ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ค. 2023
- How far are parents willing to go to give their children the best chance at life? A new genetic test promises to reduce the risk of diseases like Type 1 diabetes in embryos. But it could also be used to optimize traits, like intelligence. VICE News explores the promises and perils of this technology.
Correction: A previous version of this video stated inaccurately that Down's Syndrome was caused by a mutation in a single gene. It is a genetic disorder caused when abnormal cell division results in an extra full or partial copy of chromosome 21.
Help keep VICE News’ fearless reporting free for millions by making a one-time or ongoing contribution here. - vice.com/contribute
Subscribe to VICE News here: bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE-News
Check out VICE News for more: vicenews.com
Follow VICE News here:
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@vicenews?lang=en
Facebook: / vicenews
Twitter: / vicenews
Instagram: / vicenews
More videos from the VICE network: www. vicevideo
Follow VICE World News here:
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@viceworldnews...
Twitch: / vice
Facebook: / viceworldnews
Twitter: / viceworldnews
Instagram: / viceworldnews
#VICENews #News
The first family is a perfect example of why this is important, the second family is the perfect example of who will abuse it.
How exactly is it abuse?
@@The88Cheat reading comprehension is low on yt. 😂
There is a movie called Gattaca which is about this topic.
@@jsweet1864The question is valid. I don't know what's up with the comment you made. Maybe you're the one with the appalling reading comprehension. 😂
@@LilliputianGYATT Something got deleted. This was over a freaking month ago so I don't know. Take your outrage somewhere else 🤡
Is there a genetic test for the second family to ensure they don’t pass down their insufferable personalities to their children?
😅
"Ohh..earning potential, that's a good one"
The risk of Narcissistic Personality Personalty would be a great thing to test for. It's a far greater burden on society than intellectual disability any way you calculate it.
@@seanjantz This guy doesn't know that future earning potential is largely determined by societal factors? Perhaps his parents should have screened their zygotes for fatuous self-satisfaction and entitlement before implanting him. 🙄🤨
lol
The couple who doesn’t want their child to have a female name because they will do worse in the world…it’s literally how we will never overcome societal issues. That second couple is incorrigible. Their child might not be predisposed to mental health issues but they will have a complex with parents like that.
Darwin doesn’t choose the best, only the best adapted to procreate.
We're that couple. Ultimately, people associate masculine traits with higher competence and intelligence (albeit also lower beauty and approachability). Life is unfair, so we think it's best to anticipate that unfairness and deal with it head on.
If our daughter chooses to change her name, then she'll do it. We're just giving out kids default settings we think will serve their best interests. It's up to them to determine how they shift those settings and we celebrate those independent choices. :)
Exactly, people are not data. Imagine the bullying this girl will endure knowing that it happens because mom and dad couldn’t handle her with a female name.
Exactly.
Yeah, that second couple seems out there…makes me sad for their children
Being called Titan Invictus means that that poor girl is going to have to be EXCELLENT at everything. I hope the parents allow her some wiggle room to make mistakes
We're those parents. !00%-it's through mistakes that we learn. We're not tiger parents so much as we're "give them all the tools we think may give them an advantage, provide them with a safe, loving, and supportive home and family, and leave it up to them to do what they will with all that."
@@SimoneandMalcolm How do you feel about the fact that this is prohibitively expensive to most families?
I feel sorry for these kids, with names like that and parents that are just as ridiculous, I’d love to see how these kids actually end up.
@@SimoneandMalcolm what data are you referencing when you say "data shows strictly female names have a lot of negative outcomes"? Sounds like a load of crap.
@@BlueMoonStudios what does it matter how expensive it is? The genie is out of the bottle. We can either choose to keep in the hands of only the elite few who can afford it or if we want to support it to make it less costly and more available.
Someone somewhere will be willing to do it even if we make it illegal- money helps fix that especially if they can hop to a country where it isnt illegal. So many people with less means only see the immediate concern which is restricted access. In trying to spite that, they are only hurting their own family's potential to access it sooner. Do you think billionaires concern themselves with the ethical dilemma of limiting a technology because it isn't more widely available? How do you expect it become more available if its not refined and scaled up? Trying to put the genie back in the bottle will only make it more exclusive. Rich people will love that. We can make an even bigger health divide to go with our increasing class divide.
the family who named their baby titan invictus is terrifying 😭 very scary eugenics vibes
Since they did it before birth, then it’s fine. Literally no human was harmed (like actual eugenics where people already born).
@@hecutsdown91 i said it had eugenics vibes which it does. not that it’s actually eugenics.
They are still loopy as hell and quiet possible racist
Master Morality.
@@holdencawffle626Honestly this comment is kinda racist.
I love how the second family thinks testing for IQ and earning potential isn't eugenics. As someone with a lot of chronic genetic conditions and disabilities, I have nothing against trying to prevent babies from being born with conditions that will cause them to suffer. However, the whole IQ thing screams "the master race" to me. But, maybe that is just me. IDK.
Its not just you.
I had a weird chill all over my body. I study history and well … it sounds like the beginning of something scary
@@Anna-fd3ui Same, i'm in college right now and I minor in history. This is definitely not looking good.
I think it shows their low IQ because there is no scientific evidence supporting what that company sold them. They got scammed and they made decisions on bogus "science".
They think it's geugenics only if it's enforced by the goverment, which is pretty dumb
So imagine the embryo the second family chose turns into a child with one of the things the parents tried to rule out, like depression. Would they blame their kid, reasoning it cannot be genetic? Or would they blame themselves, critising their parental skills? These are things I think parents should carefully consider when using these techniques. The response of the parents to the “negative outcome” would be critical to the health and well-being of the child. Is this a responsibility all parents can bear, and do you think parents could tell how they would respond beforehand?
Time seems endless & questions seeds necessary weeds alike
They seem like they would sue the company if their child was born with diabetes. Pretty sad.
The thing is there are a myriad of different genes that cause depression. Some of those have been observed to be linked to higher IQ. Then do they choose higher IQ but depression or lower IQ but no depression?
Furthermore, higher IQ is also linked to autism and in some cases bipolar disorder. Fact of the matter is, if you want someone to be incredibly “successful” in life, 100% mentally “healthy” and normal is often not one of them. Most notable people in the world - geniuses, famous people, CEOs often times have either autism, depression, narcissism, bipolar disorder. Famous designers and artists too - from what I have witnessed myself in my family whom are very successful in the design and artist world they are heavily dyslexic and barely passed school but because of their dyslexia their brain sees the world differently which led to their incredible success.
So yeah second family concerns me a little…
They'd probably consider her a 'failed experiment' 😢
I think it would be a lot better if they didn't let parents see the exact scores and just said we did the best ro optimize but any disease could still show up
The second family make me feel like they have a roadmap for their daughter and she must follow it or she will be a disappointment. The amount of pressure these people will put on her to be perfect because she was the “perfect” embryo is horrible. This child is growing up in a Sims world with her parents are the players and she’s the object of their desires and their own enjoyment.
This is how str8 people treat their children lol
@@PartnershipsForYou if I made a comment about how LGBTQ etc treated their kids then I'd be called a homophobe but you can be rude about straight people and nothing is wrong with that. Tell me again that there needs to be equality for non-straight people. Such rubbish honestly.
@@PartnershipsForYouif it wasn't for man and women biological function and love, you wouldn't be here. That comment was disgusting. I very much met horrible lgbt parents too with a complex, because they feel they have something to prove. Your comment was so ignorant 🙄. Equality isn't what you want, just want to hurt folk
It's their first kid. They're in for a treat. 🤣
@@PartnershipsForYou perfect answer ever
Having six siblings and Type A parents who are on the spectrum will be more decisive than a few percentage points on a genetic risk assessment.
"Type A." We used to call them "Yuppies."
What makes you say they're on the spectrum?
@@ansel203 the mom is commenting below
Exactly! 💯
as someone born with a genetic condition thats similar to cystic fibrosis, I am incredibly for this. it sucks having to live with this
You can thank your parents for giving you that.
