn't care about little things like that now, would you? So long as you can grab the advantages for yourself before anyone else.
@Justin Y, I've spent the last 7 years CRISPRing away at a PhD, so I think that counts. There are fish swimming around missing multiple genes because of me...
I agree. Just think about the parents reasoning: If you knew you could do something that would make your child's life better (like they being more physically strong, more intelligent or more resilient to diseases) wouldn't you do it? Would you really restrain your child from a better life just because it involves genetic engineering?
@@matheusribeiro8523 The issue with something like that isn't even necessarily the moral implications but the scientific danger. Diversity is literally what has allowed us to survive and evolve as a species. There is nothing wrong with curing genetic disorders or diseases that greatly impact a person's life, but when you start editing genes to "make a better organism" you start messing around with the laws of nature. Let's say you edit the gene of a fruit fly to make it survive better in high temperatures because to you that's a benefit for it. Soon all fruit flies survive really well in high temps. Yeah! But then climate change etc happen and now the temp is really cold. All the fruit flies die because they were all resistant to high temps but not low, since there was no diversity among them. Now fruit flies are extinct. In the same way you may think making most if not all humans more "intelligent" would be a benefit. But what happens when we have a population of people who are all awesome at Math and Science, but none or very few are good artistically or are very creative? You may think it's a benefit if everyone was physically strong but wouldn't that also mean you're population would require a higher energy input to sustain that strength? In turn that would put a strain on our food resources and if something catastrophic occurred that limited people's access to food, they would die off quicker? Diversity ensures that we all have various genetic make up that makes us resilient to our diverse environment, In turn we ensure our own survival and the survival of others. TLDR; So it cant just be yeah let's make everyone super smart and super strong! Soon we all look alike and have similar genes and are all wiped out at the same time by the same event none of us are resistant too
@@j.hypolite5163 I see where you come from but I think your point is a little weak. In summary, you are saying that what I think as obvious "improvements" in humans through genetic engineering could turn out to be unexpected disadvantages. I agree with this and also think we have to be very careful and foresighting with genetic engineering, not only with humans. However, this alone isn't an argument against human genetic engineering because people could always say "don't worry, we'll be careful". Your other point is that genetic diversity is beneficial to our species, even if (or precisely because) it involves some sort of weakness or "unfulfilled potential" (like people not being as strong as genetic engineering would allow). Although this point is very valid in biology, we must aknowledge that the reason for this is because genetic mutations are the source for new (beneficial) traits to appear in a population and thus allow evolution and adaptation. However, if genetic engineering really develop into a "fine editing-tool of DNA" as we are supposing in this conversation, we should be able to introduce genetic variety with it, and not only with spontaneous mutations. In this way, using genetic engineering would actually be better for genetic diversity and human adaptation.
@@matheusribeiro8523 My concern is that when scientists start trying to create a "perfect" human based on their perceived idea of perfection, they won't leave room for diversity because if you think this one gene is amazingly beneficial why would you not recommend editing it if you could? that would seem wrong in an of itself. The thing about random mutations is just that, they're random, and they being beneficial or not is not known until they are put to a test. So yes, scientists can engineer their own beneficial mutations so to speak but they won't necessarily know if it would actually be beneficial in the long run or if it could eventually be a disadvantage to future generations. I personally am I scientist at heart and wish to pursue my phd in genetics one day, but I want to help cure and prevent diseases and disorders, I don't see the need in messing around with the laws of nature, especially evolution. Random diversity is so important to our survival. Things start going wrong when humans start messing around with natural law too much and throw things out of wack.
J. Hypolite There are many flaws in your argument . Curing a diseases is fundamentally interfering with the laws of nature . You’re being hypocritical. Also , everyone has a different idea of the perfect human .
Looking forward to the inevitable "Original Recipe or Extra CRISPR?" jokes. ...in addition to the opportunity to maximize the nutritional value of foods, soothe/eradicate diseases, and more. Of course.
I recently read yeast is being engineered to produce cheap, plentiful THC that's found in marijuana and will greatly reduce the cost of research and medications that rely on it. Not to mention the fun side!
I have a question, when I hear about genetic engineering in humans it's always in the embryo stage, what are the obstacles stopping genetic engineering (other than ethics) in adults. I always figured that with CRISPR you can use a virus as a delivery method throughout the body by injecting the modified virus straight into bone marrow. Could someone explain please!
embryo: a single cell is edited, therefore all the cells that come from this one will have the genetic change in it. It's a permanent thing since all cells have the same genetic code. Adults or complex organisms (various cells): viruses attack specific kind of cells, so you can have a virus that can infect a cell located in the bone marrow. If the infection succeeds, some cells will have the genetic change, but not every cell. Cells have usually a replication cycle, which consist on how many times a single cell can replicate itself before it dies. This means that cells have a lifespan, so if you have some modified cells in the bone marrow, they will eventually die, therefore the genetic modification is not permanent. In order to maintain the change over time you will need to infect the patient every 3 to 4 months.
informationtolearn 11 that’s already been done in Asia. There’s this guy that made genetic twins and he also did a full head transplant on someone. (Most ppl die in his experiments)
Who's looking forward to the next branch of engineering: gravitic? Then those top-heavy wheat plants won't fall over, with a proper application of gravity control.
