This guy is soooo annoying. The more I watch, the more he annoys me. Chicken? It's a goat you dipshit, it tastes like goat... Make two animals fuck of the same genus and guess what, you have a hybrid, you don't need a lab.
I don't see the problem, if you can modify them to that degree then you can logically take away any feelings or self conciousness the animal feels? I don't really see the controversy if we could do that as they would basically be the same as computers.
All creatures are conscious beings and deserve to live healthily in their natural habitat without the intrusion of gangster capitalist science and industry.
@gregjalbert All creatures? Even those fish that are bread on farms, chickens who's eggs and bodies we feast on? All the food in the meat section - they should have all lived healthy happy lives? lol Even if you're a vegetarian, you have to argue your way past that first, and if you can't, then don't even try taking it to this level. Leave that to those with a deeper sense of logic to argue the ethical concepts cuzz its out of your league.
Some humans are clearly perverse, greedy and self-centered. Bio-engineering in these ways is disturbing. Bio-engineering is yet another pathological outcome of gangster capitalism and science. Sick. And at the same time, Earth is having the highest rate of species extinction in 65 million years, due to human destruction of the environment. Why aren't scientists and humanity solving THAT problem? Insane bloated egos. Humans seem to be robots of their pathological technology.
@gregjalbert Why would you care so much about OTHER species? I don't even care about other humans, i don't understand how you can care about others than yourself. (well that's because i'm dxd psychopath). Bio-engineering is the future, you can't escape that. You can flame it all you want, it will come and change our society, bodies, enchance our IQs, etc.
My 2 cents on this is that he has valid points but most of it seems to be fear mongering. While there should be ethical rules for crucial points, jumping around pointing out the deaths of animals and how people are going to get GFP coding sequences in their system is ridiculous. I for one dont care if the salmon is GMO if it takes less time and feed for them to raise it. It would only make it cheaper for consumption and create a smaller carbon footprint.
Science like that explained in this lecture should be advanced, but not during the intellectual immaturity of our species. There is just too much at risk, but also much to gain if used responsibly.
@KemaTheAtheist There are so many people who would use technology like this irresponsibly. I'm not thinking about members of the public so much as large scale companies - who we have seen only consider financial gain and not wellbeing of people or the condition of the planet. There is so much to gain from technology like this, but we do have to be careful.
Since when does a chemical company that creates pesticides constitute a bioengineering company? And exactly which ones of those are doing things like growing ears on mice and making glowing fish?
Oh... none of them. They're doing things like biofuels, plant-produced vaccines, and selective pesticides/herbicides...
Nice try with the Monsanto drop though. Way to misconstrue what Wolpe was talking about.
This video was meant to spark emotional responses. For the record I happen to know a little bit about the "remote control" mice. The mice are still in control. The electrical signals sent to the brain stimulate the whisker sensation of contact with a wall. The mouse can then choose to turn in the appropriate direction or not, and when the mouse chooses the "correct" direction, the scientists electrically hit it in the "pleasure" spot.
Believe me, the mice want to jump through the hoops.
It is pointless to talk about the ethics of genetic manipulation in the face of an undertaking that are not in the control of the audience to whom TED spoke.
That audience has no more organized control over genetic manipulationst than it has over nuclear weapons. I am not saying that it canot be done, but that experience shows that our ethics is merely academic.
My line: No human should be made artificially. All modifications must be consented, and NO parent should make that decision. After that, people can make themselves transsexual furries with penis's on their forehead's for all I care.
@IndependentBlackSoul What about really smart animals like chimps, dolphins, or dogs? Should humans be able to modify themselves however they want? Could I make myself 30 ft tall and bullet proof if I wan't? Not opposing your position just showing that your line is very vague which means its not really a line is it?
Sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the betterment of all. Bio-engineering can fix diseases, cure aging, enhance our bodies, and so on. It is needed. It is the future.
@Ko252 It depends on what price it is worth. And decisions are never made by one person or one group, such large decisions are made by all people, as it is the collective product of human action.
@Vengrence Is it really? When is it okey to kill millions to save billions? Most decisions arnt made by all people, but by one person or one group. Did you for instance had anything to say in the regards to the Iraq-war?
@Ko252 In a way yes. The collective action of all beings let us even get to that point, for someone to click the switch. If something different happened, we might have gone a completely different way. There is no conspiracy government making all the decisions, but there are power-hungry men who will conspire against everyone who isn't him. That isn't a theoretical conspiracy, that's just a fact of life.
@Vengrence Basically it doenst matter what we think is right or wrong, since it is matter a of subjectivity. Regarding your second point, that is also a matter of opinion. Is it a collective choice when most of us act like sheeps, or is it governed by a few? And you didnt answer my question; if it is the choice of all, then what is your part in the Iraq-war? Or the part in the local election of council members in Strande in Norway? I know it is far fetched, but that is exactly the point.
@Ko252 Well, my part in the Iraq War is bigger than my part in an election of council member in Norway since I live in the US. Even then, somehow, no matter how minuscule, I do affect both to varying degrees. Some obviously have more sway on a specific issue than someone else, and so on.
Research decisions in bio-engineering isn't made by one group or one person, but by many. At best, we can say it'll be decided randomly.
@Ko252 I live don't I? It means I take in resources, and ever breath of air taken already changes the biosphere of the planet. Everyone affects everything, just at varying degrees. A person voting in the election would affect it far more than a person merely reading about it in the US.
And about randomness, I mean in our perspective. To us all actions are random, because we can't really comprehend them all being not.
@Vengrence I have to ask myself if I should keep on debating or not. I do understand you, and since I have my exams comming up, I thank for a civil dialog.
@Vengrence Living healthy, and in harmony with other people you can also achieve slower aging, you don't even get sic - which is even better than healing with bio-engineering and all the new-age million dollar business.
@KraljeviV There is a very strict limit to natural means. Have you ever seen anyone live past 200? Ever seen anyone be completely immune to disease? Ever seen anyone be able to survive huge pressure or high heat? There's only so much out bodies can take, enhancing them is the next logical path.