But u wouldn't have been born if this existed
Dont give hope, you may have been born at the right time in human history to benefit from prospects of a quantum technological based reversal of devastating genetic disorders to proper coding. Stay away from private clinics wait until becomes adopted by regional medical centers as there are charlatans and worse today that are not on up and up - and far worse
@@jameshowse300you're assuming they would suffer from, or even REALIZE not being born. 😂 That's honestly mentally ill
It's the ultimate un-seen goodwill to prevent someone's suffering without them ever knowing ❤
I think comparing disease screening with IQ as the same thing is terribly disingenuous. It was alluded to by the host, but then nothing happened. The other big problem is if you select for a high IQ, you are going to expect more of that child, there is no way around it. You'll probably use it against them, "You're just lazy, you have the aptitude", trust me, this is bad bad bad from all angles. Intelligence isn't everything. It can be a burden if you don't have all the other tools to go along with it.
IQ is strongly correlated with higher incomes, higher test scores, and higher on almost any broadly agreed upon measure of success. The benefits massivley outweight any cost.
@@sevrent2811 higher iq is also strongly correlated with mental illness. mental illness is strongly correlated with sucide. If the child kills themselves, i dont think that is worth the high iq score. but you do you
@@heartycoffee4754 oh, but you can choose genetic make up for lower risk of mental disease and higher intellectual abilities.
I think what frightens most people is the thought "I wouldn't exist, if my parents had this technology". And of course in egocentrical view we are the best thing to have ever existed for ourselves. So if this technology would have made me not to come into existence, it is evil.
Funny thing is what happens on paper isn't always what transpires in real life. I knew someone whose parents basically did this. His mother went through IVF with a high IQ physician sperm donor, only to find out her "smartest" child was the one conceived naturally with her ex car mechanic husband.
You could choose the "best" embryo(s) and not yield the same results. Genetics is incredibly complicated. And environmental factors play a large role in development. Even in utero. A woman could choose the healthiest and successful embryo, but have a rocky pregnancy that undoes all of it.
"My name is Titan Invictus, I have an appointment at 2 oclock."
"Can I get that name again ma'am?
The Malcom's are beyond terrifying. Earning potential are you kidding me lol
Look the collinsinstitute (it is their school), they optimize children lol
I applaud them for looking out for their babies longterm health but their family presents as a bunch of robots. And not to mention the rigle casually sitting on the wall?? 💀
Yeah those people were fcking creepy.
"we dont want people thinking that were nazis or something" yea you're a bit past that line at the moment
It's not as black and white as that. There's no recipe for a ''perfect child''. Their child could have all those traits that they desired and still have a miserable life and vice versa. On paper it may sound perfect but we don't know how these things play out in real life. I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do it's just my humble opinion lol ✌️
jesus.. the lady dressed like steve jobs was weird for sure
Probably slightly Autistic
@@maximusmeridius5705 Oh, that's me. I and at least one of our kids are autistic. Hahahaha.
@@Joe-sg9ll this cracked me up XD
@@Leo23XR glasses, clothes, haircut.
@@DiscretionwithReason she looks cool and powerful.
The thing I don't see most people talk about is the fact that this tech is expensive. You wanna get rid of diseases? That's cool and all. But there's a very thin line where these parents will go off optimizing more desirable traits in their children.
The problem is this puts the rest of the population at a disadvantage. Let's be honest, most people won't be able to afford genetic screening. Without regulation this will be a platform for rich folks to further divide themselves from "normal" people. The chasm grows. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Some people would go through the tired-and-true method of pumping out as many children as possible to increase the chances of having a healthy child.
Affordability is not a human right, though. People have been creating designer babies for decades now through IVF, elite donors, etc. However, it's not a common practice due to the fact that it is so expensive.
What people tend to forget is that the more money wealthier people pump into experimental science/procedures, the faster scientists can innovate and lower the costs for everyone...eventually making it a relatively affordable service for all.
This is exactly what will happen.
This. This is exactly what was bouncing around in my head
@@britt0890 I think the problem is, in the US at least, only the wealthy will be able to afford to push the button.
I’m afraid to pass on my mental health illness to my children- my husband feels the same, so we chose to only adopt children. It means so much more to save a life and we will only ever adopt.
I don’t think people with mental health issues should be allowed to adopt lol
Just be aware that mental health can develop due to environmental factors.
Then don't adopt. Ever.
Who do you think abandon their babies? The mentally and physically healthy women? Wonder what genes your adopting then?
The couple that looks like each other are kinda…too much.
I would kind of just prefer if they didn't reproduce at all lol
Royals incest. Yuk., Diversity is a proven virtue.
oof
They will name their next child "Waldo", as in: "Where's Waldo". And of course the child will be born astigmatic, same as the parents, and will eventually wear the same eyeglasses. Actually, they probably requested that the embryo have markers for nearsightedness lol.
I was looking for a comment that matched my thoughts!! They were creepy!! What was she wearing on the treadmill??
I as a type 1 diabetic would love this for my kids. My brother also had cancer as a child and no none knows how hard that can all be on a family until you’ve experienced it. If there is a way to get rid of these diseases I say do it, but this type of thing should be free for every family
HA were you born yesterday?
im dumb, but cant healthy living and smart choices prevent these things?
@@PATTT_ bruh, some people are predispose to illnesses.
@@PATTT_ You're thinking of type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is caused by an L in the genetic lottery. Kids develop it before they even have the chance to live healthily and make smart choices.
@@PATTT_ that's not being dumb just curious, why people like to limit and bring themselves down so often ?
My wife and I did IVF to get our son. We opted for some basic genetic testing screening like Down Syndrome and other easily detectable issues. We felt it was imperative to get insight into our future son. I understand this isn’t a option for many and I wish it was. He’s healthy and he’s happy. We couldn’t ask for anything more.
Good for you. Not everyone wants to do that can do that.
50% of intelligence is inherited, 50% is of how they were raised. If you want your children to have a healthy, smart life: spend time with them and read books with them and watch documentaries with them. Kids are curious, you’ll see. They want to learn a lot. Let them play an instrument as it trains their brain very well. Don’t let them become addicted to a phone or tablet, let them become addicted to discovering the world and knowledge. And nature ;)
@@truehappiness4Uso I’m stuck at 50% chance having a genetic mutation even when I’ve done the work to NOT have one 😭 science failed me
Part of the problem with the second parents is that the humans can’t exist with only the smartest of us and being “successful” is a goalpost that will move by the time kids are adults. On top of all that, we have no idea how much genes are effected by environment, but we know they are. Honestly the second set of parents were ignorant of how limited the data is and that is the most dangerous type of person with this data.
The data is limited all the more reason to experiment.
Yeah, epigenetic influences can't be seen in testing. Stuff like intelligence is also arbitrary.
It is sad to see vice struggle. Because it is reporting like this that we need.
Ever think of the reasons why?
given the state of america at the moment, i hope they consider moving shop to a more understanding country. Maybe one thats not currently burning books and pushing for cheap child labour.
@@lvmonkey77nobody is burning or banning books
@@dogguy8603 should probably pay attention a bit more. “The 2022-23 school year has been marked to date by an escalation of book bans and censorship in classrooms and school libraries across the United States. PEN America recorded more book bans during the fall 2022 semester than in each of the prior two semesters. This school year also saw the effects of new state laws that censor ideas and materials in public schools, an extension of the book banning movement initiated in 2021 by local citizens and advocacy groups. Broad efforts to label certain books “harmful” and “explicit” are expanding the type of content suppressed in schools.
Again, and again, the movement to ban books is driven by a vocal minority demanding censorship. At the same time, a 2022 poll found that over 70% of parents oppose book banning. Yet the bans continue. Many public school districts find themselves in a bind. They face threats and political pressure, along with parental fears and anxieties surrounding the books on their school shelves. School Boards, administrators, teachers, and librarians are told in some cases to “err on the side of caution” in the books they make available. Too often, they do just that.”
@@dogguy8603 a disturbing amount of people are definitely trying to ban books (from public access in schools, effectively banning them altogether for those who can't afford them)
Thisssss is the kind of journalism I seek from Vice.
I just wish the reporter was a little tougher and asked the geneticist director guy to elaborate on his stern 'no' answer to the question if they'd ever test beyond diseases. I would have loved to hear his pov.
but if hes a man of science, he never will.
the thing about science is the understanding that things change and that make it problematic to go to absolutes, more so predictions of the future (when our knowledge of the subject could be different).
if you want to understand a person you need to "meet them where they live", and in the science world, that is not in absolutes. if you believe something to be 99.9% true, then you state it as such. rarely is there ever total certainty in anything.
("murphys law" is what it is because its a reminder that there is still a 0.1% chance of a different outcome. its also a reminder that it doesn't mean that 100 rolls of the dice means that that one weird 0.1% outcome has to happen once.).
