Neil just can't help himself from cutting someone off, touching someone, or being passive aggressive. props to these wonderful people to have the patience to bear him.
41:25 Wtf, they are literally talking about Covid19 without saying the name of it, because no one knew it would actually happend four years later, even scientifically knowing it could...xD
Little Monk Agree. But I have almost no respect for him. I think he’s a joke. He is only a smart person according to dumb people. All smart people know he is just a populist joke.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 He wouldn't waste his minute on a fucktard and arrogant like you. Do half of what Neil Tyson did for popularisation of science and then talk.
I discovered Asimov about 20 years ago when I stumbled upon "Jupiter: The Largest Planet" down at my local library. I started collecting all his books soon after that first book. Even though he gained fame in the science fiction genre, I prefer reading his history and science books the best. I'm reading his "Guide to the Bible" as I'm making this comment. I only have 1 fiction book by Asimov and that's "Pebble in the Sky", which, although it's been many years now since I read it, I remember it being a very good read.
But isnt the elephat in the room that we could gain the knowledge to make ourselves better. Muddle with our own genes and make humans more disease resistant, stay younger longer, better brains? making our species better is that not the ultimate goal. Cure effectively any type of physical or mental abnormality.
Brian Brennan Problem is : who are you to say what is "normal" and what is "abnormal"? who's going to decide this and where's the limit ? that's a huge problem with loads of ramifications, most of them ugly. One of the last one who wanted that kind of thing was Hitler... not the kind of people I'd like to see again in a position of power.
I love these debates so much. I haven't watched all 18 yet but I have watched about 6 so far. I always share them. The thing I love about these debates is it's really like just sitting in a room with these people and you are listening to this intelligent conversation. Of course Neil is always spectacular. I would love to see one of these debates live. I was looking forward to this years and it did not disappoint!
Wish these panels happened monthly. Another great discussion. Looking forward to the next one. I hope you will touch on artificial intelligence and all the views regarding that. I'm curious at what point AI gains consciousness and rights.
What the heck Christina!!! I had a peek at your channel as I was curious to your interests and it led me to a video of a female dancing in an attempt to activate my limbic brain. Urghh!!! xD. It was a fascinating observing my mental process though. Thank you for that leap.
You do realize that that subject is being milked try right about now? There is a lot of material about this subject but I'm sorry to say that there is no absolute way to know what will truly happen unless the said AI isn't a truly artificial *intelligence*.
Christina The Stanford AI lectures are informative and good. P.S. "the computers will determine our future in a microsecond.... extermination!! ( Terminator) lol
I've been a fan of Tyson for years but he's not well suited for moderating; he likes to talk a little too much. A good quality but not for moderators. Moderators need to let orhers talk.
Finally, I was waiting for this record since 2016 memorial debate which was awesooooome. Science debate is the best thing you can get, it's educating, also having some fun and providing many useful ideas!
After watching this discussion it seems like we're at a crossroads between living in symbiosis with our environment, or being parasites who synthesize our own host as a means to exist.
Love the Memorial Debates, always fascinating discussions about the current leading edge questions in science. I do wonder, however, why the person running the live sound at these events, year, after year, after year, cannot eliminate the high pitched ringing microphone feedback in the room, it shows up on EVERY recording of this annual event? Very curious ...
I was just thinking, gosh, how long has it been since the last Asimov Debate ? It's been a while, let's ask YT. And voila, 23 hours ago it was uploaded. It must be divine...
I thought this was supposed to be a " look into a discussion among these folks in a bar". Neil finally had them started talking to each other - as in a discussion" - then he immediately stepped into the middle of it and stopped their interaction and went back to Neil DeGrasse show. So the early presentation was a false pretense - this was a standard, moderated panel. OK I guess ?????
Yeah, I guess it's hard to moderate this kind of panel on such a limited time so such interruptions are needed. They have to touch all of the topics but not get too far or too long on just one. Takes skill.
Yeah it needed a bit more structure I think. The lawyer dude suggested it. He was like 1. breed individuals (talk to the mammoth book woman and the geneticist about possibilities, get moral perspective, law perspective, and find out what that weird guy at the end is about). 2. Small breeding colony( benefits, implications, figure out based on the stance they have what their perspectives are going in and tap the most interesting / controversial first) 3. Mammoth park (this was introduced way too early). This was all over the place, I think maybe Neil was that drunk guy.
He does it here more then when it involves his own field of interest and occupation. Mars, Particles , Black Matter and you will see he interrupts less and with fewer jokes.
as soon as you get a large number, more than 3, science types together... you've GOT TO GET THEM DRUNK... to simulate 'a talk in a bar'. trust me, I've been part of a few of those drunken intellectual brawls. WITHOUT booze: guy 1 rambles on, guy 2 interrupts him with counterpoints by the dozens, guy 3 either interrupts BOTH guy 1 and 2 or just sits there listening and doesn't chime in till guy 1 and 2 pause for breaths. if you add guy 4 HE becomes guy 3 and guy 3 argues with guy 1 and 2 in a moderately orderly fashion. how do you get RID of all that order? ADD BOOZE... and all hell breaks loose. nobody shuts up, everybody yells over everybody else, and eventually the fists fly just as fast as the theories were earlier. because, there's ALWAYS a Ross MacPhee. that guy seriously needs to keep his yap shut about overpopulation. because he nigh on said 'kill some humans'. get enough science types together, get em drunk, and somebody will say something damn inflammatory and everybody else gangs up on THAT one guy and whoo wee kaydee bar the door... there's gonna be a tussle. :> NDT is the moderator. he's the observatory director there for the AMONH so ... that's his house. it's his turf. his panel. so. expecting the moderator to sit in a chair, lean back, sip something and let the fists and fur fly? no.
I love these panel discussions. I would love to see a "bar" environment created on stage to enhance the commentary. They don't seem to be very comfortable in the current set up. Put the panelists around a "bar" and give them a beverage of their choice. That conversation would be awesome I think.