So would it be an ethical concern harvesting animals for engineered human parts if they had no brain ? Is it even an animal then ? If we could " cultivate " pig bodies to grow things like bone marrow, organs, etc, but grow them without brains, or just what's necessary , if any, then what are we killing when we harvest it ?
At suffering... without a brain there is no pain and no ethical issue. It is a pile of meat, not matter what the species.
Besides, you're behind the times. We won't need to do this with animals. Soon we'll be able to build new organs from scaffolds and stem-cells. There's already working prototypes of lungs, heart, etc. and a woman has actually recieved a new throat made of her own stem cells built on the saffold of a dead man's esophogus.
@Nickschades Alright, so, ignoring your unfounded and perhaps incorrect assertion that you are more intelligent than I am, could you please define what you mean by "someone?" Does a mouse have more rights than a human zygote? I think it is fairly reasonable to believe that it does not.
@Wormtail81 aw I have to be serious? A mouse has way more cognitive capacity than a zygote - certainly the ability to feel pain, probably fear, maybe despair. When we harm a mouse, we are harming something which does not want to be harmed. When we harm a human zygote, we are harming something incapable of feeling (zero cognitive capacity) and therefore not able to want us not to harm us. Is it okay to remove from life support someone who is brain dead? Why or why not?
@Nickschades So, if you were in a coma or perhaps even asleep, you would have no rights, simply because you cannot feel pain or at least not aware of your surroundings? That is your standard?
@Wormtail81 You can feel pain in your sleep. How long is the coma? As I earlier implied, if irreversible then it would be far worse to kill a mouse. Nice "simply," but yeah, you're summarizing it nicely - rocks have no rights, a chair has no rights, etc. I'll set you up another rhetorical: If a human embyro has rights, when does it start having rights? Why?
Thank goodness that bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe placed a numerous glimpses of the diversity of this research that is being fascilitated by bio-engineers/biologists. This is an incredible field and one that may in fact assist us in exceptionally beneficial ways.
@Thebrowntown1234 Sorry there, "thebrowntown"... I'm sure you are a brilliant scientist. Please refer me to some papers you have published through NCBI or PubMed so that I may enjoy them.
sounds like the same moral and ethical alarmist bs argument over cern or stem cells or any new technology. hes just a whiny, clean cut hippy in a suit.
you can kill or harm someone with a toaster; it doesn't mean toasters are some sort of sinister, unethical technology. it's the same old story; it's not the technology but the user that's of concern.
no one will be complaining when these developments bring back a family member from their death bed or treat a previously untreatable injury.
@skysteiner You havent watched the video carefully. As new technologies arise new capacities for suffering are also revealed and must be vigilantly reviewed. Most people would have a problem with taking a chimp at birth, blinding it, deafening it, paralyzing it, and sticking it in a box to work for years. However the technologies presented in this video hint at all these brain-in-a-box developments with every more complex animal subjects. (for ex). Its not alarmist, its responsible awareness
When I first heard about using luminescent genes able to make skin glow, the first thing I thought of is, "I want to have a kid with glow-in-the-dark skin!" lol It's good that the conversation is being had. Bioengineering is incredibly important, and its good that we have guidelines around its usage :)
It is a very interesting thing to know and i believe if i could actually work in this industry, i think i would. But on the other hand it frigthens me to see the possibilitys but not being able to predict the consequences. And third point is, animal rights are existent and thats for a purpose - how much harm do we do to these creatures and what psychologically consequences do they have to suffer?
Scare tactics to turn the uninformed against the progress of bio-engineering. As for the 'bug bots' they are being made to fly into hazardous area's that would otherwise be lethal to humans (toxic gasses, burning buildings) to retrieve chemical readouts and visual confirmation of the situation. Why risk the life of a fireman when you could check first with a bug? These issues have been scrutinized for ethics BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS and they said go for it. God never said 'Thou shall not make life'
@mrempiric2 What if its not a bug. What if its a dog or a chimp? Whats your moral analysis for drawing a line around human species? Ability for abstract thought? Emotional thought? Self reflection? Ability to sense pain?
@rbairos1 well humans already have far more legal rights than bugs or dogs or chimps so the line has already been drawn. for example, can anyone pick you up off the street, put a leash around your neck ,and drag you around all day some sort of legal ramification? didn't think so. so, no one will be able to grab you, put a chip in your head and control you without some sort of legal ramifications either. are you unfamiliar with the current legal system? when have you seen a chimp or a bug vote?
*most* human societies already cooperate in ways to maximize their protection. Thats irrelevant. When was the last time you saw an adult with severe down syndrome vote? Obviously we always need to develop a more comprehensive ethical code of conduct than the jury rigged one you're inferring.
An obvious slippery slope not to be permitted under any circumstance(s), these ideas/experiments/developments can by no means be a result of natural trends in human development. It is a carefully designed/orchestrated plan by a group with specific agendas to affect the human evolutionary process. Evolution now assumes a new diabolical meanings to me, creationism becomes an infallible dogma these are not novel developments Pandoras box has been opened before 'may God have mercy on us'
Then go study. To those of us that work and study in biology-related fields this is exciting progress that can help millions. It's only the ignorant with their lack of understanding of the reasons behind making bioluminescent animals or growing ears on mice that are scared of this.
Bio-engineered creatures should not be allowed into the natural world without a profound knowledge of it's possible consequences.
When it comes to experiments on humans, the main focus should be that it's performed with consent from the human and that the human doesn't get treated like an animal or as property.
There was a documentary named Animal Farm made by Channel 4oD explaining in detail about Selective Breading and also Genetic Modification of animal including the GM glowing in the dark animals and may other animals Paul mentioned in his talk.
What the hell is wrong with all you people. I didn't pick up any agenda or slant in this talk. He's merely pointing out that there currently is NO LINE drawn as to where genetic engineering should stop and is calling for people to be aware of the issues so when the time comes, they can make informed decisions.
