Cant he Understand Nobody can Tell what effects this will have on the rest of humanity and nature at large?
Until we develop from the inside there will be no development at all. More power in the hands of fools is a bad thing. Academic excellence is not a substitute for understanding how to live. Half educated, and not the good half. "You have great power!" "What should I do?" Should we be happy to become more powerful when we are already using our power so badly?
Possibly the perfect example of a biologist who has absolutely no understanding of what it is to be a human being.
Who funds most of this kind of research? Pharmaceutical companies and the military. Can either of them be trusted?
Until we realise that everything must be understood as part of the whole we will be like a cancer on this earth. Everything else evolved in harmony with everything else in its time - good life is a whole, not the product of a research lab.
Imagine a drug that makes you feel your happy even though you never do the right thing, have no meaningful relationships, have no purpose in life, are surrounded by a concrete and technological environment and live in a society where you are completely busy with meaningless tasks leaving you totally alone.
Human development? No. The only people doing the developing are the biologists, we're just supposed to get our wallets out and buy the version of ourselves we want, no development involved.
@getbabydoll - unlike every Christian I have met, I have read my Bible - and I realized it was deceiving me. Nice troll, though. Almost as droolingly moronic as a real Christian post.
This guy is a nutcase!! genetic engineering is the way towards a better type of human, but we should be careful and implement these changes slowly. A real scientist will never underestimate the powers of nature. Mr Stock seems more like an entrepreneurial than a scientist to me,.
I know just looking at that comparison from a biology stand point digital devices cannot compare to living things. Just look at ATP sythase and what it does for a perfect example of a biological machine, and your body is using millions of these machine to do what ever you do. And seeing people trying to use our technology to manipulate our bodies scares me. I imagine someone trying to fix an alien spaceship with a torch and a screw driver when i think of geneticists doing their work
@frade001 BUT, that image also shows us that we should trusts geneticists as they have accomplished amazing things with limited tools in the field. We should be excited for the future it will be like nothing we've ever seen before.
'what if you could take a concoction of prescription drugs that would make you feel completely at ease and content'?
You can, it's called marijuana.
While it is intriguing what science is capable of doing, why do we ignore the easy, obvious and cheap? Exercise, nutrition and proper stimulation. We need to rethink how we organize our society to bring all these predictions to reality, today.
and the human nature is so fair and equal and treats so well the planet they live in, where does this guy live??? not in this current world thats for sure unless he is locked in his lab.
and the planet will certainly be able to take more 40 Billion of us living two times or three times more, thats a sure thing, and wars will surely stop, bla bla bla
@LusoCMD If you dont think this technology will eventuate, then fine. But dont be a hypocrite and crawl to it when its there, stick with what you believe and die with a bit of self respect.
I don't think living forever is a good thing. First, what if some evil person changes their genes and lives forever? I can't imagine someone like Hitler can live forever. Second, the death is best way to make room for new things. Now, a person can live almost 70 or 80 years, but when we're 30 or 40, we already don't want to change their point of view to the world. And it's hard for old people to accept new things. I can't imagine the situation when a person can live 200 or 300 years.
@NO4isme I've read that rats have had their lives extended by scientists & not only do they live longer than normal rats, but they have more energy than older rats do. As for being able to live for 200, 300 years, I'd take it right now because a person could do and see & achieve so much more than they can at present. But as people get older, they do tire & want to rest more & probably not many want to go on living for another 100 years. This may just be a reaction from their aging bodies though.
Why can't the current set of challenges be solved as we are now before moving on to a new set ?
Also, for those persons who are getting enhanced by experimental bio technologies... won't they have the distinction of experiencing the "lots of mistakes" spoken of?
Isn't there enough human misery and existential confusion as it is?
@Leifthrasir it's funny you say that. I was thinking the opposite, as long as it's controlled by the private sector I'm comfortable with it. In the governments hands, I don't know; the government doesn't do very many things well. They can't turn a profit with the post office, they've made medicine more expensive and by extension less available. If in private hands it's in the hands of free people, if in the government's hands it's controlled by a ruling class.
@mjl1621 - what utter drivel. The tired "Post Office" meme has been so debunked on so many levels that anyone with half a brain cell should be embarrassed to mention it. To begin with, the USPS was never intended to be a profit mine. It was intended to provide service to every American, and in many cases, the last leg of a UPS or Fedex delivery is the USPS - private enterprise would simply write off many zip codes, just as private enterprise writes off Americans who can't afford health care.
@47f0 It's constitutional for the post office to exist, just not for them to have a monopoly on mail delivery. The post office has a history of restricting speech (by restricting what types of literature was allowed to be sent), and by imposing fines on private companies who offer a better service at a better price. I'm fine with the post office if it can stand on it's own feet and not restrict private competition. It the private sector can do it better, why not let them.
I don't doubt that we are heading to the point where it will be feasible to completely redesign ourselves and perform all the other implications of biotech. I can't help but think that it will become obsolete so quickly in the face of AI that it dosn't even really matter. Ray Kurzweil basically says that we are going to have AI that is trillions of times more intelligent than humans within fifty years, but even if it takes 200 years I don't know how much of a role biotech will really have.
Random Natural mutations are what drives evolution...for good or worse...Guided evolution is like cave men steping out of their random and brutal existance into todays much better world....our children will be much better off as we are better off then our ancestors...no one seriously wants to go back to cave man days much less then 100 yrs ago to live the hard lives our fore fathers did....if time and experience is any lesson things are getting better..unless your spoiled and ignorant to reality
gunman806: "So long as individuals are afforded with the ability to choose whether or not they wish to adopt these technologies, I see no compelling reason not to proceed."
EXACTLY my point because we are *already* having these technologies forced on us! GPS tracking by phone and soon to be in all cars with remote disabling capability. Chip and pin >> ID card >> RFID chip implant turning us all into cattle + cashless society with ability to trace all purchases and unplug you from your money!
'Smart grid' electricity meters able to talk wirelessly to all your appliences and relay info back via internet eg all household activity (and whether you are in or not) with ability to remote disable your appliances. Flouride in water. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (google it) making vitamins and organic food ILLEGAL and Irradiation compulsory. Natural health illegal only (profitable) synthetic drugs can be prescribed by law etc etc. GM food.
If you want to see the true implications of technology just look at how farm animals once herded nomadically, then kept in large open ranches and farms now live is MISERY due to intensive, battery farming, hormones, RFID chips, genetic modification, selective breeding, no natural environment, cattle prods (tasers).
We haven't become fundamentally any more cruel over thousands of years - technlogy has just got better that's all.
The same technology is just moving up the food chain - wake up!
Do you really think the big business/ ruling elite who NEVER mix with the ordinary population, never go to malls, or the movies, never live in communities regard us any differently to how a farmer regards his livestock?
Of course not! We are 'animals in the field' to them and naturally they will seek to increase efficiency, productivity, cost benefit, and above all total CONTROL over us - just look around you.
Look at HISTORY, *think* instead of being childish idiots, amazed by shiny iGadgets.
Its an often overlooked point. Who is going to control the new super technologies when they first arrive? Who will decide what is important when we redesign our world and ourselves? But ultimately the wave of technology itself is too great to be controlled.
to think there is no possibility for consensus is yoru postmodern coffin! sink into the past unremembered, unless you see the light of amazement and release from pain
genetics as a health upgrade fits more easily into traditional wisdom. without an unknown culturla hange occuring, advance along the goals of a macrocosmic status quo will be more common than advance along untested lines -though hmm this is a good description of modernity ha. fear of change or anti-tradition is an important part of alot of people's community idenity as it stands now anyway, i guess its forseeabel they woudl keep declining the easier technology is to buy into
Water could be used to drown someone or to save someone from thirst...everything can be good or evil its how we use it that matters. this will help this will hurt it's the duality of the world we live in...without choice there is no love...Thats why we have the right to chose..you are not the judge your the example...So you decide what example to set
No, I warn because I do understand. I even understand you.