They really should structure the stage differently. 5 chairs all in a straight line and Neil awkwardly walking around and behind people over and over again, its terrible, nobody knows where to look when they're talking or listening, its absurd. Put the chairs in more of a V shape so everyone is sort of facing the middle and the audience. That would be a much better format for people in these debates
Chairs would be a great improvement over the uncomfortable stools the panel had to sit on in this video. the only way anyone should be expected to sit on a stool that long is at a bar ( and only if they are sufficiently anesthetized).
we would not have most of the tech and comforts we enjoy without the insane population we have on earth right now more people the better unless ur scared of competition.
As I always say: the great heroes of medicine are the villains of ecology. They are the people responsible for such a large proliferation of humans. Heroes, nonetheless.
Great discussion. Amazing potential for organ donors to have a future with porcine replacements. I enjoyed the statement at the end about doctoring microorganisms for fuel alternatives (Algae) and alternative food creation strategies.
How could all , participants, panel and our dear Neil deGrass Tyson , have neglected the question to be asked or put to this wonderful panel , '' Can we , or do we think about Terra--Forming The Moon or Mars some day ? ''
Indeed, the future will showcase the full spectrum human folly and wisdom: and it is for us to determine which will prevail. I think those references to the anthropocentric reorganization that will take place and the responsibility for care and wise actions are exceptionally important. I look forward to these every year, and, happy to say, had the pleasure of seeing one in person a few years back. Thank you to everyone who is involved in putting these together!
de-extincting Neandertals was somewhat addressed previously - Isaac Asimov's "The Ugly Little Boy" involved scientists going back in time and kidnapping a Neandertal boy and bringing him to the present. There was also a movie whose name I cannot remember where a Neandertal was defrosted after finding him in a glacier. The problems of loneliness of being the only one of their kind and with the little boy, not being accepted by present-day children were exhibited in these tales. In the movie, the Neandertal grabbed the struts of a helicopter, then dropped to his death, and in Isaac Asimov's story, the ugly little boy was brought back to his own time by a sympathetic female scientist.
I enjoyed this session very much. Would love to witness one even though I don't live in the USA. New Yorkers are a lucky bunch! I agree with Ross, we have a NEED to evolve our food tech in order to support our CURRENT population size. We have simply not put enough effort to make more efficient food produce per acre of land space we have on this planet. We are running out of time at that as well
Is there a consensus that de extinction is viable? Has cloning of live animals been done with no health problems for the clone? Can anyone advise here.
Historically, wherever humans have arrived in a particular ecosystem, the indigenous animals have gone extinct. So, People= bad. Animals= good. Thats what that guy is saying, essentially. (Or not, "essentially," lol but rather literally.) Not that I'm disagreeing, mind you. I'm only asking if that's the nutshell of it.
Am I the only one who felt that Greg Kaebnick was the weak link in this years debate? The other guests were far more interesting and knowledgeable on the topic. He kept dodging questions, introducing non-scientific viewpoints and terms into the discussion which I felt were unnecessary and only dragged the conversation. He was also getting undeserved attention from Neil while the opinions of the rest were far more relevant, educational and more pleasant to listen to.
I believe that was the reason he was brought in. He is not a scientist but a philosopher and brought in a different viewpoint from the others, possible one from the general populace.
Yep... I'm no scholar but I reckon I could have added more intelligent views and statements regarding moral philosophy than that he did. he was struggling to grasp some of the questions and he kept wandering off topic with his answers.
I blame TH-cam. I didn't get any notification for this lecture. The channel is not as busy as other channels that post 3 minute videos. I also don't visit it regularly, that''s probably why most people haven't received any notifications. Its a theory anyway, there could be other reasons.
I hope a non-American perspective is welcome here. Eventhough the primary audience for the debates are Americans, the rest of the world is watching too. The depth of the discussion seems hindered by the style of moderation which seems to ensure that things don't get "too serious". It often feels uncomfortable in its own intelligence, as if worried that listeners will fall asleep if a joke isn't cracked every 3rd sentence. I wonder if this style is what is believed to suit an American audience.
They should invite somebody working in the relevant industry to host the debate. Then there is no point of curiosity from the host to interrupt the participants.
Another Great discussion. thank you Neil!, and the panel, of course and everyone who made it happen! I LOVE hearing these discussions from such qualified individuals. I don't know how many of these there are, but I'd like to watch them all. Neil does a great job as a host, stays on track quite well, keeps the panel laughing instead of fighting, thinks on his feet, etc. well done and GREAT topics. I will share these discussions with others so more of us can think more wholistically with each other about these bigger topics that effect us all.
People shouldn't boo and moo like farm animals during debates, lectures etc. When the farm animals went moo for buddies there's to many people comment , perfect example .
I love these, but this is not like a "casual conversation at a bar". It's a formal panel where participants are grilled by Neil and their answers are scrutinized. This is just "where are we now" infotainment. If you want to actually have interesting casual conversations, you have to have the right environment, like the JRE podcast studio.
I love these debates but in my opinion, the presupposition that these debates are bar conversations is flawed. I mean they have a moderator providing them with lead-ins.
funny but kinda messy panel and the guests were all very different, I wish the ethics guy had contributed more to the debate as its one of the main parts about de-extinction that is dividing the public and scientists. I guess there's just so many aspects to cover when it comes to this topic so I'm not surprised, but I feel like they barely scratched the surface and kept on circling around "whether it's possible or if it's legal" instead of the important questions such as why and also the matter of being able to practically control evolutionary processes. the moderator should've brought it up, would've created a better discussion.
DNA extracted from a horse bone estimated to be 700,000 years old and which was recovered in Arctic permafrost? Lots of questions about that. But okay, if you say so.
...with all due respect, I noticed here that people don't comment on the subject discussed here, but on things not related at all to the subject; meaning less or empty thought. I wonder, do we understand the subject at all?
1:37:00 Sounds like this guy is missing Neil's point! For every fictional story or silly concern over social change due to technological advance, there's a good reason why it's fiction, not fact. There's a good reason why we call these concerns silly.
I am curious about what if one of these habitats that we have set aside for preservation like Yellowstone would get destroyed by something that is out of our hands. like the volcano waking up and obliterating everything we put there to preserve, why preserve thinks in a place with higher risk of destruction, and/or what can be done to prevent this? Natural disasters can and will go against our wishes every once in a while...
