This is kind of early hype on genomes and genes . Lately it seem more like only 1/4 of the story. They are not the beginning and end of life and its issues. Genes are closer to hardware than software.
Genomics is really powerful, but the statement about "and here's the place that causes cancer"- like you just get a genome and find the one 'place' that causes cancer- ridiculous. Interactions between MANY different genes are behind any kind of complex biological process- and these interactions are NOT just spelled out when you get the genome. It's very, very serious work to tease out how all the genes are tied together to give the whole organism.
I have no idea why TED decided to bring an 'entrepreuneur' out to talk on Genomics instead of a science (I don't really know how much background he has in science, but that's what it says in the description). A lot of this stuff was WAY overhyped.
Oh, wow... Schuler back at the start of 2009 is basically breaking the news that Venter has announced in late May of 2010: The synthesis of DNA, implanting it in an "empty" cell so it "reboots" as a new species, and it seems like he's also talking about it reproducing.
How come nobody seems to have noticed this at the time? I don't understand how it's taken a year and a half for the bombshell to explode. Is it just because Venter Institute has now done a concerted media barrage?
@dunnonuffink The organism is different. In Venter's talk he refered to M . genetiliaum (sp?) as the precursor that had the problem that it took 3 months to divide. It's the M. Coides (sp?) which developed in just 2 days which is new, as the 3 months to divide system was too difficult to work with.
This whole thing makes me feel illiterate the way computers did. The first time I saw a computer was in the late 80s: learned the basics of how to operate them to do my job, but little more than that. This next big technological shift (if this is what it is) I WOULD like to get to understand at least as well as the kids will. Every little helps!
@dunnonuffink Re: like to understand as well as my kids will
@21:10 "All I can tell you is stay healthy for 20 more years."
If you do that, then expect to start getting younger every day instead of older.
In 1983 I became convinced that we were only a handful of technologies away from ending scarcity and reversing aging. And that's only gotten more certain over time.
I watched a documentary once about centenarians. Most of them said that they wouldn't have minded stopping at 90-95. Some of it was being troubled by infirmity, true, and being the last of their family/friends - but many felt that after 90 they were bored of "just more of the same". Even novelty got repititious.
So, I dunno about living a VERY long life - but what I would value is health in old age, and an exit with less pain & indignity. And we gotta make room for the kids.
Ever since farming&irrigation, "room" was determined by technology. Don't think in 5 year time frames or that tech is near the end. Think in 50 year time frames, and of tech without limits.
Think about his talk
"Air to Gasoline from Sunlight"
That's imminent
That a game changer
That breakthrough, by itself, is enough to irrigate the Sahara & Mohave, and clean the oceans.
Hiya. re: making room for the kids, not literal room. More a world full of people aged 90, 120, 150, who still run the firm, pull the strings behind the throne, know best, make policy. The dead hand of the aged on the young! To be 20, working for people a century older - stifling! Aged 80, still calling Mom!
Agree that this (I hope) can be the game changer.
But "plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose", if sweeping patents are granted. Like giving Gutenberg the patent on printing.
Wish I shared your optimism. Venter's backers / partners on producing fuel from algae, for example, are exxon-mobil. He did mention in one discussion that he hopes the oil-price won't drop. In other words, prices to hold up so that his fuel can command similar prices to what we now pay for oil.
Then there's the nature of his patents - very wide-ranging patents on *processes*, apparently. (If Gutenberg had patented, not his printing-press but the use of moveable-type, what then?)
Almost everyone has this notion that there is profit to be had by making things very expensive. But that's wrong. The profit is in making them very cheap. Military contractors all hope to learn enough on their big-ticket items to produce consumer products. Nordrsroms or Walmart, Oracle or Google, Rolls Royce or Honda, cheaper proftis better?
Finally, patents run out. Remember what I said about time frames. In 20 years anyone can make this, no charge.
It's not playing god any more than man has done for centuries. It's the exact same as breeding livestock to get the best offspring, only this way is more refined. We have 'forced evolution' in so many ways, this just seems different because it's so much more powerful. Rather than guessing we know the exact way to get that perfect animal/plant/whatever. Understanding how nature works may help us coexist with our planet better, lord knows we have room to improve.
One thing that scares me is that they are manipulating/forcing evolution. Darwin's idea of 'natural selection' takes thousands of years.
Genomics treats the human body as if its already fully evolved.
Take Diabetes it affects the pancreas. Diabetes is becoming widespread throughout the world. So according to genomics, they would "fix" that gene. But what if the next step of evolution "by means of natural selection" was to remove the need for a pancreas?????
well thats just not going to work, because, there are 2 types of diabetes. type 1 diabetes is genetic (insulin dependent) and type 2 (taking tablets) is "self inflicted", caused by bad diet, high intake of sugar, obesity, lack of exercise. plus sugar and starch are required for a healthy diet. in addition putting a tax on sugar wont help. you might as well stop all insulin production and kill all diabetics off if thats the case.
Preemption is a necessary evil if we are to solve problems which are a current threat, though - while we might greatly benefit from acknowledging the 'reduction of the pancreas' for example, it is very difficult to predict whether a gene alteration IS beneficial. If we alter the gene back, we aid the suffering NOW. We would benefit greatly from a method of predicting a natural genetic alteration's actual impact on human function longterm, but we lack a functional means at present.
The phrase "fully evolved" does not make any sense. Evolution is a directionless process; it is not heading for any goal. If something works, it spreads. If not, it dies out. That's it.
Humans would do much better to take over, as we care about human welfare and evolution doesn't. With extreme caution, of course.
fully evolved makes perfect sense in context to my point. they treat the human body as if this is it for us. whos to say in 10,000 years we will have the same bodies, muscles etc. they have taken a particular point in time and worked with that model as if it is final. and adding patches to it like a program. an e.g. they are taking a 1987 nissan micra and as technology increases just add it on or take it off, but it still is a 1987 micra. instead of naturally evolving the 2009.
@pdema030 Remembering of course that humans are a product of evolution...that is... I'm not really that sure we are advanced enough to understand all the variables... we have a greater chance of fucking up.... we know for a fact nature has been at it longer... and has yet to fuck up!
I'd have serious doubts about human 'motives' in such direction... direction yes... but certainly not human guidance. We are way to 'short term' in our methodology.
Sure we are still evolving, infact we are evolving faster than ever, because the more evolution has to work with the faster it can create. However evolution is slow compared to how fast our technology/society ect... moves. For example maybe evolution would remove the need for a pancreas but it wouldn't happen for a million years, by then we will have either destroyed ourselves or become something entirely different by our own means. Also medicine in general tampers with evolution as you describe
perhaps genes know how old they are and recessive traits are newer code..
also
microbes show intelligence, learning and memory. They can move and react to their environment and all without neurons. I think considering the brain as circuits misses the point... I suggest that neurons are links between chemical networks who's function similar to microbial colonies or bio-films. In understanding how one should consider that at this scale quantum interactions are present.
genes have gender..not just x vs y, but all genes have gender.
Proof identical genetic defects can cause opposite conditions based on what parent they got the defect from.
Prader-Willi and Angelman.
Male female = precedent antecedent
liger's are an example of this.
perhaps Lions have strong precedents and strong antecedents.. tigers weak ones. With a male lion his genetics are labeled precedent male with a strong growth factor and the tigress gives a weak antecedent.
it's called DNA methylation or epigenetics not "genes have a gender". Read more scientific information within the genetics are because your personifications are making me laugh.
So Barry Schuler says "don't worry," and seems to dismiss ethical discussions, as if he and the people working on this have all the ethical stuff figured out for us. Why is it that one can't help thinking that this is still the same sick-minded eugenics creeps running this show?
Honestly, this all still smacks of Eugenics, but just under a different name of Genomics. It's like Blackwater changing its name to Xe, or the School Of Americas changing their name to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
How is this any different than Rockefeller's sick-minded view of things?
"In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk."
There is NO talk here about how this technology will (in truth) only be used by wealthy elites; or, at best, only those people who can afford to pay for it. Mostly it's wealthy elites who pay for this kind of research and they have a VERY poor history of doing much for the "common" folk of this world. In fact, I have heard quite a few "respected" scientists talking about how the human race is going to split in two: the "supermen" elites and the slave-like knuckle-dragging common folk.
having your genome available to the public can also be detrimental to your life too--employers can check to see if you have any bad genes or what the likelihood of you getting a life-threatening disease is and decide not to invest time and money in you and hire you.
