Gawd hamit media.

You mean Fox News.

@@timmtheilig6827 well it certainly is not wrong

@@nm9864 No. He doesn't. All American media, including John Oliver's LWT, do a poor job on reporting scientific issues. Fox News does it a lot worse, but that means little when everyone else still does such a poor job. If everyone is getting a D- and one person gets an F, you can't really say everyone else did well because they didn't get an F.

@@MrSen4lifE What would be a good way to report scientific issues?

cool air my beloved 🤩

What was it called?

@@JaylaStarr en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Air

@@francookie9353 thx dear

@@JaylaStarr you're welcome, sweetie. 😊❤️

I agree. A mouse and a tik would NEVER do it in a shower. They're enviromentally contious!

“And the mouse LOVES it”

makes me want to go into graphic design. or matchmaking.

“Grandma Feathers didn’t look anything like that!!”

I want that job

With how cheap it is all you need to know is what genes to edit and how. So everyone could do it.

@Marshmellow Moon Things that might be cheap for people in america and Europe mitht not be so cheap for people in, for example, africa

​@@keskonriks710 7:07 A couple of hundred dollars is stupidly cheap for *GENE EDITING* and that's the first of it's kind it will get so much cheaper. The point is that when we get to a level where a gap could be created it will be so cheap that even the poorest person with a tiny kit could do it. There are already malaria test that cost less then a dollar and are made of cardboard ukposts.info/have/v-deo/iZZeeGeMp6RerIk.html

And, the fact we could all be dead in a 100 years, the idea of generations could be resilient enough to survive would be great. I personally lost family members to cancer some at 16 yo, the idea of cutting out cancer would be great.

I’m a biological engineering student, and I highly doubt that would ever happen. At least I really hope it won’t. For one, there are ethics committees that have to approve experiments with human beings or experiments of that magnitude. Most genetic engineering happening now is gene therapy with recombinant DNA, and making medications like insulin or certain antibiotics. But it is still something that we have to be very careful with bc I’m sure there will be some dictator one day that will want to abuse it

Kind of fits, since Coco was a Nazi supporter who were also fans of eugenics.

ⵉⵜⵔⵓⵏⴰⵓⵜ She wasn’t with them because she was a Nazi, France got occupied and she was a greedy b**** to not to use it)

@@margaritam.9118 She was a fucking Nazi

Margarita M. Whether is a full Nazi member or not, her activities during the war is that of a symphtizer at best a collaborator at worst.

There's a movie with puma therman and ewan McGregor where people make "designer" children

It almost makes me feel... euphoric.

🙄 there are tons of people who treat scientists like they're gods

Same with doctors... If a doctor saves your life you really shouldn't be thanking a god

Meh. Kinda short on respect.

But long on rational thinking.

You've just described me watching most scifi movies lol!

Next you'll tell me injecting myself with apple juice won't turn my blood to apple juice. How about you stick to your lane?

Obviously , only someone with the most desirable genes would say that

Trevor Lol that joke killed me 😂😂

Lmao like I’ve always wanted to be worshipped for 2000 years

The tools used for gene editing come from bacteria. So we do have to thank God for it.

Qamaruddin Paykargar, Salaam. You are right. I will thank Allah for this blessed technology.

Trevor Taylor even though I’m a practicing Christian, I laughed pretty hard at this joke. Good one Jon

Natural selection.

Duck Soup hey man, fuck you. Any time you read that someone’s family has a lot of genetic issues, don’t fucking make a joke about it. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. My grandmother will be the 8th of her siblings to die from Alzheimer’s and my mom is terrified she will develop it. So yeah if there was a way to prevent it I would be the first in line. Fuck. You.

@@HighEnnui Natural selection stopped when modern medicin was introduced. If you like it or not, now a much larger percentage of people will survive to reproduce, even people who are stupid enough to respond with "natural selection" when somebody mentions family members dying from genetic deceases.

