Paul Rothemund: The astonishing promise of DNA folding

[acidbath32]

this makes me wonder if dna programming can be dangerous

[datachip]

At ~15:35, Rothemund says that we will make new structures, "...using DNA in ways nature never intended." While generally impressed by his ideas, on this point I take issue. As far as I understand it, we can know of nothing outside of nature. We are part of nature, and any creation, any consequence resulting from our actions, is an expression of nature moving within us.

[aarongrooves]

Absolutely amazing!

[Pusteblumenkohl]

i love to write a bachelor thesis about something related to that

[mrRyan8555]

Ted sucks

[TheCrazynissOfAll]

Hal open the bay doors-can't do that dave...youtube AI EIDOLON

and Dr Emoto,Dr Gregg Braden, Dr Dan Burisch...

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

to great

[J4COB21]

computers making computers. sorta like i robot haha were all dead jk but at least i get to witness these advances in technology through my life time, i am really lucky

[GamingMedley]

Until you get a virus that mutates your computer into a velociraptor.

[omgurmomisonfire]

Amen.

[puationstation]

i just came

[cjayced]

ted owns

[Dubaifreak]

First I had interest in Physics but still thought there is wayyyyy too much to research in Biology...so I took biology for my career....lets see how i doo..lolz

[masterohumans]

That sounds really cool.

[jpixels]

his heavy breathing makes it difficult to concentrate on what hes saying

[poch333]

Absolutely amazing talk, but I have to say I was a little distracted by his breathing. I'm a little concerned for him actually.

[l1hao]

Humans are not "computer" fabricated. The man has great ideas, but in his enthusiasm, there are many unanswered questions and HUGE assumptions.

[mermadeinheaven]

At the DNA level, we're just 1's and 0's, that's a known.

[CosmosPrivateer]

So we are just data and data can be manipulated.

Sounds correct to me.

1's and 0's the way we make money.

Its all making sence now.

[blicblak]

Yes, but our DNA cannot be taken out of our body, changed, and put back without that one cell being killed. Therefore not multiplying. Therefore not changing us using computers or technology. DNA is, more or less, changed by the decisions we make in life, not by a computer.

[CosmosPrivateer]

Quote

DNA is, more or less, changed by the decisions we make in life, not by a computer.

Have to agree about that.

Ever hear of Bruce Lipton Check him out.

[slowmopoke]

@mermadeinheaven Quaternary not binary didja even watch the video lmao @ u....

[shannon108]

He said it was a metaphor in the beginning :)

[sisyphusorianus9787]

I just jumped out of my seat in applause @10:15.

"I want more LIFE!"

Blade Runner forever.

[pietrzkiewicz]

Could anybody please type for me 8:34 sentence? (after Taiwan). I can't make it out, and according to the reaction af audence that was a good joke ;).

[lickeyman]

It even has Taiwan on the worlds shortest leash.

[InfectedDaemon]

Ahhhhh... Molecular Programmers will be the Future in "The Future". I think synthetic cell biologists have it easier, and will get stuff done faster. But really, synthetic DNA programmers will be able to make much more efficient stuff... that is when they learn how to make them from DNA prints...

[woshinwb]

is it just me or does everyone get wat his saying..?? i havent got much clue about wats going on with all his diagrams and stuff

other than his using molecules to make things

similar to how dna makes people..can someone quick sumarise please ^^

[Hazzard0]

AWSOME!!!

[Twicebakedtaters]

This is evolution at work.

[ineffige]

AMAZING

[DivineFayezOla]

This is so awesome.

[Paulginz]

0_0 wow. utter awesomeness.

This video should be used in schools to attract kids to science.

[directedchaos]

awesome!

[darkstone243]

I think you just blew my fucken mind man.

[trentspencerktm]

That is one of the coolest things Ive ever seen.

[PR0GRAMMING]

That was pretty good.

[lonecretin]

Oh wait, wasn't that Bill Clinton on the bottom left corner during the first second of this video?

That alone confirms my observation that TED is full of shit.

[nguyen2]

you have options. you choose to watch this and spend time and energy to leave comments. this talk obviously affected you, so it was important. it provided information for you. good enough.

[lonecretin]

Great, more techno-utopian crap of the Kurzweil variety. This shit never pans out the way they think it will.

As long as the world turns, there will always be haves and have-nots. A society with true equality for everyone is against the laws that govern the universe. It's nature, and nature cannot be fucked with.

[meb025]

I think he's a little more realistic than Kurzweil. Right now, we have fallen into a rut in terms of miniaturization and what to do with all this storage and faster processors. Right now the software cant keep up, I think its more like moore's law at work.