Your need for that absolute statement says more about you than with his statement than something he did or didn't say, imho. (and i don't mean that as a personal attack, but just as point of contention)
@@lvmonkey77way to be condescending and make your point moot with that last part and hate to break it to you but that's not humble
We are less than 5 years from being able to legally abort based on traits. Maybe they wont be "born this way" anymore.
That no was so shady. It was so shady. It was like when Clinton was denying having an affair with Lewinsky. Tsk
As along as someone is willing to pay enough to get it done then someone will totally be willing to do it.
That's very upsetting.
If you’re not prepared to accept your child for exactly who they are - imperfections included - then I don’t know that you’re fit for parenthood.
Spot on.
I'm autistic, I've had fibromyalgia since I was 17, I've had daily migraines lasting 12+ hours starting in my twenties, I started losing my hearing in my thirties, and I am *SO glad* that this testing was not a thing back when I was conceived. My life was and is worth living, diseases and all. I went to film school, I coached competitive gymnastics till I was thirty, spent half of my thirties working with disabled orphans in Asia, spent the other half of my thirties mentoring disadvantaged teen girls in the US, and now I'm in my last year of Ivy League law school with a job waiting for me on Wall Street when I graduate (after spending one of my summers helping to represent families before the European Court of Human Rights.) But if I had either of those couples as my parents, I'd never have been born. MOST OF US would never have been born. We all have something "wrong" with us, but we're all worthy of life.
if you were terminated before birth you wouldntb care
@@lindsayturner4981 That is a lie that people like you tell yourselves to feel better about the whole thing. Pre-birth infants can feel things. They may not understand why something is happening or what exactly will happen to them but they certainly can feel the pain of being cut into pieces in order to get their bodies out of the womb.
And my point, which you are clearly not clever enough to understand, is that people like me deserve to live. Children like the disabled orphans I worked with in Asia are just as wonderful and loving as any other child. And most humans alive would have some genetic tendencies that could have caused them to be eliminated pre-birth if this testing had been standard.
@@AdeleiTeillana girl are you dumb if your not born you dont know anything 💀
@@AdeleiTeillana did they tell you that? lol
@AdeleiTeillana I absolutely love and appreciate your comment. This is so true and important. Thank you for saying what needs to be said!
How tf do you measure an embryo by earning potential?
if you have sex on campus of Harvard it will have high IQ
That is definitely unethical. Changing a kids life by making them make more money? Thats definitely unethical
Its probably based on a number of factors that are linked directly or coincidentally to earning potential like height, intelligence, maybe some personality traits that encourage risk.
I was thinking the same thing
You measure it by Intelligence, which is _genetic_
Because intelligence is highly correlated with socioeconomic status.
Correction: Down syndrome is NOT caused by a mutation in a single gene. It is caused by the presence of three copies of chromosome 21, instead of two (hence why it is also called trisomy 21)
Thanks. That bugged me.
they said a lot of things that are factually incorrect or misleading. i think its because they are pushing their own beliefs and trying to justify it with a sheen of science, without it being actual science.
That they don't even get this basic, well known fact right is so telling. It's beyond alarming the level of ignorance and arrogance in the comments. People are desperate to be sold lies, magic and bridges. There is a big push on various forms of eugenics and this film is basically a misleading ad.
They're bankrupt, bury this and the rest of their garbage reporting in the backyard. Enough
Strong & important input, good stuff!
The 2nd couple are an example of eugenics
Associations are like vegetables
I was like NOPE when he said "Oh No we're not Nazis." and then they laughed
The second family doesn't seem to understand the distinction between genetics and heritability. Depending on what study you reference, intelligence is roughly 50% heritability (as opposed to environmental) but that doesn't mean the correlated gene alleles have causal impacts. Additionally, high IQ has little/no impact on life outcomes even for bonafide geniuses. Further, the concept of genetic prediction of earning potential is balderdash informed by classism. I'm not even sure how you would select for "happiness" aside from avoiding alleles that are correlated with depression, but many people without depressive disorders have a low baseline level of happiness so that's not the same thing. The second family is trying to genetically select for things that have little/no identified genetic origins in a way that exemplifies their potential biases.
@bibis Thank you! Truthfully, I think about this a lot because I used to work in a genetic phenotyping lab and I now grieve for my contributions to that research. I should have been able to predict this outcome, but I was naive and believed our grant proposal for "targeted gene therapy". I later learned that the lead researchers of the project never believed it would result in that. Every genetic phenotyping researcher tacitly sees the disorders or diseases they are researching as burdens worth eliminating, so I left - but not before arming people like this.
I hope we don't live long enough to see the unfathomable impacts to our species, but I will educate where possible and always advocate for the celebration of neurodiversity to ameliorate the harm I indirectly facilitated.
@@brittanycole271you’re straight up lying the heritability of IQ is around 65-80% and IQ is greatly predictive of positive life outcomes all across the board, it has one of the highest predictive validity out of any test in the soft sciences.
Reliable genetic testing for certain abnormalities that involve established issues with just one or very few genes (e.g. Down's syndrome) is relatively straightforward and currently widely offered. But any company who tells you they can currently reliably test for complex traits like intelligence should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Figuring out all the genetic components and interactions that underlie a trait as broad and varied as intelligence is incredibly difficult, and we are nowhere near being able to do that with any degree of confidence. The same is true of many diseases and disorders.
I am 100% for having healthy children if science can achieve it. I have known 2 families that lost their young child to brain tumors. It was horrific watching them slowly die
thats a mutation though, not something you inherit. sure you can test embryos but mutations still happen in dna after birth
@@nsjhdhdhdbhsudgvdydb7751 you can inherit mutations
@@nsjhdhdhdbhsudgvdydb7751 Many patients with pediatric brain cancer have a hereditary cancer syndrome (like Li-Fraumeni), which is caused by a germline mutation.
Time for everyone to read The Giver
I have comorbidity. My diseases hit me hard in my late 20s. Lost my job, my housing, dang near all my enjoyment for life. I never would have thought I'd be on the side of genetic tampering but if you could prevent future generations from feeling the pain, sorrow, and grief I've felt losing my ability to fully live, then I'd say it's almost immoral not to.
I don't know about your condition, there are many who would do well if society was more accessable and less brutal. The social model of disability.
But wouldn't decent public healthcare like every other developed country in the world has make some of that easier ?
People telling you that healthcare is the answer are completely missing the point.
I support your opinion here. I watch a wasting disease take my aunt over 25 years. It was horrible, and she was a wonderful person.
I'm all for removing disease and suffering from the gene pool.
I feel like this tech needs to be made available to anyone that wants it on a public basis. The long term benefits far outweight any short term cost.
@@ericcrear1359 thank you for being one of the only ones with common sense here.
You are saying that altering their life is a violation of God's work on creation or natural selection.
My brother was born completely non-verbal. He was wheelchair bound his entire life. He was mostly blind. He couldn't eat solid food and aspirated all the time. He had an IQ of about an 18 month old and had constant, painful seizures. He had to wear a diaper that I (his little sister) and our mother had to change. He was subjected to surgeries and medications that supposedly made his life easier, but just made him vomit and aspirate more. He mostly moaned and cried and screamed.
He could never fall in love or eat something delicious or walk or talk. His life was hell for 35 years. He had no dignity. No autonomy. We did our best to love him and keep him as comfortable as possible, but it was never enough.
It wouldn't matter if society rolled out the red carpet for him and made him king of the world, it wouldn't have changed anything for him.
I wish this testing had been around in the 80s to spare him his joyless existence.
I am so sorry. He is in a better place now.
May I ask, what was his illness?
the second family is so excited to go along with their science experiment children. i'm not finding love in their voices, no excitement for the kids. just cold curiosity to how their kids will end up. gave me icky feelings.
To stop a child from suffering a terrible death? Yes, to make a super human? Your own risk/business
So use it to keep the bad away, but don't use it to make them better?
Why? What's the (il)logic behind that?
@@wtfdtreats because it's far less clear cut. Mind you, I'm not against positive selection tout court, though I recognize that there are much more complicated implications involved:
- Consolidating inequality, rooting it in people's genes, in addition to their families material condition.
- Promoting traits that may be positive for the individual but negative for it's interaction with society.
- Losing genetic and population diversity: if everyone did it we'd probably have more standardized individuals, making societies less resilient to some external factors.
Furthermore, while it's pretty easy to agree on preventing most genetic diseases it's much harder to agree on which positive genetic traits we should promote.
