ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2024
- Creating genetically modified children is no longer a science fiction fantasy; it's a likely future scenario. Biologist Paul Knoepfler estimates that within fifteen years, scientists could use the gene editing technology CRISPR to make certain "upgrades" to human embryos -- from altering physical appearances to eliminating the risk of auto-immune diseases. In this thought-provoking talk, Knoepfler readies us for the coming designer baby revolution and its very personal, and unforeseeable, consequences.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
god i'm only watching these things just for my school research
LOL same here
Same!🤣
pawo same🤣
Same here 🤚
same please send the answers guys
That would be a nice Black Mirror episode...
Ricardo Galassi honestly but I think they kinda threw that with the snowglobe episode
Ricardo Galassi yeah but tech augmentations too
I envision parents being consulted by a company on the optimal size of boobs or penis, hair and eye color, etc. There will be some statistical average that most attractive on average. If most people choose that statistical average then most of the future generation will start to look the same. This is a nice dystonian scenario - people not realizing what other people are choosing because the result is so far in the future, but, in terms of game theory, the most advantageous choice for you is to choose whatever is going to be the most attractive on average, but if many people do that choice...
Cosmetic changes just dont matter, you can ban them for all I care they arnt meaningful. Whats important is being able to prevent your newborn child dying within minutes of being born because they have a malformed heart, or being born with brittle bones
There’s a movie called Gattica which is basically like a black mirror episode about this
That laugh after the Kardashian joke had me dying
The question isn't "should we allow it", because it's already happening, it's too late. The question is "how to regulate it and prevent the technology to be monopolized by rich people ?"
rich people are still people not robots who are here to ruin your life
Yes!
I am a bio hacker and I made myself go through puberty a second time which gives me 2 people’s worth of physical and mental genetics. This is way more real than people think it is
@@lkb4781 cool story bro
@@lkb4781 how??
My main problem is how can we even raise those kids? If your child is smart enough to be able to do things like hack into NSA at the age of 6, how can we even have any control of their development? Imagine such child in his puberty, a person with remarkable physical and mental abilities above that of most regular humans going through emotional instability inherent to puberty. A remarkable child needs a remarkable parent.
heponatnokto 0 I really do think he's exaggerated a little bit, but yes, we would need great parents
There are already examples of children who exhibited an extremely high degree of intelligence at a young age (i.e. Carl Friedrich Gauss), way more than their parents.
These children didn't just randomly go rogue and decide to become a mad scientist and annihilate the world. No matter how intelligent, children will always have an inherent lack of experience compared to adults. I'd say we're pretty safe.
Also what I was thinking
Nature vs. Nuture. If you genetically modify a kid to run super fast, but lock it in a room, will it still know how to run fast? I doubt it. Its not about whether or not they have the technology in them, but whether this trait is inhibited.
Children still have no knowledge at birth. Intelligence isn't much without knowledge. If you or anyone isn't able to control their child that's just because of negligence. The ability to control what information people recieve and social interactions they have is an insane power and that's the power we give to parents to use on their children. If we take the time to perfect gene editing before allowing it to be used for personal use then you should be able to find the genes for better emotional control or teach them empathy or emotional control ahead of time so that it doesn't become a problem. In a world that the child you get won't be a luck of a draw, people should plan accordingly. Not doing so is negligence. If your not capable of raising a super baby. Don't have one.
Very interesting topic. I could see these issues:
1) But it isn't natural and is kind of like cheating to be great at stuff, and will create unfairness. (But there is already an unfairness in natural genetics.) I think it could be seen similarly to steroids, though: such an increase in ability to the point that it drastically widens the gap between those who are GM'd and those who aren't.
2) It could create even more economic inequality. If you have a person who is GM'd they would be preferred over non GMs by colleges, and then, by companies when it comes to employment. And if getting your child GM'd has a price tag, then it will be more available to the rich. Which even moreso gives a leg up to the rich over the poor (rich will continue to get richer).
3) Health and life insurance will probably have a bias for GMs due to their predictability and stability, making prices go up for non GMs.
4) We know that variability is very important when it comes to evolution. When we have a variety of genes in the gene pool, it gives a species a greater chance of survival and success. Limiting our genes lessens variability which could be risky for us as a species.
5) Traits will start to be looked at as "preferences" rather than "gifts". Not saying this is good or bad -- just different. If parents choose their kids' traits, it becomes more like "wow your parents have great taste!!" when someone likes something about you, hahah. Not having a choice in the matter makes natural genetics more about luck.
6) Society would *eventually* have a difficult time functioning if we have people who are amazing and fairly similar. I think this is many, many years into the future... but at some point the government would be forced to regulate what GMs are given to what kids (they can't all be doctors, lol). And when the government starts regulating it, that brings more issues (how do we decide who is designed to be a doctor and who a farmer?).
7) Finally, the issue of just simply having a more boring world. Taking away luck and giving people the chance to design causes less variability, and I could also see it reducing gratitude for what one has. If it was chosen rather than given, I could see *some* people feeling... empty, and ultimately possibly depressed and that they have less meaning. Less reason to celebrate you as a person if you know you were designed to be perfect. *shrug*
I understand a lot of your arguments when it comes to genetic diversity. But this seems to stem from the assumption that humans are still undergoing natural selection as put forth by darwin. Although some level of natural selection is still present in humans, ie people doing incredibly risky/dumb things and dying before they have the chance to make children, overall the human race has separated itself from that cycle. If we use societal success as a measurement for genetic dominance, it is plainly obvious that the people with genes that encourage success in our world today generally have fewer children than those with less success. (Poor people have more children than rich). Those who have the "desirable traits" are not passing down those traits at a higher rate than those with "undesirable" traits are.
I agree with your arguments
@@ehmgg7936 me too 👍🏼
@@gingersaremad i disagree. Survival of the fittest is still well in effect. Cancer, AIDS, infection still do a pretty good job of weeding out the genetically/biologically inferior.
I think saying it isn't natural is a bad reason, for example, some people said homosexuality was unnatural or men's dominance over women was natural, so what is natural and what is good have no relationship. I think inequalities will be smaller than we imagine just look at smartphones and how some of the poorest people have smartphones and how that was completely out of reach to even the richest billionaire not many years ago. Also, you had some concerns if people would be unhappy with all these designer babies. However, it will be possible to end all suffering, everyone can be like the retired school teacher Jo Cameron that doesn't feel any suffering. Though an altering in the FAAH/OUT gene we can all be free from suffering, in other words, Invincible Wellbeing.
I think that one of the un-thought of concerns would be the class divide this would create. Think of the current knowledge divide with the wealthy able to give their children better education and university degrees. This "designer baby" would push this gap into a complete class divide that would shake society.
That’s crazy to think about
The problem with designer babies is that they will be made to fit what humans want. Not necessarily what will help them survive. Could designer babies out-compete non designer babies? Possibly, but i suspect there will be some harsh downsides to whatever "upgrades" scientists give to them. As we see with everything we genetically modify, what we want does not always equal what an organism needs to survive.
Unless your parent is a nutjob who decides it's a good idea to give their child wings and a third leg just for the fun of it, most parents want their children to have traits that INCREASE their likelihood to survive. These traits include intelligence, physical attractiveness, compassion, kindness towards other human beings, etc.
@@smittyflufferson1299 "The brave new world".
@@smittyflufferson1299 how do you miss his point that badly?