You know very little - mostly science - BUT you understand your small island of knowledge very well indeed! This makes you particularly UNAWARE of what you DON'T know. That's you feel no fear.
D'you see?
Your understanding is like a well lit science lab at night. You see everything! A hundred murderers and thieves could be pressed up against the windows about to burst in but all you can see is the lab's cosy reflection in the glass.
Has anybody watched the movie Equilibrium? That's what goes through my mind when I hear of people drugging themselves. I don't mind modifying to get rid of harmful diseases like extreme Schizophrenia.
But look at the people that gave us art and shaped our societies; they re the ones with diseases that run for miles.
I think people should be more appreciative of who they are, that way we'll all be accepting of each others flaws.
I think this has to wait. Poverty and global warming are closer.
It's good, best even. But where are the challenges that makes humans?
We'd be living in a very unnatural state, like mice in a lab. We'd be happy but no one will ever have true joy.
As much as any biologist would like to think, humans aren't apparatus for stimulus and response. Even animals aren't.
Being born, each one of us the same, creates a sort of homogeneous society. Unless the scientists makes one embryo an artist and the other a scientist. Even with that is a nuance of homogeneity.
Dont be dumb and think that I am saying we should not research science. If you can only see pros and no cons from the ideas presented in the video you have not thought enough about it.
We are breeding animals for centuries. Now we have animals incapable of walking and breathing, and problems with diversity and finding untempered DNA. No further experiment required. Why do you want genetic mutants to reproduce? Is it really so terrible to have to wait with gene therapy until you have become father or mother if there is so much at stake??? We wouldn't lose any of your Pros and risk none of your Cons if we'd stick with the policy: No reproduction after gene modification.
Well there is no such thing as "gene modification" and there never will be. You can only alter genes at birth. Which means the child would have to be sterilized at birth.
I can tell you are morally opposed to this, so let me ask you something.
What if we were to modify a persons genes to give them an IQ of 150. After experimenting it is determined to be safe. Would you want someone with that enhancement to be sterile?
Actually the value of an IQ of 150 loses it's uniqueness, if you'd be able to grant that gift to anyone. There would be no need to bequeath that IQ, but it would further increase the inequality of society, the pressure on parents to "gene dope" their unborn and unasked babies to maximize their chances, etc. The Cons outweigh the pros by far in number and severity. But history shows we will choose the path to extinction nevertheless. Like we always do.
Having a high IQ is good for reasons other then that it makes you better then everyone. The less rare a high IQ is, the better.
If everyone's IQ was 150, the world would be a better place. I do agree with you though that this sort of thing would encourage a Gattaca type situation where people who have natural genes are discriminated against. I don't however think that the possibility for inequality is reason enough not to pursue this.
I agree also that people don't want to live forever.
Look, the only way you are going to win this argument is by speaking from the heart, and saying what you really mean.
I would bet my life that you and theforce74, are not opposed to genetic research because it would "further increase the chance of inequality in society".
I am willing to concede that aggressive eugenics without restriction (think Adolf Hitler) can only be bad for society. However if it is done in a civilized manner, it can only help society.
Define 'civilized'. I think Gandhi captured it best with his response to the entire WHITE world when asked about it, viz., "I think it's a good idea!"
The point I'm trying to make is that Whitey has clearly demonstrated in the last 500 or so years how grossly incompetent they have been with human and environmental relations. They should be stripped of the right to dictate any further 'progress'.
Hi. Yes, thanks. No, you said "people don't want to live forever" and I'm a person. Anyway, on a recent poll on richard dawkins' site about how long people would like to live ideally, more than half (64 posters) said they would want to live until the end of the universe given the opportunity. re. your points it may sound callous, but you would make new friends and I'd still rather stay alive even if all my current ones die, however in the event of me being able to live forever
(which would be due to future technologies/medical advances etc, unless some magician or god is going to cast a spell on me) then I would not be likely to be the only one benefitting.
Over population: in the future with better technologies we should be able to get far more people living comfortably on this planet than at present,vast areas of desert and ocean etc are not inhabited, other areas are only very thinly populated.Then there is no reason why we should not eventually have
large space stations and colonise other planets etc. It is only speculation to say there would be no fun in life of you lived forever - is there any reason why the things you find fun now would ever stop being fun if you were still healthy? and if you have the whole world, and in the future probably other worlds, to explore and enjoy, and new things being invented and created all the time surely you are onlly limited by your curiosity/imagination and there is no reason why we
ever run out of interest. You might say today "I don't want to live a long time", but say you are just as healthy on your 5,000th birthday - are you going to vote to die the next day? As for religious people, if you think eternal life would always get boring then why should it not do so in heaven? Also, the original early Christians and quite a still today believed Jesus would return to create a kind of heaven on Earth and resurrect them into immortal bodies to enjoy it in
Not only that but soon full immersion virtual reality technology will exist, in the future it is likely that the line between imagination (which will too be greatly enhanced in the long run) and reality will start to blur. It will not be as if we live life like it is today forever, but that we will experience life better than we have ever felt it in our simple limited way.
I agree totally with everything you've said. I personally would love to live forever.
You said it yourself though,a recent poll on "Richard Dawkins"site. So if you ask scientifically minded atheists whether they would like to live forever, %60 say yes. Try asking that same question on Fox news website, or any other more mainstream forum.
If you are interested in the subject search for "telomeres and telomerase" on google. There has been a lot of good research on the subject in recent years. We are closer then you might think.
thanks, I should study the science of it more, but I am aware that we are tantalisngly close to finding ways of greatly extending human life. I am a supprter of the Methuselah Foundation, for example
This guy is megalomaniac. This kind of "scientists" are dangerous. They mess around with the genome and seem to totally dismiss the possibility of introducing or activating genes, that show there explosive potential only after some generations have passed.
I don't really care if some people think they must modify their own genes, as long as precautions are taken that they can't reproduce anymore after it. It's vital that there is still room for natural evolution. I trust nature more than humans.
That is how you learn, messing around in controlled environments is how you understand the mechanics of any science. we bearly understand how our own genetic code works, we have to learn and understand, not just how to 'improve' ourselves, but who we are. There is enormous risk in this, but it is probably worth it. We might as well find out sooner so that we can be prepared for what is inevitable.
I have no problem with learning in controlled environments, and if some people think they need to be genetically redesigned - it's their decision. But as soon as genetically modified humans reproduce, the "experiment" leaves "the laboratory". Given the enormous risk in this, it is important that we introduce some kind of fail safe mechanism (no reproduction after gene alteration). Genetic modifications? Fine, but not at the cost of future generations. No human should have this much power.
there you fall into the kanundrum of "do I have the right to tell people what they can do with there own bodies"l. here, an example, you live in an overpopulated country, and a flu epidemic is sweeping through, the Govt. issues a vaccine, which also makes you sterile, it is for the good, becuase resources will become less scarce, making a 'brighter future for our childeren'. Just stating that "no human should have this power" does not mean anything, we could wipe ourselves out right now easily.
kaje01 I agree. I would imagine the only type of thinker this would offend would be one of a religious background that believes that their "god" be the only creator.
2. Since we are just beginning to understand the basics about the human genome and still have no clue about the countless interactions between group of gene pairs, we should not mess around with the genetic code of the generations to come. This step can not just be undone. Only a fool can honestly expect the power to manipulate evolution has no downside. Science has brought us countless advantages but also great dangers.
@kaje01@RyanB0011: Do you have any idea what power we possess if we open that box and begin to freely alter our genes? A hoard of anything is not as far fetched as you might think. Who knows if after some generations of gene mix we loose our natural ability to e.g. reproduce. I think the artificially altered genes must not be introduced into the natural evolved genome of our offspring. It must die with the host. We would end natural evolution without a gain and any need to do so.
Even if the absolute worst happened and we did lose our ability to naturally reproduce, by then I'm assuming artificial intelligence will have advanced enough that it will continue on, or humans could become digitized hybrids without the need to naturally reproduce. Revolutionary stuff I know, but the way we think about what constitutes human life will undoubtedly change in this new epoch.