@steeleman23 I think some of his questions at the end were slightly leading, but on the whole I was very happy that he didnt try to lecture anyone to any specific conclusion. Very interesting and thought provoking talk.
@RobertWeekes People are corrupted by the assumed need to acquire monetary wealth in order to survive. It is an inevitable outcome of a false institution that is perpetuated by other institutions that are aligned with it.
This is all old news. Worse, Paul ignores real dangers, such as say, how the modified salmon will harm the ecosystem, and instead plays up vague emotional triggers: Scientist will make babies glow in the dark. See this cute lamb creature? Scientist SLAUGHTERED AND ATE it. Scientist made this rat their PLAYTHING. Here's a picture of Frankenstien! Science is EVIL! He ignores the good entirely. There's a point to making mice glow. This tech can save lives. What's Paul's agenda?
from Douglas Adams' book "the Restaurant at the end of the universe" --
The Ameglian Major Cow is a species specifically bred to not only have the desire to be eaten, but to be capable of saying so quite clearly and distinctly.
When he called it a Guar I had to look it up (as Guar is an fictional animal species in the Elder Scrolls lore). It's actually a Gaur (pronounced GOW-er).
If the ethics kids are getting too upset, why not create some animals with much smaller brains, or no brains at all. Think of a chicken with just enough brain stem to breath. Pour food down it's throat. Kill it when it grows fat. No animal cruelty to worry about at all!
I had a quiet word with the animals, they told me it was alright to go ahead and do whatever we wanted. They said they didn't mind, sure aren't we already eating them, they said, nothing we could do would be worse than that.
There have been and will be great things to come from bioengineering. However, we have to recognize the consequences of the standards we set. The lines may not have to be drawn now, but we will need to. Think about how well we're dealing with pollution, trash buildup, mass agriculture, etc., all things that could have been stopped while people still cared. This technology gives us more power than most people realize. Enough to be dangerous, not just in the future, but now.
This didn't really question bioengineering. Or if it did, it spent about 19 minutes showcasing modern bioengineering feats and 43 seconds on the questioning, without going in depth at all.
@kennegun. Too big a problem, we'd never get that far. How about we just introduce a gene from Fainting Goats where if they tell lies they faint and we'd all know. Then we could heel them to death.
The cockroach/beetle/rat thing was badly explained as well.
These creatures, like cats, use whiskers or other similar structures to sense via touch when they are about to walk into a wall. The chips override just those few nerve cells to make it feel like the path is blocked on one side or the other.
They can then be 'steered' because they will have a natural aversion to going the way their senses tell them is blocked.
It could be further developed to combat motion sickness as it is similar.
Hard to know whether to like or dislike. The subject matter is fascinating, but the presenter seems to be trying to scaremonger rather than inform.
The ethics of commercialising these things should of course be debated which applies to the "Beefalos" and the fish in the shop. And hopefully better than the daft media-led hysteria around GM foods.
The rest are research and see no issue with them as long as they stay within animal and human welfare guidelines.
@00011iiiJAck. Daddy will get you a Zorse, princess. Hey Wonka, how much do you want for a Zorse? Cue the Oompa Loompas with song entirely composed of Wise Words.
"What do you get if you ask for a Zorse,
things don't get better they simply get Worse".
Two cartwheels and a kneel down, jazz hands finish. Rapturous applause.
I agree that we are worsening bio-complexity and likely creating problems impossible to solve. Since we don't know what will happen we need more controls in place.
On the other hand, I often wondered why we have not put the most powerful computers we know of to good use... thinking of interfacing human brains.
lol but all in seriousness, I can't wait for the singularity, the moment where computers surpasses the human brain capacity, medicine, biotech, energy revolution all into a new big bang of century
@Valca000 I think you are forgetting that humans have a culture that affect how we behave. Thus, a singularity won't necessarily solve all our problems.
@Valca000 I think you are forgetting that humans have a culture that affect how we behave. Thus, a singularity won't necessarily solve all our problems.
Are you even capable of understanding the counter argument presented? Can you grasp the idea of an opposing perspective? Could you inform me to what level you comprehend this debate any of the issues or anything being said in this presentation?
@BlowDevilUp Fully. Its explained two comments below the one you so fucking maladroitly replied to. Does this prude really think scientists haven't weighed the pros and cons of their research? GMAFB. What the fuck makes you think his presentation was a debate format anyways? Jesus fucking christ.
In my opinion,if we can perfect the process of bioengineering,the only real question is the increase in classism it would produce.Right now,the wealthy elite can only work within natural boundaries.They may be able to live longer and obtain better educations,but they aren't a new species.If bioengineering were to become widespread amongst those who could afford it,their offspring would on every level surpass those of the average populace.If we can solve that issue,I say go for it.
Life, what is it's value? Should human being determine it by ourselves? We want to make ground breaking papers. For what? When it is just like looking for bloody news exhaustively, is it still can be called Science?
Are you aware that changes at a fundamental level will have system-wide consequences? Genetic engineering is about making changes on a very basic level. Who is it, in your opinion, that should be making risky decisions affecting all current and future life? Do you think it is fair or just that an unaffected small group of people make decisions that will have unpredictable global consequences?
This guy is soooo annoying. The more I watch, the more he annoys me. Chicken? It's a goat you dipshit, it tastes like goat... Make two animals fuck of the same genus and guess what, you have a hybrid, you don't need a lab.
ThePineconeMaster 11 hours ago
Now tell me, why in the fuck, would you mess up GOD's perfect creation? You don't believe in God? Look in the mirror...
ThePineconeMaster 11 hours ago
what told me most about the presentation was how the guy called the scientists: THEY.
THEY are doing it. THEY, THEY, THEY. such a simple demagogic tool, create an artificial separation between "us" and "THEM".
nvcn86 2 weeks ago
@nvcn86 Yuuuup. This guy is a fuck for sure.