Too many things flying from different directions, doesn't let us to concentrate to discussions like this one, We have the technology, we don't have sustainability - is similar to archaeology, sometimes after an excavations, archaeologists covers back the vestiges found in order to don't be destroyed, a lot of scientists has covered the discoveries to don't let the civilisation to quickly auto extinct. About what was extinct - will be nice to resurrect some species for the sake of possibility to do so, question is why? Is this necessary? Is this helping the present or the continuum present - aka future?
A great discussion. I 100% agree with Ross concerning the need to preserve 30% of all land as wilderness, stop eating meat, and arop having more than 1 child. Drastic population reduction is the fastest way to eliminate nearly every global problem. Fewer people means more resources available per person.
I can't believe that none asked George whether it is possible to somehow in some way to bring back Dinosaurs and how long time before that happens...Oh i wish that i was there.
This discussion is completely missing the main point of the sixth extinction. They need some PaleoClimatologists on the panel. .. Hint: We know that the Global Ocean died at least 3 times in the past. We also know the conditions of the Ocean and atmosphere when the Ocean is dead. We know that the Human species could not survive on Earth with a dead Ocean.
1:06:00 Overpopulation is a myth. Maybe next years debate? estimated world population in 2100: 11,200,000,000 current acres of agricultural land: 12,136,883,840 Current Acres of agricultural land doesn't include mountains where nothing grows, or swamps, or deserts, or wild forests. This is JUST the land that we humans CURRENTLY use to produce food. The US alone adds between 10 and 100 square miles to this number every year, so I can only imagine that other nations add to that number as well at varying rates. In 100 years (ish) we would still be able to give every man, woman, and child on the planet a single acre of agricultural land for producing food on. For 25 years, we've had the Square Foot Gardening Method, which provides enough fresh veggies for a single person to live on in 16 square feet of growing space. Of course, that only provides veggies. Want meat in your diet too? Raise rabbits. Like eating fish? Try Aquaponics. It's like growing with hydroponics, but uses fish to provide the majority of the nutrients for the plants to grow on. People have converted spare garage/bedrooms/basement space into grow space and produce more food than they were capable of eating on their own. Search youtube for videos on Aquaponics and you'll see MANY amazing stories of people across the world developing these systems and the things that they've done with them. Of course, pay special attention to what universities have done with Aquaponics. Search off youtube, and you will find many more resources that back up the youtube videos. Search youtube for Permaculture and you'll find people growing amazing amounts of food in very tiny spaces. People growing entire farms worth of food in the back yard of a 1/6 acre suburban house lot. People do the same thing on urban house lots. Permaculture has been under constant development since 1929 and really took on it's modern form nearly 40 years ago. What does all this mean? It means that we could still feed 60+ billion humans on the amount of land we are growing on today with today's technology. How much more technology will we have by the time we eventually hit 60 billion humans? Overpopulation is a myth.
Yeah, I've heard the 9 billion number before, there is no evidence to support such a low number. I've heard 11 billion as well, it actually has a halfway decent argument for it, still flawed though, no science backing it up, just speculation and assertions without evidence. None of the overpopulation myths take into account how much food or water we actually have the CAPACITY to produce, only what we did produce. (Ask anyone in manufacturing, those numbers are very different.) They do not take into account how dense population centers ACTUALLY are without collapsing. They do not take into account technology from a century ago, let alone modern technologies. You can't just look at a symptom and say "Look! This proves this wild speculation!" In all probability, it doesn't, and you wind up looking like you haven't bothered to study the problem. If you see a symptom of a problem, like some would speculate that the birthrate's decline is a symptom of overpopulation, you have to then look at the causes of that symptom and see what's causing it. Look at the areas where it is a problem, and MORE IMPORTANTLY look at where it ISN'T a problem. Are there places that DISPROVE the idea? If the symptoms of the problem that we call overpopulation are not occurring in the most densely populated cities on the planet, then we CAN NOT have an overpopulation problem. If Manila, Philippines with a population density of 107,562 people per square mile, (25% more dense than the next most dense location! ) isn't experiencing the signs or symptoms of overpopulation, lack of food and water, rampant crime, rampant illness, elevated infant mortality rates, etc., then overpopulation can not yet be occurring anywhere less dense. So number of people alone does not indicate overpopulation. Now, you can have a regional overpopulation problem, too many people for the area they are in. You couldn't for example support the population of China in Jordan without adding all the technology at our disposal to ameliorate the problems of feeding and watering all those people, providing adequate law enforcement and health care, etc. And that there is the key that all these overpopulation myth supporters ignore, the technology that we already have to provide for as many people as we care to produce. As we need to grow more food for our population, we will figure out how, and likely long before it's necessary. As we need more water, we'll figure out how to collect it, purify it, recycle it, re-use it, desalinate it, and in whatever quantities we need it in. Medicine has already figured out most of the stuff that kills us and has fixes for it. I think most people would say that we've already got too much law enforcement, I don't think we really need more of that any time soon... You mention the global declining birthrate, and you're correct about that, but what you're missing is all the propaganda out there that is causing that declining birthrate. India and China both have massive population control propaganda machines trying to convince people to have few if any children, and China has a very restrictive one-child law. Abortion is rampant in western civilization dragging that number down even further. India has an entire department of government that has people going from rural home to rural home just to convince people to stop having babies. There are of course parts of Asia that aren't that totalitarian, like Japan, that still have a declining population which some theorize is due to the ever creeping post-modernist ideologies that attempt to destroy the idea of the nuclear family, which IS necessary to allow for a stable population base. The numbers mentioned in my previous post don't even include environmental remediation, or any of the growing technologies that are still being experimented with in small scale today, things like vertical growing, growing walls, intensive rooftop gardens, buildings that integrate food production into apartment towers and office buildings. No, there is no such thing as overpopulation. It is a myth. Every university agricultural extension office proves it on a daily basis. If you want people to start having more kids, and we really should, stop telling people that children don't need fathers, that women shouldn't want to get married and have children, that Abortion is a good thing. Stop telling women that they should wait until their 30s to have children, it's a lot harder on the 30 year old mother, and increases the risk of problems with the child. The average 16 year old has a much greater likelihood of having a problem free pregnancy. How many problems would a 25 year old have getting a GED when she's supported by a large extended family? How many problems would she have then getting a college degree while her 4 kids are already in grade school? We have this idea that College and University is still the same way it was a century ago, even though we now have online programs that fit your schedule, whatever that may be, that are just as good as any class-room degree. Don't want to be a corporate wage slave, work from home. Don't want to do that either, tend the family "farm" and grow the food that feeds the family. Stop playing Farmville and use that third car space in the garage into grow space. Instead of growing a ficus in your living room that you can't eat, grow a tomato plant that you can. Like buying organic food? Can't get any more organic than growing it yourself. Farm to table mileage measured in feet. How "Green" is that, and for the right reasons as well!