@@smittyflufferson1299 useless existence
@@smittyflufferson1299 ironic
Wouldn't it be nice to be born without Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, certain cancers and any other genetic diseases?
yes it would, that isn't the problem but the problem is where we draw the line and who would actually obey the law we put limiting genetic mod. After you fix some genetic diseases then we will alter the probability of getting other contractible diseases by making people with better immune system or better metabolisms. So all in all the line between making healthy and making flawless people a standard is very blurry. We just discovered this technology so it may be better to be careful with it but it would be stupid to ban it in total.
Warning: Wall of text.
To a certain extent, this is already happening. During pregnancy, many couples go to screenings to find out how likely it is for their child to have birth defects and genetic disorders such as down syndrome and cystic fibrosis. Pregnancies do get terminated because of the results of these tests.
Despite the heroic image of strong mothers who raise disabled kids we see so often depicted, it's not a very beautiful life. In addition to being extremely demanding compared to the children the other parents around you are raising, you also have the burden (for lack of a better word) of knowing what they are missing out on. Before you form an opinion for or against people who terminate (or continue with) pregnancies based on these tests, think about being in that position.
Imagine knowing that your child will not pass most of the milestones you did. They will not celebrate birthdays with their friends, because some disorders mean they may never make any at all. Think back to the first date you went on, asking out your crush, and getting your first kiss. Your child might fall in love, but will probably get rejected by everyone. At age 16 (well, just high school in general, laws vary by state), you may have gotten a license and a car, and then got a job to pay for gas. Think about going off to college and the freedom to explore yourself and broaden your horizons, and then taking out loans while pulling all-nighters in the library for a group project. Finally, the person who you fell in love and are starting a family with.
Some of these disorders merely affect life expectancy and your child could still check off all these boxes. But others mean your child will be bullied throughout school, get placed in a special-ed program if your school can afford one, and probably won’t stand a chance of getting into college, much less doing well on campus away from you. They will have very few friends except the people they sit with all day, every day, in those special-ed classes, if they even get to a level of interaction you would call “friendship.” What happens when you die? Unless Social Services convinces some other family member to take them in, they will become wards of the state. Left to their own devices, they might land themselves in jail, through no fault of their own. And you will be paying every step of the way, as social safety nets are consistently cut down under the guise of stopping “welfare queens.”
This is the side of raising a disabled child you don’t see on TV. It’s not a pretty picture, and when you see your neighbors’ kids come home from college during academic breaks and eventually for the holidays once they have their own families and jobs, you will be wondering how things would have turned out had you decided to terminate that pregnancy. Suddenly, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea anymore.
We are already advancing evolution through this unnatural selection. The question is how far we want to take it. And there are a lot of ethical nightmares we will have to figure out, like can insurance be priced based on if you were modified or not? If so, how much? Do certain modifications mean you can get better rates than other modified humans who didn’t have certain diseases stopped? How far can we extend life before we risk serious over-population? Should we even prevent any non-genetic diseases to help deter the evolution of current viruses into super-viruses that affect modified and natural humans? If a modification goes horribly wrong, who can be held liable? Should anyone be held liable?
It is a dumb idea to ban it outright. Just look at abortion - in countries where it is banned, people who have money will travel to the nearest country where it is legal. Those who cannot afford a plane ticket out, resort to dangerous methods that might not kill the woman, but will likely destroy her ability to bear healthy children in the future. You’ve probably heard jokes about coat hanger abortions in back alleys. We can laugh all we want, but those jokes bear their origins in the reality of getting abortions before Roe v. Wade in America and before legalizations in other countries. Banning genetic modification altogether will just mean those who have money will travel outside the country on “vacation” to have unregulated (and possibly unsafe) babies designed, while the rest of us will be suffering from a host of diseases the upper class has wiped out, while looking inferior in the process.
There is going to be a lot of money thrown at this, for and against. Banning this research outright will be bad for everyone. Insurance will lobby for designer babies because that reduces their costs, but pharmaceutical manufacturers have a vested interest in maintaining a sick population to market antidepressants, chemotherapy, inhalers, Epi-Pens, vaccines, HIV antivirals, etc. to.
Some things are a no-brainer. The ability to cure depression? It runs in my family, so I would very much like to cut it off and not have to worry about its crippling effects manifesting in my kids. Cancer is also something I have to worry about based on my family history, and if I could pay to make sure my kids never had to see a test come back positive, I probably would. But then, if we as a society can afford this, should it be compulsory? Should we make it free to our citizens? What about poor countries - should we offer this for free in places where nobody would ever have a chance of affording it?
Eventually we will see people picking hair and eye color, height, etc. The question is where we draw the line, and this is a debate with ups and downs for each step of the process. This is going to be the big question we will have to decide, and we will have to weigh all the pros and cons very carefully.
David Lucadou Your comments better then conversation!
Only issue is look at the pharma industry.. more money goes into diet, sleep and erection than heart, cancer, ect. What if they do the same thing.. make it about appearance and superficial improvements instead of disease?
Nathan smith heart cancer is extremely rare, I think that's why it's not researched as much
I suffer from many chronic illnesses and my own mother died at age 38 from three separate types of cancer. I'm kind of ambiguous about this, because there are definitely pros and cons when it comes to the Improvement of the future of humans.
great.
Agree Pros and cons regarding this subject 👍🏼
However, it will be possible to end all suffering, everyone can be like the retired school teacher Jo Cameron that doesn't feel any suffering. Through an altering in the FAAH/OUT genes we can all be free from suffering, in other words, embrace the organization Invincible Wellbeing’s mission.
Just a $1M for a GM baby! Get yours today! Isn't the gap between rich and poor is wide enough; now the rich need, beautiful, tall, extremely intelligent designer babies. Competition on a whole different level.
wtf do you want, do you want the rich to not buy nice cars or what it's ok if they got it first and they will i mean come on it doesn't matter if it's rich or poor as long it's the best for the baby
@zero it creates a gap between people who can Get intelligent babies, and people who can’t. And colleges and other type of schools will get higher standards. A totally different type of racism.
@@zero1165
Forgot to tag
@@gamingdoctorspvp3237 Cellphones was something that only the rich people could have some decades ago, now we have more cellphones than human being. First only the rich will have acess to this but later everyone will do it too. This is the beauty of capitalism.
All I could think of is the novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
Me too
Can relate mate
Yep.
that honestly models current conditions of white supremacy and colonization than it does future ideologies of GM
How is genetic advantage significantly different from economic advantage? Don't these moral questions currently exist?
Derwin Bell imagine every person could be as smart as einstein.
rodger so if every parent can afford the procedure. If every parent can afford to develop their child's intelligence. The training/education systems are not equitably implemented. How is that different from genetic manipulation that would be implemented through free markets? Using Brave New World parlance, not every Alpha is trained to their Alpha potential.
They don't even need to be that smart. Just smart enough to get straight A's and go to a prestigious school. That alone puts them in advantage, or physically more impressive. Pro Athlete level in college means paid scholarships and more opportunities. Which is fine if thats the choice we make. But we have to make it knowing what we are getting into.
Derwin Bell I'd say the biggest difference is that economic differences can be changed ( granted not easily, but it's possible to change ur economic standing), where genetic a person has no chance. Take his starting example of the two girls, the genetically modified girl will always be faster, smarter, stronger, etc. then the non modified girl. It's not just a matter of working harder, or knowing the right people, the non modified girl will always be at a disadvantage and she can't change that ever.