Selflessness or self preservation? Obedience or indipendent thought?
@@Carbos [Second couple from the video here] What is interesting is that there is decent data, so far as we understand it, indicating that people generally select traits that are overall *good* for society (kindness, empathy, happiness, intelligence, etc.)-this is something you can parse out when you look at how people select sperm donors, for example.
Also, people want kids like them-not like some sort of uniform "optimal." There is no uniform optimal. So long as we maintain a pluralistic and diverse society (and we really hope that we do), people will select for diverse traits, even when this tech becomes more widespread and people even begin modding genes and going full cyborg.
So we agree it's not clear cut, but we also think there's decent evidence suggesting that use of this tech will magnify goodness and plurality rather than sociopathy and homogeny.
@@SimoneandMalcolm Hello Simone and Malcolm! Thank you for taking the time to read and reply! 😊
It's comforting, for me, that people are choosing more pro-social traits to pass down, though I imagine that we're dealing with a pretty narrow data set (and probably limited to some groups of people), so I think it could be a bit early to draw significant statistical conclusions, from it.
I don't know, should people have kids that are more like them? If I had any I'd certainly like them to share some of my personality traits but not others.
You and I may agree on which traits are good, but those may drastically change, based on the kind of ideal society one has in mind. And on that subject, we are living in very divided nations, in a very divided world.
A dictator might force the selection of subservient individuals. A tycoon might give out great benefits to families that accept to breed children designed to be optimal employees for his companies. All unsettling possibilities, although their chance of happening is out of mine or yours control or responsibility.
Also, I'm not sure that we know enough about phasing out some genes that are not clearly disease inducing. Sure, a gene (or a polygenic combination of genes) might elevate the chance for depression, but what if it's linked to some very positive traits, as well?
Anyway, I'll have much pondering to do on this matter.
On a side note I'd like to commend your pioneering on this field. I'm sure it will provide humanity with precious data and I really hope it provides a happy life to your offspring and you both. 🤗
Being highly intelligent also carries increased risks of things like ADHD and anxiety. And even if you see some subtle hints of those issues in kids when they are still toddlers and preschoolers, you roll with the punches, and assume that all of the other strengths will make it be OK in the end. But even with very involved, appropriate parenting, help from psychiatric professionals, and sometimes even medication something like ADHD doesn't really become a major issue for them until they get to the age where they can no longer coast academically or vocationally based on intellect alone. And then that tendency for anxiety makes things worse because these are smart kids and young adults who are also upset with themselves for not being able to just power their way through every situation based on being smart.
As much as we know about the human genome, there's still also much that we do not know.
Things that might be desirable traits right now, with the way that society and even ecology functions in the current day, might end up being hindrances 50 years from now, if circumstances change.
I like the idea but.. The entrepreneur couple with the glasses gave me weird dystopian ruling class vibes 😬 This stuff is on a very fine line.
Hahaa, that's us! We always thought of ruling class vibes people as being a little more... y'know... private and grown up. Maybe not people to say the word "spicy" while wiggling spirit fingers. 🤣
@@SimoneandMalcolm Oh wow I never would have expected a response from you guys haha! I'm glad you did though. I took some time to click around your content and the dynamic you two have reminds me of my own relationship. Also while I don't agree with everything you guys both talk about, there is also a lot in common (plus your topics are very fun for the mind). I guess all I'm trying to say is the power of editing and context is very powerful. I take back my vibe check and respect what you are doing lol.
As a type 1 diabetic I share the same nightmare with the first couple and I hope this testing spreads world wide.
As soon as I heard her yell “Octavian” I thought “Aw, geez. Here we go….”
lmao right
The fact that they named their kid "Titan" instead of a normal gender neutral name like Alex, Riley, or Avery is crazy. *The worst part is Titan will probably be short because both her parents are short too*
unironically the most abusive part of this video
Titan's parents here: We choose not only gender neutral/masculine names for our kids but also (often) culturally distinct names as we want our kids to know that they're part of an intentional, cohesive family culture with clear values and stances rather than society's default template culture.
Titan can always change her name if she wants to.
How do you define short? Hahahaha
@@SimoneandMalcolmI’m curious about the studies that have shown negative consequences of a feminine sounding name
@@SimoneandMalcolm you didn't answer the question though. You could choose a "normal" non gendered name. Why go with something so off the wall? I'd argue most people would think Titan is a boy as it's fairly masculine sounding (Nissan Titan, Titan Fitness)
@@SimoneandMalcolmset up your new spawned character however you want, players. Max those stats.
4:26 I love how the guy realizes he has an ar15 with a box of Tulammo on the wall and his family is being interviewed by a left-wing media organization. He tucks away the box of ammo like a kid who was caught watching his sister change.
I’m sure it has more legal repercussions. Several young kids in a home where gun and ammo are literally stored together out in the open could open a neglect investigation
Yup that was me. I thought it was between takes.
We had just got the gun the day before and I am usually not allowed in my wife's study (nor are the kids, its covered in locks). I told her to store the ammo and did not realize she thought leaving it on top of the gun was a good idea until I walked into the room for filming.
@@SimoneandMalcolmGood lord, I can’t tell what’s more pathetic, that you’re not allowed in the office, that “your”, “wife” (let’s be real here she’d file a SA suit against you if you even touched her let alone attempted to copulate the old fashioned way), or her clear lack of any sensible gun safety (you know straw sales are illegal right?) around children. “Thought we between takes” oh you goofy goober
Dude yes i noticed 😂
@@CaptainCaterpillarstbh I 80% bet that based on their response it’s a straw sale gun too
The couple look like generic villains from a dystopian sci-fi movie.
How about making the world a healthier place to live so that in turn babies are born healthy? Parents don’t want to “bring a healthy child into the world” they want to raise a healthy child in a healthy environment. This will be like China’s birth control policy. In fact, the danger about this would be for governments to institute that parents ONLY give birth to babies who pass this test.
"Adept at managing stress"... sounds like someone's getting bullshitted
I remember back in middle school in 2011 our science teacher was speaking about this being possible during the time and future
I graduated in 06, thanks for making me feel worse:\
@@PATTT_ sorry lol
I feel like there is a very large mountain of a difference between "I don't want my kid to have Tay-Sachs Disease" and "I want a baby who is gonna be a 250K a year minimum earner"
There is no qualitative difference between these two things
@@garrysmodsketcheshow so
@@isabellavillanueva4639 both traits are heritable, but to different degrees
"Screening our embryos for earning potential" is the most dystopian thing I've ever heard in my life. Screening your babies on how well they would make profit for a corporation. People looking to science to solve societal problems are the reason we still have societal problems.
The second family is really making me question how much I value data. I'm an engineer and generally love math and stats, but damn they are going way too far off the deep end.
Second family here: We all have limits to how much we want to optimize, sure, but why not do everything you can when human lives are at stake? And why not financially support technology in hopes of seeing a future in which it is more broadly accessible?
@@SimoneandMalcolm I hope you read this comment. Y'all may think your fooling the world with the many stories and articles that have been written about your "super babies" but many of us see right through your words. We know what you are and what you want your children to be.
@@jsweet1864Lmao, what?
I really hate when people assume having the highest IQ possible is the best outcome. Do you really think that kid is going to have the happiest life? And it's not guaranteed that they're going to do more for the world than someone with 30 points less. A high IQ score doesn't mean amazing life
It will be interesting once people like Titan are grown and can tell us what it was like growing up that way. imagine the expectations placed on them...
I wonder. I personally was given a unisex name at birth and hated it. I started going by my feminine middle name in high school and legally changed it at some point
"What if we could just eliminate Diabetes?"
The reporter missed one hell of an opportunity to ask who "we" is. They know damn well that they wouldn't want to pay for a poor family's genetic testing.
I mean it depends. Diabetes costs the government a lot of money, even in the USA but even more so in countries with socialised medicine.
the more popular this becomes among the wealthy, the cheaper it becomes overall. Eventually it will be financially worth screening for it in high risk individuals.
@@Bringon-dw8dx If the wealthy are able keep their kids from getting Diabetes, then only the poor will purchase Diabetes medicine. The less popular the medicine becomes, the higher it'll cost.
Do you have a spare kidney? Mind lending me one?
I am poor
Still a sound point though
Measuring an embryo by IQ, good SAT scores etc. sounds absolutely terrifying.
It also sounds like bullshit…
Its an embryo. How would you measure its IQ?
Embryos can't sit the SAT to get a score!