I "can" explain it, or I just hand them a Biology book. Having the will to self learn is what separates a mcdonalds employee and someone thats a chemical engineer.
I don't think we can 'go back' to the lifestyle of our ancestors to solve our current problems. It would, but we just aren't able to as a civilization.
So i agree with the sentiment that we make a very daring leap into genetic engineering. I think this can only work out well if we accordingly leave behind old conventions and societal structures with it (e.g. consumer capitalism), so as not to end up in a world of genetic discrimination.
DONT STOP OR ELSE SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN MY NAME IS JENNY I AM 7 WITH RED HAIR MY MOTHER BEATS ME I LIVE IN A CELL WITH NO WINDOWS DOORS AND NO LIGHT I HAVE RED SCARY EYES AND IHAVE NO NOSE OR EARS I AM DEAD IF YOU DONT SEND THIS TO 15PPL B4 U GO TO BED I WILL APPEAR 2NIGHT WITH A KNIFE AND KILL U THIS IS NO JOKE SOMETHING GOOD WILL HAPPEN TO U AT 10:22 SOMEONE WILL CALL YOU OR TALK TO YOU ONLINE AND SAY I LOVE YOU OR ASK YOU OUT BUT HERES THE CATCH Send To 15 vids...i figured WTF, spam it
I wonder what the social consequences will be of some of this. .. "Sorry ma'am, your genome suggests you are at high risk for cancer, your life insurance policy has been denied." Then again, if/when we get to that point that the genome is so well understood, one would theorize that cancer would be curable. But then what if you can't afford the various cures? Would that lead to Increasing class separation based on who can afford to correct their genome and who can't?
I think it is pretty certain that discrimination by insurance companies and employers based on genetic information will be prohibited. Maybe it is even already prohibited now, I'm not sure. It seems that all experts agree on this. Your genetic information may also be confidential and protected.
I think HIPAA Health Information Privacy Act is a first step in addressing this issue. Your health care provider can't give your employer confidential information about your health without your consent, this is in place now and should stay in place as the genomic revolution unfolds and changes the face of medicine over the next few decades.
The statement that all side effects will be "gone" has no basis in reality. The side effects of current medicines might be resolved, but new medicines will bring new side effects. Good call blunted.
I see what u mean, but control nature, to what degree? there are some things we can control, and some things we cant. Keep in mind that we r stil subject to nature more than nature is subject to us. I also think that we would do much better to learn to control our own nature (i.e. ego) rather than gain total control over environmental nature. After all what makes u think we can do a better job at controling nature if we cant even control our own nature?
"I also think that we would do much better to learn to control our own nature (i.e. ego) rather than gain total control over environmental nature. After all what makes u think we can do a better job at controling nature if we cant even control our own nature?"
That's called science, philosophy and psychology. The study of nature and existence as well as a study of self.
You don't give enough credit to what we already have, you instead focus on the negative which is defeatist in this context.
"You don't give enough credit to what we already have, you instead focus on the negative."
While I do recognize and appreciate that many positive discoveries and technologies hav emerged out of our collective gene pool, I also see that it could all be for nothing if we allow our personal/collective ego to override intelligent choices. In that regard, GE is a potential way forward.
When company's start patenting Life... we slide down the slippery slope to disaster. When GMO crops push out and eradicate natural crops.... You can say bye bye to the natural world.
We will all have to relay on the whims of a profit based company instead of the whims of mother nature. And mother nature has had billions of years of balanced R+D. The profit based company has R+D for a few years and could not care if you live or die.
"well ignorant person, you don't know me do you? i wouldn't make a statement like that if i didn't know"
I guess it never occurred to you that what people choose to say reveals what they know. Making a statement that supporters of GMO are idiots is a typical piece you'd expect to hear from luddites, as well as people who are ignorant of how basic genetic engineering works.
We've been engineering life-forms for thousands of years. GE just gives more control and speed.
you are assuming i have no knowledge of genetics. remember, when you assume.....FYI i have a degree in biology and guess what....i had to study genetics to get that degree. you say we've been enginerring life forms for thousands of years like you were there. you're one of those idiots that believes aliens made man huh.
"FYI i have a degree in biology and guess what....i had to study genetics to get that degree."
Then you're either a liar or a bad student.
"you say we've been enginerring life forms for thousands of years like you were there. you're one of those idiots that believes aliens made man huh."
Bananas, Cauliflower, Kale, Broccoli, Corn, Dogs, Cats, Cows, Chickens, etc. are all organisms we engineered over thousands of years using breeding. GE is the same thing, but with more control.
hey you can trust the mad scientists and eat that shit if you want to. it has not been tested. they have no idea what it can even do to the human body.
"hey you can trust the mad scientists and eat that shit if you want to. it has not been tested. they have no idea what it can even do to the human body."
Better not eat corn or bananas then. Just, asking you be consistent...
"gmo vegetables are the gov and the global elite controlling the world. monsanto. farmers can't even get seeds for next year's planting from them."
Good point. Not related to genetic engineering. This is an intellectual property issue. Take it up with them.
yes but the conference is still good. I got many more interesting ideas than with any usual introduction to genomics by a specialist. we need such 'broad thinkers' like him it's really important, and the way you gather your data and infos doesn't matter as long as you come up with meaningful ideas and points of view.
he might be exagerating with his 'shit against the wall pharmacology' concept, you're right, but it's still more useful ideas than most conferences on genomics. it's good ideas.
At 12:18 in the video, he misspelled the organism's name. The correct version is Mycoplasma genitalium, not "genetalium". You'd think that for an important public presentation, he would bother to make it right. The rest is just a bunch of sloppy platitudes...Bah! :((
Absolute nonsense! He seems to think that every health issue is a result of your genetics...saying that "when you get sick, it's a bug in your genome."
Less than .01% of diseases are classified as genetic disorders.
Diabetes -- DOUBLED in the last 10 years.
Cancer -- DOUBLED in the last 30 years
Obesity -- DOUBLED in the last 30 years
Is this widespread changes in the distribution of genes which predispose people to disease?
No! 30 years is not on the evolutionary time scale.
Fuck yeah I'm tired of this craps blaming stuff on genes though yes I am in fact envious of bastards who has a lifestyle like me but has a metabolism less than mine so they gain more weight than I could damn its so hard to be skinny
That statistic is more likely to apply to monogenic diseases, that would mean diseases that come as a result of a mutation in a single gene.
But genetic disorders come in multiple flavours, there are polygenic, multifactorial diseases. These, in combination with lifestyle, may lead to disease.
But in that case the genetic disorder did play a central role. We're not simply talking about removing the genes that cause disease, but even altering them so that they are less susceptible to disease.
you're right: the environment plays a huge role. duuh ;) but what about making genes that will do ok in a new, more cancer inducive environment. Of course they don't understand perfectly everything about this yet---but I'm sure they'll be careful and won't mess with it too much in the part they don't know well ;) I know it looks crazy and dangerous, but when you think about it it's not much different than what humans have always done: rearrange and improve stuff.
but the effects that lifestyle has on the body is mediated by the genes. genes are the middle man between cause and effect, in the situations you are describing. if you alter the genes than you alter the effect.
but i understand what you are saying. we need to take more control of our lives and take better care of our bodies.
"shit against the wall pharmacology"---that's a really meaningful and useful concept---it's true--- let's solve problems/ 'bugs' from the inside of the genome instead of throwing chemicals and drugs at the body "externally".
I like these metaphors and useful ideas. so yeah awesome conference XXDDD!!!!
OH yeah!!! just to point out: when he says that "we're not much more complicated than microsoft office" NOW that's useful and interesting. WOW. crazy. I'd like to have more details on this affirmation, but it's still a nice image and it gives us a good estimation/idea of it!
so yeah, I actually missed tons of cool ideas the first time I listened to it-- I wasn't paying enough attention I think. There're many many really good metaphors and good infos in this talk. thumbs up all the way!!
On the one hand this is great, on the other hand all you need to do is watch a show like future weapons, to understand most of our brilliance is used in the persuit of stupidity
Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
If it was all open source and not done by an industry that patents everything untill one day we need to pay a license fee just to fuck and make a baby.
Just because the wad you blew into your wife has 4096 patented genes in it .
that's not how patenting in genetics works. You can't patent a gene, you can patent one method of constructing, or inserting or isolating a gene, but not the gene itself.