@@marandaward1663 And while I be supicious of any mega corp , goverment ,or cults to abuse tech that science made practical.. I think this research is overdue , its always been a question of spreading knowledge and use it with responsibility...as idiots will be idiots and only with other people having the same knowledge can it be counterd. but that sucks you and your family should be first in line for any safe procedure for gene treatment to combat those things specialy alzheimers..it can be such a cruel way to wither away....and for the idiots going 'natural selection' ye...fuck him ,intelligence is naturaly selected for and its what leets uss explore genes.

@@HighEnnui Inteligence have become homo sapiens one and only advatange for survival..because of natural selection , dont like how its used ? tough luck....100% of evrything you depend on to survive only exists because of inteligence....want to deny people the chance to replace none functioning chemicals so ther children can be born fully 'fuctional' ? then get rid of evrything you own ,including your cloths and find some wilderness without any humans for hundreds of miles....and try survive ala 'claws and fangs' style.

If I'd cited this in a middle school my paper would have been returned with a big fat "F--please use correct citation" on it. If I'd cited it in college they would have made me take a a remedial class about acceptable sources.

@@mnschoen I didn't have to cite it. It was literally for an answer during a lecture that my professor asked us. It wasn't for some sort of research paper...

riiigt? I cringed soooo hard.

I had to looked away. Now anytime I see a frog(I know it’s a toad but I’ve never seen one in the wild) all I’ll think about is that popping noise

As an Australian ITS TRUE. WE FUCKING HATE THOSE THINGS. I didn't know this guy existed tho so even I was shocked by the number on that road and the sound of them being run over. However, it was both disturbing and cathartic.

@@pennypeas4665 i can second that

Imagine a steam roller

AlternateHistoryHub I did not expect that comment from you. 🤣

AlternateHistoryHub what are you doing up this late?

AlternateHistoryHub ya and you like jon oliver to

AlternateHistoryHub oh my God, your here!? That's interesting.

Our goals should be more noble than that. We just need to be tall enough to punch those filthy, abominable tall foxes. #NoTallFoxes

As an autistic person i completely agree. Sadly too many allistics would prefer to get rid of us instead of just accomodating us

@@evexx1540 I'm Autistic and I'd get myself cured in a heartbeat

@@johnhughes2124 too bad the only cures death huh

Isn't the "autism community" mainly made up of Asperger ? Lucky you, guys, I'm glad you enjoy your comparatively benign condition, but you make up 2% of all the recorded cases on the autism spectrum. My own little brother is an autistic young man (with the usual difficulties socializing, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hierarchizing environmental information, and the corollary linguistic and logical underdevelopment,...) and it definitely is a huge disability. So please, either rebrand yourselves or stop pretending you speak in general for autistic people, most of whom conveniently can't speak at all.

Let's be practical here. Autism is a disease and gene therapy would be amazing

The symbolism of PigHitler was a bit on the upturned nose lol

Sounds like some actual Lord of the Flies shit

Dolly Parton played an important role in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine with a $1 million donation: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/e6SdjI18pm-mkas.html

Yeah man. Not just the same old talking points. This is the best show

Perfectly put. It's a good starting place for further research but a great place for late night comedy and discovering what may not have been under your radar.

They are not new topics. Most if not all topics have been spoken about for generations.

@@andrellana8838 "new topics" was not the correct term yes. Maybe topics on a new scope, new stand, ahh dang it, eng's not my main language

Vospader21 There's a cure for HepC now. Big pharma doesn't want to make it available because curative medicene doesn't make money. Some groups are even fighting against 3D printing organs using the patient's DNA because transplants are infinitely more lucrative. Same with HIV, many cancers, and a slew of other things. IF it is available it won't be for the poor, AND never in America.

Same with HIV? What on earth are you on about? It's not possible to cure HIV currently, except for very specific circumstances where a functional cure can be achieved through CCR5_Δ32 hemoatopietic stem cell transplantation, which is rarely possible or feasible. There's no other way.