Neil, I love you, but you gotta curb your anecdotes while you're hosting unless you're sure they're super relevant. The flow wasn't quite there; we jumped from cloning mammoths - big reveal! Theyre not cloneable! Without going into what the obstacles were. We got back to it, but not because of the hosting but on panelist insistence. Then went to mammoth park without much intro, threw in some bioweaponry. It was all over the place. You have these people so they can go in depth. If you subdivided the conversation you could have the law guy go into the bioweaponry, for instance, have gene guy go into the possibilites, perhaps without discussing the ethics (paints him badly) and guaranteed the rest of the panelists have something to say, which is how you start a conversation. Understand as much about the people as possible so you know when to tap them. I was just wishing this was a little more organized/ in depth.
There are many species on the brink right now. Can they be saved... wolves, wild horses, tigers, lions, rhinos, etc. Maybe there are insects, snakes, birds, and fish that we need to consider, especially if they are food species, or species that affect the environment in a positive way. Instead of colonizing Mars, we need living habitats in orbit around the planet. Then we can consider other planets. Not farmLAND, but vertical farms. Synthetic meat was developed but when it was getting near production we quit hearing about it. It has to be one of those things the Deep State has been keeping from it.
why is the host louder than his guests? Why is this issue so funny? We recreated the Bison (Aurochs) in Europe and reintroduced them to the Forest of Poland etc. I believe humans have created way too many problems for the environment, just by trading, then by transferring species from one ocean to the next through grows on ships bodies...
Why is "playing god" even mentioned in this debate? As a non-religious person, it is stupid to bring this up. For a religious person, such a belittling statement.
Yes, the tech exists ...but need more and more: refining and tools to bring it in existence. For example: creating synthetic genes as a copy of the original genes, then removing the synthetic genes substituting it with real amino acids. The copy shall go alive and reproduced if inserted, for example in an egg. A very large egg would be that of a chicken of which the genes already created would take over the chicken egg chromosome replication and replicate itself. Out of a chicken egg then, we could recreate an ostrich or any similar egg whatever it creates.
There is a perfectly simple way to prevent accidental/malicious bio exposure, do the experiments in space or another planet. Then the only thing to worry about is deliberate infection by an enemy.
Animal welfare is not any kind of priority for any human who does not find the thought of beings brought into existence into a miserable life solely for the purpose of feeding ourselves when plant based whole foods can cover the nutritional requirements of every one of those humans on the planet.
Neil just can't help himself from cutting someone off, touching someone, or being passive aggressive. props to these wonderful people to have the patience to bear him.
41:25 Wtf, they are literally talking about Covid19 without saying the name of it, because no one knew it would actually happend four years later, even scientifically knowing it could...xD
I have a great deal of respect of Mr Tyson but I wish he would let the panel finish what they are saying. Really annoying.
They are on limited time tho.
Little Monk Agree. But I have almost no respect for him. I think he’s a joke. He is only a smart person according to dumb people. All smart people know he is just a populist joke.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 I don't think you have enough intelligence to judge that.
Otar Magaldadze Hah yeah, sounds a lot like what Tyson would say.. 🙄🙄🙄🖕🏻
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 He wouldn't waste his minute on a fucktard and arrogant like you. Do half of what Neil Tyson did for popularisation of science and then talk.
Isaac Asimov wrote a great book on bringing back a Neanderthal child, "The Ugly Little Boy", that explores a lot of the questions brought-up here. :)
Archmaester Drew I was looking for some advice or comment wich illustrate me about Asimov's books since I just started read his work. Thanks alot!
You're welcome! Azimov's most famous series is undoubtedly "The Foundation" series, well worth the read, but he wrote many other great books too. :)
I discovered Asimov about 20 years ago when I stumbled upon "Jupiter: The Largest Planet" down at my local library. I started collecting all his books soon after that first book.
Even though he gained fame in the science fiction genre, I prefer reading his history and science books the best. I'm reading his "Guide to the Bible" as I'm making this comment.
I only have 1 fiction book by Asimov and that's "Pebble in the Sky", which, although it's been many years now since I read it, I remember it being a very good read.
yeah, "pebble" is a great book! and if i recall correctly, it's kind of an unofficial prequel to "foundation."
But isnt the elephat in the room that we could gain the knowledge to make ourselves better. Muddle with our own genes and make humans more disease resistant, stay younger longer, better brains? making our species better is that not the ultimate goal. Cure effectively any type of physical or mental abnormality.
Brian Brennan Problem is : who are you to say what is "normal" and what is "abnormal"? who's going to decide this and where's the limit ? that's a huge problem with loads of ramifications, most of them ugly. One of the last one who wanted that kind of thing was Hitler... not the kind of people I'd like to see again in a position of power.
Liz 372 fuck ethics lets evolve, im talking about being Captains of our own destiny as a species. screw "normal" thats simply too relative a term
not to mention make ourselves freeze and fire proof then tell climate change to go fuck itself in the ass.
Screw being "normal", I want to be healthy
Brian Brennan: If our cultural evolution includes the adoption of a "fuck ethics" mentality, then we are in very big trouble.
I love these debates so much. I haven't watched all 18 yet but I have watched about 6 so far. I always share them. The thing I love about these debates is it's really like just sitting in a room with these people and you are listening to this intelligent conversation. Of course Neil is always spectacular. I would love to see one of these debates live. I was looking forward to this years and it did not disappoint!
If you find a link to ALL of them, do feel free to post them here :)
Or just pop me a pm
www.amnh.org/explore/videos/isaac-asimov-memorial-debate
Wish these panels happened monthly. Another great discussion. Looking forward to the next one. I hope you will touch on artificial intelligence and all the views regarding that. I'm curious at what point AI gains consciousness and rights.