ThePineconeMaster 11 hours ago
I don't see the problem, if you can modify them to that degree then you can logically take away any feelings or self conciousness the animal feels? I don't really see the controversy if we could do that as they would basically be the same as computers.
lost4468yt 2 weeks ago
i have it :)
decleene94 4 weeks ago
want her facebook link?
decleene94 4 weeks ago
angeline chen watched this video....
decleene94 4 weeks ago
jump to 11:00
stutek 2 months ago
All creatures are conscious beings and deserve to live healthily in their natural habitat without the intrusion of gangster capitalist science and industry.
gregjalbert 2 months ago 3
@gregjalbert All creatures? Even those fish that are bread on farms, chickens who's eggs and bodies we feast on? All the food in the meat section - they should have all lived healthy happy lives? lol Even if you're a vegetarian, you have to argue your way past that first, and if you can't, then don't even try taking it to this level. Leave that to those with a deeper sense of logic to argue the ethical concepts cuzz its out of your league.
DigitalAlpine 2 months ago
@gregjalbert what exactly is a "gangster capitalist science and industry" ??
if you're going to attack capitalism or big business , then leave science out of this you stupid moron !
without science you wouldn't even exist , so at least be politically correct !
VoiceOfAleppo 3 weeks ago
Some humans are clearly perverse, greedy and self-centered. Bio-engineering in these ways is disturbing. Bio-engineering is yet another pathological outcome of gangster capitalism and science. Sick. And at the same time, Earth is having the highest rate of species extinction in 65 million years, due to human destruction of the environment. Why aren't scientists and humanity solving THAT problem? Insane bloated egos. Humans seem to be robots of their pathological technology.
gregjalbert 2 months ago 2
@gregjalbert Why would you care so much about OTHER species? I don't even care about other humans, i don't understand how you can care about others than yourself. (well that's because i'm dxd psychopath). Bio-engineering is the future, you can't escape that. You can flame it all you want, it will come and change our society, bodies, enchance our IQs, etc.
DarknesSoldier 2 months ago
I look forward to the day when we can convert our consciousness to frozen lattices of light.
Destro7000 3 months ago
Prepare for zombie Apocalypse.
tucson221 4 months ago
Can't wait for airborne cancer. Thank science.
Bahomme 4 months ago
@Bahomme You mean radiation?
jamosmithlol 4 months ago
@jamosmithlol Is radiation cancer or does it cause cancer? THESE QUESTIONS AND MORE ON THE NEXT TIME JAMOSMITHLOL POSTS.
Bahomme 4 months ago 2
My 2 cents on this is that he has valid points but most of it seems to be fear mongering. While there should be ethical rules for crucial points, jumping around pointing out the deaths of animals and how people are going to get GFP coding sequences in their system is ridiculous. I for one dont care if the salmon is GMO if it takes less time and feed for them to raise it. It would only make it cheaper for consumption and create a smaller carbon footprint.
anozir 4 months ago
Comment removed
digitalfol 6 months ago
Science like that explained in this lecture should be advanced, but not during the intellectual immaturity of our species. There is just too much at risk, but also much to gain if used responsibly.
daemonowner 7 months ago
@daemonowner
So we should delay advancement for all because there's a few too stupid to accept the undertakings of bioengineering?
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist There are so many people who would use technology like this irresponsibly. I'm not thinking about members of the public so much as large scale companies - who we have seen only consider financial gain and not wellbeing of people or the condition of the planet. There is so much to gain from technology like this, but we do have to be careful.
daemonowner 6 months ago
@daemonowner
"who we have seen only consider financial gain and not wellbeing of people or the condition of the planet."
ROFL. Biological research is NOT the place to be if you're looking for financial gain.
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
Monsanto
PHBI
Syngenta AG
Dow Agrosciences
BASF
Bayer Cropscience
daemonowner 6 months ago
@daemonowner
Since when does a chemical company that creates pesticides constitute a bioengineering company? And exactly which ones of those are doing things like growing ears on mice and making glowing fish?
Oh... none of them. They're doing things like biofuels, plant-produced vaccines, and selective pesticides/herbicides...
Nice try with the Monsanto drop though. Way to misconstrue what Wolpe was talking about.
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
why wouldn't it be possible to engineer your body's structure to be able to hold support the increased weight?
hugmesillypeople 8 months ago
This video was meant to spark emotional responses. For the record I happen to know a little bit about the "remote control" mice. The mice are still in control. The electrical signals sent to the brain stimulate the whisker sensation of contact with a wall. The mouse can then choose to turn in the appropriate direction or not, and when the mouse chooses the "correct" direction, the scientists electrically hit it in the "pleasure" spot.
Believe me, the mice want to jump through the hoops.
xKlondikex 8 months ago
Comment removed
gexman31 6 months ago
It is pointless to talk about the ethics of genetic manipulation in the face of an undertaking that are not in the control of the audience to whom TED spoke.
That audience has no more organized control over genetic manipulationst than it has over nuclear weapons. I am not saying that it canot be done, but that experience shows that our ethics is merely academic.
JMGiannone 9 months ago
The scary part was when he mentioned that DARPA is already working on this.
2528997 9 months ago
My line: No human should be made artificially. All modifications must be consented, and NO parent should make that decision. After that, people can make themselves transsexual furries with penis's on their forehead's for all I care.
IndependentBlackSoul 10 months ago
@IndependentBlackSoul What about really smart animals like chimps, dolphins, or dogs? Should humans be able to modify themselves however they want? Could I make myself 30 ft tall and bullet proof if I wan't? Not opposing your position just showing that your line is very vague which means its not really a line is it?
RichT519 9 months ago
@RichT519 For the record, you couldn't make yourself 30 ft. tall, you would collapse under your own weight. You would be 5x taller, but 25x heavier.
Basic physics.
xKlondikex 8 months ago
Sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the betterment of all. Bio-engineering can fix diseases, cure aging, enhance our bodies, and so on. It is needed. It is the future.