CRISPR is too cheap, most likely the wealthy will just try to keep it a secret.

Viscera Trocar The HepC treatment is widely available. My sister went through treatment, via the public health system, in 2010 and has been free from the disease since 2011.

That is the case with almost every single technology, though. Would you argue against cars based on the fact that poor people can not afford to buy cars today? How about airplanes or trucks? Vaccines? Every single type of medicine is first available to the people who can pay for it, and then later on to governments and poorer people when the medicine becomes cheaper. How about electricity? A significant proportion of today's population lives without stable access to electricity. That is not an argument AGAINST electricity, it is an argument for MORE electricity. Many, many breakthroughs in science are very expensive at first, and therefore rich people are the first beneficiaries. But those breakthroughs (usually both paid by, and benefiting the rich) are then the stepping stone for even being able to ask "So now that we have this technology, how do we make it cheaper and more available to everyone?

Clearly an alcoholic.

Cantaloupa. Most people that oppose it dont have health issues. But the second they get cancer they suddenly change their minds.

Hey, sometimes cancer can be a better population control method than China can.

KADH99 Hey I hope you get it. Oh damn was that cruel? Sometimes I don't know where the line is when playing devils advocate.

Jack Heathen: No it wasn't, as long as you are not actively trying to "infect" him and only trying to make a point. Oh - not the answer you expected? Well - there are people out there that can accept death by illness as a part of life. Nature is "cruel" and culture has dampened many things that could have killed us, but we are only surprisingly fragile creatures. Now yes - it still sucks and is probably a loss for a few people, but it is not the end of the world. Hmm.. where was i going with this? I guess i got "unemotional" with that topic because its my coping mechanism, but i don't think rational thinking is always a bad thing.

Unfortunately cleft palette is not a genetic error, it's usually a formation error as parts of the mouth fuse enutero (basically the issue doesn't all connect were it is supposed to). Improved nutrition and avoidance of substances that can trigger birth defects like a cleft palette, but it does not remove all risk. Also, sorry for your suffering, I hope you have completed your surgeries by now and that they went well.

Should've called him The "Dwayne Johnson" Rock

I’m calling him this now

I was looking for this comment. Rock Johnson is his name......!😁

@@karpmanlarpman The 2nd Law 👀

Dzaid Din dock the Rayne jinsin

WOW. Just WOW.👏👏👏

Beagles are the goto lab dogs

@@MrDanisve I'm pretty sure Labs are the goto lab dogs.

@@SteveCary55 Only if they are golden retreived

other breeds will become jealous causing perhaps a Boxer rebellion

Alice Suhina unless you're in the science community and that's all you hear about haha another perspective is that there's so much talk that John Oliver who's not in science got wind of it. It's great though, it's a really controversial subject and I'd trust John to talk about it over any other talkshow.

kurzgesacht has some nice videos on it.

No, a lot of people talk about it, but unfortunately they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

was that sarcastic? its all over the place since 2015. its so over used and mentioned i am getting more bored then anything else when the topic comes up.

The problem is, as with many new technologies like this is lay people get excited/scared/anxious/obsessed with it without understanding the underlying science behind it. CRISPR is NOT A PANACEA, it is just another tool in the molecular genetics tool box, yes it is somewhat novel and revolutionary in it's mechanism, but it's actual real world application utility is for the most part untested. So when i hear stories on NPR about CRISPR and the dawn of "designer babies" it makes me fucking CRINGE, because it completely undervalues the insane complexity involved.

@8alot4t cancer does not benefit the organism in which it inhabits. Stop advocating for cancer.

@@finmin2k it does benefit the cells that are cancerous, though. So it is a horrible disease for the group of cells we know as the organism, but it is a savior for the group of cells that have become oncogenic. True to nature, it is a matter of two groups of cells fighting to survive. We happen to advocate for the human side.