Feynstein 100 not a good idea imo, the social issues will be huge. You don’t want genetically engineered people taking over the world and oppressing non modified humans. Maybe thats a bit extreme, but if we make them too intelligent, narcissism could arise.
@JakeXD I don't get where this feeling of "us vs them" comes from. Genetically modified humans are still humans. We are already living in a genetically unequal world. Some people are better-looking than others, some more intelligent than others, and so on. Right now what genes we're born with is completely random, with the result that some people have good ones and others bad. Genetic engineering will allow us to change that. It won't lead to complete equality, because that's just not possible. However, it will improve people's lives overall. An appropriate analogy would be the Industrial revolution and economic development. It didn't lead to perfect equality. However, it did improve everyone's lives for the better. Even the poorest among us are living much better lives than the richest of our ancestors did. I know it's not a perfect system but it's still better than letting random chance dictate people's fate. That's how I see it anyway. I could be wrong though :)
Feynstein 100 I’m just worried about it being only for the super rich, maybe that could increase disparity between the classes. Then, the 1% could have like a ton of 200+iq individuals which could lead to the rich gaining massive amounts of power over governments as they would be intelligent enough to know how to get elected.
0:30 *"That can sound a little scary, and it's certainly not without it's controversy"* < And why not? Unlike conventional engineering, you are creating something that will go on self-replicating, forever.
Yeah, and that's exactly the problem a lot of people have with it. Since you are altering the genes of an organism, any potential errors or unpredicted mutations will be passed on to future generations.
i don't care about making super humans with immune to everything! i want to know how to,combine animal DNA with another and make some kind of hybrid! which for me is much more interesting.
I find it shocking that most people seem to think living forever is a good thing. It only makes sense if we decide that the children do not deserve a future. If anything, our lives today are far too long for the good of both the planet and society.
Don't forget the rich who will most likely be able to afford such long live. Turning our wealth gap to a health gap where the rich are immortal overlords.
B'coz u can't really rely on them, as the marketing/commercial charges will be high and some people may not afford them. And as it is modified by us, humans, we are modifying the natural growth and development of it. So some may be beneficial, and some may be not. It may also happen that due to modification in it's genes it may mutate into undesirable product which may harm the organism consuming it, may it be insects, pests or humans. So can't take the risk!
To me there should be no boundry to genetic engineering. If I could make my child healthier or more intelligent I would. I know I'd be upset if my parents passed that up for me.
Yeah right, forgetting the fact most likely the rich will reap the full benefits of this technology to the point they will live very long lives while the plebs live short inadequate lives. This isn't going to be guven to everyone equally. Even smartphones which are ubiquitous aren't equal. Poorer countries have basic garbage phones while rich countries can easily afford the lastest Iphone.
I never liked how cross breeding is lumped into today's genetic engineering as though it's the same thing when it isn't. There are countless things you can do with genetic engineering that can never be achieved by cross breeding. This includes inserting genes from completely different species hench the moniker, Franken Food.
I've said it before and will say it again: famine is a political problem always. Using that argument in promoting new science is 'very very' backward. New technology have always given as much problems as they solve. Like throwing a gun into a room of fighting people. Saying: shure guns don't kill people.
Science needs to also preserve native plants and ecosystems. Thousands of different varieties of corn due to amerindian cultivation, but most of them are in danger of extinction today.
If our world is any indication of human development... Genetic engineering shall be most interesting...especially when the natural world selection is for the strongest and smartest or most adaptable of the species in aggregate. Creating species by unnatural selection for the Ultimate purpose of immortality research sounds like a petri dish in da sky reach....lmao Also the sugarphospate backbone is an electrically neutral electron carrier chassis with minimal interference of the hydrogen nitrogen oxygen carbon recombination for ATCG
Ooh the ethical part of engineering! “Your scientists were to focused on whether or not they could that they stop and think of whether or not they should”
Yeah mutations are sooooooooo baaaad. It's not like mutations literally are the reason I'm here. It's not like that mutations can help an organism by making a good trait for an organism
This video felt a little scattered, to my taste. Also, while the fact that we have been manipulating genomes for over 10000 years is a valid and useful point to make, I'd be careful with conflating these kinds of modifications with those being brought about via the use of various molecular biology tools as it is those tools that most folk think of when seeing the label "genetic engineering". For instance, if you don't consider any and all breeding to be genetic engineering, calling Dr. Borlaug a "pioneer of genetic engineering" would be incorrect. While he was definitely an advocate of these techniques, the amazing work he did was all based on conventional breeding techniques.