10% DNA discrepancy makes the difference between human and pig. A switched gene can cause cancer. DNA defects (natural and artificial) build up over generations without visible implications, but suddenly culminate in terrible diseases. Search for gentry inbred. I don't need any statistic to know there is enough room for detrimental side effects.
M. Jackson didn't want his face to come off and for some years it didn't. One look at him will show you the difference between theory/reality, gain/cost
I have a plan we can genetically engineer poor people to eat and be content with a belly full of sand! We can engineer them too have extra Hair so no need for clothing or housing! Hell we can give them the ability to orgasim while eating sand! Think of the happiness that we could bring to the world!
Then we genetically engineer liberal men to actually have testicles and the liberal women to not have testicles! WOW the possibilities are endless! LOL!
great talk. i think a lot of what he says shows a deep understanding not only of where we are headed but of the attitude that we have to take towards our future.
either because of programs that have been run deep in our genetics or by some environmental fluke, we are here now. conscious and in possession of the tools to shape our own destinies. who knows, maybe this is what life has been waiting for.
"Why do people call each other, across the country suddenly, to find out that something very impacting just happened?" - Easy... COINCIDENCE! Hundreds of millions of phone calls are made every day, some of these people calling each other will have had simultaneous big events occur, and when they do, they'll remember it!
Seriously, these aren't even slightly hard to explain rationally. This is very suggestive of you wanting to believe so much that you'll grasp at the thinnest of straws.
"Why does it feel so good to help people that will never pay you back, or likely see you again?"
There are various evolutionary explanations for altruism. Look them up.
"Why does positive thinking promote health and prevent disease?" - Stress hormones have well known physiological effects on the body, plus if you feel positive you tend to look after yourself.
"Stress hormones have well known physiological effects on the body, plus if you feel positive you tend to look after yourself." - I should add to this that positive thinking is in fact medically proven to be overrated. There was a recent clinical study which found positive thinking had no impact at all on the growth of cancer tumours. There are valid psychological reasons to try to stay cheerful, but evidently "mind over matter" isn't as significant as many people claim it is.
Any random gibbering lunatic could also be described as an original. That's not necessarily a good thing!
Yes, "believing only in things which are probably true, as determined by examination of the evidence" is somewhat limiting, but it still leaves the entire universe for us to admire.
Sometimes it is enough to admire the garden because it is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it.
"I feel sorry for those that only believe in what they can see and touch, and measure..."
Don't worry too much about us. Many people are quite happy to live inside that little box we call "reality". Fantasy and delusion are fun I'm sure, but they're not my cup of tea.
Nope, sorry. Burden of proof is always on the person making the wild claims. i.e. you.
There is no reason to believe that consciousness exists apart from the brain, in fact given that there is much evidence that consciousness is affected or even destroyed by injury to the brain or the taking of drugs, often in a predictable way depending on how the brain is damaged, the link between consciousness and the physical brain is pretty hard for any reasonably rational person to dispute.
UPGRADE? yeah, great job UPGRADING the planet, right?
Writers have warned about this kind of researching (Huxley, Orwell) And what have we learnt? NOTHING,. the title should be "To be stupid is human" When the happy pill finally comes out, I'm gonna blow my brains out, for life would have no further meaning.
This speech partly reminded about some parts of the dystopia world of A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It feels refreshing compared to all the Orwellian aspects developing in our societies.
There seems to be an overwhelming stench of soma everywhere.
To get what that means (know Huxleys story and):
Watch KYMATICA at videogoogle, or dl free (&legal) from thepiratebay.
Cheer up people, just free yourselves. Love and respect to all.
Depends on who gets to do the science and for what reason.
Unfortunately it's very hard to accept, or even consider, that lots of dirtier-than-rotting-corpses business decisions are being done by pharma&agri firms. Sometimes it's more responsible to let things rot away, than to let someone get their hands bloodied, in many ways.
We evolved as a result of "survival of the fittest", No longer does one need to be the fittest to survive. The slow, weak and stupid, are no longer prey to the elements or predators. Our evolution has stopped or slowed. We will need to evolve ourselves though this technology to move forward.
We already have achived much of this power in recent years, however, these stupid religious assumptions that "it will destroy what it means to be human", are standing in our way and yet again further creating a perverted, and uncessesary understanding of reality and the most precious thing in all, our lives.
All those changes that would impact our own biology would come from lack of complete understanding of our nature and from the human condition of being stupid. Imagine yourself being being bio-engineered from a moron or from a corporation with an agenda.
If the real aids cure is not released there wont be any farmers in Africa in 15 years theyll be dead , and the US govt created and spread aids in Africa they wont fix it , just like theyre selling drugs while at the same time having a war on drugs
You're video is way too interesting! haha pretty cool i might add. but yes, i hope that i see more videos like this ! you have some real interesting topics
People will eventually all realize that it only matters that you live your life fully and with no regret. Then whatever comes after death can be welcomed by whatever form of energy one becomes. Yet, biotechnology already has a path to find A.I. within the next COUPLE of years and the result of that will only be the capability to explore and decode all the misteries we now know.
I don't think people in the future will accept death while having the chance to intervene. The fear of death haunts humanity since the beginning of time, this will never disappear. Aside from disease, etc, death and ageing is one of the major discomforts we face today. Although I'm very critical of the implications this technologies will have on our lives, I need yet to find a reasonable argument as to why the opportunity of controlling the ageing process should be dismissed.
People will inevitably accept the process of death when they come to understand it. It is there where the problem lies. As energy, we can only cease to exist through negative (call it evil if you need) energy and desitions you make in your life. At the point of death energy becomes volatile. Negative energy dissasociates from its surrounding energy while positive energy feeds from other energy in the same state while feeding it back thus getting more powerful.
It is not provable that energy comes directly back into this moment (zeit) or dimension. It might visit some parallel universes and we still do not know for fact how these universes mix and interact. However I think its very reasonable to think that there would be no life without death. So seeking to avoid death is the same as seeking to avoid life. And this is why A.I. does not really worry me. Anyway thats a whole diff topic and ill be glad to upload a little discussion on that soon.
... I think we've taking a couple baby steps, take 'Alli' for instance, the diet pill that 'actually' works, even though its not a miracle drug, its pretty effective if used properly. My point is there are many minute advancements that are coming into light, but still, it's only been 6 years...
So I suppose we shouldn't switch our biology around so much as add on to it. Improve it. Instead of permanently making our metabolism slower we might build in some sort of metaphorical switch that allows us to have a high metabolism when we need it and a low one when we just sit around. And I guess better contraceptives would negate the low sex drive huh? I mean several Western nations have a birth/death ratio below one.
Super strength and doing Calc. in in my head would be awesome too.
Like you said, in most western nations we don't have a problem with too high birth rates, in fact they're too low, which is the reason that we depend on immigration so much. One can't compare India and China with countries of Europe, different approaches are needed for different countries. And yes, "less sex drive" sounds pretty horrible, I think we know how to use contraceptives in the west ;)
Of course there is the very serious issue of the possibility of civilization breaking down. Imagine yourself as a run of the mill tweaked human with an avg. life of 140yrs., low caloric diet, low sex drive, or whatever. But then a global catastrophe happens. All of a sudden you are back to hunting herds of animals, but you can't. Your mind is less aggressive and your metabolism too slow. You can do Calculus in your head, but you can't pick up an animal trail. You die, humanity goes extinct.
I don't see a problem with altering humans. Most opposition will likely be religious, but when have religious people ever taken a rational position?
Natural selection no longer applies to humans. Right now we are forcing our world to conform to our archaic human bodies built for the savanna. We don't need 2200 calories a day. We do need better processing power, longer lives, and.... god forbid... less sex drive.
I know, I know, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! But look at our overpopulation problem.