Mystic Moon That is an assumption that we can't genetically modify people. With epigenetics and recombinant DNA, I don't think that is a valid assumption. The question is will the modifications be implemented as public policy or for economic enrichment? Since genetic potential is assumed to follow a bell curve, but economic distribution is extremely skewed to the upper end, I think that it is safe to say that a large part of our population doesn't have access to the economics to let them maximize their potential. So, it is irrelevant that they may have the potential if economically, they can't develop it. If implementations are done along economic lines, so will achievement. So, again I ask don't the same ethics apply? Isn't this still just an issue of economics?
One day, in the future, companies will have to meet quotas for non-GM employees.
Johnny Johnson honestly
Great speech. Of course, that final scenario, where one kid looks and is comparatively better - that already exists. That's just a part of nature. With GM kids you get into the philosophical question of, what does "better" really mean? The future keeps getting stranger.
shush
Frankenstein wasn't the monster, he was the creator. Frankenstein's monster was the monster. Words are hard.
Some people argue that Frankenstein is the true monster in 'Frankenstein'
;)
Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein wasn't the monster.
Wisdom is knowing that he was.
... and literacy is knowing how to spell "Knowledge".
UTLonghornPistol
Sorry, my english isn't that good.
+
Ty comments this helps for my essay 😂😂💀💀
Yeah, many arguments are here lol
Though I agree with his sentiment. I didn't feel like he made the case as compellingly as he could have.
Yeah, felt like he was pulling his punches the whole way.
He was... he's not against the research.. he's against A holes getting their hands on it. Think if Monsanto or Bayer owns the patents. Do you think they will make sure everyone is healthy, happy, and bring down the costs for everyone. Or will it be those willing to pay can have it but they will own your genetic code. So when you have offspring they will own those genes too. It's a very very slippery slope.
Totally agree. I think there could be another downside too. There's a lot that we don't know about why people are the way they are. You could make someone who's very intelligent or athletic, but just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they're good or compassionate or will do the right thing. A human being is more than the sum of their genetics.
Indeed.. or say it causes Alzheimer's and at a more advanced rate. We wouldn't know until they were in their 60 or 70's by then they are three generations into the gene pool. Or Say they start having siezures at age 50ish because of a code of gene that doesn't activate until later in life. The number of what ifs is astronomical we just need more data and more study before we plug and play with the human gene pool.
Nathan smith why do you think the plan is 15 years before applicable trials start? we already have the tech now it's just a matter of refining the CRISPR system to be 100% effective. right now it's still subject to misplacing letters which cannot happen when we are working with something as sensitive as human embryos
_"What can I do with this one, Aphrodite? She - won't - stay - still! I want to make them beautiful, but they always turn out wrong! That one, too fat! This one, too tall! This one, too symmetrical! And now… What's this, Goddess? An intruder?! He's ugly! Ugly! Ugly! UGLYYYYYYYY!"_
wtf
but plasmids, are the paint.
I believe many people aren't getting his point. He isn't against genetically modified humans, he just believes that we should make this technology safer and take it safely and slowly
He literally said he wants it banned.
He said he wants a moratorium. A moratorium isn't a ban, it's a suspension of activity, and suspensions need not be permanent.
Knoepfler type of fearmongers have already forces many top American reproduction doctors "offshore" into Mexico and India, serving the rich and the prestigious who can afford the best technology. It seems Knoepfler wants it banned here, so 99% of Americans who are not as achieved or rich as he is will have no access to the best of human genes.
@@_.Jon._ No what we doing will bite us in our but i mean i have bad feeling about it this gone to far.
in the end no matter how long we wait the outcome is unpredictable so we have to do what we always do, take a calculated risk and go for it.
My 6th-grade science teacher was talking to her students about the ethical implications of designer babies 13 years ago.
The actual problem with designer humans exists on a different level. When you are a natural mix between two families their genetics one knows that its just nature, you are as any human is. However, when designed you realize and know that you had no choice, you were made to be what you are. Made to be something which you might never wanted to be.
It like some owners who dye their dogs in strange colour, so much so they looked like freaks but it brings enjoyment to the owners. So there is a fine line of abuse in which parents put in their thoughts of how they want their child to be, physically and academcally.
Yup, I'm all up for upgrading future humans: stronger, healthier and smarter.
And possibly immortality
YESSSSSSS! Too bad there seems to be no end to the people who want to regulate all of this into the ground.
It's better if the government accepts it and regulates the gene editing to a realistic and safe level. If they shut out the technology, it'll just trigger a swarm of illegal gene editing, and things will be worse
And possibly the moral capability of demigods, sharing order and joy across the galaxy, making the dysfunctions of ancient societies a distant memory.
Dr. Knoepfler’s presentation has touched a controversial topic in a professional and well-structured manner; however, since the title states “the ethical dilemma of designer babies,” I was expecting more ethical supports to his viewpoint on this topic. Although Dr. Knoepfler had mentioned the inequality between “natural child” and “Genetically modified child,” I believe since the parents were given an equal choice, lack of justice does not pertain to this example for the presenter’s support. For those of you who are unaware, justice is an idea of moral obligation to act on the foundation of fairness and equality between opposing claims. I understand the danger that could come from CRISPR going into hands of individuals who are more concerned about one’s own profits than benefits of others.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, simply stopping CRISPR research to create genetically modified humans seems unethical in mainly three principles. First of all, there is a matter of beneficence, moral responsibility to act for other’s benefit. If one can find the cure for deadly auto-immune diseases such as Huntington disease or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) by genetically altering human embryo, not using the technology is considered not following beneficence. Secondly, imagine a couple who desperately wants a child, but one of the parents is suffering from autosomal recessive disorders such as sickle cell anemia that limits everyday activities and another couple who does not have to worry about genetically related conditions. The two couples in this scenario are not given an equal opportunity for having a healthy child. If this technology can potentially eliminate the genetic disorder, not going forth with the study eliminates the fairness in treatment, thus defies justice. Lastly, one cannot discount the idea of autonomy, per my medical ethics lecture, parents have rights to decide medical treatments for their baby. Therefore, by banning the use of CRISPR as potential treatments, parents are forced to have no choice but to use other methods.
Ironically, I recognize that these three principles can be used to support Dr. Knoepfler’s argument. The potential danger and negative consequence of using the technology can yield maleficence. Social-economic classes causes injustice by creating division between those who can afford and those who cannot afford the technology, thus also limiting autonomy depending on this status. Considering the apparent ethical dilemma, I believe instead of blindly putting a stop to the study, we should create an ethical agenda or guideline to provide transparency and unbiased monitoring before resuming the process of developing genetically modified human embryos.
every single point you made was about the medical improvements they need, not the excessive special abilities rich parents want for their kids. Which is literally what the video talks about.
I'm never having kids, but if I was, it would have to be a designer super baby.
I'd go for the clone option myself. Oh! Designer clone babies!
Nah, that would just end up giving me insecurities.
Edit: Designer clone babies might be somewhat oxymoronic.
This is a risk that we should do. In small amounts at first, obviously, but denying the chance to end major diseases and imperfections because it's a bit scary is ridiculous.
I see what you are saying- if there is a potential to decrease diseases and infections that would be great, this could potentially save many lives decades from now. But there are other severe implications to altering genetics to the extreme of creating designer babies. As another commenter mentioned, this could create a large class divide, and it also borders on eugenics which is similar to what was experienced during the holocaust. Who can really determine that one human is better than another? If humans are able to outlive diseases and infections, then there will be no natural population control which could also be an issue for our resource-limited planet. While ethical principles are important to consider, like justice and autonomy, allowing for designer babies may not be an area of science that families should have access to, for the greater good of the planet and society. By allowing for genetic manipulation we are walking a tight line of allowing for more genetic manipulation in the future, manipulation that could actually end up being worse for the planet and worse for society. It is important for our healthcare and governmental bodies to pay close attention to the types of impacts that these advancements could result in in the long term. If humans do not die of diseases, it could lead to further overpopulation and resource limitation.