@@tbird81 Yeah! They don’t even have an ass to sit on!
They have pretty detailed genetic information from a variety of people who've had success in business, or who have a high IQ. Research can no pick apart similarities and differences between those and what is considered standard. The differences 'LIKELY' show which are positive and negative traits.
All they have to do is compare the genetics. So you have a list of people that all got this type of cancer and you have sample of their genes, you compare that genetic data and look for similarities, and then compare it again to those who didn't get that type of cancer. And you can narrow things down pretty accurately.
They've already done this with athletes looking at genetics and comparing injuries to see who may be susceptible to certain types of injuries. There is a huge genetic profile of thousands of people being studied in the UK that has their health history tied to them. Neil deGrasse Tyson did a show on it. "Ethics of Genetic Testing with Dr. Stuart Kim & Neil deGrasse Tyson"
I find the polygenetic family to be such an interesting case. It's so clear that they have positive intentions for the technology, but as a scientist we have to look at the ethical dilemmas that could be created by selecting for certain traits, especially when those traits are non-life threatening and are made to cost a certain amount of money that isn't accessible for most of the population. The second they started talking about intelligence and earning potential was the second that I was like and this is why the scientific community is very against polygenetic testing. For all the benefit it could do, it would allow the individuals who could afford it to make sure that their kids have the best situations in life. And doing so, could vilify poor individuals who can't afford this testing or individuals who decide not to pursue this type of testing. And just two generations of that could create a massive social stratification in which the rich and intelligent and make the highest income and the poor are locked out of that ability by virtue of genetics. It's fascinating and terrible at the same time.
We're that second couple. Keep in mind that stigmatizing this or limiting access creates exactly the result that you (and we) fear: This being a "rich person" thing and not an "everyone who cares to access it" thing. It's entirely possible for this tech and IVF to be state-supported (and in the face of demographic collapse, more and more states will support it). If access is artificially gated, then only rich people will be able to fly over to countries or dark sites where they can access it. That's no bueno.
@@SimoneandMalcolm I agree with your point about artificial gating, but I would also bring into the discussion the fact that some people are just naturally opposed to this type of testing.
For instance, I personally would never get polygenetic testing for anything beyond a life-threatening genetic disorder. My personal reason is that if it's not life-threatening then it should be hands-off to avoid individuals from weaponizing non-life threatening traits. In a world where we have readily available access, someone could see me as actively harming my children simply because I refuse to select for something like intelligence or agility. So long as there are individuals who are opposed to the concept, stratification will eventually exist and non participating individuals can be vilified for a perfectly reasonable assertion that it's a can of worms that they don't want to get involved in.
The reason why it's generally vilified is because while it has good intentions, it is far too easy for someone to take those good intentions and use it as a discriminatory factor.
im not as concerned by the technology limiting access to intelligence as much i am this testing producing false equivalences between genetics and intelligence outside of the appropriate scientific fields. i can see scenarios where those with genetic screening are able to skip grades, be placed in advanced classes or awarded scholarships not out of merit, but out of the results of genetic testing
@@SimoneandMalcolm Provide concrete proof that your so called "demographic collapse" is not a normalization of population that may actually be better in the long run. It just sounds like you are harping on an unsubstantiated fear to promote your own agenda.
Also, with state supported reproduction and selection of offspring, shouldn't you worry about other things like fascism or do you think that political and social problems will be solved by selection too?
Have you guys read brave new world 🤔
I’m so thankful for genetic testing. At 19 yrs old I found out my baby had trisomy 18 and had less then a 1% chance of living, and a worse chance to live to one years old.
I had a stillbirth with her at 33 weeks. I’m so glad I was able to be aware.
It’s the question of, just because we can do it, does it mean that we should? The second family wanting to test for IQ outcomes is kind of scary. Growing up, I had to work really hard academically, things didn’t come to me easily. However, I have more emotional intelligence that comes more naturally to me, and I think the world/society needs a balance of different types of intelligence. I absolutely empathize with the first family and wanting to minimize struggles through having type 1 diabetes. I just think as we approach this technology more, we need to take a step back and question if we are playing “god.” Not that I believe in a god, per se, but I think it’s slippery slope.
How is testing for IQ scary??? IQ correlates to many success in your life and if there are a set of genes that are shown to increase IQ why would you not want your child to have that advantage in life?? Also we already live in a world where people are discriminated against for their immutable characteristics the fact that you have people in this comment section saying how wanting to pick your child's genes is an immoral thing is actually insane to see. These are the types of people that would love to be willfully ignorant just to feel better about the world that they live in.
@@logiciangod3767 you're on point !
@@logiciangod3767 IQ is a pretty arbitary skill though. It is the part of intelligence that's most feasible to test for, and since different kinds of intellectual skills are correlated it's often used as a placeholder for all. It is the kind of skills that computers do better than us though (completing patterns, processing systematic infornation quickly, ...) so in a modern world not a very important one
My name could have been Brighton & such I would think that you were right on!
Why pick a fight when you can choose a value like might?
@@logiciangod3767 My older sister (oldest child) performs amazingly in IQ tests and was put into a more difficult stream at school. I have dyslexia and always had to work so much harder at school than her. She dropped out of college in the first semester because it was hard. I went straight through and got my masters in aeronautical engineering and have a successful career. Overall, I'm just a happier person than she is. I'm not sure why she expects everything to be easy, but I go into everything expecting to work hard for it. The difference is she lacks resilience.
We did IVF and if I could have tested for anything, I would want to test for resilience. It's my best trait and you can only do so much teaching your children.
when you are that neurotic and focused on data, you can alter all the genes you want,....... your kid will still have serious problems(because of who raised them).
Not just that, we have these "problems" for a reason. They are side effects of bigger problems we have solved. Removing the side-effect may bring back the original issue. I don't think they know what they're doing
I see they're also pragmatists as well (TH-cam channel) yet seem to want to be perfectionists with their children? Works well in practice, not most ideal or perfect.
You're making a lot of assumptions there though, and if the kids are smart they have a higher likelihood of being fine regardless.
@@funfunfun3624 explain
We all know Malcom isn’t the father right? They perfect kids and yet would basically guarantee they’d have poor vision? Ha! Simone dropped the risk of that by 50% easy by cutting him out completely.
It’s too bad we can’t test parents to see if they deserve to be parents! -those poor children!
"If my child is sick, less intelligent, or earns less, I don't want them."
As a disabled person, this type of science has always been sort of mixed to me; while I get wanting to have control over something that is so unknown for so many. Or wanting to avoid health issues that will play a major effect in their life, I'd love to when I get to the point where I am ready to have kids to be able to lower their chances of getting my painful conditions.
But also, it gets more grey when you look at things like neurodivergency. Conditions that aren't limiting quality of life, and stuff like that. It gets to a point where it's sort of 'whats so wrong with me that people are going out of their way to prevent it?'
Making a world of people who are all the same is not making a better world, learning to support and have compassion for those who are different from us will
I have ADHD and I believe a lot of my family are nerodiverse, our differences make us more interesting... We need to help nerodivergent people thrive.
As someone with Autism, and someone who's family is also Autistic, I think our differences make us better people. Autism has the capacity to cause someone to have a more developed sense of justice, higher intelligence, etc. all of which can be seen as "desireable" traits in a child. Who decides what traits are good/bad? I know people with Downs Syndrome that wouldn't change it for anything.
I don't think it's right to make a decision like that for someone. Their personal journey of their disorders makes them into who they are. And that's coming from someone who also struggles with treatment-resistent Anxiety, Depression, and BPD (all of which are common comorbidities with ASD).
That's just my two cents, though.
You can't logically say that things like neurodivergency don't limit quality of life. ADHD and Autism both affect life quality. Very few people actually see those disabilities as "superpowers". That's a belief used as a coping mechanism, not a universal reality.
@@wholewheatstingray The only reason I need a "coping mechanism" is because of society's views on disability. I'm not minimizing my own struggles by embracing what I love about my disability. Without it, I'm not who I am. There are times when I wish I wasn't Autistic, sure, but it's because of outside factors that just happen to affect me differently like, for example, the overstimulating ordeal of going to the grocery store. When I have a meltdown, it isn't my fault, it's because my needs aren't being met and I can't identify what they are. Even having said that, there are still things I can do to minimize my discomfort, and I do. I don't think neurodivergence necessarily equals lower quality of life - it means a lower quality of life in a *neurotypical society*. If we accomodated disabled people more, their quality of life would improve. To say that we should just get rid of disability instead of accomodating it inherently paints disability as a negative thing. Disability is usually just a difference. Disability is also the one marginalized group that NOBODY is safe from. Everyone has the capacity to be disabled at some point in their life, so we should stop treating it like a boogeyman to get rid of and instead focus on what we can do to improve quality of life for EVERYONE.