I hope and believe that this is not a foregone conclusion. The UK as a nation said NO to genetically modified crops, and this is a similarly controversial issue. The reason and desire of the masses will win over the enthusiasm of the scientists, and so it should. That's my optimistic vision of the future, one that does not suffer from some scientists egotistical belief that "we know best".
I would consider it a terrible and tragic loss if one day in the future there are no more humans, but merely synthetic, altered people. It's one thing to take drugs that wear off and another to permanently change the genome of a person.
Our pain and weaknesses are a part of what makes us so beautiful. They are, like it or not, what make us human. We have to proceed very, very carefully.
I will also add that he himself had AGED, so ahhh mate no theory no reality just "give me your money written all over your physiology" as Robbins so puts it LOL
Well, some of the issues raised here are quite controversial, at least to everyone with what I would consider a decent moral standard... like religious people tend to have. Therefore, they aren't attracted to the TED talks channel?
"Well, some of the issues raised here are quite controversial, at least to everyone with what I would consider a decent moral standard... like religious people tend to have. "
actually, religious people aren't very moral at all, seeing that they need some deity on their ass to enforce his "rules"
most atheists on the other hand, are moral out of compassion.
how is it not natural? because other animals can't do it? giraffe's must also be unnatural, because of their long necks then huh? I mean, no other animal has a neck that is nearly as long. but lets assume for the sake of argument that we are somehow unnatural, how does that justify making up some story about a god with specific attributes and believing in him?
The extra chromosome joke was so funny and ironic lol
intermender 1 week ago
Cant he Understand Nobody can Tell what effects this will have on the rest of humanity and nature at large?
Until we develop from the inside there will be no development at all. More power in the hands of fools is a bad thing. Academic excellence is not a substitute for understanding how to live. Half educated, and not the good half. "You have great power!" "What should I do?" Should we be happy to become more powerful when we are already using our power so badly?
Hallibutbouy 2 weeks ago
Possibly the perfect example of a biologist who has absolutely no understanding of what it is to be a human being.
Who funds most of this kind of research? Pharmaceutical companies and the military. Can either of them be trusted?
Until we realise that everything must be understood as part of the whole we will be like a cancer on this earth. Everything else evolved in harmony with everything else in its time - good life is a whole, not the product of a research lab.
Hallibutbouy 2 weeks ago
Imagine a drug that makes you feel your happy even though you never do the right thing, have no meaningful relationships, have no purpose in life, are surrounded by a concrete and technological environment and live in a society where you are completely busy with meaningless tasks leaving you totally alone.
Human development? No. The only people doing the developing are the biologists, we're just supposed to get our wallets out and buy the version of ourselves we want, no development involved.
Hallibutbouy 2 weeks ago
Genius..... or... Egomaniac???
jaredgekko 6 months ago
@getbabydoll - unlike every Christian I have met, I have read my Bible - and I realized it was deceiving me. Nice troll, though. Almost as droolingly moronic as a real Christian post.
47f0 6 months ago
This guy is a noob compared to Michael Merzenich on re-wiring the brain
EricTheRed03 9 months ago
@getbabydoll
How is this playing god, it's called evolution, and if you don't believe in that let me ask you something.
"If God created everything, why couldn't he modify it?"
nozshandwow 9 months ago
@getbabydoll calm down buddy!
amirhdrz91 9 months ago
"If we CAN do this we ABSOLUTELY WILL DO THIS, whatever the consequences are"
Wow that is a pretty bold statement.
smikebain 10 months ago
Does anyone realize that these modifications cost $19,000?! A large portion of society doesn't even make that in a year!
oregongirl11 10 months ago
This guy is a nutcase!! genetic engineering is the way towards a better type of human, but we should be careful and implement these changes slowly. A real scientist will never underestimate the powers of nature. Mr Stock seems more like an entrepreneurial than a scientist to me,.
ac3man3 1 year ago
@ac3man3 You're the nutcase, and everyone who thinks like you.
MarkFidelio 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
She is hot and sexy wonna meet her gettop5.info
alizanorrellfht 1 year ago
The concoction of pharmaceuticals that makes you happy and feel really good about oneself is called ecstasy, Dummy!
526J 1 year ago
Can anyone tell me how you tell the personality of an embryo if a personality is something developed through experiences in life?
SkyexL 1 year ago
5:00 - So misinformed.
"rivals the complexity of life itself and may even surpass it"?????
are you kidding me???!!!
amirhdrz91 1 year ago
@amirhdrz91
I know just looking at that comparison from a biology stand point digital devices cannot compare to living things. Just look at ATP sythase and what it does for a perfect example of a biological machine, and your body is using millions of these machine to do what ever you do. And seeing people trying to use our technology to manipulate our bodies scares me. I imagine someone trying to fix an alien spaceship with a torch and a screw driver when i think of geneticists doing their work
frade001 1 year ago
@frade001 BUT, that image also shows us that we should trusts geneticists as they have accomplished amazing things with limited tools in the field. We should be excited for the future it will be like nothing we've ever seen before.
frade001 1 year ago
@frade001 So true...
amirhdrz91 1 year ago
@frade001 And why exactly are you telling us this ?
MarkFidelio 1 year ago
Comment removed
MarkFidelio 1 year ago
'what if you could take a concoction of prescription drugs that would make you feel completely at ease and content'?
You can, it's called marijuana.
While it is intriguing what science is capable of doing, why do we ignore the easy, obvious and cheap? Exercise, nutrition and proper stimulation. We need to rethink how we organize our society to bring all these predictions to reality, today.
movewithtao 1 year ago 2
i also live in LA LA land
and the human nature is so fair and equal and treats so well the planet they live in, where does this guy live??? not in this current world thats for sure unless he is locked in his lab.
and the planet will certainly be able to take more 40 Billion of us living two times or three times more, thats a sure thing, and wars will surely stop, bla bla bla
again all that i can say is LOL
LusoCMD 1 year ago
@LusoCMD Well put.
amirhdrz91 1 year ago
@LusoCMD If you dont think this technology will eventuate, then fine. But dont be a hypocrite and crawl to it when its there, stick with what you believe and die with a bit of self respect.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
Very interesting talk.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
I don't think living forever is a good thing. First, what if some evil person changes their genes and lives forever? I can't imagine someone like Hitler can live forever. Second, the death is best way to make room for new things. Now, a person can live almost 70 or 80 years, but when we're 30 or 40, we already don't want to change their point of view to the world. And it's hard for old people to accept new things. I can't imagine the situation when a person can live 200 or 300 years.
NO4isme 1 year ago
@NO4isme I've read that rats have had their lives extended by scientists & not only do they live longer than normal rats, but they have more energy than older rats do. As for being able to live for 200, 300 years, I'd take it right now because a person could do and see & achieve so much more than they can at present. But as people get older, they do tire & want to rest more & probably not many want to go on living for another 100 years. This may just be a reaction from their aging bodies though.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Why can't the current set of challenges be solved as we are now before moving on to a new set ?
Also, for those persons who are getting enhanced by experimental bio technologies... won't they have the distinction of experiencing the "lots of mistakes" spoken of?
Isn't there enough human misery and existential confusion as it is?
lightbow0 2 years ago
As long as this technology is controlled by the public and not privatized. I'd be most comfortable. Other than that I think this is really cool!
Leifthrasir 2 years ago 4
@Leifthrasir it's funny you say that. I was thinking the opposite, as long as it's controlled by the private sector I'm comfortable with it. In the governments hands, I don't know; the government doesn't do very many things well. They can't turn a profit with the post office, they've made medicine more expensive and by extension less available. If in private hands it's in the hands of free people, if in the government's hands it's controlled by a ruling class.
mjl1621 7 months ago
@mjl1621 - what utter drivel. The tired "Post Office" meme has been so debunked on so many levels that anyone with half a brain cell should be embarrassed to mention it. To begin with, the USPS was never intended to be a profit mine. It was intended to provide service to every American, and in many cases, the last leg of a UPS or Fedex delivery is the USPS - private enterprise would simply write off many zip codes, just as private enterprise writes off Americans who can't afford health care.