And yeah, it may not pan out, but its the journey, right? Hopefully itll help spark the breakthrough we need to get more awesome technology. Or maybe we hit our peak, who knows.

[electrourge]

wow thanks

[methoxyroxy]

Interesting but this guy talks A LOT and REALLY FAST

[dreamdimensions]

soda man drink it

very promising work

[De4sher]

Yup, pollution is natural. If we hadn't done that, another species sure would have.

This argument is really about "making the planet a better place for us humans". Because the universe does not care if we survive or not.

So we do everything out of a kind of "selfishness". And it's good too, because it will only be good for us, when all the other inhabitants of the earth are also doing fine :)

And risks.. they are a certainty! We, as a specie, can't help taking risks :) Progress will follow

[FromBoomTown]

If you don't take risks, you don't get rewards. As someone already said before in this forum, we already possess the weapons to destroy the planet, but with any discovery, mankind is also made wiser and its life easier.

[FromBoomTown]

I don't understand why there's anything wrong with administering this technology. Nature is accidental; there is no set design. Time and time in the history of the planet, climate change eradicate a variety of natural things. Only the fittest survive. So, nature adapts to all sorts of things through accident, a simple by-product. Also, all scientific discovery can be used to do good or bad. For example, energy from atoms can make bombs or fuel houses.

[synergisticlove]

CALM DOWN! take a breath and stop breathing in the mic!! jesus thats disgusting!

[postsimpli]

bullshit

[therobanata]

COCAIN

[dreamdimensions]

nature builds on complexity, soon we'll require hind legs to support our brains

and dreams will be cataloged, collided, and constructed into immersive technology environments

screaming through galaxies and the like

[Mjhavok]

Very cool.

[maximusdazs]

Impressive presentation. Also impressive that he spoke for that long with such severe cotton mouth and didn't a glass of water.

[buhgoil]

Neal Stephenson and William Gibson should both see this.

[VisionQuest2012]

I just wanted the guy to take a break and breath. Also drink some water.

[dmix09]

everyone!! watch this in high quality.. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

type: &fmt=18

at the end of the url and itll go to HQ!~

[subach]

Teh singularity is near.

[medulalumosa]

"Using DNA in a way nature never intended." Yup, that about sums it up. -So what he's describing is essentially using DNA to build nano machines, which have the ability to reproduce. What could go wrong?

I think this is a case of science missing the bigger question. It's not a matter of "can we" but "should we."

[greycloud24]

yes we should. imagine self replicating nanobots that tracked down the AIDS virus and killed it inside an infected person. imagine nanobots that repaired damage to cells caused by UV light and X-rays along with free radicals. imagine nanobots that literally turned back the clock on your DNA and caused your body to revert to its full growth yet no longer age. these concepts are not so far fetched as you would beleive.

[timg455]

Imagine nanobots that went and killed everyone.

[medulalumosa]

As I've said to timg455 "Imagine the technology in the wrong hands." Get your head out of the fluffy pink clouds of "imagine" and think of reality. I didn't say the things you described were far fetched. Science has done much to help the human race and improve lives around the world. However, I have a hard time forgetting all the negatives science has given us: the atomic bomb, weapons technology, genetically modified foods,etc. -I'd also love to know who is funding the research for this.

[boardsnow44]

i like atom bombs

the world will end at the hand of the atom bomb MUAHAHAHA ;)

[meb025]

hey genetically modified food isnt so bad.

[timg455]

You say in a way that nature never intended, but how do you know what nature intended. If nature intended for anything than we might as well assume it intended for us and anything we produce.

[medulalumosa]

I was quoting him, towards the end he makes that statement himself. If you don't know what's natural and unnatural I feel sorry for you. If we are bending, manipulating and perverting the building blocks of life -then to me, it's not what nature intended. Before we go blindly like children and mettle with things that have such profound consequences, perhaps there aught to at least be a global dialogue."Imagine nanobots that went and killed everyone" -Imagine this technology in the wrong hands.

[greycloud24]

i don't think this technology in the wrong hands would have any more dangerous consequences then technology we currently have. humans already possess the ability to quickly eradicate all human life on earth. we have already passed that hurdle.

[medulalumosa]

Agreed. What's the worry over adding to the stockpile? Nothing says me.

[alphakristjan]

@greycloud24 Thats being naive :).

[timg455]

If we are a product of nature then anything we do is what it intended.