As a trained geneticist in college I always fantasized Of making the most stupid human by genetic default to be the most intelligent by genetics engineering. Down’s syndrome was of interest to me. Iceland in current day recently perhaps now aborts their Down’s syndrome children after genetic sampling of embryonic fluid, amniocentesis. The perfect revenge on mankind. I create a wolf pack of men unstoppable by all armies big and small. Last night I dreamt of a man who came to me with other men. They looked sort of Korean yet they looked like the men or image of men who were more round eyed like some Robbers I met in employment. I suspected them or impostors of them back in 1999 and 2000. This man in the dream had a head four times the size of a human and his body was average yet I can’t recall his body due to the head size and my amazement and the look in his eye. Not violent. Not yet. The other men I could see their bodies and they were sort of small like Koreans and heads were average size. The big head man was like the queen bee. . The big head man was H and R puff n stuff met mongoloidism in genetics lab with a touch of growth hormone to the head in embryo naturale. Never work in military or finance without realizing it is a cold calculating onslaught. Perhaps by the man with only a right hemisphere in the big head. The one with only the left hemisphere would be like Jesus with empathy however. Unless he was brain damaged by a murder attempt at or before birth. Then he would be the average Genentech left the USA the year I moved to near their headquarters 1999. An unstoppable force of military might undetected was alleged rolling across California. My professor told me not to take the job. I was in med tech before auditor work and was hurt in a family robbery after my brother kurt Cobains death. Never saw a penny or my brother. I was being manipulated due to corruption and money. Why am I kept alive? If life is a delusion and death? The weak get strong the strong go weak. That is what happens at points of change. As predictable as 3 form of the elements. Kurt brown saintrambone Mobile Audit Club. .
GE: Orcs, then Uruk-hai. Ethics: just because u can doesn't mean you should. Technologism: everything that can be done should be done because it is technology.
I just love how we humans have the power to create and modify biological things like our creator did. Yet people dont like the idea because of their *morals*. Jeez grow up.
Selective breeding and crossing of plant species is not genetic engineering. You don't need to know the genetic structure or directly affect the genes. More accurately, it could be described as phenotype engineering. There are significant risks associated with genetically modifying an organism and releasing it into the environment - both for the organism itself and the rest of the ecosystem. Those risks were not addressed in this video.
@@Mirabell97 dependent on the organism being modified, it's place in the wider environment, and the specific modification. For crops, I think examples could include out-competing the unmodified version, driving it to extinction or otherwise creating ecological imbalance; creation of novel allergens; uptake of novel genes by e.g. gut bacteria and viruses; unpredictable disruption to the function of the original genes/proteins; accumulation of more toxins in the environment (indirect effect where crops are modified to be more resistant to herbicide/pesticide). Modifying bacteria to produce drugs etc. is probably safer if it's properly contained. Modifying animals (including humans) to them release them into the wild would be highly irresponsible in the majority of imagined cases, given the state of current technology and our understanding of the risks.
@@jerseyboi85 But why would "novel genes" that are introduced into plants get uptaken by gut bacteria? And even if they were… why would it be hazardous compared to the natural genome of the plant? Or.. more hazardous than the other options we have? If you just have a look at Puccinia gramins/stem rust for example, without genetic engineering it can only be contained by fugizides, that are toxic for mice, birds and even mammals. The only other thing that we can do (and that has been done for quite some time now) is to introduce genes into the plants, causing them to develop a resistance against the infection with this fungi - if we hadn't started doing that, we probably could not be sure to harvest wheat, rye, corn and other really important plants every year. I do see problems with introducing antibiotic resistance genes, the monsanto technique and several other methods that are being used in genetic engineering, but I disagree that the engineering of plants is always bad/not predictable. We usually know the genes/proteins that we introduce into the plants and can to some extend model, if they interfere with the "natural"/previously bred metabolic system in the plants - even better than if we caused random mutations using UV-light or anything similar.
ok so, serious question. what are the downsides to altering humans hair, eyes and IQ?. im sorry, but the nations that can SHOULD do so. mankind needs all the help it can get and this could advance us enough to make our species truly great. yeah the rich will be the only people who can afford it at first but that funding has to come from somewhere and in 20-30 years it could be cheap enough for everyone to do. which would lead to the new man.
Considering the times we live some people will take it as “sin” against their god thus risking further separation and intolerance of us as species. I’m all for it it will end the spread of terrible genes passed down constantly by irresponsible human beings
Economic gaps, will allow people with the right financial means to develop differently/better than the rest thus creating an unfixable divide of humanity.