47f0 6 months ago
@47f0 It's constitutional for the post office to exist, just not for them to have a monopoly on mail delivery. The post office has a history of restricting speech (by restricting what types of literature was allowed to be sent), and by imposing fines on private companies who offer a better service at a better price. I'm fine with the post office if it can stand on it's own feet and not restrict private competition. It the private sector can do it better, why not let them.
mjl1621 6 months ago
I don't doubt that we are heading to the point where it will be feasible to completely redesign ourselves and perform all the other implications of biotech. I can't help but think that it will become obsolete so quickly in the face of AI that it dosn't even really matter. Ray Kurzweil basically says that we are going to have AI that is trillions of times more intelligent than humans within fifty years, but even if it takes 200 years I don't know how much of a role biotech will really have.
Glass2007 2 years ago
If we consider artificial constructs as being capable of life, there's no reason to think that it's not the next step in evolution.
t34b34n 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. m,m
quenarosima 2 years ago
There is a HAL and his name is Google
Textynn 2 years ago
Random Natural mutations are what drives evolution...for good or worse...Guided evolution is like cave men steping out of their random and brutal existance into todays much better world....our children will be much better off as we are better off then our ancestors...no one seriously wants to go back to cave man days much less then 100 yrs ago to live the hard lives our fore fathers did....if time and experience is any lesson things are getting better..unless your spoiled and ignorant to reality
DK0526 2 years ago 3
gunman806: "So long as individuals are afforded with the ability to choose whether or not they wish to adopt these technologies, I see no compelling reason not to proceed."
EXACTLY my point because we are *already* having these technologies forced on us! GPS tracking by phone and soon to be in all cars with remote disabling capability. Chip and pin >> ID card >> RFID chip implant turning us all into cattle + cashless society with ability to trace all purchases and unplug you from your money!
pddwatch81 2 years ago
..more examples .
'Smart grid' electricity meters able to talk wirelessly to all your appliences and relay info back via internet eg all household activity (and whether you are in or not) with ability to remote disable your appliances. Flouride in water. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (google it) making vitamins and organic food ILLEGAL and Irradiation compulsory. Natural health illegal only (profitable) synthetic drugs can be prescribed by law etc etc. GM food.
All this is the NOW not even the future.
pddwatch81 2 years ago
If you want to see the true implications of technology just look at how farm animals once herded nomadically, then kept in large open ranches and farms now live is MISERY due to intensive, battery farming, hormones, RFID chips, genetic modification, selective breeding, no natural environment, cattle prods (tasers).
We haven't become fundamentally any more cruel over thousands of years - technlogy has just got better that's all.
The same technology is just moving up the food chain - wake up!
pddwatch81 2 years ago
Do you really think the big business/ ruling elite who NEVER mix with the ordinary population, never go to malls, or the movies, never live in communities regard us any differently to how a farmer regards his livestock?
Of course not! We are 'animals in the field' to them and naturally they will seek to increase efficiency, productivity, cost benefit, and above all total CONTROL over us - just look around you.
Look at HISTORY, *think* instead of being childish idiots, amazed by shiny iGadgets.
pddwatch81 2 years ago
Its an often overlooked point. Who is going to control the new super technologies when they first arrive? Who will decide what is important when we redesign our world and ourselves? But ultimately the wave of technology itself is too great to be controlled.
Glass2007 2 years ago
to think there is no possibility for consensus is yoru postmodern coffin! sink into the past unremembered, unless you see the light of amazement and release from pain
tyrannicoystercult 2 years ago
Next stop: plug everyone into the matrix
NerdFangs 2 years ago
Interesting talk, but genetic modification is but a toy compared to what hierarchical temporal memory and nanotechnology will do to society.
You guys worry about genetic problems in your future offspring?
How about you future offspring competing against "humans" made entirely of nanomachines and have their mind stored in multiple locations?
Genetics... just a curiosity when compared to what we will do in mechanics.
sexyloser 2 years ago
genetics as a health upgrade fits more easily into traditional wisdom. without an unknown culturla hange occuring, advance along the goals of a macrocosmic status quo will be more common than advance along untested lines -though hmm this is a good description of modernity ha. fear of change or anti-tradition is an important part of alot of people's community idenity as it stands now anyway, i guess its forseeabel they woudl keep declining the easier technology is to buy into
tyrannicoystercult 2 years ago
Water could be used to drown someone or to save someone from thirst...everything can be good or evil its how we use it that matters. this will help this will hurt it's the duality of the world we live in...without choice there is no love...Thats why we have the right to chose..you are not the judge your the example...So you decide what example to set
darkstone243 2 years ago
Most of what this guy says is totally diabolical and yet he's so matter of fact about it all!
These are civilization changing technologies on the horizon and in the hands of who exactly? His vision is ignorant and recklessly irresponsible.
Do we live is a culture so dumbed down that such dangerous PR goes unnoticed? why no audience gasps?
7:57 'what if we could take a concoction to make you just happy to be you'
Yes put it in our water please, take our souls!
So sad for future generations!
pddwatch81 2 years ago
You fear what you don't understand, coward.
jasonguyperson 2 years ago 2
No, I warn because I do understand. I even understand you.
You know very little - mostly science - BUT you understand your small island of knowledge very well indeed! This makes you particularly UNAWARE of what you DON'T know. That's you feel no fear.
D'you see?
Your understanding is like a well lit science lab at night. You see everything! A hundred murderers and thieves could be pressed up against the windows about to burst in but all you can see is the lab's cosy reflection in the glass.
pddwatch81 2 years ago
Riiiiiight.....
jasonguyperson 2 years ago
Comment removed
gunman806 2 years ago
GM food no? GM folks yes??
NWforager 2 years ago
Has anybody watched the movie Equilibrium? That's what goes through my mind when I hear of people drugging themselves. I don't mind modifying to get rid of harmful diseases like extreme Schizophrenia.
But look at the people that gave us art and shaped our societies; they re the ones with diseases that run for miles.
I think people should be more appreciative of who they are, that way we'll all be accepting of each others flaws.
I think this has to wait. Poverty and global warming are closer.
fragileth1ng 2 years ago
Making a person smarter, faster, stronger, healthier, etc. etc. can NEVER be a bad thing, no matter how you twist it.
kaje01 2 years ago 2
It's good, best even. But where are the challenges that makes humans?
We'd be living in a very unnatural state, like mice in a lab. We'd be happy but no one will ever have true joy.
As much as any biologist would like to think, humans aren't apparatus for stimulus and response. Even animals aren't.
Being born, each one of us the same, creates a sort of homogeneous society. Unless the scientists makes one embryo an artist and the other a scientist. Even with that is a nuance of homogeneity.
fragileth1ng 2 years ago
Also, I wouldn't mind being sterile if I had an unlimited lifespan. Other enhancements wouldn't be worth it though.
Are you opposed to a sterile person living to be 800+ years old due to scientific intervention?
kaje01 2 years ago
"I trust nature more than humans." TheForce74
Agreed.
Dont be dumb and think that I am saying we should not research science. If you can only see pros and no cons from the ideas presented in the video you have not thought enough about it.
rb92128bmx 2 years ago
Pros:
1:Physically perfect, strong heart, free from genetic disorders
2:Mentally perfect, no more schizo, Alzheimer, etc.
3:Improved lifespans / slowing of the aging process.
Cons:
1:Loss of reproductive ability
2:Potential for problems to come generations forward when it is too late to reverse.
This is why we EXPERIMENT. Small numbers of animals / people at first, then if no problems present themselves, it will be offered to the public.
kaje01 2 years ago
We are breeding animals for centuries. Now we have animals incapable of walking and breathing, and problems with diversity and finding untempered DNA. No further experiment required. Why do you want genetic mutants to reproduce? Is it really so terrible to have to wait with gene therapy until you have become father or mother if there is so much at stake??? We wouldn't lose any of your Pros and risk none of your Cons if we'd stick with the policy: No reproduction after gene modification.