[medulalumosa]

Yeah, who could argue that a Twinkie is any less natural than an apple. -Or that altering the genes of a corn plant to be "Roundup ready" is not what nature intended. Nature would have gotten around to doing it eventually, clearly.

[timg455]

Yea I would since it was created by a product of mother nature.

[ssnatcherss]

"If you don't know what's natural and unnatural I feel sorry for you. If we are bending, manipulating and perverting the building blocks of life -then to me, it's not what nature intended."

There's no reason to believe nature is capable of thought (much less intention). For all we know, nature is thoughtless, blind, reality. Nothing more.

[melek144]

I agree. Also, since when are humans not a part of nature? We are just as "natural" as any other organism.

[medulalumosa]

Who said anything about humans not being part of nature? I sure as hell didn't.

[melek144]

I never said you did. I was just referring to when some people (nobody in particular) regard so many human actions as unnatural.

[medulalumosa]

"There's no reason to believe nature is capable of thought (much less intention)"

To a degree you are right. Maybe I should rephrase. If we see the actions/workings/evolution as a sort of huge machinery, then our tinkering is equivalent to throwing a spanner in the works.

[roidroid]

but since we are a part of nature, it's more like nature is throwing a spanner in it's OWN works.

If human technology is nature committing "evolutionary suicide" then far be it from we humans - we mere integral cogs in nature's bigger system - to question nature's inherent fate.

Are we natural or not? You can't have it both ways.

It's like the God debate: Why would a God give us as a species the capability of logical thought, then demand we forgo it to have faith in his unlikely existance?

[medulalumosa]

I do get your point, and it's a very good point you're making. Perhaps we are meant to self destruct, or perhaps this is the earth's failsafe to get rid of us (we have, after all, done more damage than any other species).

I'm really puzzled as to why everyone seems to think that I'm saying we're not a part of nature. Yes, we are. There is no "both ways" to what I'm saying. I'm saying since we are cogs in the machinery (and we need the rest of the cogs in order to function/live), we should...

[medulalumosa]

(con't) examine the implications of our actions very carefully and not pursue a reckless course just because we can. Again, I'm unsure as to why so many hate the idea of discussion on the issue of the future and implications of technology...I'm at a loss on that one. It seems to me logical that we would want, out of self preservation or selfishness, to reconsider anything which would threaten our survival.

[roidroid]

The problem though is that if you were so inclined - you could find theoretical reasons to never progress in ANYTHING.

This kindof conservative reactionary mantra is rooted in Ludditism, fear of the unknown.

"atomic bomb, weapons technology, genetically modified foods", have all been necessary technological developments. eg: Weapons systems and Propulsion Sources have always been similar and partially interchangable technologies. Guns/Combustion engines, Rockets/Missiles, Nukes/Orion Project.

[medulalumosa]

Wow. I've been called many things in my life, and a "conservative reactionary" has never been one of them. That's quite a weighty statement coming from someone who doesn't even know me. Take a good look at the message you wrote and tell me again who's being "reactionary." Get a grip and relax. Don't take yourself nor life so seriously.

[roidroid]

nono i was describing the ideology, not you personally.

[voideyez]

YES. This articulates my thoughts exactly.

[astoria791]

scary mother fucker

[diegocaleiro]

One of the most amazing teds ever.

[TheOats]

Far out man...

[UncleKennybobs]

Got bored...

[atypicalguy]

I was hoping he'd talk about making new organisms but I guess it's a step at a time.

[Dambo96]

Scary Shit !

[dairymann654321]

true its scary... but its so amazing too!

[Semidicht]

Amazing!

[gigiko84]

wow

[petfoodonly]

I don't understand how they're electronic circuits. Wouldn't that need to be conductive etc? Does DNA do that?

[sy1234]

"I don't understand how they're electronic circuits. Wouldn't that need to be conductive etc? Does DNA do that?"

I can't answer the DNA question.

But I do know that the organic-inorganic connection was bridged some time ago, and we've been using organic components in electronics for a little while now.

- monitors which use biological components (freaking expensive)

- camera attached to a blind man's eye (black and white, and crap resolution, but hey.. he can kinda see)

[TheThomaswastaken]

The speaker said "...attach wires to this framework...".

[petfoodonly]

sure, so you make your switch out of DNA. Run wires to the strands of DNA. But if I'm an electron traveling along Mr wire, won't the wire turning into DNA just break the circuit?

[xychr0]

He could mean the installation of microscopic wires using a chemical reaction, in that the biological framework consists of a molecule to which copper molecules would bind, that sort of thing.

[stuffisgd]

fantastic!

[riversonthemoon]

Very interesting.