@@W.Rain. again, for the fourth time. that gap already exists. depriving the whole of humanity something because the rich get it first is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
As an intuitive empath, that is in laymans terminology, pychically gifted. Yes, no need to be put through a crisper, 😉😁....To the laymen out there who listen to this type of propaganda....to play with the human brain/cellular level... ....its called thought ((a natural process)) and thought can/does cause our cellular structure to mutate in fact...more so than our environment...it CAN happen over a single lifetime.... REMEMBER Darwin's theory is JUST a theory....change happening over millennium.....😂......he never put into play the aspect of thought just environmental but then his thinking was limited to the FIVE senses, ESP does help see through the bull**** given, whether in "the name" of science or politics.... The moment humans play God they think they are a "god" we are mutating naturally WITHOUT the need for a fellow human being playing around with genetics...yes some things have occured that are "good" yet the SIDE EFFECTS are astronomically dangerous...its called ethics.....its not what is spoken of here it is WHAT is not said....so do your own research NOT what is brought to you via technocracy and yes big pharma is a major aspect of technocracy. Maybe one day science can catch up to what we physically talented individuals already know, but they gotta go about it the hard, arduously difficult way....some are researching...the smart scientists are that is, into phychic phenomon.
Crash courses are really badly directed. The teachers are like speakers gives me earache. Slower, more wise and more relax plz. Being fast does not mean to have rush in speaking!
Wrong. Epigenetics forces and multitudes of other external and internal factors make genetics almost impossible. Yes you may be able to change some aspects but what impacts it has on the individual and broader nll implication on its environment become almost impossible to predict. We dont live on an island people..
PS: I only argue against it because I'm very much disabled myself. Name a major organ and I'll tell you what's wrong with mine. thing is, believe it or not, I'm VERY smart and totally content in my life. And I believe I have the RIGHT to be disabled and not be told I'm wrong as I am. Do we not all, in our differences from one another, have that right?
SoulFire39 Well yeah. We shouldn’t treat them as lesser people, but they are inferior. Someone who can’t walk can’t walk, someone who can’t stand can’t stand, ect.
I think "CrashCourse'' is the only channel that subtittles with the same words that ones listen, that is very importan to spanish spoken...Congratulations.
Glad the subtitles are helpful! We do our best to do them ourselves before the episode goes up!
"LOS FELICITO". From Caracas Venezuela.
Corn, wheat, rice, etc. there's a lot to grain from genetic engineering.
I'm curious... is there anything harmful that an individual, group, or government might be able to do with modern genetic engineering technology?
@@nihilozero Yes, unfortunately. Right now it would be easy for a well established lab (right people, right equipment) to create a very deadly bioweapon. I'm sure many governments already have. But that doesn't concern me too much. They're not likely use it due to the international repercussions and danger to their own citizens.
But the lone crazy person, bent on destroying the world... that's what worries me. And recent advances in molecular biology are making it easy enough for a single person, with access to the right equipment, to do it.
I worked in genetic labs in the early/mid 2000s and security was pretty relaxed. Hopefully it's different now.
I’m liking all of your comments
@@aaaaaaaa6685 Oh yeah yeah!
@@PwntifexMaximus Or, you know, you don't leave them behind? It's possible to improve the whole of humanity, you know. But you lot wouldn't care about little things like that now, would you? So long as you can grab the advantages for yourself before anyone else.
Genetic Engineering is really complex, so kudos to a Genetic Scientist out there!
Thanks
@Justin Y, I've spent the last 7 years CRISPRing away at a PhD, so I think that counts. There are fish swimming around missing multiple genes because of me...
@Justin Y, I could try. Mostly just super fish.
Turtle Von Nurtle how are those super fish going?
This is just the next logical step. It's only a matter of time, and countries that allow it will end being more productive than those that don't.
I agree. Just think about the parents reasoning: If you knew you could do something that would make your child's life better (like they being more physically strong, more intelligent or more resilient to diseases) wouldn't you do it? Would you really restrain your child from a better life just because it involves genetic engineering?
@@matheusribeiro8523 The issue with something like that isn't even necessarily the moral implications but the scientific danger. Diversity is literally what has allowed us to survive and evolve as a species. There is nothing wrong with curing genetic disorders or diseases that greatly impact a person's life, but when you start editing genes to "make a better organism" you start messing around with the laws of nature.
Let's say you edit the gene of a fruit fly to make it survive better in high temperatures because to you that's a benefit for it. Soon all fruit flies survive really well in high temps. Yeah! But then climate change etc happen and now the temp is really cold. All the fruit flies die because they were all resistant to high temps but not low, since there was no diversity among them. Now fruit flies are extinct.
In the same way you may think making most if not all humans more "intelligent" would be a benefit. But what happens when we have a population of people who are all awesome at Math and Science, but none or very few are good artistically or are very creative? You may think it's a benefit if everyone was physically strong but wouldn't that also mean you're population would require a higher energy input to sustain that strength? In turn that would put a strain on our food resources and if something catastrophic occurred that limited people's access to food, they would die off quicker? Diversity ensures that we all have various genetic make up that makes us resilient to our diverse environment, In turn we ensure our own survival and the survival of others.
TLDR; So it cant just be yeah let's make everyone super smart and super strong! Soon we all look alike and have similar genes and are all wiped out at the same time by the same event none of us are resistant too
@@j.hypolite5163 I see where you come from but I think your point is a little weak. In summary, you are saying that what I think as obvious "improvements" in humans through genetic engineering could turn out to be unexpected disadvantages. I agree with this and also think we have to be very careful and foresighting with genetic engineering, not only with humans. However, this alone isn't an argument against human genetic engineering because people could always say "don't worry, we'll be careful".