What the heck Christina!!! I had a peek at your channel as I was curious to your interests and it led me to a video of a female dancing in an attempt to activate my limbic brain. Urghh!!! xD.
It was a fascinating observing my mental process though. Thank you for that leap.
I'm simply human. You're welcome
Yay intelligent science ladies. May the groove be with you always.
You do realize that that subject is being milked try right about now? There is a lot of material about this subject but I'm sorry to say that there is no absolute way to know what will truly happen unless the said AI isn't a truly artificial *intelligence*.
Christina The Stanford AI lectures are informative and good. P.S. "the computers will determine our future in a microsecond.... extermination!! ( Terminator) lol
Great discussion.
I learned so many things.
Thanks for the channel.
I've been a fan of Tyson for years but he's not well suited for moderating; he likes to talk a little too much. A good quality but not for moderators. Moderators need to let orhers talk.
according to whom? there are many ways to moderate and debate
I disagree.
Hear that NGT..shut the fuck up and let the damn panel talk
Finally, I was waiting for this record since 2016 memorial debate which was awesooooome. Science debate is the best thing you can get, it's educating, also having some fun and providing many useful ideas!
After watching this discussion it seems like we're at a crossroads between living in symbiosis with our environment, or being parasites who synthesize our own host as a means to exist.
Love the Memorial Debates, always fascinating discussions about the current leading edge questions in science.
I do wonder, however, why the person running the live sound at these events, year, after year, after year, cannot eliminate the high pitched ringing microphone feedback in the room, it shows up on EVERY recording of this annual event? Very curious ...
I was just thinking, gosh, how long has it been since the last Asimov Debate ? It's been a while, let's ask YT. And voila, 23 hours ago it was uploaded.
It must be divine...
same lol
Gabi Koonings dido
Did it happen again this year?
Always look forward to these debates, awsome stuff guys keep up the great work.
Worst part of this was Tyson always interrupting. so much for the casual conversation between peers
It's funny how he always says the debate is gonna be about 1hr long and about 10 mins for Q&A.
I thought this was supposed to be a " look into a discussion among these folks in a bar". Neil finally had them started talking to each other - as in a discussion" - then he immediately stepped into the middle of it and stopped their interaction and went back to Neil DeGrasse show. So the early presentation was a false pretense - this was a standard, moderated panel. OK I guess ?????
Yeah, I guess it's hard to moderate this kind of panel on such a limited time so such interruptions are needed. They have to touch all of the topics but not get too far or too long on just one. Takes skill.
Yeah it needed a bit more structure I think. The lawyer dude suggested it. He was like 1. breed individuals (talk to the mammoth book woman and the geneticist about possibilities, get moral perspective, law perspective, and find out what that weird guy at the end is about). 2. Small breeding colony( benefits, implications, figure out based on the stance they have what their perspectives are going in and tap the most interesting / controversial first) 3. Mammoth park (this was introduced way too early).
This was all over the place, I think maybe Neil was that drunk guy.
He does it here more then when it involves his own field of interest and occupation. Mars, Particles , Black Matter and you will see he interrupts less and with fewer jokes.
as soon as you get a large number, more than 3, science types together... you've GOT TO GET THEM DRUNK... to simulate 'a talk in a bar'. trust me, I've been part of a few of those drunken intellectual brawls. WITHOUT booze: guy 1 rambles on, guy 2 interrupts him with counterpoints by the dozens, guy 3 either interrupts BOTH guy 1 and 2 or just sits there listening and doesn't chime in till guy 1 and 2 pause for breaths. if you add guy 4 HE becomes guy 3 and guy 3 argues with guy 1 and 2 in a moderately orderly fashion. how do you get RID of all that order? ADD BOOZE... and all hell breaks loose. nobody shuts up, everybody yells over everybody else, and eventually the fists fly just as fast as the theories were earlier. because, there's ALWAYS a Ross MacPhee. that guy seriously needs to keep his yap shut about overpopulation. because he nigh on said 'kill some humans'. get enough science types together, get em drunk, and somebody will say something damn inflammatory and everybody else gangs up on THAT one guy and whoo wee kaydee bar the door... there's gonna be a tussle. :> NDT is the moderator. he's the observatory director there for the AMONH so ... that's his house. it's his turf. his panel. so. expecting the moderator to sit in a chair, lean back, sip something and let the fists and fur fly? no.
The fact that he had to struggle with an answer to "should humans be de-extincted?" says a lot about us. 🤔
I love these panel discussions. I would love to see a "bar" environment created on stage to enhance the commentary. They don't seem to be very comfortable in the current set up. Put the panelists around a "bar" and give them a beverage of their choice. That conversation would be awesome I think.
They really should structure the stage differently. 5 chairs all in a straight line and Neil awkwardly walking around and behind people over and over again, its terrible, nobody knows where to look when they're talking or listening, its absurd.
Put the chairs in more of a V shape so everyone is sort of facing the middle and the audience. That would be a much better format for people in these debates
bob smith There should be a fire place and they should be drinking out of gold chalices. They do that on cspan sometimes ( seriously) lol .
Chairs would be a great improvement over the uncomfortable stools the panel had to sit on in this video. the only way anyone should be expected to sit on a stool that long is at a bar ( and only if they are sufficiently anesthetized).
sound volume is pretty low
8:18 "I'm the moral philosopher",'i'm here to try make sure you guys don't kill us.'"
Wish these panels happened monthly. Another great discussion. Looking forward to the next one. I hope you will touch on the 7Earth like EXOPLANETS
Ross: the problem is that there is too many humans on the planet.
Neil: you're aware that you brought your family here tonight?
Me: Lol
we would not have most of the tech and comforts we enjoy without the insane population we have on earth right now more people the better unless ur scared of competition.
"save the earth, don't give birth"
S1UU great
As I always say: the great heroes of medicine are the villains of ecology. They are the people responsible for such a large proliferation of humans. Heroes, nonetheless.
Lets not be absolutist... .. .
Great discussion. Amazing potential for organ donors to have a future with porcine replacements. I enjoyed the statement at the end about doctoring microorganisms for fuel alternatives (Algae) and alternative food creation strategies.