If there was a world where the testing was used widely, then perhaps there would be ’new mental health conditions’: Then perhaps such testing would become ’fine-tuned’ & new ’problems’ would arise.
So many things occur to me, suggested by this film. 1. The price of a common life-saving drug should not be a drain on a family - it's a societal problem. The profit motive has no place in health care,. 2. I know quite a lot about generics, although I'm out of date - my degree 45 years ago was in genetics. It's well known that selecting for a given, desirable allele (version of a gene, eg. skin hue) can bring along unsuspected and undesirable alleles of other genes. Genes are linked through their position (put simply) on the DNA strand. Although the genome is fully mapped, not all genes are fully understood.
They are poorly enough understood that 20+ years later, we have zero breakthroughs on the common diseases HTN, DM,HF. And the cancer has not been “cured”…..
I am resentful of this practice.
Some pairing of humans are just not a good coupling for procreation…
Agreed! Societies would see lower overall healthcare burdens if tech like this were more widely used (and then there's the untold suffering that could be averted). We're the second couple in the video and while we're super against foisting this tech upon anyone, we strongly believe it should be an OPTION for everyone and society would be better off if it were.
How much does it cost to create a common life-saving drug?
I heard about how some Canadians would come to USA and pay top dollar for medical care because in Canada they put you on waiting lists and the top care was not as good if you needed more advanced care.
@@logicaldebateUSA In UK people can, if they choose, pay privately for health care Just because you can afford to do so, is it equable that some can jump the queue while those with just as much right to care but less money cannot? In no case, though is there treatment only available through the private route, unless that treatment is not seen as particularly worthwhile or value for money.
@@nicolek4076 Some Canadians who will not jump that allegedly die and have died. It is like the stories about Canadians become so desperate they would use pliers to pull a tooth because they could not wait 6 months for their free dental appointment.
I do not know how that is in Canada now but I heard it used to be that way.
I am in USA and we have both styles. If you are the poorest of the poor you can get basic free health and dental care but you have to wait unless it is an emergency.
There is dentists that the poor can go to where the US government pays the bill and there is dentists that will not accept it and are obviously is more for rich Americans.
Some of them are in the same town a few minutes apart. The poor person dentists, most of them accept anyone though who will pay cash. If you are rich and want your dental care by them there is probably a 99.9% chance they will. A poor person will not be able to afford to pay cash at the rich persons dentist though but it usually will not make much difference but there is exceptions.
If you are rich you could be seen much faster and I do not have a problem with that if it is a private company. If they let you skip to the front of the line in front of other cash paying customers because you offer more would be really shady though.
There is some Americans that make too much money to get free health care and cant afford the insurance because they still are not rich. That is the spot to be in as an American that is the hardest. Some of those Americans who had no free health insurance and were not poor enough to get that in USA went to Canada for their free health care.
Some of them would lie to get it or even marry a Canadian just for the benefits.
Saying you have the right to care though in Canada they do give them that but they just have to wait. They could pay more in taxes for less waiting time but I doubt most want to do that.
Some more advanced healthcare they cant/don't offer it like in USA though so even being a rich Canadian might require you to leave and a poor one would be screwed anyway.
Neither Canada or USA is perfect but I still prefer the American way because our top care is almost always better than Canada and you have the option to get more wealthy or poorer to improve that situation for you and your family.
Canadians it is one size fits all? In the UK also?
My partner had to get genetic testing after, one of his kids was found to have a rare genetic condition when the child was young. Turns out my partner is a carrier for it and, because of this and issues of my own we're not gonna have kids. Doing these tests can help prevent bring a child into the world whom will suffer so I'm for genetic testing as you want the best for your kids and in some cases it's better to not have kids at all
Any person which has suffered from chronic illness will agree that this is an overall great thing. I've had multiple genetic conditions which essentially ruined my joy as a child and young adult, anything to prevent that impacting future generations is a great thing.
You’re about to get told off by people who think you should suffer because it makes. You unique
I agree with you our decendants should have the perfect body something that shouldn't limit them and help them pursue all of their passions without having to worry if they will get held back because of something there BORN with
Just don't make more babies AT ALL. You prevent ALL suffering completely then. Even the healthiest human has to experience the horror of dying. It can be prevented by never having been born. Nobody was even asked to be born. You guys all sat there debating who was best to be born and who not. The actual person forcibly brought to this world just to die was never asked.
@@isabellavillanueva4639 You will eventually also break down in old age, suffer pain and then die.
@@eric-jr2nf right as a result of old age, not suffering with debilitating disabilities my whole life with pain and suffering
As a type two diabetic . I can say it ain’t fun it’s a struggle every day . loosing your freedom to just being able to eat basic fruits or favorite foods . I didn’t meet my father as a kid and wasn’t given a chance to know diabetes ran in the family ..if I can have a child that won’t have to struggle as I do and if the child can have a normal life . I’m all game for this technology..I don’t want to put a burden on a child to be a forever customer for big Pharma
You are also now in a position to work on prevention. T2D isn’t solely genetic; there is a lifestyle factor
i think u can help reduce it
type 2 diabetes is mostly environmental/lifestyle.
First family the woman had an uncommonly deep voice. The second family, the man had an uncommonly high voice. A balanced report, thank you.
@@femme_fatalist haha, exactly :D I felt your comment however was spot on! A very balanced report on such an intriguing topic!
This comment sent me, thanks for this
hahahaha
lmao I noticed this too
I just found the second family's Twitter and YIKES
Not all issues people face are genetic. Complications at birth or later in life due to accidents, currently unknown diseases and other incidents can still cause issues.
God, I’d be heartbroken if my child was the next Elon Musk
We need genetic tests so expecting parents can be sure to avoid such a fate 😢
The fact that they look up to him is scary
A genius IQ having billionaire?
Lmao so you'd rather condemn your child to something lesser, good parenting right there 🙄
@@wtfdtreats sucking
@@wtfdtreats bro does not have a genius iq 😂😂
I lost my bestfriend to cystic fibrosis, she suffered a lot and I'm sure she would've loved to have been born free of it like this; I also happen to suffer from depression, it runs in my family (it of course also requires a trigger to activate it but we're just at a higher risk) and I would've loved for my parents to have put me through this to help with that. I love this, being able to help make sure the child you bring into the world is as healthy as possible in every possible way and I would use it myself.
@@jimmyboard and her best friend might have never wanted to be alive in the first place.
@@jimmyboard sure, I get that. I’ve known some people with horrible diseases that resulted in much pain that either committed suicide or hoped for death. Like you mentioned it brought much suffering to the parents, the siblings and the children themselves. It can go either way, which is why the decision should always lie with the parents, hopefully with as much knowledge as possible.
You wouldn't have met her cause they wouldn't have selected her embro
I understand the sentiment, however it's not like they can alter an existing embryo to remove the defect. They simply don't choose that embryo. Which means neither you nor her would have been born in the first place.
If you were "put through" this testing you would have been aborted and so would your friend. She wouldn't have been "born free", she would be dead. Period.
I can only imagine how easily it would be for insurance agencies, the government, foundations, charities etc to decide that a family no longer qualifies for assistance in the care of a child with a disease or disorder that necessitates additional care because they didn't get genetic testing or knew the risk and had the child anyway. Bioethics are extremely important and absolutely have to be a priority
Hard *Eugenics* was _always_ inevitable.
Then minute intellectuals thousands of years ago started observing that traits like personality, intelligence, and physiological were being passed down from parent to child, it sealed humanities fate.
It was _always_ going to be on the menu, and it _always_ has been _softly_ , just not through genetics, because we didn't know genetics existed until recent history.
Fact of the matter is, you're either eugenic, or dysgenic. Either you're choosing better traits, or you're choosing worse traits.
If you as a potential parent have offspring, do you not have a *moral obligation* to give them the best possible shot in life, physically, mentally and emotionally?
If you agree, how do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance to agree with wanting to give them the best life, but intentionally choose the _lesser_ traits for you child based off of some supposed 'moral high ground' of being against eugenics?
How do you explain to your child "Even though it's my job as your parent to give you the best chance in life, and I could have made you healthier, smarter and more attractive, but I didn't because...." ?