Your other point is that genetic diversity is beneficial to our species, even if (or precisely because) it involves some sort of weakness or "unfulfilled potential" (like people not being as strong as genetic engineering would allow). Although this point is very valid in biology, we must aknowledge that the reason for this is because genetic mutations are the source for new (beneficial) traits to appear in a population and thus allow evolution and adaptation. However, if genetic engineering really develop into a "fine editing-tool of DNA" as we are supposing in this conversation, we should be able to introduce genetic variety with it, and not only with spontaneous mutations. In this way, using genetic engineering would actually be better for genetic diversity and human adaptation.
@@matheusribeiro8523 My concern is that when scientists start trying to create a "perfect" human based on their perceived idea of perfection, they won't leave room for diversity because if you think this one gene is amazingly beneficial why would you not recommend editing it if you could? that would seem wrong in an of itself.
The thing about random mutations is just that, they're random, and they being beneficial or not is not known until they are put to a test. So yes, scientists can engineer their own beneficial mutations so to speak but they won't necessarily know if it would actually be beneficial in the long run or if it could eventually be a disadvantage to future generations. I personally am I scientist at heart and wish to pursue my phd in genetics one day, but I want to help cure and prevent diseases and disorders, I don't see the need in messing around with the laws of nature, especially evolution. Random diversity is so important to our survival. Things start going wrong when humans start messing around with natural law too much and throw things out of wack.
J. Hypolite There are many flaws in your argument . Curing a diseases is fundamentally interfering with the laws of nature . You’re being hypocritical.
Also , everyone has a different idea of the perfect human .
Looking forward to the inevitable "Original Recipe or Extra CRISPR?" jokes.
...in addition to the opportunity to maximize the nutritional value of foods, soothe/eradicate diseases, and more. Of course.
Genetic Enginnering catgirls for Elon Musk
This is what I’m learning right now.
P450 is actually a family proteins called cytochrome P450s. There are many different kinds of P450s and they are found in all kinds of organisms.
I recently read yeast is being engineered to produce cheap, plentiful THC that's found in marijuana and will greatly reduce the cost of research and medications that rely on it. Not to mention the fun side!
iamihop
Solar is a bit gay. Nuclear power is kinda the best foe now. Especially Thorium
iamihop
It’s easier to make energy in big factories
iamihop
Solar is cool when you’re not close to a grid, though
Norma Borlaug improved the maze, so the minotaur couldn't escape.
I have a question, when I hear about genetic engineering in humans it's always in the embryo stage, what are the obstacles stopping genetic engineering (other than ethics) in adults. I always figured that with CRISPR you can use a virus as a delivery method throughout the body by injecting the modified virus straight into bone marrow. Could someone explain please!
embryo: a single cell is edited, therefore all the cells that come from this one will have the genetic change in it. It's a permanent thing since all cells have the same genetic code.
Adults or complex organisms (various cells): viruses attack specific kind of cells, so you can have a virus that can infect a cell located in the bone marrow. If the infection succeeds, some cells will have the genetic change, but not every cell. Cells have usually a replication cycle, which consist on how many times a single cell can replicate itself before it dies. This means that cells have a lifespan, so if you have some modified cells in the bone marrow, they will eventually die, therefore the genetic modification is not permanent. In order to maintain the change over time you will need to infect the patient every 3 to 4 months.
I hate those shelves
When will engineers improve shopping carts?
thank you so much for all thing ❤🌹
Alright. Let's do what Rick Sanchez would do. Cloning technology.
informationtolearn 11 that’s already been done in Asia. There’s this guy that made genetic twins and he also did a full head transplant on someone. (Most ppl die in his experiments)
@@NegativeAccelerate 🤔 Hmm... Interesting.
@@NegativeAccelerate Sources?
Where can I sign in?
Who's looking forward to the next branch of engineering: gravitic? Then those top-heavy wheat plants won't fall over, with a proper application of gravity control.
the way she talks makes it easier for my 30 year old brain to absorb what shes saying :D
Designer babies FTW :D
Feynstein 100 not a good idea imo, the social issues will be huge. You don’t want genetically engineered people taking over the world and oppressing non modified humans. Maybe thats a bit extreme, but if we make them too intelligent, narcissism could arise.
@JakeXD I don't get where this feeling of "us vs them" comes from. Genetically modified humans are still humans. We are already living in a genetically unequal world. Some people are better-looking than others, some more intelligent than others, and so on. Right now what genes we're born with is completely random, with the result that some people have good ones and others bad. Genetic engineering will allow us to change that. It won't lead to complete equality, because that's just not possible. However, it will improve people's lives overall. An appropriate analogy would be the Industrial revolution and economic development. It didn't lead to perfect equality. However, it did improve everyone's lives for the better. Even the poorest among us are living much better lives than the richest of our ancestors did. I know it's not a perfect system but it's still better than letting random chance dictate people's fate. That's how I see it anyway. I could be wrong though :)
Feynstein 100 I’m just worried about it being only for the super rich, maybe that could increase disparity between the classes. Then, the 1% could have like a ton of 200+iq individuals which could lead to the rich gaining massive amounts of power over governments as they would be intelligent enough to know how to get elected.