How could all , participants, panel and our dear Neil deGrass Tyson , have neglected the question to be asked or put to this wonderful panel , '' Can we , or do we think about Terra--Forming The Moon or Mars some day ? ''
Panels like this give me hope for the future!
7months left until we can enjoy new Debate. Cant wait!
fantastic panel and also what amazes me how are they all such good speakers
I crave this kind of discussion often. This was so much fun to listen to/watch.
Indeed, the future will showcase the full spectrum human folly and wisdom: and it is for us to determine which will prevail. I think those references to the anthropocentric reorganization that will take place and the responsibility for care and wise actions are exceptionally important. I look forward to these every year, and, happy to say, had the pleasure of seeing one in person a few years back. Thank you to everyone who is involved in putting these together!
de-extincting Neandertals was somewhat addressed previously - Isaac Asimov's "The Ugly Little Boy" involved scientists going back in time and kidnapping a Neandertal boy and bringing him to the present. There was also a movie whose name I cannot remember where a Neandertal was defrosted after finding him in a glacier. The problems of loneliness of being the only one of their kind and with the little boy, not being accepted by present-day children were exhibited in these tales. In the movie, the Neandertal grabbed the struts of a helicopter, then dropped to his death, and in Isaac Asimov's story, the ugly little boy was brought back to his own time by a sympathetic female scientist.
I enjoyed this session very much. Would love to witness one even though I don't live in the USA. New Yorkers are a lucky bunch!
I agree with Ross, we have a NEED to evolve our food tech in order to support our CURRENT population size. We have simply not put enough effort to make more efficient food produce per acre of land space we have on this planet. We are running out of time at that as well
0:01 - Is it 'our' 17th or 18th.
Neil didn't read the memo. WTF?
Is there a consensus that de extinction is viable? Has cloning of live animals been done with no health problems for the clone? Can anyone advise here.
Historically, wherever humans have arrived in a particular ecosystem, the indigenous animals have gone extinct.
So,
People= bad.
Animals= good.
Thats what that guy is saying, essentially.
(Or not, "essentially," lol but rather literally.)
Not that I'm disagreeing, mind you.
I'm only asking if that's the nutshell of it.
Am I the only one who felt that Greg Kaebnick was the weak link in this years debate? The other guests were far more interesting and knowledgeable on the topic. He kept dodging questions, introducing non-scientific viewpoints and terms into the discussion which I felt were unnecessary and only dragged the conversation. He was also getting undeserved attention from Neil while the opinions of the rest were far more relevant, educational and more pleasant to listen to.
I believe that was the reason he was brought in. He is not a scientist but a philosopher and brought in a different viewpoint from the others, possible one from the general populace.
Yep... I'm no scholar but I reckon I could have added more intelligent views and statements regarding moral philosophy than that he did. he was struggling to grasp some of the questions and he kept wandering off topic with his answers.
I felt so bad for him ...
You people are hilarious
What you think of yourselves is vastly entertaining
What do you mean, "you people?" What do *you* mean, "you people?" Huh? - quote from Tropic Thunder
Yeeeeeeesssss! I wait on these every year THANK YOU!
Super knowledgeable and humble panelists.
Wilford Brimley in a Cosby sweater. Sweet.
...96,000 subscribers, and only 23,000 views in almost a month... Shameful. I always enjoy these debates.
I blame TH-cam.
I didn't get any notification for this lecture.
The channel is not as busy as other channels that post 3 minute videos.
I also don't visit it regularly, that''s probably why most people haven't received any notifications.
Its a theory anyway, there could be other reasons.
George Church is a powerhouse.
How sad, I'm watching this as a herd of 15 or so elephants are migrating through Chinese cities in search of a home. 😥
I hope a non-American perspective is welcome here. Eventhough the primary audience for the debates are Americans, the rest of the world is watching too. The depth of the discussion seems hindered by the style of moderation which seems to ensure that things don't get "too serious". It often feels uncomfortable in its own intelligence, as if worried that listeners will fall asleep if a joke isn't cracked every 3rd sentence. I wonder if this style is what is believed to suit an American audience.
Tyson is popular in the United States. Admittedly, his style wears this, but he does attract a lot of viewers.
we got to stop enabling people to think its okay to not be better and learn about themselves each moment.
Not the best Asimov debate. I wish they would've talked more about the science of resurrecting species.
Very uncomfortable chair for almost two hours
Been checking every night and waiting for this. 😆
Paleontologist Ross? C'mon. Someone?
Smirnov Alexandr
oh Friends... lol
Pivot!
I guess neither NDT nor Ross ever watched Friends :(
have another on the house
Holiday armadillo!
They should invite somebody working in the relevant industry to host the debate. Then there is no point of curiosity from the host to interrupt the participants.
Another Great discussion. thank you Neil!, and the panel, of course and everyone who made it happen! I LOVE hearing these discussions from such qualified individuals. I don't know how many of these there are, but I'd like to watch them all. Neil does a great job as a host, stays on track quite well, keeps the panel laughing instead of fighting, thinks on his feet, etc. well done and GREAT topics. I will share these discussions with others so more of us can think more wholistically with each other about these bigger topics that effect us all.
one day i would like to see this in person
where is the sound???
Someone answer this!!
salo garbati ph
People shouldn't boo and moo like farm animals during debates, lectures etc. When the farm animals went moo for buddies there's to many people comment , perfect example .
I love these, but this is not like a "casual conversation at a bar". It's a formal panel where participants are grilled by Neil and their answers are scrutinized. This is just "where are we now" infotainment.
If you want to actually have interesting casual conversations, you have to have the right environment, like the JRE podcast studio.
LOL. JRE podcast... truly the source of such wisdom and thoughtful discussion.
Maybe their talks in bars are like that.
Ur an idiot.. joe rogan sells bullshit products and is a dumb ass. Please dont compare stoned speculators with scientists.
Joe has had fantastic podcasts with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, but his others with less educated people are often terrible
JRE has only a few good ones, most of them are a waste of time
Great panel, great scientists, great lead by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Take care
1:08:50 why sociopolitics and philosophy are not irrelevant in scientific conversations.
and 1:21:22
Hurray! Was actually just thinking about this yesterday!
I wish people would stop mumbling so much when asked a question.
I learned my basic early back ground in Science from the esteemed Isaac Asimov! :)
Scientists really like to interject and interrupt one another.