You have not answered my question. From what this man says he is playing to be a god. How much do you earn to be a God? They will be enought clever to stop if what they will invent will be very rewording but not so healthy? It will be a multinational company to decide what is right or wrong? If a genetically modified vineyard lies next to a natural vineyard ,the flowers of the natural vineyard will be pollinated by their robotic plants .
oby1sky - For starters certain definitions claim God to be a supernatural entity who is the cause of the creation of the universe.
Secondly, you're making a hypothetical senario, which means nothing. What if the vinyards are attacked by evil invading aliens? So we should build giant ray guns.
Who benifits and who profits is basically unknown. Everyone has the potential of benfiting whether or not this is financial is debatable.
1) I dont believe in God but i dont believe olso in mans that want to be God.
2)Isn't an hypothetical scenario. He is the first to say that all the things we eat are manipulated and i confirm you that a many people here near Florence are starting to use hybrid seed giving me the problem i writed you.
3) having something that taste differet is a benefict? can't you eat some chocolate with some wine to taste them togheter, instead making a chocowine? and this can be said for all the other things
Who will pay the damages to the owner of the natural vineyard ? We wil invent olso Robo inteligent bees to avoid those problems? Monsanto produces hybrid seed making the pollinated fruits hybrid in the same way . If this progect will succeed, who will manage to keep its natural seeds for the coming year?
It is so refreshing when you hear a scientific authority echo sentiments you yourself had independently arrived at, but couldn't really find much consensus for. It is almost encouraging, makes you feel like you have some of the stuff they have. This is by far, the best talk EVAH!
I was talking about the ongoing craze over the alleged superiority of organic (read: natural) food over genetically modified food. There appears to be this dogma proclaiming everything that has been to some degree, messed with by humans, as innately "bad," and that whatever is natural must be by nature, "good for us." They neglect the fact that nature itself is constantly shuffling genes within and between different species without (unlike us), giving a damn about the it's dietary effects.
"There appears to be this dogma proclaiming everything that has been to some degree, messed with by humans, as innately "bad," and that whatever is natural must be by nature, "good for us."
Mermade:
Actually, if you look at our history, you'll find that this is generally true. We observe that nature creates and maintains balance between living systems. While on the other hand humans, motivated by increased profit and more power, tend to produce quite a bit of mess.
"We observe that nature creates and maintains balance between living systems. While...humans... tend to produce quite a bit of mess."
Even if that "balance" you speak off necessitates that it's our turn to go on the *extinct* species list, you know, like 99% of all the species to ever exist? I mean, if you truly believe this, then I urge you to give up all the comforts of modern life and return to the jungle in short order. Good luck, and may nature's "balance" be with you!
"Even if that "balance" you speak off necessitates that it's our turn to go on the *extinct* species list"
Yes. The reason should be clear. Humans dont play well with other species. The reason is that collectively our ideals, values, and goals are often based on selfish directives that do not incorporate the well being of other species. This is clearly reflected in the manifestation that is consumerism.
You can use that as an "after the fact" justification of our extinction, but what about the other, less ambitious, less green house gas emitting, 99% that ever lived?
We still exist today because we refused to be bullied by nature. Instead of dieing helplessly from it's viruses, we extracted them from the dead, studied them, and figured out how to defeat them. Again, if you have a problem with us messing with nature, then feel free to move into the jungle.
"We still exist today because we refused to be bullied by nature."
To be bullied implies a separate consciousness with an intent to bully, but as we currently undestand it, intent is a virtue of consciousness, and nature is not conscious as far as we are able to ascertain.
But one could also argue that we exist today because we'v worked more with nature than against it..e.g. we dont try to grow food when it's out of season, we dont over fish the oceans, we dont chop down all of the trees.. etc.. you could say that we've only been surviving because we curbed our ego's innate greed, not because we fought against nature. How can you fight the very thing that your existence and wellbeing depends upon? Well, you can, but if you do, you suffer.
Our ego is our nature, and rising above both is the most impressive characteristic of humans. We're the first animals who can question our nature. You use the term "fight", but I would use the term "edit". We edit metals for tools, trees for shelter. We edit genetics by breeding preferred plants and animals, birth control, in vitro fertilization...
Of course we depend on nature to exist, but the cause for our species' domination is our ability to control nature.
It's not a belief, it's an observation. I don't believe that humans motivated by ego pollute and decimate nearly everything they touch, I observed it.
It's more than an observation for you, because you've began to use our disastrous record in curbing the unintended environmental impacts of some earlier technologies to suppose that gmo food must be inferior to "organic" food. It's not as if there is any substantive evidence proving that gmo food is inferior to organic food, but yet this is the stance you have taken.
gmo vegetables are the gov and the global elite controlling the world. monsanto. farmers can't even get seeds for next year's planting from them. they hafat buy new seed every year. farmers in india are already going broke and killing themselves over this.
1) we dont understand enough about them to determine their longterm biological and ecological impacts
2) monsantos track-record... (nuff said)
Also, seeds modified by companies like monsanto tend to be done with the intent of manifesting qualities which are less desirable (e.g. shorter life span, less amount of fruit etc) in general, but more desirable for the company share holders.
Yes, a lot of good things can come of genetic engineering, but if it's primarily motivated by ego, then it's motivated by selfishness. And since selfishness is a condition that does not facilitate good relations (e.g. betwen other cultures, species, the envinronment etc), due to the fact that everythng tht emerges from ego-based motives is typicaly self serving, where the game is to try get the upperhand, this causes imbalances which can lead to problems if left unchecked.
I think it's been left unchecked for so long now that the majority have not noticed anything wrong with the picture. People still genuinely believe that we can maintain an economy that is based on principles that are more self serving and less inclusive and still continue living the consumer lifestyle happily ever after. It's not gonna happen.
Replying to Youlikemyusername. The more that you are able to help yourself, the more able you will be to help others. You must be able to serve yourself if you wish to serve others. You must love yourself before you can love others.
"Yes, a lot of good things can come of genetic engineering, but if it's primarily motivated by ego, then it's motivated by selfishness."
That's not an argument specific to genetic engineering. That's an argument that can be made about most anything that has the potential to be widespread.
I'll give you an example, then:
GE and synthetic genomics allow us to develop organisms faster than the natural environment can adapt to them. This has the potential for mass extinction.
"That's not an argument specific to genetic engineering." It's not specific to GE, but it encompasses GE and affects the way that GE is used as well as the kind of impact it will have on our species, our environment and its ecology. GE can be used to reduce strong animus/ego tendencies in our collective gene pool so that we can make better/wiser choices regarding our future, improve our health, and still retain our drive to develop outwardly and evolve our species. That's what I see anyway.
"That's an argument that can be made about most anything that has the potential to be widespread."
Actually it can be applied to almost anything involving humans lol because when ego is involved, self interest is valued over shared interests, which causes imbalances that eventually demand attention, and with attention comes conscious awareness of the conflict which results in a dilemma that forces a resolution.
"Actually, if you look at our history, you'll find that this is generally true. We observe that nature creates and maintains balance between living systems. While on the other hand humans, motivated by increased profit and more power, tend to produce quite a bit of mess."
Humans ARE a part of nature. The way nature balances anything isn't with intelligence. Destructive lifeforms die out or change. Most species simply go extinct.
Yes, but the point is that humans are not very good at working with their surrounding environment in a way that contributes to the overall stability of the ecosystem like other species do. Humans tend more to produce a reality consistent with their ego based desires, which results in polluting and destroying the environment.
"Yes, but the point is that humans are not very good at working with their surrounding environment in a way that contributes to the overall stability of the ecosystem like other species do."
Sometimes that form of living is beneficial to the organisms' survival. We aren't the only destructive life forms however, look at vermin and locusts. However, like I said before, in a worst case scenario we simply go extinct and nature moves onward. It's happened many times in the past.
Yes, sometimes it is beneficial, but in our case it's not. The reason is that we are intelligent enough to know that many of our economic activities are conducted in such a way that they lead to environmental/ecological issues we would do better to avoid. And yet, collectively, we continue to foster such activities as if the short term monetary benefits were of more value to us than sustaining the ecological system which took millions of years to establish.
We arent the only destructive life form on the planet, but we have definitely had the most destructive impact on our environment when compared to other species. The cause for this has to be established, otherwise the pattern will continue and eventually lead to our demise, as has been predicted by scientists across the world.
"We arent the only destructive life form on the planet, but we have definitely had the most destructive impact on our environment when compared to other species."