0:30 *"That can sound a little scary, and it's certainly not without it's controversy"* < And why not? Unlike conventional engineering, you are creating something that will go on self-replicating, forever.
Yeah, and that's exactly the problem a lot of people have with it. Since you are altering the genes of an organism, any potential errors or unpredicted mutations will be passed on to future generations.
Good style of topic telling
A lot of examples, in this case it's the best thing that you need to know 👍👍👍
Great topic, thanks for the information
Thank you very much this channel is much more informative... And Again thanks a lot for awarding me certificates 😁
oh yeah, yeah
OH YEAH YEAH
Greta video, simple but complete. The only problem is that CAS9 is a protein found in some bacteria and not an enzyme. But still grate video.
I'm just waiting for graphite to become a thing
@Dad
it is
Was that a "dad" joke?
Graphite was used in the pencil that you didn't write that comment with...
That bit about mice has... freaky implications, to say the least.
I could swim forever in those eyes, lord o' mighty!
Should we modify our DNA? Over time, yes!
i don't care about making super humans with immune to everything! i want to know how to,combine animal DNA with another and make some kind of hybrid! which for me is much more interesting.
1:48 You're wrong.
Jaguar's have rosettes, not spots.
I want to know more about to go about genetically engineering myself.
I find it shocking that most people seem to think living forever is a good thing. It only makes sense if we decide that the children do not deserve a future. If anything, our lives today are far too long for the good of both the planet and society.
Don't forget the rich who will most likely be able to afford such long live. Turning our wealth gap to a health gap where the rich are immortal overlords.
At 1:14 the DNA strand twists in the wrong direction
Wow so much interesting things
I didn’t I would like this series so much.
i love crash course
Confused Matthew was right
I am unable to understand why some people oppose GMO's!!!!!!
B'coz u can't really rely on them, as the marketing/commercial charges will be high and some people may not afford them. And as it is modified by us, humans, we are modifying the natural growth and development of it. So some may be beneficial, and some may be not. It may also happen that due to modification in it's genes it may mutate into undesirable product which may harm the organism consuming it, may it be insects, pests or humans. So can't take the risk!
Depends on who’s doing it, and for what reasons.
Y'all ever read The House of the Scorpion or read/seen Jurassic Park? Let's just put this to good use only.
(Aka only herbivores)
*excited*
So, by the time I'm in my l8 50's there'd be enough research for it to be used on me. COOL!
In a world governed by money, we have to say no to foxdie
Late honorable Dr. Norman Ernst borlaug sir crop research center Pantnagar
5:30 when you hear that someone doesn't like CrashCourse
It was very helpful for me✌️😇
To me there should be no boundry to genetic engineering. If I could make my child healthier or more intelligent I would. I know I'd be upset if my parents passed that up for me.
Al Gee
Idk why so many are against genetic modification we can make the world so much better with smarter people stronger people faster people and more
Yeah right, forgetting the fact most likely the rich will reap the full benefits of this technology to the point they will live very long lives while the plebs live short inadequate lives.
This isn't going to be guven to everyone equally. Even smartphones which are ubiquitous aren't equal. Poorer countries have basic garbage phones while rich countries can easily afford the lastest Iphone.
Arno Wisp bruh your a bone head everyone will have a designer baby
@@papamango570 Everyone? I doubt it. It definitely won't be equal access to everyone.
Arno Wisp let me guess your against gmo food too?
@@papamango570 Oh look, throwing accusations around hoping it will reduce my point which it will not.
Me:*having to watch this for online school* Me:*after done watching this video* “I’m confused smh”
she’s got pretty eyes :x
Yeah she's very pretty and smart, you have good taste
She got pretty everything!
That's your take away?! On a video about genetic engineering... really dude?!
I never liked how cross breeding is lumped into today's genetic engineering as though it's the same thing when it isn't.
There are countless things you can do with genetic engineering that can never be achieved by cross breeding. This includes inserting genes from completely different species hench the moniker, Franken Food.
Life.... finds away.
I've said it before and will say it again: famine is a political problem always. Using that argument in promoting new science is 'very very' backward.
New technology have always given as much problems as they solve. Like throwing a gun into a room of fighting people. Saying: shure guns don't kill people.
Is that how Brits pronounce "jaguar"??
As we go down this road we must remember life will always find a way to kill.
Man I miss the old guy
I have to learn this in 7th grade 😩
Hi John, I had an idea, please make a crash course about the history of Asia about let's say: Kimak, Kypchak, Khorezm, Mughals, Timurids, Noghai.
I could be wrong, but werent there significant repercussions of the Indian Green Revolution?