I think it shows their enthusiasm, but sometimes it's a bit much.
I love these debates but in my opinion, the presupposition that these debates are bar conversations is flawed. I mean they have a moderator providing them with lead-ins.
funny but kinda messy panel and the guests were all very different, I wish the ethics guy had contributed more to the debate as its one of the main parts about de-extinction that is dividing the public and scientists.
I guess there's just so many aspects to cover when it comes to this topic so I'm not surprised, but I feel like they barely scratched the surface and kept on circling around "whether it's possible or if it's legal" instead of the important questions such as why and also the matter of being able to practically control evolutionary processes. the moderator should've brought it up, would've created a better discussion.
DNA extracted from a horse bone estimated to be 700,000 years old and which was recovered in Arctic permafrost? Lots of questions about that. But okay, if you say so.
why is the audio always so atrouciously bad in these videos??
...with all due respect, I noticed here that people don't comment on the subject discussed here, but on things not related at all to the subject; meaning less or empty thought. I wonder, do we understand the subject at all?
1:37:00 Sounds like this guy is missing Neil's point! For every fictional story or silly concern over social change due to technological advance, there's a good reason why it's fiction, not fact. There's a good reason why we call these concerns silly.
is the timeline exhibit as old as those asimov days? wonder if he was inspired by that display of the vastness of time as you go up the spiral
When are we going to try the mammoth cheese?
Mammoth: Rezz me plz.
Beth Shapiro: Wait up, grabbing better gear.
experts say that if we hope to survive and reduce extinction rates of species we should reduce global human population total to 2 billion.
I am curious about what if one of these habitats that we have set aside for preservation like Yellowstone would get destroyed by something that is out of our hands. like the volcano waking up and obliterating everything we put there to preserve, why preserve thinks in a place with higher risk of destruction, and/or what can be done to prevent this? Natural disasters can and will go against our wishes every once in a while...
I couldn't help but hear George Carlin sitting on my shoulder doing his "Save the Planet" rant, the whole time.
Too many things flying from different directions, doesn't let us to concentrate to discussions like this one,
We have the technology, we don't have sustainability - is similar to archaeology, sometimes after an excavations, archaeologists covers back the vestiges found in order to don't be destroyed, a lot of scientists has covered the discoveries to don't let the civilisation to quickly auto extinct.
About what was extinct - will be nice to resurrect some species for the sake of possibility to do so, question is why? Is this necessary? Is this helping the present or the continuum present - aka future?
A great discussion. I 100% agree with Ross concerning the need to preserve 30% of all land as wilderness, stop eating meat, and arop having more than 1 child. Drastic population reduction is the fastest way to eliminate nearly every global problem. Fewer people means more resources available per person.
ethical philosopher brings nothing to the panel, he does not even understand questions asked(((((
I can't believe that none asked George whether it is possible to somehow in some way to bring back Dinosaurs and how long time before that happens...Oh i wish that i was there.
I don't think you listened to what was said.
I love Neil and his delivery.
This discussion is completely missing the main point of the sixth extinction. They need some PaleoClimatologists on the panel. .. Hint: We know that the Global Ocean died at least 3 times in the past. We also know the conditions of the Ocean and atmosphere when the Ocean is dead. We know that the Human species could not survive on Earth with a dead Ocean.
1:06:00 Overpopulation is a myth.
Maybe next years debate?
estimated world population in 2100: 11,200,000,000
current acres of agricultural land: 12,136,883,840
Current Acres of agricultural land doesn't include mountains where nothing grows, or swamps, or deserts, or wild forests. This is JUST the land that we humans CURRENTLY use to produce food. The US alone adds between 10 and 100 square miles to this number every year, so I can only imagine that other nations add to that number as well at varying rates.
In 100 years (ish) we would still be able to give every man, woman, and child on the planet a single acre of agricultural land for producing food on.
For 25 years, we've had the Square Foot Gardening Method, which provides enough fresh veggies for a single person to live on in 16 square feet of growing space. Of course, that only provides veggies. Want meat in your diet too? Raise rabbits. Like eating fish? Try Aquaponics. It's like growing with hydroponics, but uses fish to provide the majority of the nutrients for the plants to grow on. People have converted spare garage/bedrooms/basement space into grow space and produce more food than they were capable of eating on their own.
Search youtube for videos on Aquaponics and you'll see MANY amazing stories of people across the world developing these systems and the things that they've done with them. Of course, pay special attention to what universities have done with Aquaponics. Search off youtube, and you will find many more resources that back up the youtube videos.
Search youtube for Permaculture and you'll find people growing amazing amounts of food in very tiny spaces. People growing entire farms worth of food in the back yard of a 1/6 acre suburban house lot. People do the same thing on urban house lots. Permaculture has been under constant development since 1929 and really took on it's modern form nearly 40 years ago.
What does all this mean? It means that we could still feed 60+ billion humans on the amount of land we are growing on today with today's technology. How much more technology will we have by the time we eventually hit 60 billion humans?
Overpopulation is a myth.
Yeah, I've heard the 9 billion number before, there is no evidence to support such a low number. I've heard 11 billion as well, it actually has a halfway decent argument for it, still flawed though, no science backing it up, just speculation and assertions without evidence. None of the overpopulation myths take into account how much food or water we actually have the CAPACITY to produce, only what we did produce. (Ask anyone in manufacturing, those numbers are very different.) They do not take into account how dense population centers ACTUALLY are without collapsing. They do not take into account technology from a century ago, let alone modern technologies.
You can't just look at a symptom and say "Look! This proves this wild speculation!" In all probability, it doesn't, and you wind up looking like you haven't bothered to study the problem. If you see a symptom of a problem, like some would speculate that the birthrate's decline is a symptom of overpopulation, you have to then look at the causes of that symptom and see what's causing it. Look at the areas where it is a problem, and MORE IMPORTANTLY look at where it ISN'T a problem. Are there places that DISPROVE the idea? If the symptoms of the problem that we call overpopulation are not occurring in the most densely populated cities on the planet, then we CAN NOT have an overpopulation problem. If Manila, Philippines with a population density of 107,562 people per square mile, (25% more dense than the next most dense location! ) isn't experiencing the signs or symptoms of overpopulation, lack of food and water, rampant crime, rampant illness, elevated infant mortality rates, etc., then overpopulation can not yet be occurring anywhere less dense. So number of people alone does not indicate overpopulation. Now, you can have a regional overpopulation problem, too many people for the area they are in. You couldn't for example support the population of China in Jordan without adding all the technology at our disposal to ameliorate the problems of feeding and watering all those people, providing adequate law enforcement and health care, etc.