I think it is also important to consider where we draw the line with genetic manipulation. Most people find it reasonable to use in-vitro fertilization to form an embryo. Here there is no real manipulation of the gene code and the physician is helping a family get pregnant that may have issues with their reproductive health and fertility. Despite having physical issues that may prevent a natural pregnancy, adults should still experience justice and the right to be a parent. However, when it comes to manipulating the gene code and creating designer babies this is much different. Here we are manipulating DNA to make a superior child and human. Due to the socioeconomic status that this would require, people of a lower income class will likely not have financial access to this type of process. By creating designer babies from already affluent families, we could widen the already large and prevelent gap and continue the cycle of poverty.
Another commenter brings up a good point. By creating designer babies, we may create humans that begin to lack necessary things for survival. If we select for traits, such as attractiveness, we could be deselecting for other traits that are important for our survival as humans. It makes me think of french bull dogs, that have been so genetically selected for that now they can barely breath due to the shape of their heads. Many generations for now, if we were to allow for designer babies, what important evolutionary traits would start to dissipate within the gene pool, and how could this affect our survival?
This is for a class project im so sorry.
Play at 1.25x speed.
Thank you
Bless you!
1.5x for me this guy talks so slow
Thank you 🙏
If I could, I would redesign myself from ground up to be super smart and productive.
I don't know about modifying looks or athleticism but I think that it is worth it to edit embryos to improve health. Anything further and I'm afraid it would lead superhuman over class of "perfect" humans. It undermines meritocracy and social mobility.
*It undermines meritocracy and social mobility.*
Definition of meritocracy
plural meritocracies
1
: a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
Regardless of the circumstances for this kids amazing intellectual capacity, he is clearly much more talented than your kid, and is OBJECTIVELY superior. He is capable of much more than your child ever will be, and it's because of this that they will move up in this world. If you don't like that then don't have children, it's as simple as that.
Yeah i would of kill my parents if they modified my look like i dont even get to be my own person what if the parents make a change and the kid dont like it and have to live with that where is the consent in this
lets play the what if, what if no one is born with MS or CF or huntington's a world free of genetic diseases.
When I was young my Mom 'upgraded' me with a polio vaccination. I grew up never having to fear paralysis as previous generations did. Is that so terrible?
That's a completely different situation. Vaccinations r readily accessible to everyone worldwide. Crispr would be giving ppl and inherent advantage over others and it's completely out of the individuals control. Not saying its bad, cuz I am very much for crispr but they're incomparable situations
@@jaredkhan8743 WHATS YOUR PROBLEM WITH COMPETITION AND INEQUALITY?? SOCIALISTS ARE MAD...
@@RodMen_89 competition and inequality are good in certain amounts. However, when it gets to a point where a person gets more resources which leads others to starve and die is when the line must be drawn. In the end, everyone should have the same amount of opportunities to succeed, but it doesn’t mean that everyone should be getting handouts.
@@KillerQueen-gx4vb “should have” is subjective.
So I have a question that might sound a bit ignorant. But wouldn't the modifying of human to have superior immune systems open up the door to the possibility of super diseases to be created that the normal human body could not fight off ?
Yes and that's a real possibility. I myself am a God-fearing person and would not want to wage wars against Dr. Knoepfler type of regressive humans with such brutality. However, I do not want my children to be the victims if some demon-possessed guy somewhere actually decides to do that. Taking up my historical responsibility, I will arm my children and their children with the best immune system I can afford.
GATTACA
BlueHawkPictures Gattaca* but that's exactly what I was thinking
Daniel oh yeah oops
mhtinla the title is spelled using the nucleobases guanine, adenine and cytosine
BlueHawkPictures I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT THIS OML
you forgot thymine
I hate the idea of hand picking the embrio. Something about it just feels icky. "Oh, looks like your gonna be the one to live and experience the world. The rest of you will be killed and disposed of." I just find the whole concept unsettling.
Prescient. This talk was in 2015. Thank you Dr Knoepfler!
I met the secret general of the Marine the seventh generation of test tube baby and I am blown out of the water as I noticed his ability to handle multitask
i think decissions concerning the future of kids should ultimately be made by the generations MAKING those babies. it's just like brexit etc.: people who are between 20-25 should be allowed to form their future and not be forced to live in a world for which older generations made the decissions (and probably don't even live anymore).
BenWillis no. not saying their advice is bad etc. but i can't stand that others are making decissions that won't even really affect them.
Chribit but the biggest impact will be for the babies themselves. we use our experience to make the best decisions we can for future generations.
i know :/ and that's the problem... but last year and this year (already) have shown that younger people want something completely different than older generations in some cases.
most young people (who didn't get their brain washed by their parents etc) don't want to divide humanity more and more (e.g. brexit... again)....
i'm talking generally here. it just came to mind as he talked about banning it etc.
uhm... i'm neither british nor american. I didn't get to vote for any of these things. and yes, it is divisive. or what do you call it, when a country leaves an association, which is trying to bring people closer together (borders opening etc)?
Democracy is significantly flawed. Yes, it is the best humanity has come up with until now, but that doesn't mean it's the best we can do.
It is extremely slow and bound to emotion (because it's lead by humans). Every democracy has a tipping point or some bad years (which could have been preventable). if you would try to scale a democracy to a world wide nation, it would not work. the con's would get equally worse (e.g. even slower).
And that's not a new thought btw. Plato said exactly the same thing.
The best example for a failing democracy is Trump.
the US is more devided in republicans and democrats than ever in the last centuries or such.
Now i'm not against or for trump. But he isn't representing the people's opinion... which is exactly what a democracy is supposed to enable.
Decisions concerning the future should also be made by educated individuals not young ones just because it's their future. I look left and right, and lemme tell you something, we're dumb af. We run on intuition and emotion and while that's not always a bad thing, it can be. Especially since that's all we do.
If you don't do it, someone else will. I believe there are already designer babies walking among us.
mhtinla celebrity children
Ha lol :D
mhtinla If you're talking about the classical eugenics idea of breeding humans the way we breed dogs, sure. You could argue "designer babies" conceived through this method make walk among us. But this? Nah.
>I believe there are already designer babies walking among us.
This I doubt.
>If you don't do it, someone else will.
This, I think, is the most important argument in favor of rushing to make this technology publicly available ASAP. If everyone does not have access to it, then certain countries with less restrictive governments (or rich people with connections) will take the lead anyways. Better to even the playing field as much as possible instead of giving only (perhaps unsavory) few people this "weapon".
it happens naturally and it's called natural selection though that's been die threw out the years.
Certainly wouldn't want to get rid of horrible diseases if it means your kid looses a friend.
I understand he has other arguments but the benefits far outweigh the possible negatives.
dakota Nobriga It all depends on how we are going to use this new technology efficiently and for the greater good. Let's just hope that whatever may happen, it is for the best, our (potentially) best.
So you're saying your kid having fun with his friends is more important than staying alive?
@FromFame You're an idiot, that is clear sarcasm.
No one wants to stop this, we want to regulate it.