Science needs to also preserve native plants and ecosystems. Thousands of different varieties of corn due to amerindian cultivation, but most of them are in danger of extinction today.
What’s wrong if they go extinct? New plants take their place over time. That’s how evolution works.
Genome
Gnome
G'nOmEd
Is it weird that for practical purposes I prefer her to Hank?
If our world is any indication of human development...
Genetic engineering shall be most interesting...especially when the natural world selection is for the strongest and smartest or most adaptable of the species in aggregate.
Creating species by unnatural selection for the Ultimate purpose of immortality research sounds like a petri dish in da sky reach....lmao
Also the sugarphospate backbone is an electrically neutral electron carrier chassis with minimal interference of the hydrogen nitrogen oxygen carbon recombination for ATCG
I have same lisp as you
Ooh the ethical part of engineering! “Your scientists were to focused on whether or not they could that they stop and think of whether or not they should”
We shouldn't engineer babies only adults unless it's for medical reasons
Yeah mutations are sooooooooo baaaad. It's not like mutations literally are the reason I'm here. It's not like that mutations can help an organism by making a good trait for an organism
Gattca
B
Genetically engineered Catgirls?
CATGIRLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like her accent 😍😍
When I saw Hank wasn't in the video my heart skipped a beat...
This video felt a little scattered, to my taste.
Also, while the fact that we have been manipulating genomes for over 10000 years is a valid and useful point to make, I'd be careful with conflating these kinds of modifications with those being brought about via the use of various molecular biology tools as it is those tools that most folk think of when seeing the label "genetic engineering".
For instance, if you don't consider any and all breeding to be genetic engineering, calling Dr. Borlaug a "pioneer of genetic engineering" would be incorrect. While he was definitely an advocate of these techniques, the amazing work he did was all based on conventional breeding techniques.
As a trained geneticist in college I always fantasized Of making the most stupid human by genetic default to be the most intelligent by genetics engineering.
Down’s syndrome was of interest to me. Iceland in current day recently perhaps now aborts their Down’s syndrome children after genetic sampling of embryonic fluid, amniocentesis. The perfect revenge on mankind. I create a wolf pack of men unstoppable by all armies big and small.
Last night I dreamt of a man who came to me with other men. They looked sort of Korean yet they looked like the men or image of men who were more round eyed like some Robbers I met in employment. I suspected them or impostors of them back in 1999 and 2000.
This man in the dream had a head four times the size of a human and his body was average yet I can’t recall his body due to the head size and my amazement and the look in his eye. Not violent. Not yet. The other men I could see their bodies and they were sort of small like Koreans and heads were average size. The big head man was like the queen bee. . The big head man was H and R puff n stuff met mongoloidism in genetics lab with a touch of growth hormone to the head in embryo naturale.
Never work in military or finance without realizing it is a cold calculating onslaught. Perhaps by the man with only a right hemisphere in the big head. The one with only the left hemisphere would be like Jesus with empathy however. Unless he was brain damaged by a murder attempt at or before birth. Then he would be the average
Genentech left the USA the year I moved to near their headquarters 1999. An unstoppable force of military might undetected was alleged rolling across California. My professor told me not to take the job. I was in med tech before auditor work and was hurt in a family robbery after my brother kurt Cobains death. Never saw a penny or my brother. I was being manipulated due to corruption and money. Why am I kept alive? If life is a delusion and death?
The weak get strong the strong go weak. That is what happens at points of change. As predictable as 3 form of the elements.
Kurt brown saintrambone Mobile Audit Club.
.
Me: What is your best ability
Diatoms: Uhh, We can deliver drugs
Me: Your Hired
You're
GE: Orcs, then Uruk-hai. Ethics: just because u can doesn't mean you should. Technologism: everything that can be done should be done because it is technology.
I just want her mind.😅
Is perfact
l'm not good for the E 😅😅😅😅
Did anyone else also get stressed out by the background?
Plz speak slowly
l'm soory 😔😔
I just love how we humans have the power to create and modify biological things like our creator did. Yet people dont like the idea because of their *morals*. Jeez grow up.
You have nice hair
My dna been edited or whatever cause 3 unknown mutation
Selective breeding and crossing of plant species is not genetic engineering. You don't need to know the genetic structure or directly affect the genes. More accurately, it could be described as phenotype engineering.
There are significant risks associated with genetically modifying an organism and releasing it into the environment - both for the organism itself and the rest of the ecosystem. Those risks were not addressed in this video.
Darwin's Lapdog what are those risks?
@@Mirabell97 dependent on the organism being modified, it's place in the wider environment, and the specific modification.
For crops, I think examples could include out-competing the unmodified version, driving it to extinction or otherwise creating ecological imbalance; creation of novel allergens; uptake of novel genes by e.g. gut bacteria and viruses; unpredictable disruption to the function of the original genes/proteins; accumulation of more toxins in the environment (indirect effect where crops are modified to be more resistant to herbicide/pesticide).