And that there is the key that all these overpopulation myth supporters ignore, the technology that we already have to provide for as many people as we care to produce. As we need to grow more food for our population, we will figure out how, and likely long before it's necessary. As we need more water, we'll figure out how to collect it, purify it, recycle it, re-use it, desalinate it, and in whatever quantities we need it in. Medicine has already figured out most of the stuff that kills us and has fixes for it. I think most people would say that we've already got too much law enforcement, I don't think we really need more of that any time soon...
You mention the global declining birthrate, and you're correct about that, but what you're missing is all the propaganda out there that is causing that declining birthrate. India and China both have massive population control propaganda machines trying to convince people to have few if any children, and China has a very restrictive one-child law. Abortion is rampant in western civilization dragging that number down even further. India has an entire department of government that has people going from rural home to rural home just to convince people to stop having babies.
There are of course parts of Asia that aren't that totalitarian, like Japan, that still have a declining population which some theorize is due to the ever creeping post-modernist ideologies that attempt to destroy the idea of the nuclear family, which IS necessary to allow for a stable population base.
The numbers mentioned in my previous post don't even include environmental remediation, or any of the growing technologies that are still being experimented with in small scale today, things like vertical growing, growing walls, intensive rooftop gardens, buildings that integrate food production into apartment towers and office buildings.
No, there is no such thing as overpopulation. It is a myth. Every university agricultural extension office proves it on a daily basis.
If you want people to start having more kids, and we really should, stop telling people that children don't need fathers, that women shouldn't want to get married and have children, that Abortion is a good thing. Stop telling women that they should wait until their 30s to have children, it's a lot harder on the 30 year old mother, and increases the risk of problems with the child. The average 16 year old has a much greater likelihood of having a problem free pregnancy. How many problems would a 25 year old have getting a GED when she's supported by a large extended family? How many problems would she have then getting a college degree while her 4 kids are already in grade school? We have this idea that College and University is still the same way it was a century ago, even though we now have online programs that fit your schedule, whatever that may be, that are just as good as any class-room degree. Don't want to be a corporate wage slave, work from home. Don't want to do that either, tend the family "farm" and grow the food that feeds the family. Stop playing Farmville and use that third car space in the garage into grow space. Instead of growing a ficus in your living room that you can't eat, grow a tomato plant that you can. Like buying organic food? Can't get any more organic than growing it yourself. Farm to table mileage measured in feet. How "Green" is that, and for the right reasons as well!
Mammoths had an enormous migratory range. I doubt one could live in captivity happily. I want to see us make the Dino chicken happen.
Neil, I love you, but you gotta curb your anecdotes while you're hosting unless you're sure they're super relevant. The flow wasn't quite there; we jumped from cloning mammoths - big reveal! Theyre not cloneable! Without going into what the obstacles were. We got back to it, but not because of the hosting but on panelist insistence. Then went to mammoth park without much intro, threw in some bioweaponry. It was all over the place. You have these people so they can go in depth.
If you subdivided the conversation you could have the law guy go into the bioweaponry, for instance, have gene guy go into the possibilites, perhaps without discussing the ethics (paints him badly) and guaranteed the rest of the panelists have something to say, which is how you start a conversation. Understand as much about the people as possible so you know when to tap them. I was just wishing this was a little more organized/ in depth.
IA wrote over 600 books ??!! stunning....
so did LRon
There are many species on the brink right now. Can they be saved... wolves, wild horses, tigers, lions, rhinos, etc. Maybe there are insects, snakes, birds, and fish that we need to consider, especially if they are food species, or species that affect the environment in a positive way.
Instead of colonizing Mars, we need living habitats in orbit around the planet. Then we can consider other planets.
Not farmLAND, but vertical farms.
Synthetic meat was developed but when it was getting near production we quit hearing about it. It has to be one of those things the Deep State has been keeping from it.
wish the host would shut up and quit interrupting and cutting people off
why is the host louder than his guests? Why is this issue so funny? We recreated the Bison (Aurochs) in Europe and reintroduced them to the Forest of Poland etc.
I believe humans have created way too many problems for the environment, just by trading, then by transferring species from one ocean to the next through grows on ships bodies...
Why is "playing god" even mentioned in this debate? As a non-religious person, it is stupid to bring this up. For a religious person, such a belittling statement.
4:42 I was so glad he said "Beth"!
What about intentional devolution? I am thinking about the striped horses that were redevolved in Poland, and now run wild there.
The lawyer on the left was in a Naked Gun movie as Jane's husband, he was in a wheelchair.
Yes, the tech exists ...but need more and more:
refining and tools to bring it in existence. For example: creating
synthetic genes as a copy of the original genes, then removing the synthetic
genes substituting it with real amino acids. The copy shall go alive and
reproduced if inserted, for example in an egg. A very large egg would be
that of a chicken of which the genes already created would take over the
chicken egg chromosome replication and replicate itself. Out of a chicken
egg then, we could recreate an ostrich or any similar egg whatever it creates.
Yeah buddy. Love these talks.
Beth is really intelligent.
1:44:00 yeah, we're screwed
46:30 listening in 2021 lol
Great discussion, but by God if Tyson isn't the most precocious and irritating host I've ever seen.
There is a perfectly simple way to prevent accidental/malicious bio exposure, do the experiments in space or another planet. Then the only thing to worry about is deliberate infection by an enemy.
Lmao
Neil deGrasse Tyson never gets old.
Mr. deGrasse is way too loud, makes it really annoying to listening.
Yes, but it is his event and he gets an audience for it.
@@GH-oi2jf I think, he is a lot better now controlling himself in front of the camera.. awesome guy by the way!!
Animal welfare is not any kind of priority for any human who does not find the thought of beings brought into existence into a miserable life solely for the purpose of feeding ourselves when plant based whole foods can cover the nutritional requirements of every one of those humans on the planet.