I'm fairly certain that the life forms which evolved a billion years ago to release oxygen into the atmosphere were more destructive than us. I'm simply trying to make the point that this earth has weathered much destruction. Concern for the environment is at best about self-preservation.
"I'm fairly certain that the life forms which evolved a billion years ago to release oxygen into the atmosphere were more destructive than us"
That's debatable, and altho it may hav been true, it does not concern us right now. Right now, we're the ones causing the most destruction.. Some say that part of the game is species preservation, but as u hav no doubt already noticed, we dont seem to be doing very well in that regard.
"The way nature balances anything isn't with intelligence"
This appears to be the current paradigm, but don't hold on to it too tightly, otherwise you might become attached to it and invent a form of scientism.
"This appears to be the current paradigm, but don't hold on to it too tightly, otherwise you might become attached to it and invent a form of scientism."
It isn't a philosophy, it's a conclusion established by facts. Nature is an example of emergence from many simpler systems that can resemble intelligence if you romanticise it.
It is a conclusion based on our current knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality. But as with all theories/knowledge, it is still subject to re-evaluation as newer knowledge becomes available.. otherwise if you hold onto something too tightly, then when knew knowledge comes along, u feel like u should defend what u hav become emotionally attached to.
Barry Schuler is NOT a scientist. Or indeed even a noted expert in the field of Genomics.
He IS an entreprenuer and Investor. To make my point in the most popularly accessable terms. Picture the movie Jurassic Park, Barry Schuler = John Hammond.
OK.......... but the end is really interesting though. genomics is going to change everything lol. we can solve everything with genomics XDD. he should be more direct right away and explain why/ how. we want to know: how is going to change the world exactly XDD?????? we want examples XDD!!!!!!!! at the end he says: stay healthy for 20 years and you'll see 300 lol. wow XD. we can solve our energy problems XD SWEET !!!! show how!!!! XD
Hi Panpiper!! I'm not saying this conference is complete crap----it's interesting.
and I'm not 100% making fun of "curing all diseases and living for 300 yrs---I guess it's possible and all, but just explain better goddamn lol. you know what I mean? you shouldn't talk about 100 really awesome things if you can't give proper explanations.
a really good conference must have good explanations not just like "woooaw 300 yrs, all diseases wooa" ...how??--show your research!
OMG synthetise a genome. omg this is frankeinstein lol ---"and...does it just boot up and live??? well guess what ...it does" OMG LOL XDD AWESOME!!!!
ok well I'm listening to the whole talk again and it's actually awesome lol. sry-- you're right----he doesn't give much detail, but we need ppl who think broadly like that ----it's really cool and there's just enough explanations so I get plenty of really cool ideas in my head lol!!!!!!!!
This is kind of early hype on genomes and genes . Lately it seem more like only 1/4 of the story. They are not the beginning and end of life and its issues. Genes are closer to hardware than software.
3877michael 5 months ago
what a fuck head
simonk512 6 months ago
Genomics is really powerful, but the statement about "and here's the place that causes cancer"- like you just get a genome and find the one 'place' that causes cancer- ridiculous. Interactions between MANY different genes are behind any kind of complex biological process- and these interactions are NOT just spelled out when you get the genome. It's very, very serious work to tease out how all the genes are tied together to give the whole organism.
JohnBigmon 7 months ago
I have no idea why TED decided to bring an 'entrepreuneur' out to talk on Genomics instead of a science (I don't really know how much background he has in science, but that's what it says in the description). A lot of this stuff was WAY overhyped.
JohnBigmon 7 months ago 4
Very basic.
infinitehumanstupid 1 year ago
I love ted!
AndreLeCoz 1 year ago
Oh, wow... Schuler back at the start of 2009 is basically breaking the news that Venter has announced in late May of 2010: The synthesis of DNA, implanting it in an "empty" cell so it "reboots" as a new species, and it seems like he's also talking about it reproducing.
How come nobody seems to have noticed this at the time? I don't understand how it's taken a year and a half for the bombshell to explode. Is it just because Venter Institute has now done a concerted media barrage?
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink The organism is different. In Venter's talk he refered to M . genetiliaum (sp?) as the precursor that had the problem that it took 3 months to divide. It's the M. Coides (sp?) which developed in just 2 days which is new, as the 3 months to divide system was too difficult to work with.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian
Thanks for the info :)
This whole thing makes me feel illiterate the way computers did. The first time I saw a computer was in the late 80s: learned the basics of how to operate them to do my job, but little more than that. This next big technological shift (if this is what it is) I WOULD like to get to understand at least as well as the kids will. Every little helps!
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink Re: like to understand as well as my kids will
@21:10 "All I can tell you is stay healthy for 20 more years."
If you do that, then expect to start getting younger every day instead of older.
In 1983 I became convinced that we were only a handful of technologies away from ending scarcity and reversing aging. And that's only gotten more certain over time.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian
I watched a documentary once about centenarians. Most of them said that they wouldn't have minded stopping at 90-95. Some of it was being troubled by infirmity, true, and being the last of their family/friends - but many felt that after 90 they were bored of "just more of the same". Even novelty got repititious.
So, I dunno about living a VERY long life - but what I would value is health in old age, and an exit with less pain & indignity. And we gotta make room for the kids.
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink Re: ending at 90-95
Always a choice- live dangerously.
Re: room for kids
Ever since farming&irrigation, "room" was determined by technology. Don't think in 5 year time frames or that tech is near the end. Think in 50 year time frames, and of tech without limits.
Think about his talk
"Air to Gasoline from Sunlight"
That's imminent
That a game changer
That breakthrough, by itself, is enough to irrigate the Sahara & Mohave, and clean the oceans.
This is not your father's tech.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian
Hiya. re: making room for the kids, not literal room. More a world full of people aged 90, 120, 150, who still run the firm, pull the strings behind the throne, know best, make policy. The dead hand of the aged on the young! To be 20, working for people a century older - stifling! Aged 80, still calling Mom!
Agree that this (I hope) can be the game changer.
But "plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose", if sweeping patents are granted. Like giving Gutenberg the patent on printing.
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink If you think the kids are going to want mom and dad's careers, then your kids are very different than mine.
Point is, no scarcity. No one would have to work for anyone. (not sure how that works, yet economically, as it is a new game)
As for patents, think linux, youtube google and open source. This is biology turned into software, where the best stuff is free..
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian
Wish I shared your optimism. Venter's backers / partners on producing fuel from algae, for example, are exxon-mobil. He did mention in one discussion that he hopes the oil-price won't drop. In other words, prices to hold up so that his fuel can command similar prices to what we now pay for oil.
Then there's the nature of his patents - very wide-ranging patents on *processes*, apparently. (If Gutenberg had patented, not his printing-press but the use of moveable-type, what then?)
dunnonuffink 1 year ago 2
@dunnonuffink Re: optimism
Almost everyone has this notion that there is profit to be had by making things very expensive. But that's wrong. The profit is in making them very cheap. Military contractors all hope to learn enough on their big-ticket items to produce consumer products. Nordrsroms or Walmart, Oracle or Google, Rolls Royce or Honda, cheaper proftis better?
Finally, patents run out. Remember what I said about time frames. In 20 years anyone can make this, no charge.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink Gutenberg's patent would have expired as Venter's will.
prescod 6 months ago
Can you say "Gattica" ...Soon enough I'm sure
chadleyb79 1 year ago
@chadleyb79 Can you say 2012? Same Hollywood, same alarmism, same ignorance of economics, science and history to get people excited.
And same likelihood of occurring.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
i really wish i could afford to map my genome.... it would go great next to my 40 volumes of pi...!
Nowekian 1 year ago
We have been modifying genes for thousands of years. Domesticated wolves, hybrid wheat, etc.
This whole playing god stuff is getting ridiculous. I love the Crick answer: somebody has to. LOL
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
It's not playing god any more than man has done for centuries. It's the exact same as breeding livestock to get the best offspring, only this way is more refined. We have 'forced evolution' in so many ways, this just seems different because it's so much more powerful. Rather than guessing we know the exact way to get that perfect animal/plant/whatever. Understanding how nature works may help us coexist with our planet better, lord knows we have room to improve.
rabidiga 2 years ago 5
No, you're still missing the concept. You're thinking of evolution like the orderly unfolding of a plan, which it isn't.
It looks like a plan in hindsight, which is why many people make the same error.