This was a well-thought out talk by Paul. I appreciate Paul’s background and expertise in this field of ethics, science, and medicine. I think the term “upgrade” when it comes to CRISPR and genetic modification could be replaced dependent on the situation at hand. If we have a very wealthy family who wants their child to have certain height, hair color, eye, jaw line so that their child would look more attractive and how they want their child to look then yes, “upgrade” would fit. The other hand of a child whose parents suffer from an autoimmune disease, or Alzheimer’s/Cancers run in the family and CRISPR has the ability to modify those genes for the patient and their well-being, I think “benefit” would fit better than “upgrade”. I also believe that this later scenario, is one that is ethical and should be accepted in the eyes of the medical field. In medical ethics and beneficence, CRISPR technology has a true opportunity to provide a benefit to the lives of the patient and their families. Modification for the well-being of the patient to improve their lifestyle and daily living capabilities.
One concern of mine with CRISPR is the amount of expense that it would take to modifying embryos jeans for their own benefit and beneficence. We live in a diverse society when it comes to socio-economic status that is going in its division. This division could lead to injustice with genetic modification where there will not be an equal, distributed amount of resources for all. This concern is something that health insurances, medical/ethical boards, and experts will have to discuss to provide beneficence to as many humans as possible. Justice also comes in play here when it comes to the sustainability of this possible modification. Paul mentioned in his speech how the United States has no laws or policies currently in place regarding this CRISPR technology. I believe that in the future, policymakers will implement a law or policy regarding what can or can not be done with this CRISPR technology. As I can see the importance of this, this will further raise the concern for autonomy from the parents as they will have the ultimate say on what they want to do with their child. Some parents will want their child to have certain features, and as physicians we must respect that autonomy. I think it’s too early to tell if this is going to truly be an unethical decision, as there is no true benefits for the fetus or patient to have these modifications. These ethical principles are going to be at the forefront of discussion moving forward on what is ethical acceptable.
If these babies have faster learning, better health and such things that would reduce the cost of AND increase it's "value" in the world I see nothing bad about this.
The problem is that a 'caste' of people who are inherently superior is going to mean that everybody else suffers for their benefit.
except the fact that only richest of the richest people will get to have these powers and have even higher places in society while the rest 99 percent of the population suffers? Are you dumb?
I think that it sounds cynical to call using gene modification to prevent serious ilnesses (like Alzheimer, Cancer and HIV) "designer babies". One should differentiate between unnecessary changes (mostly aesthetic) and important issues. There should be a comitee that can agrees on some illnesses that deserves to be cured. Nobody deserves to have a decreased life span and a poor quality of life, if the illness that causes it could potentially be cured.
“Deserves”…..that doesn’t matter in this world at least not to those up top on the social hierarchy. This is precisely why those up top don’t want such technologies to become available to those at the bottom. Genetic disorders suck but there are many people who are glad that they’re born that way. It means less competition in the social hierarchy for the others. It’s selfish but that’s reality. Ethics is an excuse to keep those at the bottom right where the elite want them.
Yes, it will be possible to end all suffering, everyone can be like the retired school teacher Jo Cameron that doesn't feel any suffering. Through an altering in the FAAH/OUT genes we can all be free from suffering, in other words, embrace the organization Invincible Wellbeing’s mission.
The ability to genetically modify human beings is absolutely groundbreaking and unbelievable but does raise a ton of questions about the ethics behind such an endeavor. On one side of the fence, there are debilitating genetic diseases that can be identified and fixed using this technology. This does constitute beneficence because it helps people to avoid disease that may make life difficult or nonviable, however it brings autonomy into question because the fetus being modified has no say in the procedure as it is done prior to birth and at the behest of the parents. On top of that, this is not only being propositioned as a procedure for debilitating disease, but also as a designer/cosmetic type of procedure where parents are able to modify things like height, eye color etc. This is a major issue because it has crossed the line of doing what gives the child the ability to live a normal life, to a place where there are enhancements being done without need, and without consent from the child. This can lead to all sorts of potential complications within our society. Genetics are already an unequal playing ground but what happens when specific traits that are shown to have positive correlations with success are chosen for? Modifications like that are unjust and like most new technology, they will likely be very pricy at the onset. This means that the majority of the people on the receiving end of these modifications will come from extremely wealthy parents. Now on top of the benefits of having wealth and access to better healthcare, the children of the highly wealthy will also have the benefit of being modified to have the traits most valued by society, furthering the level of injustice that people from lower socioeconomic classes will experience. Finally, bias will undoubtedly begin to pop up in the setting of health insurance between people who are modified and people who are not. Those that are modified will be much better candidates for insurance as they are less likely to have medical issues thereby being much less risky for companies to insure. Once again justice will be called into question and bring unethical behavior into healthcare because of the results of these procedures.
While genome editing has the potential to completely alter medicine by curing genetic diseases and improving human health, however, with this new technology comes a range of ethical dilemmas and social concerns. The biggest ethical issue is the potential for unintended consequences. For example, if a gene is altered that cures a congenital disease it could cause other issues or mutations in the genome that would cause them to develop other diseases. The other way this technology is used that could pose problems is the idea of “designer babies”. This is when individuals select for certain traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability by manipulating their embryo’s genetic code. While in theory this sounds like a good idea, it comes with a lot of questions around the ethical dilemmas it poses. For example, picking certain physical attributes like hair color or eye color has the potential to be compared to Hitler trying to create the “superior Aryan race” and choosing to have your child be the most intelligent or athletic could also lead to greater social inequality. Also, it brings other ethical concerns into question as far as genome editing for conditions like dwarfism or blindness because many people that have that condition and are a part of that community would not change anything nor would want that for their children. It begs the question, who gets to decide what traits are desirable and not desirable?
Another issue that arises with this technology is the fact that it is incredibly expensive so only the wealthy would have access to it. This violates the ethical principle of justice since this would not technically be available to all, leading to greater disparities in healthcare and exacerbating existing social inequalities.
Overall this is a powerful too that can improve human health and revolutionize medicine in general. But it does raise a lot of ethical concerns that must be considered, and the long-term effects need to be closely monitored.
There is a sweet spot in between us maintaining our uniqueness, and enhancing ourselves. It's not a choice between the two. It's like saying using an iphone will turn us into machines, no, its just enhances our communication abilities
Yes but do you know anyone without a cell phone? Would you say they are at a disadvantage? I would. Try and get a job,, find a Gf or BF, make plans to hang out with friends and family, etc etc ect.
Nathan smith so take away everyone's cell phone because some people can't or don't want to get one...
Thats the truly amazing thing though, today the majority of all humans on earth have a phone. yes, thats including poor nations like the many struggling sub saharan african nations! In these poorest regions, cellphones specifically have been one of the biggest driving forces behind desperately poor people being able to lift themselves out of extreme poverty!
This is the way with all technology. First its so expensive that only a nation, or even only a group of nations together can afford. Then it drops in price and big companies can start using it. Then wealthy people, then the lower income people of wealthy nations, and then finally the technology reaches the worlds poorest nations. Yes, it sucks that it takes time for a given technology to disperse throughout different economic levels, but it does eventually disperse and then everyone gets to take advantage of it. This sort of technological progress is the sole reason that every nation (besides those at war like syria) are seeing year and year improvements across the board, less infant mortality, less child malnutrition, less everything bad and more everything good
Yesterday I heard that two twin designer sisters are already born in China. So far they are healthy and I guess they are happy too.😄
Paul knoepfler, my respect for you. I am pro science. Let us love, welcome each designer baby regardless how they are born.
I, for one, am looking forward to making a better humanity.
@@smittyflufferson1299 I think we should focus first on eliminating genetic diseases (which probably number in the thousands), this way, not only do we make healthy individuals, but we also prevent these diseases from being inherited in the future.