Vengrence 10 months ago 17
@Vengrence at what price? And who is to decide?
Ko252 10 months ago
@Ko252 It depends on what price it is worth. And decisions are never made by one person or one group, such large decisions are made by all people, as it is the collective product of human action.
Vengrence 10 months ago
@Vengrence Is it really? When is it okey to kill millions to save billions? Most decisions arnt made by all people, but by one person or one group. Did you for instance had anything to say in the regards to the Iraq-war?
Ko252 10 months ago
@Ko252 In a way yes. The collective action of all beings let us even get to that point, for someone to click the switch. If something different happened, we might have gone a completely different way. There is no conspiracy government making all the decisions, but there are power-hungry men who will conspire against everyone who isn't him. That isn't a theoretical conspiracy, that's just a fact of life.
Vengrence 10 months ago
@Vengrence Basically it doenst matter what we think is right or wrong, since it is matter a of subjectivity. Regarding your second point, that is also a matter of opinion. Is it a collective choice when most of us act like sheeps, or is it governed by a few? And you didnt answer my question; if it is the choice of all, then what is your part in the Iraq-war? Or the part in the local election of council members in Strande in Norway? I know it is far fetched, but that is exactly the point.
Ko252 10 months ago
@Ko252 Well, my part in the Iraq War is bigger than my part in an election of council member in Norway since I live in the US. Even then, somehow, no matter how minuscule, I do affect both to varying degrees. Some obviously have more sway on a specific issue than someone else, and so on.
Research decisions in bio-engineering isn't made by one group or one person, but by many. At best, we can say it'll be decided randomly.
Vengrence 10 months ago
@Vengrence How do you affect the election in the small city of Strande in Norway? Actually, at best you cant say nothing is random.
Ko252 10 months ago
@Ko252 I live don't I? It means I take in resources, and ever breath of air taken already changes the biosphere of the planet. Everyone affects everything, just at varying degrees. A person voting in the election would affect it far more than a person merely reading about it in the US.
And about randomness, I mean in our perspective. To us all actions are random, because we can't really comprehend them all being not.
Vengrence 10 months ago
@Vengrence I have to ask myself if I should keep on debating or not. I do understand you, and since I have my exams comming up, I thank for a civil dialog.
Ko252 10 months ago
@Vengrence Living healthy, and in harmony with other people you can also achieve slower aging, you don't even get sic - which is even better than healing with bio-engineering and all the new-age million dollar business.
KraljeviV 4 months ago
@KraljeviV There is a very strict limit to natural means. Have you ever seen anyone live past 200? Ever seen anyone be completely immune to disease? Ever seen anyone be able to survive huge pressure or high heat? There's only so much out bodies can take, enhancing them is the next logical path.
Vengrence 4 months ago
@Vengrence Agreed
sodaxcandy08 2 weeks ago
So would it be an ethical concern harvesting animals for engineered human parts if they had no brain ? Is it even an animal then ? If we could " cultivate " pig bodies to grow things like bone marrow, organs, etc, but grow them without brains, or just what's necessary , if any, then what are we killing when we harvest it ?
Where do we draw the line ?
1Isaacsmusic 10 months ago
@1Isaacsmusic
"Where do we draw the line ?"
At suffering... without a brain there is no pain and no ethical issue. It is a pile of meat, not matter what the species.
Besides, you're behind the times. We won't need to do this with animals. Soon we'll be able to build new organs from scaffolds and stem-cells. There's already working prototypes of lungs, heart, etc. and a woman has actually recieved a new throat made of her own stem cells built on the saffold of a dead man's esophogus.
KemaTheAtheist 10 months ago
CAN ANYONE SAY UBERMENSCH?
Gameboob 10 months ago
I thought this video would be about the ethics of bioengineering. But it's just a guy listing cool things done with bioengineering in a ranting way.
Glendronach 10 months ago
So, using a mouse to grow an ear is not cool, but using a human embryo is fine?
Wormtail81 11 months ago
@Wormtail81 So, harming something to gain a benefit is not cool, but gaining a benefit without harming anyone is fine? YES, duh.
Nickschades 10 months ago
@Nickschades Alright, so, ignoring your unfounded and perhaps incorrect assertion that you are more intelligent than I am, could you please define what you mean by "someone?" Does a mouse have more rights than a human zygote? I think it is fairly reasonable to believe that it does not.
Wormtail81 10 months ago
@Wormtail81 aw I have to be serious? A mouse has way more cognitive capacity than a zygote - certainly the ability to feel pain, probably fear, maybe despair. When we harm a mouse, we are harming something which does not want to be harmed. When we harm a human zygote, we are harming something incapable of feeling (zero cognitive capacity) and therefore not able to want us not to harm us. Is it okay to remove from life support someone who is brain dead? Why or why not?
Nickschades 10 months ago
@Nickschades So, if you were in a coma or perhaps even asleep, you would have no rights, simply because you cannot feel pain or at least not aware of your surroundings? That is your standard?
Wormtail81 10 months ago
@Wormtail81 You can feel pain in your sleep. How long is the coma? As I earlier implied, if irreversible then it would be far worse to kill a mouse. Nice "simply," but yeah, you're summarizing it nicely - rocks have no rights, a chair has no rights, etc. I'll set you up another rhetorical: If a human embyro has rights, when does it start having rights? Why?
Nickschades 10 months ago
The birth of manbearpig
x0x0xStephenx0x0x 11 months ago 19
I can't wait until I'm fly to work on a Griffon.
CloudMeetsSky 11 months ago
Wow, comprehensive presentation, smooth-as and didn't miss a trick.
breaneainn 11 months ago
Thank goodness that bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe placed a numerous glimpses of the diversity of this research that is being fascilitated by bio-engineers/biologists. This is an incredible field and one that may in fact assist us in exceptionally beneficial ways.
thedeeliciousplum 11 months ago
3:40
That's probably the best drawing you've ever done.
phucyoutoob 11 months ago
FINALLY POKEMON
Gotta catch em all!
holyscythe 11 months ago 4
@holyscythe this isnt the place where people find pokemon jokes humorous..