Humans plan and emote; evolution is a callous optimization process. Which do you want determining our future?
pdema030 2 years ago 3
One thing that scares me is that they are manipulating/forcing evolution. Darwin's idea of 'natural selection' takes thousands of years.
Genomics treats the human body as if its already fully evolved.
Take Diabetes it affects the pancreas. Diabetes is becoming widespread throughout the world. So according to genomics, they would "fix" that gene. But what if the next step of evolution "by means of natural selection" was to remove the need for a pancreas?????
Am i talking through my arse?
MegaCoKO 2 years ago 4
Put a ban on starch and sugar and we would soon enugh see the end of diabetis without gene manipulation.
Or if not a ban put a relly high tax on it to make healthy alternatives cheap in comparison.
hoplahey 2 years ago 4
well thats just not going to work, because, there are 2 types of diabetes. type 1 diabetes is genetic (insulin dependent) and type 2 (taking tablets) is "self inflicted", caused by bad diet, high intake of sugar, obesity, lack of exercise. plus sugar and starch are required for a healthy diet. in addition putting a tax on sugar wont help. you might as well stop all insulin production and kill all diabetics off if thats the case.
MegaCoKO 2 years ago
Preemption is a necessary evil if we are to solve problems which are a current threat, though - while we might greatly benefit from acknowledging the 'reduction of the pancreas' for example, it is very difficult to predict whether a gene alteration IS beneficial. If we alter the gene back, we aid the suffering NOW. We would benefit greatly from a method of predicting a natural genetic alteration's actual impact on human function longterm, but we lack a functional means at present.
bdaroczy 2 years ago
The phrase "fully evolved" does not make any sense. Evolution is a directionless process; it is not heading for any goal. If something works, it spreads. If not, it dies out. That's it.
Humans would do much better to take over, as we care about human welfare and evolution doesn't. With extreme caution, of course.
pdema030 2 years ago 14
fully evolved makes perfect sense in context to my point. they treat the human body as if this is it for us. whos to say in 10,000 years we will have the same bodies, muscles etc. they have taken a particular point in time and worked with that model as if it is final. and adding patches to it like a program. an e.g. they are taking a 1987 nissan micra and as technology increases just add it on or take it off, but it still is a 1987 micra. instead of naturally evolving the 2009.
MegaCoKO 2 years ago
@pdema030 Remembering of course that humans are a product of evolution...that is... I'm not really that sure we are advanced enough to understand all the variables... we have a greater chance of fucking up.... we know for a fact nature has been at it longer... and has yet to fuck up!
I'd have serious doubts about human 'motives' in such direction... direction yes... but certainly not human guidance. We are way to 'short term' in our methodology.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Sure we are still evolving, infact we are evolving faster than ever, because the more evolution has to work with the faster it can create. However evolution is slow compared to how fast our technology/society ect... moves. For example maybe evolution would remove the need for a pancreas but it wouldn't happen for a million years, by then we will have either destroyed ourselves or become something entirely different by our own means. Also medicine in general tampers with evolution as you describe
Glass2007 2 years ago
Unintended consequences, and the fact that scientists discover, but industrialists implement may be the source of your fear.
sunrisewalker 2 years ago
perhaps genes know how old they are and recessive traits are newer code..
also
microbes show intelligence, learning and memory. They can move and react to their environment and all without neurons. I think considering the brain as circuits misses the point... I suggest that neurons are links between chemical networks who's function similar to microbial colonies or bio-films. In understanding how one should consider that at this scale quantum interactions are present.
abram730 2 years ago
genes have gender..not just x vs y, but all genes have gender.
Proof identical genetic defects can cause opposite conditions based on what parent they got the defect from.
Prader-Willi and Angelman.
Male female = precedent antecedent
liger's are an example of this.
perhaps Lions have strong precedents and strong antecedents.. tigers weak ones. With a male lion his genetics are labeled precedent male with a strong growth factor and the tigress gives a weak antecedent.
abram730 2 years ago
it's called DNA methylation or epigenetics not "genes have a gender". Read more scientific information within the genetics are because your personifications are making me laugh.
muffinman1 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for uploading.
PolarBeamz 2 years ago
Bacteria, genomes, microbes...
Isn't there anything good on TV anymore?
I'm astonished and excited. It's friggin incredible what humans have done and are doing.
Thank you for uploading these videos, they've changed the way I think.
barrywilliamsmb 2 years ago
cool
ssips720 2 years ago
Studying genetics is obviously going to lead to great discoveries. I'm excited to see how this will improve medicine and especially geriatrics.
Petertheis you clearly don't understand the definition of the word "genomics", it simply means the study of genomes. Did you even watch the video?
SaidZarathustra 2 years ago 11
So Barry Schuler says "don't worry," and seems to dismiss ethical discussions, as if he and the people working on this have all the ethical stuff figured out for us. Why is it that one can't help thinking that this is still the same sick-minded eugenics creeps running this show?
PeterTheis 2 years ago
Honestly, this all still smacks of Eugenics, but just under a different name of Genomics. It's like Blackwater changing its name to Xe, or the School Of Americas changing their name to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
PeterTheis 2 years ago
How is this any different than Rockefeller's sick-minded view of things?
"In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk."
PeterTheis 2 years ago
There is NO talk here about how this technology will (in truth) only be used by wealthy elites; or, at best, only those people who can afford to pay for it. Mostly it's wealthy elites who pay for this kind of research and they have a VERY poor history of doing much for the "common" folk of this world. In fact, I have heard quite a few "respected" scientists talking about how the human race is going to split in two: the "supermen" elites and the slave-like knuckle-dragging common folk.
PeterTheis 2 years ago
Great lecture,
good lecturer.
IlluminatyKL 2 years ago
150? 300? il be insane by then
leifpetersen 2 years ago
I think I would be all bone by then XD
FAILincorporated 2 years ago
we are the virus learning how to virate all living things.
JustinoXProductions 3 years ago
having your genome available to the public can also be detrimental to your life too--employers can check to see if you have any bad genes or what the likelihood of you getting a life-threatening disease is and decide not to invest time and money in you and hire you.
buttfreckle 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wtf, this fool is just rehashing 8th grade biology.
ke422azn 3 years ago
Yep. Hes doing a good job of it too.
Ormaaj 3 years ago 2
They say you don't really understand something until you can explain it to someone who knows nothing.
AlienScientist 2 years ago
I "can" explain it, or I just hand them a Biology book. Having the will to self learn is what separates a mcdonalds employee and someone thats a chemical engineer.
ke422azn 2 years ago
For those of you who are interested in the social consequences of mankind in the future, I highly recommend Gattaca.
jackywushengzong 3 years ago
Great movie. I hope it stays a movie.
Preacha1111 2 years ago
Go to 10:18 .... coincidence? I think not my friend. They were on to something. (unscramble the letters)
Preacha1111 2 years ago
this is fascinating, yet scary
caekisalie 3 years ago
whats so scary , it's just life , right?
hellavadeal 3 years ago 2
I don't think we can 'go back' to the lifestyle of our ancestors to solve our current problems. It would, but we just aren't able to as a civilization.
So i agree with the sentiment that we make a very daring leap into genetic engineering. I think this can only work out well if we accordingly leave behind old conventions and societal structures with it (e.g. consumer capitalism), so as not to end up in a world of genetic discrimination.
watch?v=jfTEOdEYtDc#t=1m57s
HiAdrian 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT STOP OR ELSE SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN MY NAME IS JENNY I AM 7 WITH RED HAIR MY MOTHER BEATS ME I LIVE IN A CELL WITH NO WINDOWS DOORS AND NO LIGHT I HAVE RED SCARY EYES AND IHAVE NO NOSE OR EARS I AM DEAD IF YOU DONT SEND THIS TO 15PPL B4 U GO TO BED I WILL APPEAR 2NIGHT WITH A KNIFE AND KILL U THIS IS NO JOKE SOMETHING GOOD WILL HAPPEN TO U AT 10:22 SOMEONE WILL CALL YOU OR TALK TO YOU ONLINE AND SAY I LOVE YOU OR ASK YOU OUT BUT HERES THE CATCH Send To 15 vids...i figured WTF, spam it
reignofhope 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*dont read this* if u send this to five videos u will be kissed tomarow and if u dont u will die and it actully works so do it it works
sasygirl0711 3 years ago
I wonder what the social consequences will be of some of this. .. "Sorry ma'am, your genome suggests you are at high risk for cancer, your life insurance policy has been denied." Then again, if/when we get to that point that the genome is so well understood, one would theorize that cancer would be curable. But then what if you can't afford the various cures? Would that lead to Increasing class separation based on who can afford to correct their genome and who can't?