As for other traits (physical or mental), it's hard for anyone to determine what's "better" or "worse". For example, for me, I think being taller is probably better (like 3 or 4 inches taller), and maybe better looking. Personality wise, I would've liked to be more extroverted and outgoing. The thing is, what's "better" depends on every person and you can't ask an embryo what it wants, but I don't think that this future human being would be ungrateful for not having Down syndrome.
Agreed human bodies are so weak.
Designer supersoldiers from China with love.
Nah, just immune to AIDS, at least at this point.
12:53 That laughter though
This video was rather interesting as it dives into the potential and dangers that “designer babies” bring to the world. It talks about how CRISPR is able to genetically modify the children to ensure that they are not able to contract HIV/AIDS or other untreatable conditions; however, it also talks about the dangers and the potential side effects of these genetically modified babies, such as increased aggression. The topic of human genetic modifications is entangled with many ethical dilemmas that must be addressed when considering whether or not this should be a legal thing. Arguably the biggest concern that must be addressed in this situation is safety-safety of the baby, the community, and the other babies of the genetically-modified baby, as these modifications are heritable. While it may seem like the best choice, and even the most ethical choice, to eliminate disease and decrease suffering by modifying genes, it is equally as important to consider that the alterations may not just affect the trait that you wish for it to change. There is still unimaginable amounts to know about the human genome; therefore, it is highly premature to say for certainty that each gene is only coding for one specific thing. Instead, in order to be as ethical as possible, we have to ensure that this technology does not allow for an entire population of humans with long-term inheritable complications due to the modifications. Additionally, there is another large ethical concern when discussing gene modification, which is equity. It is nearly impossible to say that this technology would be available for the majority of people. With any new technology, it costs money. When something in healthcare costs money, then you must consider insurance. In the US, there are many people who are now insured but underinsured, leading to higher costs associated with healthcare. Therefore, when we are thinking about the equity of gene editing, we must consider if major groups of people will be excluded from something like this solely due to the costs that are associated. One final ethical point that I will touch on is the idea of autonomy. These genetically modified babies will, for obvious reasons, have no say whether or not the modification takes place on their own body. In ethics, it is important to consider the person and their wishes when it comes to medicine. The point of the argument is to explain that we are only scratching the surface on this technology. We must do more research whether or not the long-term effect of this treatment is more beneficial than harmful to the greater good of people. In a case like Huntington’s Disease, it may seem like an obvious choice to opt for the gene editing, but it is important to realize that we have not discovered whether or not there are more severe complications with the editing.
This is such a well structured answer and I fully agree
Star Trek (mainly close to 50 years ago in the Original Series, in the movie "The Wrath of Khan" and again more than 20 years ago in some Deep Space 9 episodes) also treats the "eugenic wars" that are said to have happened on Earth at the end of the 21st century. Personally, I have the feeling that this will happen no matter what anyone (or any law) says and we can only hope that it does not split or destroy mankind.
(Also, if you're interested in the topic you should really watch the movie Gattaca, as some people here mentioned. It treats almost exactly the problem from the talk of a family in which the younger son was genetically modified and the older was not)
Luckily our ancestors did not reason like this. Every new technology carries risks but so does doing nothing. Doing nothing leads to known harm such as the higher risk for diseases. As soon as we have good evidence in animals and we can demonstrate that genetic engineering of human embryo's does not lead to genomic abnormalities, we have the moral imperative to use this technology. Though I do admit that we are not there yet (e.g. off target effects).
Yes, it will be possible to end all suffering, everyone can be like the retired school teacher Jo Cameron that doesn't feel any suffering. Through an altering in the FAAH/OUT genes we can all be free from suffering, in other words, embrace the organization Invincible Wellbeing’s mission.
Scary.. am watching this for class.. but I am glad I watched it nonetheless... That was a good speech too..
My wife and I did PGTA after IVF. Not quite a taylor made child, but we do rule out genetic abnormalities within the embryo to have greater implantation rates.
In a way I understand the fear toward GM if the person isn't interested in participating in such things for whatever reason whether it's the fact that they can't afford to do so or the fact that it's against their beliefs.
I mean can you imagine having a "non modified" child in a world where the standards are set by the genetically modified people? It would mean that people who aren't modified to be smarter, stronger, adaptable, etc are already at a significant disadvantage as they have a glass ceiling that arguably can never be broken through without GM which in turns makes them more likely to fail in life and die off.
On the other hand I do not like the idea of limiting genetic modification, the potential is very large and it could lead to a new age of humanity.
Ethics is made up as we go when pioneering a new field as such. One stops when they start do something that makes them feel uneasy, they take that disgusting feeling and try to wrap their heads around what makes them uneasy about it and start to legislate their own morals. What is moral to one may be morbid to another, eventually a social balance will arise. It's a huge grey area being that there are so many variables in different categories, i.e. Market/economy, ethics/laws, technology/tools
It's definitely a complex decision to make... I wanna know more about this meeting in Washington.
This TED Talk was originally made in Oct 2015. If he's referring to a meeting in Washington D.C, then it is likely this one: nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/Gene-Edit-Summit/
Cooper de Ruiter What? Why're they rehashing it then? 😧 Well thanks. lol
I think it may be best to implement "Locks" which would be possible abilities and attributes to either accrue subtlety throughout life which could be literary unlocked by choice in order to aid the person or if the child can prove to choose on some level for themselves
Throughout his talk, Paul brings up several very reasonable and impactful arguments for why we should be careful when it comes to the genetic modification of humans. He rightly draws attention to how “Natural” humans may feel when comparing themselves to “GM” humans, or how parents of such kids would also inevitably compare their kids to the GM kids. I would argue that another major negative to genetically modified babies would be the possible disastrous impacts on GM kids’ mental health. We live in a world where teen and preteen suicide is astronomically higher than ever before based on the CDC and many academic institutions. With the boom of social media, kids in today’s culture are having a harder time than ever to come to conclusions about who they are and where they belong in society. I can imagine a world where GM children have an even greater struggle with this because many of the attributes that define them were chosen by someone else. I would fear that these children might have extreme mental struggles in the attempt to figure out what part of them is them and what parts were chosen to be. This is just one more reason to add to the list of reasons why designer babies are a bad idea and we should approach this subject with extreme caution.
It is so unnatural. If I knew that my hair, height, eye color, etc. were decided before my birth I'd feel like a robot and less like a HUMAN.
inimpadi Problem with that argument is that you don't have a choice how you come out regardless.
I mean.... They WERE decided before you were born, those things were decided from the moment you were conceived. The only difference is it wasnt your parents deciding, it was a genetic lottery. The real difference is no one would choose for their child to be born into a life of chronic pain due to a genetic illness, only randomness is that cruel
Krait In one scenario, a person chose my traits like a video game character creation. In the other, I was born semi-randomly as is natural. In other words, I would rather be "designed" by nature than a person eg my parents.
StrykerTen I wholeheartedly agree on the genetic illness part. However, the video was talking about designer babies which involve the genetic programming of cosmetic and mental traits, not just illnesses. If we keep it to preventing horrible diseases, that works for me... but choosing eye color is ridiculous.
Honestly I dont think its that offensive to change cosmetic traits given none of us choose our appearance either way but I also wouldnt care if that was banned altogether because it just doesnt matter. No one working to develop designer baby technologies and no one who is excited to use the tech when they have a child are excited to change cosmetics. We want to prevent children from being born with brittle bones, malformed organs and so on
This could be an issue. The wealth gap could easily get worse, and one of the parties would definitely become elitist. Either Naturals would bully GMs heavily, or the other way around. Imagine that gene research on Intellect develops further, and Employers start taking resumes that say "Genetically Modified Intellect, 0 Years of College" on them, over those that say "Masters Degree, and Bachelors Degree". I think the disease immunity is brilliant, and there are no cons for that. But altering Intellect would be a huge issue economically, and ruin any form of opportunity for Upper-Middle all the way to Lower class.