TheForce74 2 years ago
Well there is no such thing as "gene modification" and there never will be. You can only alter genes at birth. Which means the child would have to be sterilized at birth.
I can tell you are morally opposed to this, so let me ask you something.
What if we were to modify a persons genes to give them an IQ of 150. After experimenting it is determined to be safe. Would you want someone with that enhancement to be sterile?
MUTANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
kaje01 2 years ago
Actually the value of an IQ of 150 loses it's uniqueness, if you'd be able to grant that gift to anyone. There would be no need to bequeath that IQ, but it would further increase the inequality of society, the pressure on parents to "gene dope" their unborn and unasked babies to maximize their chances, etc. The Cons outweigh the pros by far in number and severity. But history shows we will choose the path to extinction nevertheless. Like we always do.
We don't seem to want to live forever.
TheForce74 2 years ago
Having a high IQ is good for reasons other then that it makes you better then everyone. The less rare a high IQ is, the better.
If everyone's IQ was 150, the world would be a better place. I do agree with you though that this sort of thing would encourage a Gattaca type situation where people who have natural genes are discriminated against. I don't however think that the possibility for inequality is reason enough not to pursue this.
I agree also that people don't want to live forever.
kaje01 2 years ago 2
"I don't however think that the possibility for inequality is reason enough not to pursue this."
How wrong you are. Inequality leads to destruction and eradication. What's the point of pursuing something that can lead to our own demise?
buzzin1975 2 years ago
Look, the only way you are going to win this argument is by speaking from the heart, and saying what you really mean.
I would bet my life that you and theforce74, are not opposed to genetic research because it would "further increase the chance of inequality in society".
I am willing to concede that aggressive eugenics without restriction (think Adolf Hitler) can only be bad for society. However if it is done in a civilized manner, it can only help society.
kaje01 2 years ago
Define 'civilized'. I think Gandhi captured it best with his response to the entire WHITE world when asked about it, viz., "I think it's a good idea!"
The point I'm trying to make is that Whitey has clearly demonstrated in the last 500 or so years how grossly incompetent they have been with human and environmental relations. They should be stripped of the right to dictate any further 'progress'.
buzzin1975 2 years ago
which "people"? I do. So do most religious people apparently (which I'm not one of)
orlando098 2 years ago
I assume you are referring to my comment where I said "most people don't want to live forever".
Anybody I've ever talked to about this face to face always has the same reasons why they wouldn't want to extend their lifespans:
Everyone they love will die before them
Over population
Living forever would take the fun out of life
etc.
If religious people are given the choice between eternal life in heaven, on earth, or both, they would choose heaven only. (just a guess)
kaje01 2 years ago
Hi. Yes, thanks. No, you said "people don't want to live forever" and I'm a person. Anyway, on a recent poll on richard dawkins' site about how long people would like to live ideally, more than half (64 posters) said they would want to live until the end of the universe given the opportunity. re. your points it may sound callous, but you would make new friends and I'd still rather stay alive even if all my current ones die, however in the event of me being able to live forever
orlando098 2 years ago
(which would be due to future technologies/medical advances etc, unless some magician or god is going to cast a spell on me) then I would not be likely to be the only one benefitting.
Over population: in the future with better technologies we should be able to get far more people living comfortably on this planet than at present,vast areas of desert and ocean etc are not inhabited, other areas are only very thinly populated.Then there is no reason why we should not eventually have
orlando098 2 years ago
large space stations and colonise other planets etc. It is only speculation to say there would be no fun in life of you lived forever - is there any reason why the things you find fun now would ever stop being fun if you were still healthy? and if you have the whole world, and in the future probably other worlds, to explore and enjoy, and new things being invented and created all the time surely you are onlly limited by your curiosity/imagination and there is no reason why we
should
orlando098 2 years ago
ever run out of interest. You might say today "I don't want to live a long time", but say you are just as healthy on your 5,000th birthday - are you going to vote to die the next day? As for religious people, if you think eternal life would always get boring then why should it not do so in heaven? Also, the original early Christians and quite a still today believed Jesus would return to create a kind of heaven on Earth and resurrect them into immortal bodies to enjoy it in
orlando098 2 years ago
that was meant to be "quite a lot" - the current Bishop of Durham (UK) for example
orlando098 2 years ago
Not only that but soon full immersion virtual reality technology will exist, in the future it is likely that the line between imagination (which will too be greatly enhanced in the long run) and reality will start to blur. It will not be as if we live life like it is today forever, but that we will experience life better than we have ever felt it in our simple limited way.
Glass2007 2 years ago
sounds good
orlando098 2 years ago
I agree totally with everything you've said. I personally would love to live forever.
You said it yourself though,a recent poll on "Richard Dawkins"site. So if you ask scientifically minded atheists whether they would like to live forever, %60 say yes. Try asking that same question on Fox news website, or any other more mainstream forum.
kaje01 2 years ago
good, thanks. Well yes, I expect you're right about that, I doubt it's the mainstream view
orlando098 2 years ago
If you are interested in the subject search for "telomeres and telomerase" on google. There has been a lot of good research on the subject in recent years. We are closer then you might think.
kaje01 2 years ago
thanks, I should study the science of it more, but I am aware that we are tantalisngly close to finding ways of greatly extending human life. I am a supprter of the Methuselah Foundation, for example
orlando098 2 years ago 7
This guy is megalomaniac. This kind of "scientists" are dangerous. They mess around with the genome and seem to totally dismiss the possibility of introducing or activating genes, that show there explosive potential only after some generations have passed.
I don't really care if some people think they must modify their own genes, as long as precautions are taken that they can't reproduce anymore after it. It's vital that there is still room for natural evolution. I trust nature more than humans.
TheForce74 2 years ago
That is how you learn, messing around in controlled environments is how you understand the mechanics of any science. we bearly understand how our own genetic code works, we have to learn and understand, not just how to 'improve' ourselves, but who we are. There is enormous risk in this, but it is probably worth it. We might as well find out sooner so that we can be prepared for what is inevitable.
hal970fx 2 years ago 4
I have no problem with learning in controlled environments, and if some people think they need to be genetically redesigned - it's their decision. But as soon as genetically modified humans reproduce, the "experiment" leaves "the laboratory". Given the enormous risk in this, it is important that we introduce some kind of fail safe mechanism (no reproduction after gene alteration). Genetic modifications? Fine, but not at the cost of future generations. No human should have this much power.
TheForce74 2 years ago
there you fall into the kanundrum of "do I have the right to tell people what they can do with there own bodies"l. here, an example, you live in an overpopulated country, and a flu epidemic is sweeping through, the Govt. issues a vaccine, which also makes you sterile, it is for the good, becuase resources will become less scarce, making a 'brighter future for our childeren'. Just stating that "no human should have this power" does not mean anything, we could wipe ourselves out right now easily.
hal970fx 2 years ago
I'm sorry TheForce74, but what exactly are you worried about happening?
A hoard of zombies taking over?
I think the real issue here is in your final statement:
"No human should have this much power"
You are a Christian, and the thought of humans being able to do God's work offends you.
kaje01 2 years ago
kaje01 I agree. I would imagine the only type of thinker this would offend would be one of a religious background that believes that their "god" be the only creator.
RyanB0011 2 years ago
@kaje01:
1. I am not a christian
2. Since we are just beginning to understand the basics about the human genome and still have no clue about the countless interactions between group of gene pairs, we should not mess around with the genetic code of the generations to come. This step can not just be undone. Only a fool can honestly expect the power to manipulate evolution has no downside. Science has brought us countless advantages but also great dangers.
TheForce74 2 years ago
"no human should have this much power"
Are you kidding me?
Please provide me with situations where gene alteration would be directly detrimental to your body or well being.