.. Just thinking aloud x3
Namari12 3 years ago 2
Accelerated natural selection.
jpodonn 3 years ago
I think it is pretty certain that discrimination by insurance companies and employers based on genetic information will be prohibited. Maybe it is even already prohibited now, I'm not sure. It seems that all experts agree on this. Your genetic information may also be confidential and protected.
J187361287 3 years ago
I certainly hope you are right and that it doesn't create a giant issue.
Ormaaj 3 years ago
I think HIPAA Health Information Privacy Act is a first step in addressing this issue. Your health care provider can't give your employer confidential information about your health without your consent, this is in place now and should stay in place as the genomic revolution unfolds and changes the face of medicine over the next few decades.
vivagastronomique 2 years ago
lol your dad too old to be having a sidekick
chick5581 3 years ago
The statement that all side effects will be "gone" has no basis in reality. The side effects of current medicines might be resolved, but new medicines will bring new side effects. Good call blunted.
Sepero1 3 years ago
I see what u mean, but control nature, to what degree? there are some things we can control, and some things we cant. Keep in mind that we r stil subject to nature more than nature is subject to us. I also think that we would do much better to learn to control our own nature (i.e. ego) rather than gain total control over environmental nature. After all what makes u think we can do a better job at controling nature if we cant even control our own nature?
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"I also think that we would do much better to learn to control our own nature (i.e. ego) rather than gain total control over environmental nature. After all what makes u think we can do a better job at controling nature if we cant even control our own nature?"
That's called science, philosophy and psychology. The study of nature and existence as well as a study of self.
You don't give enough credit to what we already have, you instead focus on the negative which is defeatist in this context.
kDest 3 years ago
"You don't give enough credit to what we already have, you instead focus on the negative."
While I do recognize and appreciate that many positive discoveries and technologies hav emerged out of our collective gene pool, I also see that it could all be for nothing if we allow our personal/collective ego to override intelligent choices. In that regard, GE is a potential way forward.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
GMO Food is bad for one main reason...
When company's start patenting Life... we slide down the slippery slope to disaster. When GMO crops push out and eradicate natural crops.... You can say bye bye to the natural world.
We will all have to relay on the whims of a profit based company instead of the whims of mother nature. And mother nature has had billions of years of balanced R+D. The profit based company has R+D for a few years and could not care if you live or die.
Darthwillburr 3 years ago
"When GMO crops push out and eradicate natural crops.... You can say bye bye to the natural world."
GMOs ARE part of the natural world.
"And mother nature has had billions of years of balanced R+D. The profit based company has R+D for a few years and could not care if you live or die."
Worst case scenario, a great extinction event occurs and life rebuilds itself over tens of millions of years like in the past.
kDest 3 years ago
Love the video presentations by TED! I look forward to the next one!
Keeps me "in the know" to some extent.
Great job guys!
Krumbz2003 3 years ago
anybody that's FOR gmo food is a drooling idiot.
WyteRabbyt 3 years ago
"anybody that's FOR gmo food is a drooling idiot."
I doubt you know anything about genetic engineering beyond the soundbites you hear in television programmes.
kDest 3 years ago
well ignorant person, you don't know me do you? i wouldn't make a statement like that if i didn't know
WyteRabbyt 3 years ago
"well ignorant person, you don't know me do you? i wouldn't make a statement like that if i didn't know"
I guess it never occurred to you that what people choose to say reveals what they know. Making a statement that supporters of GMO are idiots is a typical piece you'd expect to hear from luddites, as well as people who are ignorant of how basic genetic engineering works.
We've been engineering life-forms for thousands of years. GE just gives more control and speed.
kDest 3 years ago
you are assuming i have no knowledge of genetics. remember, when you assume.....FYI i have a degree in biology and guess what....i had to study genetics to get that degree. you say we've been enginerring life forms for thousands of years like you were there. you're one of those idiots that believes aliens made man huh.
WyteRabbyt 3 years ago
"FYI i have a degree in biology and guess what....i had to study genetics to get that degree."
Then you're either a liar or a bad student.
"you say we've been enginerring life forms for thousands of years like you were there. you're one of those idiots that believes aliens made man huh."
Bananas, Cauliflower, Kale, Broccoli, Corn, Dogs, Cats, Cows, Chickens, etc. are all organisms we engineered over thousands of years using breeding. GE is the same thing, but with more control.
kDest 3 years ago
hey you can trust the mad scientists and eat that shit if you want to. it has not been tested. they have no idea what it can even do to the human body.
WyteRabbyt 3 years ago
"hey you can trust the mad scientists and eat that shit if you want to. it has not been tested. they have no idea what it can even do to the human body."
Better not eat corn or bananas then. Just, asking you be consistent...
"gmo vegetables are the gov and the global elite controlling the world. monsanto. farmers can't even get seeds for next year's planting from them."
Good point. Not related to genetic engineering. This is an intellectual property issue. Take it up with them.
kDest 3 years ago
yes but the conference is still good. I got many more interesting ideas than with any usual introduction to genomics by a specialist. we need such 'broad thinkers' like him it's really important, and the way you gather your data and infos doesn't matter as long as you come up with meaningful ideas and points of view.
he might be exagerating with his 'shit against the wall pharmacology' concept, you're right, but it's still more useful ideas than most conferences on genomics. it's good ideas.
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
At 12:18 in the video, he misspelled the organism's name. The correct version is Mycoplasma genitalium, not "genetalium". You'd think that for an important public presentation, he would bother to make it right. The rest is just a bunch of sloppy platitudes...Bah! :((
gabrielg01 3 years ago
you are truly a jerk.
bigchewypretzels 3 years ago
Absolute nonsense! He seems to think that every health issue is a result of your genetics...saying that "when you get sick, it's a bug in your genome."
Less than .01% of diseases are classified as genetic disorders.
Diabetes -- DOUBLED in the last 10 years.
Cancer -- DOUBLED in the last 30 years
Obesity -- DOUBLED in the last 30 years
Is this widespread changes in the distribution of genes which predispose people to disease?
No! 30 years is not on the evolutionary time scale.
Lifestyle!
Jobed883 3 years ago 2
Fuck yeah I'm tired of this craps blaming stuff on genes though yes I am in fact envious of bastards who has a lifestyle like me but has a metabolism less than mine so they gain more weight than I could damn its so hard to be skinny
wafuf14 3 years ago
That statistic is more likely to apply to monogenic diseases, that would mean diseases that come as a result of a mutation in a single gene.
But genetic disorders come in multiple flavours, there are polygenic, multifactorial diseases. These, in combination with lifestyle, may lead to disease.
But in that case the genetic disorder did play a central role. We're not simply talking about removing the genes that cause disease, but even altering them so that they are less susceptible to disease.
jama463 3 years ago
When they start this eugenics program to make the "ideal, disease-free" human, they're going to see that they're opening Pandora's box.
A set of genes which they identify as increasing risk for some polygenic disease may not be there just randomly to cause that disease.
It may actually serve an evolutionary role!
And by altering it, you may decrease the risk of one disease while making them even more susceptible to myriad others.
They screwing with things they don't really understand.
Jobed883 3 years ago 3
uh, that 'pandora's box' was opened quite some time ago.
intrepgun 3 years ago
common mistake it wasnt a box it was a jar
hammy606 3 years ago
you're right: the environment plays a huge role. duuh ;) but what about making genes that will do ok in a new, more cancer inducive environment. Of course they don't understand perfectly everything about this yet---but I'm sure they'll be careful and won't mess with it too much in the part they don't know well ;) I know it looks crazy and dangerous, but when you think about it it's not much different than what humans have always done: rearrange and improve stuff.
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
but the effects that lifestyle has on the body is mediated by the genes. genes are the middle man between cause and effect, in the situations you are describing. if you alter the genes than you alter the effect.
but i understand what you are saying. we need to take more control of our lives and take better care of our bodies.
regemo 3 years ago
See my above reply.
Jobed883 3 years ago
crazy bobby? You?
roeliox 3 years ago
Comment removed
Jobed883 3 years ago
Comment removed
oby1sky 3 years ago
Comment removed
oby1sky 3 years ago
Comment removed
oby1sky 3 years ago
seems like a great dude. We need someone like that guy to represent people
Voiceguitar 3 years ago
"shit against the wall pharmacology"---that's a really meaningful and useful concept---it's true--- let's solve problems/ 'bugs' from the inside of the genome instead of throwing chemicals and drugs at the body "externally".