Thebrowntown1234 11 months ago
@Thebrowntown1234 Sorry there, "thebrowntown"... I'm sure you are a brilliant scientist. Please refer me to some papers you have published through NCBI or PubMed so that I may enjoy them.
holyscythe 11 months ago
@holyscythe Chill kid..i thought it was funny..but i doubt everybody else will..
Thebrowntown1234 11 months ago
sounds like the same moral and ethical alarmist bs argument over cern or stem cells or any new technology. hes just a whiny, clean cut hippy in a suit.
you can kill or harm someone with a toaster; it doesn't mean toasters are some sort of sinister, unethical technology. it's the same old story; it's not the technology but the user that's of concern.
no one will be complaining when these developments bring back a family member from their death bed or treat a previously untreatable injury.
skysteiner 11 months ago
@skysteiner You havent watched the video carefully. As new technologies arise new capacities for suffering are also revealed and must be vigilantly reviewed. Most people would have a problem with taking a chimp at birth, blinding it, deafening it, paralyzing it, and sticking it in a box to work for years. However the technologies presented in this video hint at all these brain-in-a-box developments with every more complex animal subjects. (for ex). Its not alarmist, its responsible awareness
rbairos1 11 months ago
When I first heard about using luminescent genes able to make skin glow, the first thing I thought of is, "I want to have a kid with glow-in-the-dark skin!" lol It's good that the conversation is being had. Bioengineering is incredibly important, and its good that we have guidelines around its usage :)
shanebrain2009 11 months ago
I want to glow purple!
bunchofdaisies 11 months ago
@bunchofdaisies. Handy for the disco.
meotaku2 11 months ago
It is a very interesting thing to know and i believe if i could actually work in this industry, i think i would. But on the other hand it frigthens me to see the possibilitys but not being able to predict the consequences. And third point is, animal rights are existent and thats for a purpose - how much harm do we do to these creatures and what psychologically consequences do they have to suffer?
Ertrunken 11 months ago
Scare tactics to turn the uninformed against the progress of bio-engineering. As for the 'bug bots' they are being made to fly into hazardous area's that would otherwise be lethal to humans (toxic gasses, burning buildings) to retrieve chemical readouts and visual confirmation of the situation. Why risk the life of a fireman when you could check first with a bug? These issues have been scrutinized for ethics BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS and they said go for it. God never said 'Thou shall not make life'
mrempiric2 11 months ago
@mrempiric2 What if its not a bug. What if its a dog or a chimp? Whats your moral analysis for drawing a line around human species? Ability for abstract thought? Emotional thought? Self reflection? Ability to sense pain?
rbairos1 11 months ago
@rbairos1 well humans already have far more legal rights than bugs or dogs or chimps so the line has already been drawn. for example, can anyone pick you up off the street, put a leash around your neck ,and drag you around all day some sort of legal ramification? didn't think so. so, no one will be able to grab you, put a chip in your head and control you without some sort of legal ramifications either. are you unfamiliar with the current legal system? when have you seen a chimp or a bug vote?
skysteiner 11 months ago
@skysteiner obviously
*most* human societies already cooperate in ways to maximize their protection. Thats irrelevant. When was the last time you saw an adult with severe down syndrome vote? Obviously we always need to develop a more comprehensive ethical code of conduct than the jury rigged one you're inferring.
rbairos1 11 months ago
An obvious slippery slope not to be permitted under any circumstance(s), these ideas/experiments/developments can by no means be a result of natural trends in human development. It is a carefully designed/orchestrated plan by a group with specific agendas to affect the human evolutionary process. Evolution now assumes a new diabolical meanings to me, creationism becomes an infallible dogma these are not novel developments Pandoras box has been opened before 'may God have mercy on us'
232lalas 11 months ago
that was... dense.
Zormac 11 months ago
This is terrifying.
Athena1129 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Athena1129
"This is terrifying."
Then go study. To those of us that work and study in biology-related fields this is exciting progress that can help millions. It's only the ignorant with their lack of understanding of the reasons behind making bioluminescent animals or growing ears on mice that are scared of this.
KemaTheAtheist 11 months ago
THIS IS FUCKING AWESOME!!!!
thockoro 11 months ago
Glow in the dark mosquitos might be useful.
meotaku2 11 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@meotaku2
"Glow in the dark mosquitos might be useful."
Only at night. :-P
KemaTheAtheist 11 months ago
Its not a bug bot, its a Bugbor!!
TheVigilante2000 11 months ago
Bio-engineered creatures should not be allowed into the natural world without a profound knowledge of it's possible consequences.
When it comes to experiments on humans, the main focus should be that it's performed with consent from the human and that the human doesn't get treated like an animal or as property.
Dumass88 11 months ago
I instantly thought of x-men when he got to the glow in the dark part.
MarkArandjus 11 months ago
MONSANTO MUST END. PERIOD.
i am speaking of Monsanto, what they create, and their business practices.
caseyforever 11 months ago 2
There was a documentary named Animal Farm made by Channel 4oD explaining in detail about Selective Breading and also Genetic Modification of animal including the GM glowing in the dark animals and may other animals Paul mentioned in his talk.
If you're a bio fan you'd love it
watch?v=6hGRbzO2sTs
muzammilali007 11 months ago
I do not want this planet to become a freak show!
rytis1 11 months ago
@rytis1 It already is.
CalmCaterpillar 11 months ago
@rytis1 it a;ready is... and all freaks are beautiful.
timidgothica 11 months ago
What the hell is wrong with all you people. I didn't pick up any agenda or slant in this talk. He's merely pointing out that there currently is NO LINE drawn as to where genetic engineering should stop and is calling for people to be aware of the issues so when the time comes, they can make informed decisions.
steeleman23 11 months ago 53
This has been flagged as spam show
@steeleman23
"I didn't pick up any agenda or slant in this talk"
I doubt you know biology very well then.