You are wrong.
If we don't alter intellect, we don't become better as a specie.
In order to mankind as a whole to endure, some sacrifice must be made.
This video is from 2015.
What were the results of the meeting? What was decided?
If you're interested, read the short story "Sisters" by Greg Bear.
Though this is an incredible topic, I believe there was a lot of ground that wasn't covered here. This is similar to the artificial intelligence issue and what we should do about it. This isn't just some simple issue about whether you should choose to have a designer baby. It runs much deeper. If you're told as a parent that you carry a gene that causes blindness 50% of the time if kids that have it and the doctors could suddenly make sure that the gene isn't passed on to your kid I don't see how parents will say no to this and further... How you can outlaw something like that. We have already done something similar to that. It won't start with making a pretty or tall and talented child. It will start with genetic disorders and immunities to things such as HIV like the guy mentioned. This is inevitable but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have this important discussion. We can do this responsibly, I just don't know how.
This is inevitable, really. No use arguing against it.
@StoicSpartan Competition, the first nation to be able to do this will forever control the rest of the world. If China does it, then the USA will have no choice but to follow suit.
@StoicSpartan if one of the things they're designed to have is a high IQ how can you claim that they still won't be as intelligent as the average Jew??? The average IQ of a Chinese person is 108, the average for an Ashkenazi Jew is 115 that's only a difference of 7 points. If the babies are augmented to be more intelligent I'm sure they'd surpass that. Also not all Jews live in the states and the ones that do only make up 1.4% of it's population. It's hard for genetic engineers in the states to create genetically modifying embryos when it's practically Illegal, in China it's another story...
Mr. Knoepfler does a great job of painting the picture as to why people are so enticed by this idea of “designer babies”. Imagine being able to create your dream child. From the way your child looks, to how intelligent and athletic they are. On an even more meaningful scale, imagine being able to erase a genetically inherited disease from your bloodline and ensure that your child won’t bear the burden of that disease. That alone is enough to make many families dive headfirst into this notion. However, what are the ethical concerns that surround this idea of “designer babies”? Firstly, Mr. Knoepfler acknowledges the fact that there are many potential issues when using CRISPR technology. Like the fact that instead of erasing genetically inherited diseases, we could in fact end up making the child sicker. A double-edged sword, while trying to ensure a life free from the suffering of particular diseases, we could be condemning them to a life of suffering with other various diseases that could indeed be worse than the original. This violates the medical ethical principle of non-maleficence, which means to do no harm. While trying to uphold the ethical principle of beneficence, which means to do good, we could be doing the opposite. Is that worth the risk? I agree with Mr. Knoepfler when he said it is not. And what about from the perspective of justice? Mr. Knoepfler painted a clear picture of what it would be like comparing one of these elite designer babies to a typical child. They may need special schools for their intelligence and ultimately would surpass the non-designer babies in almost every aspect of life. The best opportunities in life would be handed on a silver platter to these flawless children when compared with the blemished naturally born ones. I can see this creating an even large socioeconomic divide in this country. Only the wealthiest families would be able to afford CRISPR technology and in turn their children would be born with unimaginable privileges. This clearly contradicts the ethical principle of justice which ultimately means fairness. In terms of ethical considerations, I believe that designer babies should not be a practice in the future.
There was a great episode of 'The Outer Limits' starring Alan Ruck that touched upon this subject.
It worries me that people's fear of the unknown will slow or even stop new technologies that could help everyone. We need to find ways for people to be more comfortable with GMO's and crisper and designer babies.
I don’t think humanity should play God, we don’t get to say to some people: ”your kind should not exist”. Thats the big issue with this. Some countries have already tried to ”eradicate” downs syndrome there is something deeply disturbing about that and it is wrong. Its wrong becuse we are all imduviduals and we don’t live for others we live for our selfs. We are not here to create a better society we are here becuse we are here. The idea that society is more important than the induvidual is evil.
I hope it is possible to peer into earthlings doing their thing in the afterlife. I would love to watch humanity in a 1000 years.
u might be able to watch from Valhalla
was I the only one who thought that the title was actually about "extremely young fashion designers"?
Flowers for Algernon !!! very interesting speech.
How hard it must have been for our ancestors to travel out of Africa, to cross the Bering Strait, to master fire, and to sail across the Atlantic. Not only did they have to be so determined against overwhelming odds and to take great risks, but also have to survive the fear mongering of naysayers like Dr. Knoepfler's type.
Regardless of what time a human lives in they’re gonna use some form of technology. Fire could be considered a form of technology if you think about it. The very first humans probably didn’t use it because they didn’t even know they could create it.
gotta love fearmongering.
I don't know if I would care too much about the smarter better looking kind of child as much as I would care whether my child would be healthy. Myself and many other chronically ill people would jump at the chance to have a baby we were sure wouldn't be like us. I personally can't stomach the idea of possibly passing my illness to another and that is one of the deciding factors of my not having biological children.
i came to watch this because o thought it was Jason Alexander (George Castanza) from the thumbnail
He makes an excellent point but my god I wish he told more compelling stories, such an interesting topic but so bland to listen too!
I feel like this is awesome in theory but in practice it'll just lead to eugenics
And how is that bad?
Maybe I can use this for a convenient research project I have right now haha
This is a great talk that really dives into the potential risks and slippery slope potential of using CRISPR to genetically modify humans. Eugenics is an interesting topic that brings up a lot of potential ethical dilemmas. I believe the ethical pillars that are most relevant to this debate are beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence is defined as the moral obligation to do what is best or what is right. In the case of eugenics, the benefit of genetically modifying embryos is greatly unknown. As Paul brings up in his talk, there is definite potential for many benefits. This includes improving healthcare by preventing genetic diseases and curtailing genetic predispositions to disease. However, while this benefit would be great, it would take time to eliminate all diseases and, in the meantime, it is possible for many things to go wrong. Non-maleficence, the other side of this argument, is defined as preventing harm or weighing risks and benefits to determine the best possible outcome. Some may argue that genetic modification can prevent harm and that it would be ethical under the pillar of non-maleficence. However, there is no certainty that the genetic modification of removing disease would not cause other problems throughout the lifetime of a genetically modified individual. The potential side effects could be far worse than the disease itself. This brings up the definition that entails weighing risk vs benefit. This is not valid argument for the use of CRISPR to genetically modify embryos because the risks and benefits are simply not known. I agree with the statement in this TED Talk that eugenics and designer babies are dangerous and unpredictable and can lead us down a slippery slope that could change society and humanity forever.
Fear-mongering, fear-mongering, and "think of the children" fear-mongering.
Surely, we, as humans, cannot confront *A PROBLEM*! Surely we have never confronted problems as a species in the past.
Like imagine a kid, and that kid is better than your kid. MADNESS! SPARTA! I'm not saying it's bad, but JUST THINK ABOUT IT
imagine Jenna is not GMO but just gifted. Same scenario. Nobody complains.
The “CRSPR” idea should be a movie.It can surely happen in the future.