Modifying bacteria to produce drugs etc. is probably safer if it's properly contained.
Modifying animals (including humans) to them release them into the wild would be highly irresponsible in the majority of imagined cases, given the state of current technology and our understanding of the risks.
@@jerseyboi85 But why would "novel genes" that are introduced into plants get uptaken by gut bacteria? And even if they were… why would it be hazardous compared to the natural genome of the plant? Or.. more hazardous than the other options we have?
If you just have a look at Puccinia gramins/stem rust for example, without genetic engineering it can only be contained by fugizides, that are toxic for mice, birds and even mammals. The only other thing that we can do (and that has been done for quite some time now) is to introduce genes into the plants, causing them to develop a resistance against the infection with this fungi - if we hadn't started doing that, we probably could not be sure to harvest wheat, rye, corn and other really important plants every year.
I do see problems with introducing antibiotic resistance genes, the monsanto technique and several other methods that are being used in genetic engineering, but I disagree that the engineering of plants is always bad/not predictable. We usually know the genes/proteins that we introduce into the plants and can to some extend model, if they interfere with the "natural"/previously bred metabolic system in the plants - even better than if we caused random mutations using UV-light or anything similar.
ok so, serious question. what are the downsides to altering humans hair, eyes and IQ?. im sorry, but the nations that can SHOULD do so. mankind needs all the help it can get and this could advance us enough to make our species truly great. yeah the rich will be the only people who can afford it at first but that funding has to come from somewhere and in 20-30 years it could be cheap enough for everyone to do. which would lead to the new man.
Considering the times we live some people will take it as “sin” against their god thus risking further separation and intolerance of us as species. I’m all for it it will end the spread of terrible genes passed down constantly by irresponsible human beings
Economic gaps, will allow people with the right financial means to develop differently/better than the rest thus creating an unfixable divide of humanity.
@@W.Rain. again, for the fourth time. that gap already exists. depriving the whole of humanity something because the rich get it first is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
(Craig Venter). Check this person out people. Lmk wats up wanna hear ur opinion. lol
can I get a uhhh light switch sleep/wake gene please b0ss
As awesome as dangerous/worrisome
GMO sheeple
More animations!!!! watching someone talk is boring...
As an intuitive empath, that is in laymans terminology, pychically gifted. Yes, no need to be put through a crisper, 😉😁....To the laymen out there who listen to this type of propaganda....to play with the human brain/cellular level... ....its called thought ((a natural process)) and thought can/does cause our cellular structure to mutate in fact...more so than our environment...it CAN happen over a single lifetime.... REMEMBER Darwin's theory is JUST a theory....change happening over millennium.....😂......he never put into play the aspect of thought just environmental but then his thinking was limited to the FIVE senses, ESP does help see through the bull**** given, whether in "the name" of science or politics....
The moment humans play God they think they are a "god" we are mutating naturally WITHOUT the need for a fellow human being playing around with genetics...yes some things have occured that are "good" yet the SIDE EFFECTS are astronomically dangerous...its called ethics.....its not what is spoken of here it is WHAT is not said....so do your own research NOT what is brought to you via technocracy and yes big pharma is a major aspect of technocracy.
Maybe one day science can catch up to what we physically talented individuals already know, but they gotta go about it the hard, arduously difficult way....some are researching...the smart scientists are that is, into phychic phenomon.
2nd person
to put a comment
You said if "done correctly". Now why would we trust the powers that be to do things correctly with the human genome? LOOK AT THE EARTH!!
Crash courses are really badly directed. The teachers are like speakers gives me earache. Slower, more wise and more relax plz. Being fast does not mean to have rush in speaking!
If you need to, you could always change the speed of the video in the video settings. That can make it easier to understand.
Wrong. Epigenetics forces and multitudes of other external and internal factors make genetics almost impossible. Yes you may be able to change some aspects but what impacts it has on the individual and broader nll implication on its environment become almost impossible to predict. We dont live on an island people..
Know what else would give us more food? If we stopped eating animals that require resources and land area.
Lan grown meat is gonna be in supermarkets at the end of 2019
PS: I only argue against it because I'm very much disabled myself. Name a major organ and I'll tell you what's wrong with mine. thing is, believe it or not, I'm VERY smart and totally content in my life. And I believe I have the RIGHT to be disabled and not be told I'm wrong as I am. Do we not all, in our differences from one another, have that right?
What you don’t realize is that most people don’t want that
Oh no, I know. It's because disabled people are seen as inferior, subnormal in our society, though. And you have to admit, that's NOT fair.
SoulFire39
Well yeah. We shouldn’t treat them as lesser people, but they are inferior. Someone who can’t walk can’t walk, someone who can’t stand can’t stand, ect.
Let me remind you: you are talking to a VERY disabled woman here. I can only see for about 10% of what you can. Am I inferior to you?
SoulFire39
I have Myopia. Would I prefer to live without Myopia? Hell yeah! I dream of the day I’m 25 & can get LASIK.
Where’s the white guy
Damn she's hot.