RyanB0011 2 years ago
@kaje01 @RyanB0011: Do you have any idea what power we possess if we open that box and begin to freely alter our genes? A hoard of anything is not as far fetched as you might think. Who knows if after some generations of gene mix we loose our natural ability to e.g. reproduce. I think the artificially altered genes must not be introduced into the natural evolved genome of our offspring. It must die with the host. We would end natural evolution without a gain and any need to do so.
TheForce74 2 years ago
Even if the absolute worst happened and we did lose our ability to naturally reproduce, by then I'm assuming artificial intelligence will have advanced enough that it will continue on, or humans could become digitized hybrids without the need to naturally reproduce. Revolutionary stuff I know, but the way we think about what constitutes human life will undoubtedly change in this new epoch.
shiggityx2 2 years ago
10% DNA discrepancy makes the difference between human and pig. A switched gene can cause cancer. DNA defects (natural and artificial) build up over generations without visible implications, but suddenly culminate in terrible diseases. Search for gentry inbred. I don't need any statistic to know there is enough room for detrimental side effects.
M. Jackson didn't want his face to come off and for some years it didn't. One look at him will show you the difference between theory/reality, gain/cost
TheForce74 2 years ago
@TheForce74 natural evolution takes million of years
eyhexs 1 year ago
I have a plan we can genetically engineer poor people to eat and be content with a belly full of sand! We can engineer them too have extra Hair so no need for clothing or housing! Hell we can give them the ability to orgasim while eating sand! Think of the happiness that we could bring to the world!
Then we genetically engineer liberal men to actually have testicles and the liberal women to not have testicles! WOW the possibilities are endless! LOL!
DK0526 2 years ago
great talk. i think a lot of what he says shows a deep understanding not only of where we are headed but of the attitude that we have to take towards our future.
either because of programs that have been run deep in our genetics or by some environmental fluke, we are here now. conscious and in possession of the tools to shape our own destinies. who knows, maybe this is what life has been waiting for.
commanderetardo 2 years ago
I don't want to live in the future... Sounds rather sucky.
JenJuvenile 2 years ago
then kill yourself
DK0526 2 years ago
"Why do people call each other, across the country suddenly, to find out that something very impacting just happened?" - Easy... COINCIDENCE! Hundreds of millions of phone calls are made every day, some of these people calling each other will have had simultaneous big events occur, and when they do, they'll remember it!
Seriously, these aren't even slightly hard to explain rationally. This is very suggestive of you wanting to believe so much that you'll grasp at the thinnest of straws.
TravisMorien 2 years ago
"Why does it feel so good to help people that will never pay you back, or likely see you again?"
There are various evolutionary explanations for altruism. Look them up.
"Why does positive thinking promote health and prevent disease?" - Stress hormones have well known physiological effects on the body, plus if you feel positive you tend to look after yourself.
Running out of space, so TBC...
TravisMorien 2 years ago
"Stress hormones have well known physiological effects on the body, plus if you feel positive you tend to look after yourself." - I should add to this that positive thinking is in fact medically proven to be overrated. There was a recent clinical study which found positive thinking had no impact at all on the growth of cancer tumours. There are valid psychological reasons to try to stay cheerful, but evidently "mind over matter" isn't as significant as many people claim it is.
TravisMorien 2 years ago
Do you have even the slightest glimmer of any evidence, or any idea how some might be found, to support your ideas, even in part?
Until you do, it's just wishful thinking, and that's not particularly mature.
TravisMorien 2 years ago
Any random gibbering lunatic could also be described as an original. That's not necessarily a good thing!
Yes, "believing only in things which are probably true, as determined by examination of the evidence" is somewhat limiting, but it still leaves the entire universe for us to admire.
Sometimes it is enough to admire the garden because it is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it.
TravisMorien 2 years ago
nooby & money making
rasorclips 2 years ago
"I feel sorry for those that only believe in what they can see and touch, and measure..."
Don't worry too much about us. Many people are quite happy to live inside that little box we call "reality". Fantasy and delusion are fun I'm sure, but they're not my cup of tea.
TravisMorien 2 years ago
I mean hyper-sapien.
310sucks 2 years ago
You mean super-saiyan?
poiklpu 2 years ago
Bring on the Rule of hapier-sapien!
Death to the norms!!
310sucks 2 years ago
Nope, sorry. Burden of proof is always on the person making the wild claims. i.e. you.
There is no reason to believe that consciousness exists apart from the brain, in fact given that there is much evidence that consciousness is affected or even destroyed by injury to the brain or the taking of drugs, often in a predictable way depending on how the brain is damaged, the link between consciousness and the physical brain is pretty hard for any reasonably rational person to dispute.
TravisMorien 2 years ago
UPGRADE? yeah, great job UPGRADING the planet, right?
Writers have warned about this kind of researching (Huxley, Orwell) And what have we learnt? NOTHING,. the title should be "To be stupid is human" When the happy pill finally comes out, I'm gonna blow my brains out, for life would have no further meaning.
SeiferTV 2 years ago
well technically, youll be too happy to think that there is no meaning to life.
but do as you like.
Crazylalalalala 2 years ago
what are you waiting for??? the happy pill is here so go ahead kill your self...or are you just another shit talkin luddite!
DK0526 2 years ago
It'll go to the same place your documents go to when your hard disk is melted down to slag...
TravisMorien 2 years ago
This speech partly reminded about some parts of the dystopia world of A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It feels refreshing compared to all the Orwellian aspects developing in our societies.
There seems to be an overwhelming stench of soma everywhere.
To get what that means (know Huxleys story and):
Watch KYMATICA at videogoogle, or dl free (&legal) from thepiratebay.
Cheer up people, just free yourselves. Love and respect to all.
jumajumajei 2 years ago
If you want to know what happens after death, go look at some dead things.
Personally, I'm donating my body to science, a much more productive and socially responsible thing to do IMHO than rotting in the ground!
TravisMorien 2 years ago 2
Depends on who gets to do the science and for what reason.
Unfortunately it's very hard to accept, or even consider, that lots of dirtier-than-rotting-corpses business decisions are being done by pharma&agri firms. Sometimes it's more responsible to let things rot away, than to let someone get their hands bloodied, in many ways.
jumajumajei 2 years ago
We evolved as a result of "survival of the fittest", No longer does one need to be the fittest to survive. The slow, weak and stupid, are no longer prey to the elements or predators. Our evolution has stopped or slowed. We will need to evolve ourselves though this technology to move forward.
ctragesser 2 years ago
right on!
DK0526 2 years ago
This guy reminds me of the guy from Brave New World the film! all for chaning the way we are born and how long we live!
I hope he means genetic penis enlargement, and longer lifespan, rather than cloning and 60 as the max age.
TehNewV 2 years ago 2
The future is coo.
garvess 2 years ago
Great Job?
pappychecks 2 years ago
they already have a drug that makes you feel content... it's called mdma
KingIllski 2 years ago
that's a great advertisement to children !
DynVec 2 years ago
We already have achived much of this power in recent years, however, these stupid religious assumptions that "it will destroy what it means to be human", are standing in our way and yet again further creating a perverted, and uncessesary understanding of reality and the most precious thing in all, our lives.
simplybornhuman 2 years ago
how old is this?
aarondkeogh 2 years ago
2003
angus12345 2 years ago
Don't fear Change, catch and ride
the Wave as best You can!
Love to All!
Airave 2 years ago
All those changes that would impact our own biology would come from lack of complete understanding of our nature and from the human condition of being stupid. Imagine yourself being being bio-engineered from a moron or from a corporation with an agenda.
PaladinPK 2 years ago
Keep on Truckin'!
Life and Evolution
will go on, and on.....
There is no stopping
of Either.
Yet things will stay the same,
at some levels at least, even when
Everyone is Blond, Blue-Eyed
and Beautiful.
Airave 2 years ago
taking a bunch of drugs to make you feel content and happy to be you? sorry thats already made dude its called ecstasy.....
spencer7890 2 years ago
ecstasy has got adverse effects!
luigisopa 2 years ago 2
so stick with MDMA :-P
jimmah13 2 years ago
this talk reminded me of far cry predator. GM Humans...interesting
klasco1991 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
MnKndsDoom 2 years ago
keep thinking that brah.
kausama 2 years ago
And you are saying that trough the Internet... go Amish, if you really think that.