We can't get clean drinking water , housing or affordable healthcare but we want to remap our genome. Who will have access to this new miracle? Our taxes paid for this research. Thanks for your content .
sad, i know...
gene designer. I want to have that skill
I think that Paul Knoepfler put it perfectly by saying that CRISPR technology is like pandora's box. It is very appealing on the outside, especially when we look at the natural and social lottery. The natural lottery is the skills and attributes that one has. The social lottery is the skills and attributes that society admirers. It is very appealing to ensure your child will succeed by giving them attributes that society values and that will lead them to success. However is this kind of genetic modification safe and ethically sound? Honestly I do not believe so. To start off with Knoepfler directly list many possible health risks involved in the CRISPR technology. While none of these complication are guaranteed, there is similarly no guarantee that they will not occur. I also see the act of creating a ‘designer baby’ both selfish and a act of autonomous violation, both of which violate morality. Going back to natural and social lotteries, it is clear a parent will give attributes that society values not ones that benefit society as a whole. Now one may say it's not in self interest since it is not the parent, but the child who will benefit. Looking in the future one will see the impact a child's success has on their parents living conditions and care in their latter years, thus the parents are benefiting themselves. I also view using CRISPR to change genetics in this way as violating the child's autonomy. The child, being unborn has no say in whether they want to be genetically modified or even agree with the practice. Now this is not the autonomous violation, this comes later when it is one's 'designer baby' wants kids of their own. This child no longer has a choice if they want a genetically modified child since genetics are heritable. So, no matter how much they wish not to, having kids, and child they have will be genetically modified. However, I do see an exception to my view of ‘designer babies.’ If a child is having their genetics altered in order to rid them of a fatal or widely harmful disease, there is justification. Changing genetics in this was would improve the health of one individual and those that follow them. In other words the act would lead to the best outcome and is thus justifiable.
Genetics is a natural resource that we need to manage wisely and carefully. First learn to do this to repair damage to humans that makes their life difficult or impossible (hereditary diseases). After a few decades of this and experimentation on animals, the technology will be much more developed, acceptable and accepted. Then moving on to "improve" people (smarter, taller, more beautiful, etc.) will be highly controversial but also inevitable because the richest segment of society will definitely want that for their kids, and they will have the power, influence and money to get it, whether locally of abroad. We better prepare for this now.
The second part of my idea is to also to raise the quality's of what makes a person or rather in other words is able to develop into something greater quicker if wanted and to better nurture humanity And the even the smallest person
sounds like the beginning of X-Men lol. I think life is going to change a lot and fast
When the first "fast" steam locomotive was to reach 47 kmph, people thought that the wind speed would burst their lungs
So same thing here;
avoiding something extremely powerful to avoid accidents
doesn't make much real sense
The idea that those children will become antisocial is probably the opposite of what's actually going to happen. Our character is to a big part a consequence of our genes. Who would want a narcissistic, aggressive, irresponsible, egocentric, manipulative, impulsive ... child? Nobody would choose those attributes. Most people want social, compassionate children and so that's how those children will be. In fact, it will be the end of sociopaths.
I'm not sure most people realize this or not but the majority of us are already 'designer babies'. Most of our parents had us vaccinated as children. It was 'ideal' or 'preferred' that we be 'protected'.
There have been full blown civil disputes over making vaccines mandatory or not. "Well we don't want our children going to school with their 'unvaxed kids'!", I'm sure you've all heard examples of such rhetoric.
Then there's also the case of unexpected modefication of the species. Most notably fast food. There are many humans now that experience health issues known to be linked from excessive consumtion of genetically modified fast foods.
There are more and more children being born now with reduced health conditions. While this may seem puzzling to many it is clear to me that this is a result of generations of unhealthy lifestyles.
I believe that this is how evolotion works. We are adaptive creatures. Consider all those born with heart and cholesterol issues. Only makes sense when you take into account the lifestyles of the last few generations.
Yet when you boil down all of this genetic modefication business,in terms of should we or not,then there is one simple fact that seems to elude most.
Nature has already made us in the most efficient form. Yet people talk about gen modding in terms of an 'upgrade'. Just because we can mold humanity to be more of what we would like it to be doesn't mean that it is the best or a better version.
The concept of yin/yang,good vs evil and give & take has been with humanity as far back as we can tell.
Sure our vaccines have made the flu appear to be a joke but at what cost. There is scientific research showing that these vaccines,while protecting us from the flu,has ultimately compromised our immune systems overall.
By using these vaccines over generations we have essentially told our immune system "It's cool,we got it from here.". Now we are seeing cases of new strains of the flu that have evolved to overcome our precious vaccines.
Suddenly the immune system has to combat this new strain that is 10 times more efficient than it's predecessor.
Imagine if that new strain becomes more dominant and replaces the regular strain!
So if we are going to allow such gen modding in humans then let's not bullshit ourselves by saying we are "becoming self evolved" or 'upgrading' humanity! I think the term 'Designer Babies' fits quite well as it plainly insinuates what is going on,Materialization of the Human Genome.
We are already living in a Aldous Huxley brave new world.
I'll want to become a parent when genetic editing becomes a thing that's widely accepted and I can have a super smart, catkid with none of my flaws.
We also have to consider what is physically possible. Yeah, you could probably change someone's physical features, but beauty standards change all the time. Compassion, kindness, intelligence? they are not quantifiable as far as I can tell, and to test and test and test with so many variables (nature vs. nurture), it would take generations of study, and I don't see the point of it when we can focus on building better systems to uplift (nurture) humans with our existing gene pool
1st we need to realize this is going to happen whether we agree w/ it or not. Those w/ little or no accountability such as ppl w/ great wealth or rogue states like N Korea,Iran... will utilize this regardless of any laws created. The CrispR technique is easy to do in a small lab & costs little.
I'm all for it's ethical use personally as it will drastically improve the human condition. Long term research must be done though.
I think the speaker, while making some good points, is taking his fears a bit too far imo. This is a great tool for improving society but like most tools it depends on how one uses it. With great power comes great responsibility.
The Most likely complication would be an Adaptive Superbug.
That doesnt exactly make sense though. What we are editing is the human genome, not a viruses or a bacterias genome. The worst that can happen with altering the human genome is we screw up and the subject is born with a genetic defect which could be expressed by a malformed heart, a weakened immune system or what have you. Nothing thats able to spread person to person, just like how you cant "catch" brittle bone syndrome from someone, their genetic problems arnt transmissible
All bacteria are highly adaptive, thats the nature of bacteria, they undergo evolution at a speed blinding compared to us mammals. Thats not what makes a "superbug" though. A "superbug" or as its also called an "antibiotic resistant" bacteria is created when we overuse antibiotics, giving bacteria a chance to evolve and adapt to overcome the antibiotics. The big risk for creating antibiotic resistant bacteria is our overuse of antibiotics in the farming industry where many farmers use antibiotics not to treat diseases but to promote growth in their livestock (also known as a complete fucking waste of good medicine). It also occurs when people dont finish their antibiotic prescription (those last few pills in the bottle arnt to make you healthier, thats the first lot of pills in the bottle. The last few are their to make sure ALL the bacteria die so none live to pass on resistance to that antibiotic drug. Finish your antibiotics!) though that isnt nearly as big a problem as antibiotic abuse in farming
This is a serious issue and your concerned is not unfounded, just a little misplaced! We do need to be seriously worried about antibiotic resistant bacteria, they just arnt coming from genetic modification but from antibiotic abuse. Bacteria can already develop resistances to antibiotics faster than we could ever dream of making antibiotic resistant bacteria, natures got us beat there hands down
am I the only one that finds similarities to 1940s Germany?
I came here to do research for a script I came up with and I'm like ohhhh this is real
When we assist nature, we will produce a bell curve around the average of acceptability. But we can guide the process, and push the curve toward improvement. We ought to proceed.