"that there currently is NO LINE drawn as to where genetic engineering should stop"
Yes there is. Scientists have standards they have to follow.
"people to be aware of the issues so when the time comes, they can make informed decisions."
Nearly 50% of the USA doesn't believe in evolution, and you think they're going to make informed decisions about bioengineering?
KemaTheAtheist 11 months ago 4
@steeleman23 I think some of his questions at the end were slightly leading, but on the whole I was very happy that he didnt try to lecture anyone to any specific conclusion. Very interesting and thought provoking talk.
zanderzander05 11 months ago
Comment removed
digitalfol 6 months ago
Interesting technology, but frightening in the context of a corrupt and destructive monetary system.
Lightrider4444 11 months ago 18
@Lightrider4444 Not everyone who makes money is corrupt. If this were true, we'd see a hell of a lot more Enrons.
RobertWeekes 11 months ago
@RobertWeekes People are corrupted by the assumed need to acquire monetary wealth in order to survive. It is an inevitable outcome of a false institution that is perpetuated by other institutions that are aligned with it.
Lightrider4444 11 months ago
@Lightrider4444 A "false institution?" Do you mean, capitalism and free enterprise?
RobertWeekes 11 months ago
@RobertWeekes Yes.
Lightrider4444 11 months ago
It's a liger, bred for its skills in magic!
eviloatmeal 11 months ago 6
being able to controll robots with ur mind could save lives.and be epicly cool
dandil 11 months ago
Not too keen on using animals as spies, but then I don't like the idea of spying anyway. This technology is awesome though.
FKnopsMckim 11 months ago
This is all old news. Worse, Paul ignores real dangers, such as say, how the modified salmon will harm the ecosystem, and instead plays up vague emotional triggers: Scientist will make babies glow in the dark. See this cute lamb creature? Scientist SLAUGHTERED AND ATE it. Scientist made this rat their PLAYTHING. Here's a picture of Frankenstien! Science is EVIL! He ignores the good entirely. There's a point to making mice glow. This tech can save lives. What's Paul's agenda?
Ichijojichan 11 months ago 5
@Ichijojichan No I think you are imposing an agenda on his talk, when no such thing exists. Steeleman's got it
SikhiArt 11 months ago
@Ichijojichan You are his agenda. Your points raised is what he wants from all of us.
Good questions.
sonyerectson 11 months ago
from Douglas Adams' book "the Restaurant at the end of the universe" --
The Ameglian Major Cow is a species specifically bred to not only have the desire to be eaten, but to be capable of saying so quite clearly and distinctly.
:-)
pitupraveen 11 months ago
TEd talks are a bit hit and miss these days, but this is 100% hit
mrmishonka 11 months ago
When he called it a Guar I had to look it up (as Guar is an fictional animal species in the Elder Scrolls lore). It's actually a Gaur (pronounced GOW-er).
I really enjoyed this talk though.
edstamos 11 months ago
@edstamos I read your comment and started freaking out--I thought scientist had created cliff racers :(
Raaszhecku 11 months ago
This is awesome. Keep it up.
If the ethics kids are getting too upset, why not create some animals with much smaller brains, or no brains at all. Think of a chicken with just enough brain stem to breath. Pour food down it's throat. Kill it when it grows fat. No animal cruelty to worry about at all!
petfoodonly 11 months ago
who cares about ethics this is too cool not to do it, now shut the fuck up and find more cool stuff for your next talk.
rata0071 11 months ago
Watching this I only thought: "Awesome! What's next!"
KaletheQuick 11 months ago
@KaletheQuick My thoughts exactly
aklondikebar 11 months ago
I want a hippo the never gets bigger than a small bulldog
insertclevernickname 11 months ago
haha when its animal slaughter is somehow funny but when humans are slaughtering one another its all serious :D
mitkoogrozev 11 months ago
haha when its animal slaughter is somehow funny but when humans are slaughtering one another is all serious :D
mitkoogrozev 11 months ago
disgusting
shadecheckered 11 months ago
Comment removed
shadecheckered 11 months ago
I said it before and I'll say it again. Mad science on TED is the best!
ratholin 11 months ago
yes please i do it fast! cant wait to buy my radio controlled mini lion with eagle wings and a golden aura like glow to it!
cruuudd 11 months ago
@LookingGlass78 Robocopdotcom.
FreindlyRanger 11 months ago
I had a quiet word with the animals, they told me it was alright to go ahead and do whatever we wanted. They said they didn't mind, sure aren't we already eating them, they said, nothing we could do would be worse than that.
FreindlyRanger 11 months ago
All Venter did was clone a bacterium. Not that impressive really.
quackerzdb 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KemaTheAtheist
When did discussing become government regulation?
ShadyEmp 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KemaTheAtheist
When did discussing become government regulation?
ShadyEmp 11 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
When did discuss become government regulation?
ShadyEmp 11 months ago
I wonder what the rejects looked like. Bet he didn't bring those jpegs along...
yashzn1234 11 months ago
its interesting and to have the knowledge is something wonderful to have but... is it something we should really be practicing?
mepillusions 11 months ago
forge steel into killing machines what could go wrong ?
split a few atoms what could go wrong ?
split a few DNA strands what could go wrong ?
humans are responsable what could go wrong ?
listen for the scared clapping at the end ?
:-|
twistedbass15 11 months ago 3
why didn't they clap the moneky's third limb? that's amazing!
1989Gez1989 11 months ago
There have been and will be great things to come from bioengineering. However, we have to recognize the consequences of the standards we set. The lines may not have to be drawn now, but we will need to. Think about how well we're dealing with pollution, trash buildup, mass agriculture, etc., all things that could have been stopped while people still cared. This technology gives us more power than most people realize. Enough to be dangerous, not just in the future, but now.