LeadenDragon 2 years ago
not
pinochska 2 years ago
A comet is coming to earth, what is going to save mankind? tech.
A fatal solar flare is about to burst, what is going to save mankind? tech.
A LACK OF MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
A LACK OF MANKIND's TECH IS MANKIND's DOOM!!!
etc.
jazzjackrabbits 2 years ago
If the real aids cure is not released there wont be any farmers in Africa in 15 years theyll be dead , and the US govt created and spread aids in Africa they wont fix it , just like theyre selling drugs while at the same time having a war on drugs
borat443 2 years ago
You're video is way too interesting! haha pretty cool i might add. but yes, i hope that i see more videos like this ! you have some real interesting topics
Chick6517 2 years ago
Wow, very engaging speaker.
petexii 2 years ago
People will eventually all realize that it only matters that you live your life fully and with no regret. Then whatever comes after death can be welcomed by whatever form of energy one becomes. Yet, biotechnology already has a path to find A.I. within the next COUPLE of years and the result of that will only be the capability to explore and decode all the misteries we now know.
gtantidoto 2 years ago
I don't think people in the future will accept death while having the chance to intervene. The fear of death haunts humanity since the beginning of time, this will never disappear. Aside from disease, etc, death and ageing is one of the major discomforts we face today. Although I'm very critical of the implications this technologies will have on our lives, I need yet to find a reasonable argument as to why the opportunity of controlling the ageing process should be dismissed.
Th4tsNotM1lk 2 years ago 2
People will inevitably accept the process of death when they come to understand it. It is there where the problem lies. As energy, we can only cease to exist through negative (call it evil if you need) energy and desitions you make in your life. At the point of death energy becomes volatile. Negative energy dissasociates from its surrounding energy while positive energy feeds from other energy in the same state while feeding it back thus getting more powerful.
gtantidoto 2 years ago
It is not provable that energy comes directly back into this moment (zeit) or dimension. It might visit some parallel universes and we still do not know for fact how these universes mix and interact. However I think its very reasonable to think that there would be no life without death. So seeking to avoid death is the same as seeking to avoid life. And this is why A.I. does not really worry me. Anyway thats a whole diff topic and ill be glad to upload a little discussion on that soon.
gtantidoto 2 years ago
There is no trully good reason to stop aging or changing lifes way of regenerating life. In my opinion at least. I think its simpler than this.
gtantidoto 2 years ago
Weed <3
InfiniteEsoterics 2 years ago
"what if you could take a concoction of pharmaceuticals that made you feel really contented?"
It's called cannabis.
Canonpixmalogitechko 2 years ago 4
Lmao you are now my favourite person :P
NeoSilverDagger 2 years ago
D:
So Blade Runner meets Firefly meets Doom.
Great. We're pretty screwed guys
Kreadus005 2 years ago
lol i play computer all the time and eat pizza and chips...and dont get fat :D
flobba123 2 years ago
3:08 and now it's 2009 and we still haven't come that far.
ErichoTTA 2 years ago
... I think we've taking a couple baby steps, take 'Alli' for instance, the diet pill that 'actually' works, even though its not a miracle drug, its pretty effective if used properly. My point is there are many minute advancements that are coming into light, but still, it's only been 6 years...
punkposer 2 years ago
So I suppose we shouldn't switch our biology around so much as add on to it. Improve it. Instead of permanently making our metabolism slower we might build in some sort of metaphorical switch that allows us to have a high metabolism when we need it and a low one when we just sit around. And I guess better contraceptives would negate the low sex drive huh? I mean several Western nations have a birth/death ratio below one.
Super strength and doing Calc. in in my head would be awesome too.
SpazzyMcGee1336 2 years ago
Like you said, in most western nations we don't have a problem with too high birth rates, in fact they're too low, which is the reason that we depend on immigration so much. One can't compare India and China with countries of Europe, different approaches are needed for different countries. And yes, "less sex drive" sounds pretty horrible, I think we know how to use contraceptives in the west ;)
Th4tsNotM1lk 2 years ago
Of course there is the very serious issue of the possibility of civilization breaking down. Imagine yourself as a run of the mill tweaked human with an avg. life of 140yrs., low caloric diet, low sex drive, or whatever. But then a global catastrophe happens. All of a sudden you are back to hunting herds of animals, but you can't. Your mind is less aggressive and your metabolism too slow. You can do Calculus in your head, but you can't pick up an animal trail. You die, humanity goes extinct.
SpazzyMcGee1336 2 years ago
I don't see a problem with altering humans. Most opposition will likely be religious, but when have religious people ever taken a rational position?
Natural selection no longer applies to humans. Right now we are forcing our world to conform to our archaic human bodies built for the savanna. We don't need 2200 calories a day. We do need better processing power, longer lives, and.... god forbid... less sex drive.
I know, I know, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! But look at our overpopulation problem.
SpazzyMcGee1336 2 years ago 2
I couldn't agree more.
Well said.
mwtillotson 2 years ago
Hehe, and they change this annoyng boom start :D TED you are the BEST!
VooDooMadMan 2 years ago 2
I hope and believe that this is not a foregone conclusion. The UK as a nation said NO to genetically modified crops, and this is a similarly controversial issue. The reason and desire of the masses will win over the enthusiasm of the scientists, and so it should. That's my optimistic vision of the future, one that does not suffer from some scientists egotistical belief that "we know best".
GOODTHOUGHTSUK 2 years ago
The most eminent concern to me is how technology races faster than human conscience.
That is no reason against biotechnological evolution, but it is a reminder that there is always something lost at the expense of what's gained.
GaddingImp 2 years ago 2
Here, here, Gaddinglmp! My thoughts exactly.
From every situation both good and bad consequences arise, most unforeseen.
dsmfishgal 2 years ago
wow posthuman transgender peopleoids are the future!
ShakespeareAvenue 2 years ago
I would consider it a terrible and tragic loss if one day in the future there are no more humans, but merely synthetic, altered people. It's one thing to take drugs that wear off and another to permanently change the genome of a person.
Our pain and weaknesses are a part of what makes us so beautiful. They are, like it or not, what make us human. We have to proceed very, very carefully.
Promatheos 2 years ago 2
i need an upgrade
infiniteusername 2 years ago
yeah, I too, at least a 2" upgrade ...
semigotbanned 2 years ago
I will also add that he himself had AGED, so ahhh mate no theory no reality just "give me your money written all over your physiology" as Robbins so puts it LOL
rasorclips 2 years ago
why do most people that subscribe to TED not believe in God
kingd1075 2 years ago
Well, some of the issues raised here are quite controversial, at least to everyone with what I would consider a decent moral standard... like religious people tend to have. Therefore, they aren't attracted to the TED talks channel?
AKammunation 2 years ago
"Well, some of the issues raised here are quite controversial, at least to everyone with what I would consider a decent moral standard... like religious people tend to have. "
actually, religious people aren't very moral at all, seeing that they need some deity on their ass to enforce his "rules"
most atheists on the other hand, are moral out of compassion.
Finiras 2 years ago
because god is a ridiculous concept and intelligent people can see through this. intelligent people also happen to be more interested in TED.
Finiras 2 years ago
Looking at God traditionally is foolish, but looking at our unatural influence on our evolutionary path as it relates to religion is not.
So if you understand the concept of a creator in this light, then you can realize there may just be something to it.
It's all about wisdom and accumulated knowledge and the use of both.
Atoyota 2 years ago
how is it not natural? because other animals can't do it? giraffe's must also be unnatural, because of their long necks then huh? I mean, no other animal has a neck that is nearly as long. but lets assume for the sake of argument that we are somehow unnatural, how does that justify making up some story about a god with specific attributes and believing in him?
Finiras 2 years ago