I like these metaphors and useful ideas. so yeah awesome conference XXDDD!!!!
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
OH yeah!!! just to point out: when he says that "we're not much more complicated than microsoft office" NOW that's useful and interesting. WOW. crazy. I'd like to have more details on this affirmation, but it's still a nice image and it gives us a good estimation/idea of it!
so yeah, I actually missed tons of cool ideas the first time I listened to it-- I wasn't paying enough attention I think. There're many many really good metaphors and good infos in this talk. thumbs up all the way!!
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
On the one hand this is great, on the other hand all you need to do is watch a show like future weapons, to understand most of our brilliance is used in the persuit of stupidity
billybobhobnob101 3 years ago
Genome on a card? that's quite possible. We'd only need the differences and not the entire thing.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
Awesome conference.
canerdc 3 years ago
no.
semiliteratedgod 3 years ago
Why not?
canerdc 3 years ago
because it can't be both awesome and retarded at the same time.
unless you're an imbecile, of course, then it may be awesome, to you ...
semiliteratedgod 3 years ago
I really would like to know what is retarded about this speech, it would be much appreciated if you could just explain to me.
canerdc 3 years ago
"There is four letters." I thought there ARE four ...
farvision 3 years ago
Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
baronmorris 3 years ago
Conspiracy nutjobs
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
I wonder why chemist always have such wild stories for their inspiration. Kekulé von Stradonitz
for example claimed that the ring structure of benzene came to him in a weird dream. Maybe they "experiment" a lot with certain chemicals?
conoba 3 years ago
All fine and dandy.
If it was all open source and not done by an industry that patents everything untill one day we need to pay a license fee just to fuck and make a baby.
Just because the wad you blew into your wife has 4096 patented genes in it .
conoba 3 years ago
that's not how patenting in genetics works. You can't patent a gene, you can patent one method of constructing, or inserting or isolating a gene, but not the gene itself.
anoutsideobserver 3 years ago
well all those things are very interestig . The problem is this: who is going to gain money by playing God ?
oby1sky 3 years ago
oby1sky - Usually the people who benifit from the research,
In this case, it's everyone.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
You have not answered my question. From what this man says he is playing to be a god. How much do you earn to be a God? They will be enought clever to stop if what they will invent will be very rewording but not so healthy? It will be a multinational company to decide what is right or wrong? If a genetically modified vineyard lies next to a natural vineyard ,the flowers of the natural vineyard will be pollinated by their robotic plants .
oby1sky 3 years ago
oby1sky - For starters certain definitions claim God to be a supernatural entity who is the cause of the creation of the universe.
Secondly, you're making a hypothetical senario, which means nothing. What if the vinyards are attacked by evil invading aliens? So we should build giant ray guns.
Who benifits and who profits is basically unknown. Everyone has the potential of benfiting whether or not this is financial is debatable.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
1) I dont believe in God but i dont believe olso in mans that want to be God.
2)Isn't an hypothetical scenario. He is the first to say that all the things we eat are manipulated and i confirm you that a many people here near Florence are starting to use hybrid seed giving me the problem i writed you.
3) having something that taste differet is a benefict? can't you eat some chocolate with some wine to taste them togheter, instead making a chocowine? and this can be said for all the other things
oby1sky 3 years ago
oby1sky - How can you say he is playing God when you don't believe in him? You can't act like someone who doesn't exist.
Having something that acts differently can be benifical. Whether or not that can effect taste is another story.
Also real life hearsay doesn't interest me.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
he is saying in the video that he is playing god
oby1sky 3 years ago
oby1sky - Notice his level of seriousness and your level of selective hearing.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
So?
JoKKeSvin 3 years ago
Who will pay the damages to the owner of the natural vineyard ? We wil invent olso Robo inteligent bees to avoid those problems? Monsanto produces hybrid seed making the pollinated fruits hybrid in the same way . If this progect will succeed, who will manage to keep its natural seeds for the coming year?
oby1sky 3 years ago
Don't bother with this textbook crap, watch/search Bruce Lipton.
theleeburton 3 years ago
fucking promising...
so osama bin laden and i are 99.9 % equal.
and if his kidneys last 20 years, we would have to see those fucked up videos for 130 more...
heil to nature and our genetic engeneers.
cheers
nestorrfortuna 3 years ago
It is so refreshing when you hear a scientific authority echo sentiments you yourself had independently arrived at, but couldn't really find much consensus for. It is almost encouraging, makes you feel like you have some of the stuff they have. This is by far, the best talk EVAH!
Thank you TED.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
what are those 'sentiments' you arrived at independently?
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
I was talking about the ongoing craze over the alleged superiority of organic (read: natural) food over genetically modified food. There appears to be this dogma proclaiming everything that has been to some degree, messed with by humans, as innately "bad," and that whatever is natural must be by nature, "good for us." They neglect the fact that nature itself is constantly shuffling genes within and between different species without (unlike us), giving a damn about the it's dietary effects.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
Mrmoc7:
"There appears to be this dogma proclaiming everything that has been to some degree, messed with by humans, as innately "bad," and that whatever is natural must be by nature, "good for us."
Mermade:
Actually, if you look at our history, you'll find that this is generally true. We observe that nature creates and maintains balance between living systems. While on the other hand humans, motivated by increased profit and more power, tend to produce quite a bit of mess.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"We observe that nature creates and maintains balance between living systems. While...humans... tend to produce quite a bit of mess."
Even if that "balance" you speak off necessitates that it's our turn to go on the *extinct* species list, you know, like 99% of all the species to ever exist? I mean, if you truly believe this, then I urge you to give up all the comforts of modern life and return to the jungle in short order. Good luck, and may nature's "balance" be with you!
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
"Even if that "balance" you speak off necessitates that it's our turn to go on the *extinct* species list"
Yes. The reason should be clear. Humans dont play well with other species. The reason is that collectively our ideals, values, and goals are often based on selfish directives that do not incorporate the well being of other species. This is clearly reflected in the manifestation that is consumerism.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"Humans...with other species."
You can use that as an "after the fact" justification of our extinction, but what about the other, less ambitious, less green house gas emitting, 99% that ever lived?
We still exist today because we refused to be bullied by nature. Instead of dieing helplessly from it's viruses, we extracted them from the dead, studied them, and figured out how to defeat them. Again, if you have a problem with us messing with nature, then feel free to move into the jungle.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
"We still exist today because we refused to be bullied by nature."
To be bullied implies a separate consciousness with an intent to bully, but as we currently undestand it, intent is a virtue of consciousness, and nature is not conscious as far as we are able to ascertain.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
But one could also argue that we exist today because we'v worked more with nature than against it..e.g. we dont try to grow food when it's out of season, we dont over fish the oceans, we dont chop down all of the trees.. etc.. you could say that we've only been surviving because we curbed our ego's innate greed, not because we fought against nature. How can you fight the very thing that your existence and wellbeing depends upon? Well, you can, but if you do, you suffer.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
Our ego is our nature, and rising above both is the most impressive characteristic of humans. We're the first animals who can question our nature. You use the term "fight", but I would use the term "edit". We edit metals for tools, trees for shelter. We edit genetics by breeding preferred plants and animals, birth control, in vitro fertilization...
Of course we depend on nature to exist, but the cause for our species' domination is our ability to control nature.
andid 3 years ago 2
Mrmoc7
"I mean, if you truly believe this, then..."
Mermade
It's not a belief, it's an observation. I don't believe that humans motivated by ego pollute and decimate nearly everything they touch, I observed it.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
It's more than an observation for you, because you've began to use our disastrous record in curbing the unintended environmental impacts of some earlier technologies to suppose that gmo food must be inferior to "organic" food. It's not as if there is any substantive evidence proving that gmo food is inferior to organic food, but yet this is the stance you have taken.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
gmo vegetables are the gov and the global elite controlling the world. monsanto. farmers can't even get seeds for next year's planting from them. they hafat buy new seed every year. farmers in india are already going broke and killing themselves over this.
WyteRabbyt 3 years ago
"gmo vegetables are the gov and the global elite controlling the world"
And I should believe this to be true because?
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
gmo's are inferior for a couple of reasons..