LokiClock 11 months ago
shittin my pants ATM
panzercommandier 11 months ago
was this a TEDTalk, or a grade 9 science project?
lamest TEDTalk ever
dmosier 11 months ago 3
This didn't really question bioengineering. Or if it did, it spent about 19 minutes showcasing modern bioengineering feats and 43 seconds on the questioning, without going in depth at all.
DumbAndLethal 11 months ago
Okay overall, but Word Art in a TED Talk? Really?
ScientistAtheist 11 months ago
If they can genetically engineer politicians not to be a bunch of lying, self serving, power hungry dicks, I'd be 100 percent for GMO.
kennegun 11 months ago 4
@kennegun Epic
jesuriah 11 months ago
@kennegun. Too big a problem, we'd never get that far. How about we just introduce a gene from Fainting Goats where if they tell lies they faint and we'd all know. Then we could heel them to death.
FreindlyRanger 11 months ago
This fool is has as much credibility with bioengineering that the average greenpeace protestor has on nuclear energy.
Read: Zero.
1RadicalOne 11 months ago
GMO's for the Win!
pardy12 11 months ago
The cockroach/beetle/rat thing was badly explained as well.
These creatures, like cats, use whiskers or other similar structures to sense via touch when they are about to walk into a wall. The chips override just those few nerve cells to make it feel like the path is blocked on one side or the other.
They can then be 'steered' because they will have a natural aversion to going the way their senses tell them is blocked.
It could be further developed to combat motion sickness as it is similar.
MrStratofish 11 months ago
Hard to know whether to like or dislike. The subject matter is fascinating, but the presenter seems to be trying to scaremonger rather than inform.
The ethics of commercialising these things should of course be debated which applies to the "Beefalos" and the fish in the shop. And hopefully better than the daft media-led hysteria around GM foods.
The rest are research and see no issue with them as long as they stay within animal and human welfare guidelines.
MrStratofish 11 months ago
i want a zorse
00011iiiJAck 11 months ago
@00011iiiJAck. Daddy will get you a Zorse, princess. Hey Wonka, how much do you want for a Zorse? Cue the Oompa Loompas with song entirely composed of Wise Words.
"What do you get if you ask for a Zorse,
things don't get better they simply get Worse".
Two cartwheels and a kneel down, jazz hands finish. Rapturous applause.
FreindlyRanger 11 months ago
Completely amazing.
ErichoTTA 11 months ago
I agree that we are worsening bio-complexity and likely creating problems impossible to solve. Since we don't know what will happen we need more controls in place.
On the other hand, I often wondered why we have not put the most powerful computers we know of to good use... thinking of interfacing human brains.
SSuperCuriouss 11 months ago
and so man realized his potential, and he became god
CAARaeed 11 months ago
This was just a list of really awesome things.
sinky101 11 months ago
glowing kitteh! zomg!
lol but all in seriousness, I can't wait for the singularity, the moment where computers surpasses the human brain capacity, medicine, biotech, energy revolution all into a new big bang of century
Valca000 11 months ago
@Valca000 I think you are forgetting that humans have a culture that affect how we behave. Thus, a singularity won't necessarily solve all our problems.
Shinryuuu 11 months ago
@Valca000 I think you are forgetting that humans have a culture that affect how we behave. Thus, a singularity won't necessarily solve all our problems.
Shinryuuu 11 months ago
I want a glowing kitten!! :D
nachoijp 11 months ago
Resident Evil and Yuri's mind control in the making
rambotan 11 months ago
@PlankKydo You saw the movie right? Did you miss one of the major themes of the movie which is that confidentiality is impossible?
BlowDevilUp 11 months ago
@RyanB0011
Are you even capable of understanding the counter argument presented? Can you grasp the idea of an opposing perspective? Could you inform me to what level you comprehend this debate any of the issues or anything being said in this presentation?
BlowDevilUp 11 months ago
@BlowDevilUp Fully. Its explained two comments below the one you so fucking maladroitly replied to. Does this prude really think scientists haven't weighed the pros and cons of their research? GMAFB. What the fuck makes you think his presentation was a debate format anyways? Jesus fucking christ.
RyanB0011 11 months ago
@RyanB0011 I can almost see where it is you are coming from RyanB0011. I'll give you that break you were asking about.
BlowDevilUp 11 months ago
In my opinion,if we can perfect the process of bioengineering,the only real question is the increase in classism it would produce.Right now,the wealthy elite can only work within natural boundaries.They may be able to live longer and obtain better educations,but they aren't a new species.If bioengineering were to become widespread amongst those who could afford it,their offspring would on every level surpass those of the average populace.If we can solve that issue,I say go for it.
elzakrasz 11 months ago
Who invited this guy? Does he even talk about the theoretical risks of GMOs? No? Oh, well, then why is he giving a Teds?
TrollOfReason 11 months ago
@TrollOfReason Monsanto and Craig Venter called and so TEDtalksDirector cut that part out.
BlowDevilUp 11 months ago 11
Sorry Wolpe, when i goto freak shows i don't say "oh how terrible", I say "how awesome!"
Your assumptions are all too biggoted.
roidroid 11 months ago
Life, what is it's value? Should human being determine it by ourselves? We want to make ground breaking papers. For what? When it is just like looking for bloody news exhaustively, is it still can be called Science?
woodydon777 11 months ago
Our laws need to catch up fast. We are crossing the line.
sakipooh 11 months ago
@sakipooh
"We are crossing the line."
How so?
KemaTheAtheist 11 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
Are you aware that changes at a fundamental level will have system-wide consequences? Genetic engineering is about making changes on a very basic level. Who is it, in your opinion, that should be making risky decisions affecting all current and future life? Do you think it is fair or just that an unaffected small group of people make decisions that will have unpredictable global consequences?
BlowDevilUp 11 months ago 7
@BlowDevilUp
1.) Yes. 2.) I've already answered this. 3.) Loaded question for an yes/no answer.
I'm tired of your straw man, slippery slope, and loaded questions. I'm not responding to you anymore. I've already made my position plain.
KemaTheAtheist 11 months ago