I you want your child to have the best shot at life, you're _inherently_ a eugenicist, if you don't, you're _inherently_ supporting dysgenics.
This is _going_ to happen, so you had better sort out your moral/ethical issues logically and soon.
Man that second family is the blueprint of a comedy show. They are out of their mind
That's us! Lol thank you
@@SimoneandMalcolmall these people calling you out for being eugenicists are wrong. Don’t pay attention to them.
People are afraid of change.
I hope people understand that even if they choose an embryo based on its LIKELIHOOD to develop something... Thet could still develop it. It's statistics. Would the parents feel _cheated_ if their child ends up with some kind of syndrome or illness after all?
Having kids is a HUGE gamble, in many different ways. If you're not willing to handle a fair amount of surprises, maybe it's not for you.
If one is not willing to see what may be of no surprise at all, then perhaps it is time to buy a lottery ticket.
That second little girl was picked to be perfect but her parents are going to mess her up because of how they are
It’s hard to relate to the second couple really. IVF and genetic testing are sooo expensive. My spouse and I did one round due to infertility, as that was all we could afford even with insurance coverage. We did do the most basic genetic testing that checks for viability by looking at the chromosomes. I can’t imagine how much it would cost to do so many rounds and have this level of genetic analysis on the embryos. 26+ embryos is a lot…
To hear the second set of parents say what they wish they could test fpr is quite disturbing. The fact that those kinds of things are important to you is worrying. They shoulds have kids . Period.
“Earning potential” lmao wtf??
If my genetics were controlled and modified (quite heavily in this example) I may not be schizophrenic, which means my children wouldn't have the genes. We must always strive to give the next generation a better chance than we did. Otherwise there's no point in anything.
fr this is what the founding fathers of science would have wanted 😮
The second family is in for a rough reality check, you can't mold kids only by data.
No females name because data shows 🤣🤣🤣
Im curious what data he is refering too XD
@@gp-network4370 Gets his data from 4chan
"a boy named Sue"...
This is beyond stupid
Disturbing people
I agree that avoiding serious conditions, disabilities and diseases is probably a good thing but the ethical concerns around this is vast.
It also seems like the second couple had deep rooted control/anxiety issues. Every single person experiences hardships that is unavoidable.
Essentially this is going to be freely available to the rich whilst the poor still have the same old diseases. Something very weird about trying to create the most optimal person, when environment probably plays at least equal or more of an influence.
Second couple here. Wouldn't you say most caring parents try to give their kids the best roll of the dice, be it through schooling or good nutrition and healthcare or providing a loving home and family? We see this sort of screening as being very similar to those things.
Anyone who becomes a parent learns that control is impossible. We'd also argue that becoming a parent and learning that lesson ultimately reduces anxiety and eases control issues. But even parents with lower and anxiety and lower hunger for control are likely to want to equip their children to thrive.
What are you trying to control in life? How do you come to terms with it?
How are we defining disability and disease, though? Are disabled people better off not existing in your opinion? Disability is incredibly diverse. Billions of people have a condition that is considered a disability. From the perspective of output as the most important human function, I'll ask you this: how many great artists, inventors, scientists, writers and communicators would be weeded out of existence by these practices?
I would argue that the lives of disabled people have meaning and value, regardless of perceived productivity and output. Human beings are not cogs in a profit machine. It is morally depraved to decide that some people should not exist based on disability.
Diversity is our strength, and disability is part of that diversity.
(I do understand the perspective of the first family wanting to avoid the risk of Type 1 Diabetes, especially with the insanity of insulin pricing. Otherwise healthy young people were murdered by pharmaceutical companies, in my opinion)
@@ansel203 Important perspective!
A leap would probably be uncertain.
The conceptualization of disability might be re-conceptualized & diversity would probably re-grow.
Whether one smokes the weed or not is up to the disability of the initial plants.
(It is not a metaphor or whatever it is called for the sober people)
@@ansel203 Lives have meaning & value, a parrot imitates!
I met a kid who bragged that she was a test tube baby. She was nothing special, a classic ego-centric teen. But I wonder why people would not try to meet the basics. Saying it is unaffordable is silly. So is adoption, and so is the basic level of care. There is always someone who got the best start and someone who has had the worst.
Poor Titan. The expectations from her parents will be insurmountable.
... and then Titan Invictus stops talking to them at 23, because after years of therapy and depression from not fullfilling their expectations she figured out that her parents are insufferable...
"My kid's gonna be average? ...TERMINATE!!!" hahaha
Lol that kid could have been a hero, a musical virtuoso, or even just a good person. Too bad. Normal earning potential! Better to have the kid that will lose a game of chess to an AI in 12 moves rather than 10. :P
There’s always the possibilities that these results aren’t accurate… I guess at that point you take that leap of faith. My mother was told my younger sister would be born with certain conditions that gave her the option to terminate the pregnancy. She chose not to- she’s perfectly fine with no disabilities and/or conditions.
It’s a scary decision to have to make non the less.
She still has one condition you forgot: old age and death
It is an interesting-and scary-perspective. I have Turner syndrome. I am 32 but 4’8. I am a completely normal functioning member of society…I just need to get my pants hemmed…I do have a family history of higher intelligence and was in the top 5 graduating class of my high school. But when it comes down to things…Turner syndrome doesn’t define me, but is a part of me. And while 10yr old me would have given anything to be taller, I’m at peace with where I am now. My parents had some abnormal bloodwork with my mom’s pregnancy with me, but declined further testing. I would say my risk of treatment resistant cancer worries me much more than anything related to my Turner syndrome. Kids can be cruel, and I blame the school system much more than my lack of height for the torture that was middle to late elementary school. We didn’t know I had Turner syndrome then, with early diagnosis, girls can have growth hormone-I was 22 before diagnosis so way too late. I am a happy and successful music teacher, and I honestly think that at this point, my experiences have made me a stronger and more compassionate person. Life is complicated…
Genetic testing for traits would be mainly useless. Genetics is only a part of a complex reality where genes interacts with the environment. Not everything is determined directly by genetics. Testing for a disease caused by one or a few known mutated genes is one thing, testing for complex traits in which genetics has only a partial influence, and often with hundreds of genes implicated, is a completely different story.
one aspect which is left out in this story is the debate that is still going on whether factors like happiness and IQ are determined by genetics or environment. there are studies that show IQs between adopted children and biological children raised by the same parents are more similar then twins separated at birth, proving that environment plays a bigger role than genetics. also there aren’t any genes found that correspond to “educational attainment” nor “earning potential”, which the Collins mention
Yeah they forgot the whole nurture part of nature and nurture. Can't avoid depression by not having the depression SNP's.
Your claims about IQ and twins is completely inversed.
@@tamerofhorses2200what they said was correct lol twins separated at birth don’t have the same iq bc environment plays a larger role than genetics in determining their iq. if genetics determined their iq, they would have the same iq even though they were separated at birth and raised by different families
@@rachel22cute No it doesn't. You're literally bullshitting. Twin studies show IQ loads at about 0.8 to heritability and not environment.
The second couple don't seem to consider NURTURE as a huge factor in the vast majority of a person's traits
Nurture takes more time ⌚ the bigger change your want to make.
th-cam.com/users/shortsFk_N1iUwRXo
I can totally see how being able to screen for specific physical traits could quickly get out of hand, it's been proven over and over that we are a greedy and selfish sort. We put so much emphasis on traits like beauty, intelligence, strength, competitiveness and in a generation of designer babies it would probably be expected even more of them and then what would we do with the ones who fall behind this expectation of perfection? How long will it be until there's a divide with on one side "designer babies" and on the other" typical, average babies" ? Would there be new types of elitist schools especially for designer babies? And if only the richest have access to it, then the other classes would only see it as the richer class trying to keep in power, refusing this technology to the lower classes perhaps, cause this would be costly surely? Maybe it's my imagination running wild but then who's gonna stop governments (I'm thinking the USA, China, Russia, NK) from making their own kind of future soldiers selecting only traits that could make good citizens or soldiers? Force couples to select only what the gov deems the best traits for their babies? That's only a few of the questions that come to mind, is there a way to know nature wouldn't fight back by erasing or introducing new genes, hypothetically? So yes for screening for dieseases, not so much for the rest... I get that everyone would wish the BEST for their kids, and giving them a very good start in life would be just amazing, but governments don't think like parents, some parents don't have good/healthy reasons for having kids, and that's inviting a lot of trouble.