1) we dont understand enough about them to determine their longterm biological and ecological impacts
2) monsantos track-record... (nuff said)
Also, seeds modified by companies like monsanto tend to be done with the intent of manifesting qualities which are less desirable (e.g. shorter life span, less amount of fruit etc) in general, but more desirable for the company share holders.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"gmo's are inferior for a couple of reasons..
1) we dont understand enough about them to determine their longterm biological and ecological impacts
2) monsantos track-record... (nuff said)"
The argument against GMOs is typically one that can be applied to ANY sort of engineered life form, or any sort of modern IP/capitalist product.
In other words, if you're going to argue against GMOs, argue against GMOs specifically.
Otherwise you're just picking on GE crops because they're new technology.
kDest 3 years ago
Yes, a lot of good things can come of genetic engineering, but if it's primarily motivated by ego, then it's motivated by selfishness. And since selfishness is a condition that does not facilitate good relations (e.g. betwen other cultures, species, the envinronment etc), due to the fact that everythng tht emerges from ego-based motives is typicaly self serving, where the game is to try get the upperhand, this causes imbalances which can lead to problems if left unchecked.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
I think it's been left unchecked for so long now that the majority have not noticed anything wrong with the picture. People still genuinely believe that we can maintain an economy that is based on principles that are more self serving and less inclusive and still continue living the consumer lifestyle happily ever after. It's not gonna happen.
youlikemyusername 3 years ago
Replying to Youlikemyusername. The more that you are able to help yourself, the more able you will be to help others. You must be able to serve yourself if you wish to serve others. You must love yourself before you can love others.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
It's true. When the well being of others is felt as your own, then you're always serving yourself :)
Btw, thanks for the encouragement :)
youlikemyusername 3 years ago
"Yes, a lot of good things can come of genetic engineering, but if it's primarily motivated by ego, then it's motivated by selfishness."
That's not an argument specific to genetic engineering. That's an argument that can be made about most anything that has the potential to be widespread.
I'll give you an example, then:
GE and synthetic genomics allow us to develop organisms faster than the natural environment can adapt to them. This has the potential for mass extinction.
kDest 3 years ago 2
"That's not an argument specific to genetic engineering." It's not specific to GE, but it encompasses GE and affects the way that GE is used as well as the kind of impact it will have on our species, our environment and its ecology. GE can be used to reduce strong animus/ego tendencies in our collective gene pool so that we can make better/wiser choices regarding our future, improve our health, and still retain our drive to develop outwardly and evolve our species. That's what I see anyway.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"That's an argument that can be made about most anything that has the potential to be widespread."
Actually it can be applied to almost anything involving humans lol because when ego is involved, self interest is valued over shared interests, which causes imbalances that eventually demand attention, and with attention comes conscious awareness of the conflict which results in a dilemma that forces a resolution.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
Let me rephrase that and say "when ego is over-involved"
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"Actually, if you look at our history, you'll find that this is generally true. We observe that nature creates and maintains balance between living systems. While on the other hand humans, motivated by increased profit and more power, tend to produce quite a bit of mess."
Humans ARE a part of nature. The way nature balances anything isn't with intelligence. Destructive lifeforms die out or change. Most species simply go extinct.
This is obvious stuff, though.
kDest 3 years ago
"Humans ARE a part of nature."
Yes, but the point is that humans are not very good at working with their surrounding environment in a way that contributes to the overall stability of the ecosystem like other species do. Humans tend more to produce a reality consistent with their ego based desires, which results in polluting and destroying the environment.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"Yes, but the point is that humans are not very good at working with their surrounding environment in a way that contributes to the overall stability of the ecosystem like other species do."
Sometimes that form of living is beneficial to the organisms' survival. We aren't the only destructive life forms however, look at vermin and locusts. However, like I said before, in a worst case scenario we simply go extinct and nature moves onward. It's happened many times in the past.
kDest 3 years ago
Yes, sometimes it is beneficial, but in our case it's not. The reason is that we are intelligent enough to know that many of our economic activities are conducted in such a way that they lead to environmental/ecological issues we would do better to avoid. And yet, collectively, we continue to foster such activities as if the short term monetary benefits were of more value to us than sustaining the ecological system which took millions of years to establish.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
kDst
"We aren't the only destructive life form"
Mermade
We arent the only destructive life form on the planet, but we have definitely had the most destructive impact on our environment when compared to other species. The cause for this has to be established, otherwise the pattern will continue and eventually lead to our demise, as has been predicted by scientists across the world.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"We arent the only destructive life form on the planet, but we have definitely had the most destructive impact on our environment when compared to other species."
I'm fairly certain that the life forms which evolved a billion years ago to release oxygen into the atmosphere were more destructive than us. I'm simply trying to make the point that this earth has weathered much destruction. Concern for the environment is at best about self-preservation.
kDest 3 years ago 2
"I'm fairly certain that the life forms which evolved a billion years ago to release oxygen into the atmosphere were more destructive than us"
That's debatable, and altho it may hav been true, it does not concern us right now. Right now, we're the ones causing the most destruction.. Some say that part of the game is species preservation, but as u hav no doubt already noticed, we dont seem to be doing very well in that regard.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better."
- Albert Einstein
youlikemyusername 3 years ago
"The way nature balances anything isn't with intelligence"
This appears to be the current paradigm, but don't hold on to it too tightly, otherwise you might become attached to it and invent a form of scientism.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
"This appears to be the current paradigm, but don't hold on to it too tightly, otherwise you might become attached to it and invent a form of scientism."
It isn't a philosophy, it's a conclusion established by facts. Nature is an example of emergence from many simpler systems that can resemble intelligence if you romanticise it.
kDest 3 years ago
It is a conclusion based on our current knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality. But as with all theories/knowledge, it is still subject to re-evaluation as newer knowledge becomes available.. otherwise if you hold onto something too tightly, then when knew knowledge comes along, u feel like u should defend what u hav become emotionally attached to.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
i had to look up who this guy was.
he's the "former chairman and CEO of America Online Inc".
i wonder why he's talking about genomics... perhaps it's his hobby passion.
roidroid 3 years ago
Wha? So he's not a scientific authority!?
Oh bummer.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
Barry Schuler is NOT a scientist. Or indeed even a noted expert in the field of Genomics.
He IS an entreprenuer and Investor. To make my point in the most popularly accessable terms. Picture the movie Jurassic Park, Barry Schuler = John Hammond.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
Yea, thanks for the information, even thought I already corrected myself in a post immediately following the one you're replying to. >.>
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
my bad ! :-)
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
blaaaaaa bla bla blaaaaa this is waaay too long. what's the point really??
TED!!!! you need to find more entertaining geniuses, quickly I'm craving a really good conference now and I watched pretty much everything.
less 'talkers'--- more thinkers. lol! more good ideas lol!!
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
OK.......... but the end is really interesting though. genomics is going to change everything lol. we can solve everything with genomics XDD. he should be more direct right away and explain why/ how. we want to know: how is going to change the world exactly XDD?????? we want examples XDD!!!!!!!! at the end he says: stay healthy for 20 years and you'll see 300 lol. wow XD. we can solve our energy problems XD SWEET !!!! show how!!!! XD
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
Cure all disease
End hunger
Create clean and plentiful energy using only carbon dioxide and sunlight.
Reduce CO2
Clean up the oceans
Live for 150-300 years
He's got 20 minutes and there's a limit to how detailed he can get. If you want to know more, google it.
And yes, he's not a scientist. He's a 'major' investor who is bankrolling a lot of the scientists who are working on this stuff.
Panpiper 3 years ago
Hi Panpiper!! I'm not saying this conference is complete crap----it's interesting.
and I'm not 100% making fun of "curing all diseases and living for 300 yrs---I guess it's possible and all, but just explain better goddamn lol. you know what I mean? you shouldn't talk about 100 really awesome things if you can't give proper explanations.
a really good conference must have good explanations not just like "woooaw 300 yrs, all diseases wooa" ...how??--show your research!
know w I mean?
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
OMG synthetise a genome. omg this is frankeinstein lol ---"and...does it just boot up and live??? well guess what ...it does" OMG LOL XDD AWESOME!!!!
ok well I'm listening to the whole talk again and it's actually awesome lol. sry-- you're right----he doesn't give much detail, but we need ppl who think broadly like that ----it's really cool and there's just enough explanations so I get plenty of really cool ideas in my head lol!!!!!!!!
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
evolutionist piece of ....