I have both recessive and dominent genetic diseases. There is a difference between “catastrophically fatal” and “we don’t know how this condition will affect your kid”. Had my genetic connective tissue and immune system disorder been found as a kid, we could have worked on early intervention and some of my complications could be prevented. However, oculocutaneous albinism is livable. Not being able to see well REALLY sucks, but it forces me to also be more creative and find another solution. I absolutely would not be the same person I would be without my wacky genes…just as long as they don’t kill me first.😊
evolution, to our current understanding, requires struggle (of the species and some of its individuals).
longer term, for the speciess as a whole, it works out better for us to power through this stuff, and work together to try to make things work for all of us.
At the moment all of us are going to die, anyway, in the shorter term... and thats somethign i think typical "american individualism" has trouble grasping... the larger scope, longer term stuff.
even for shorter term, you get a perspective the rest of us will miss, and that perspective is important, often in ways we don't see until we are knee deep in the problem.
But what if you could have been born without any of the diseases?
Because that’s realistically what is being presented here
The biggest thing that will hold these children back is their parents misguided attitude and understanding on the impact and potential of human beings when it comes from potential genetic attributes and genotypes. The 2nd set of parents in this piece have the expectation that their kids are going to be superior and happier just from their decisions on embryonic genetics. That isnt what leads to humans who are empathetic, loving and challenge driven who create strong happy relationships, and are motivated to create a better world around themselves and society overall
empathy does not correlate to better life or societal outcomes just because you say it. So what are you even on about?
Their kids will be healthier, more attractive and more intelligent, thus leading to roughly better life outcomes and less negative life consequences.
If you don't have to leave things to chance, _don't_
[Second couple from the video here] What makes you think that we think our kids are going to be superior or happier? With Titan, our daughter, we just factored in relative risks. This doesn't mean she's destined to be anything. Did we choose to have her before some of our other embryos because her risks are lower? Absolutely. But those are just risks-not guarantees.
Knowing her risks is really helpful, though-this enables us to focus on early screening for some things. :)
@@SimoneandMalcolm , I think that people feel that this is simply an illusion of control over potential outcomes for your children. When you list "IQ" and "earning potential" as something that could even be determined by genetic testing there is a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature and the infinite amount of factors that come into play for the development of any individual.
Well said.
@@wtfdtreats, this is a very strange take to me. It is very naive to think that ANY real life outcome can be determined from genetic testing. AND um, empathy is one of the most important human attributes.
As a Scandinavian it's wild that pre natal scans are such a controversial issue literally everywhere else. It's so hard to explain to others that we screen every pregnancy and terminate close to 100% of pregnancies where the fetus has some kind of condition, without making us seem like Nazis.
Is there a list of what conditions they screen out that I could find somewhere?
If yall are terminating that many babies due to abnormalities, yall are Nazis. I have a condition that women are offered abortion for. I have been able to have a largely normal life, including having two healthy children of my own. Absolutely shameful to push twrmination due to medical issues.
right. i don't understand why it's controversial to give your child the best chance at life. life is already hard, why make it harder for the little human you're choosing to bring into the world?
I did a fetal screening for severe abnormalities in my naturally conceived child, but I would struggle to do IVF solely for the purpose of choosing which embryo was the "best." The "designer babies" aspect of it is what makes most people uncomfortable, I think. I don't think there's anything wrong with terminating when the child would have a severely diminished quality of life. However, if by "condition," you mean something like autism, I think that's crossing the line. Many people with autism have very rich and essentially normal lives, and (as someone who has a degree in psychology) it's not fully understood whether these types of psychological "conditions" (like depression, anxiety, ADHD, Autism, etc.) are truly maladaptive.
@@sydney6268 i personaly would never want my child to suffer from a condition like ADHD, Autism or Schizophrenia
As someone who was born with a birth defect that lives a good and successful life. I understand that plenty of people choose to terminate babies with cleft palates and this concerns me to my core.
My son has a cleft palate, bilateral microtia and other minor issues. We would have appreciated a heads up so that first months would be easier but believe me I would not trade him for anything in this world. Such a happy and smart and curious kid with a brilliant sense of humor. ❤❤❤
Cleft palates are nothing serious, I hope more people understand that 🙏
That's great that you feel accomplished and like your life is worth living. Not all disabled people feel that way and you can't speak for everyone.
@@wholewheatstingray...but they didnt even speak for everyone? Just their personal experiences..
Why does this concern you?
@@Bringon-dw8dxExactly, they're not raising them so why does it matter.
As long as it does not compromises anyone's health I see no moral issue with genenome editing
have you thought about the possibility, that disabilities and learning how to deal with them might be the only thing keeping us from being even more monstrous to each other, as we allready are?
i am scared of a future without neurodivergence, without people who have learned that live isn`t just about fullfilling egocentric needs, but that understand the deep connection of caring and needing care. i understand the wish of not having children with terminal or painfull diseases, i lost a child to a genetic disease 10 years ago, but we shouldn`t forget, how many disabilities are really important for us as a species to stay human. that would be my moral issue. this talk leaves out the social definition of disability and i think for a fair discussion, this has to be recognized as well.
@@MegaRoteschorle There will always be people that will act monstrous towards others however that should not stop anyone from progressing as individuals as well as a society which has always been the goal . Establishing a deep connection and caring for others does not require co-dependency neither justifies anyone being kept in a position of co-dependency when they have another option We can still remain human while vastly improving the human condition. I am not exactly sure what you mean by a social definition of a disability or how that would apply to an individual's right to bodily autonomy to improve or alter themselves iin whatever way they see fit. I am am sorry to hear that you have lost a child as I can only imagine how hard that must have been for you.
”Great input, caring too
Pizza Pie” - Ghadaffi
this is obviously a great thing... the problem is it would only be available to those able to afford it and as it advances, the already wide gap between the social and economic classes will have one more devastating inequality. You can see the terrifying implications when thinking in terms of generations. Imagine the capitalism machine eating this up and spitting us out. I don't see a way currently that this could be avoided when we can not trust the private health insurance, our government or the expand at all costs economy we live in.
Exactly! In a perfect world, yes this would be wonderful. In this world, terrifying.
the data doesn't bare out the things they are pushing, anyway.
Family income and childhood poverty has a much stronger correlation with iq scores than any specific gene, to my understanding... its just more of the same pushing pseudo science to support ugly personal beliefs.
overall, it could go any number of ways, but stalling out the entire benefit to how and why we breed, as a species isn't a great idea, imho.
It hasn't gone well in the past, especailly for those that have already tried it.
I doubt it would in the future, either.
vice focuses on sociological movements and not on the underlying science of it. its not in the nature of this media group to bare that out. all they are doing is showing the world that there are some weirdo's out there, and little more.
Great point. I totally agree
[Second couple from the video here] We think a lot of governments, including the United States government, will begin to support free IVF and testing like this as demographic collapse advances. Governments' needs for citizens (and healthy citizens, too) are strong motivators for making this tech available to everyone-and several nations *already* offer state-supported IVF and genetic testing. We just hope for a future in which it's an option rather than anything that's imposed on people.
Wait until the war between the genetically modified and the "natural" born begin.
the second family was so darn creepy
This definitely adds to the class divide as in order to have access to this you need money and the more money you have for IVF and all these programs the more you can “fine tune” your child’s genetics
If only I could have gotten this kind of testing when I was an embryo....
You'd have been aborted!
So that you didn’t have to be born?
@@PrincessCupncake lmaooooooo
Ummm you do know that you would've been terminated if that happened right? Your unborn perfect sibling would've replaced you instead
I didn't expect her Voice to Sound like that 😮......
Who
@@teandjello the first Lady
They have 26 babies on ice in a lab, more have been "discarded" so of course they don't believe testing for IQ is evil 😓 ivf but be stopped. It's selfish... think of the children!! They are being treated like possessions.
The hubris of some of these scientists and customers is impressive. As a scientist, one thing I am aware of is how LITTLE we know about things. A gene variant that increases risk for X might also decrease risk for Y, or be adaptive in another way. It's unethical to hand out these flat probabilities without proper context of statistics and biology. Not to mention that the genetic diseases will persist in the poor population, where they will be ignored by much of the medical establishment. Just ask anyone with sickle cell anemia.
The best way to learn is to go along with the best knowledge 📚 so far.
The first family was reasonable.
2nd family, I disagree with that family. Not ethical.