@@georgebrantley776 To be fair though, wouldn't the cancerous cells be endangering themselves by retroactively killing the human they're a part of?

@@TheQuashingoftheTub Yeah, but when I say "fight to survive" I mean it in a more metaphoric sense as the cells don't have consciousness to be able to fight for anything. So in cancer the cells grow and never die even as they become damaged (usually cells commit suicide when needed). So cancer will grow on its own just because the feature of cell suicide has been irreparably damaged due to mutation. So it's true that cancer cells don't persist generationally like a parasite might, which begs the question how did cancer survive a billion years of evolution? Obviously parasites propagate their gene pool by laying eggs prior to killing the hosy--if they kill the host all. But cancer cells have no gene pool to propagate, as the cancerous designation comes from genetic mutation via sheer chance (over time) or radiation/other similar external factors. The original cell just grows and multiples are a ridiculous rate, never stopping, until the outsized growth fucks something up in your body. There is thus not really any natural selection for the survivability of cancerous cells, because while they do multiply on their own, there exists another source of cancer that will allow cancer to persist its existence over millenia and millenia into the future, because of environmental factors and the sheer design of gene replication in cells. Unlike the parasite that is reliant on a host to reproduce and is subject to typical biological evolutionary constraints, cancer is really a state of being rather than a disease per se, since there is no infectious pathogen. Cancer is to the human body what potholes are to roads I suppose. So there will always be potholes; it's just a sad inevitable truth of physics that asphalt will eventually crumble and break over time. It's just a truth of biology that our cell will eventually mutate and become cancerous given enough time, even in ideal circumstances. This is why cancer cells have not been much selected upon for survivability of the cancer cell.

Stupid

*toads. We love frogs.

I don't consider my being autistic and having ADHD to be a disability...but the bipolar one sure is. Plus I have long term weakness in the right side of my body from meningitis...IIH creates high cerebrospinal fluid which makes it hard to walk, temporary paralysis, memory loss. Some of these things I really wish could be cured (the last two), I honestly don't know what it would be like to not have autism or ADHD. I know what you are talking about Desiree. I'm mainly considered about the potential eugenics aspect.

You mean you don’t want to be a martyr for a group that can’t accept their limitations, you must be Hitler.

I hope they can prevent epilepsy someday and do the process well.

@@2126Eliza yeah, because all Hitler wanted to do was preform safe treatments on consenting individuals to only treat the severely disabled and fatally diseased. There's absolutely no reason for people to be scared that they might be systematically wiped out and medically experimented on over meaningless genetic differences they can't change without their consent. None at all, it's pure delusional hysteria. (/s)

@@khadijahbindavid9518 it is a disability whether you think it is or not. People with SEVERE adhd and autism can’t go through life quite as easily as someone without it can. So it is a disability. Gene editing isn’t about the more mild or “high functioning” cases. It’s about helping the people with severe diseases

Its a dumb situation, where going around moral comsiderations is changed with "playing god". Its not the same terms at all, "playing god" is retarded statment which you can apply to anything you dont like, for example: taking medicine for your hedache? hur dur u re playing god u all neez jezas. Now moral considerations about crispr is a real thing, like in this video - dwarfism, is it bad or just different? Eugenics are a terrifying thing... just imagine what Hitler would do with cirspr if he had hands on it...

I understand that religious people have these reservations regarding science but it's still a bit of a fallacy.

Why not put yourself in his shoes. He obviously doesn't believe in god. So what is he supposed to say? "I'm sorry your believes deny you something I personally see as a prosperous future?" . IMO his answer was as respectful as a socially awkward scientist who dedicates his life to the subject could make it.

Well, in fairness, we are the one without resource, to the point everything that helps or giving out marginal hoping of helps would be morally okay for us. Which was forced by you western.

He clearly hasn't read the famous passage: "And so the Lord said -Thou shalt not fuck with the gene pool. He who does, will surely become Deadpool."

sounds like that one city in china a couple years back... you know - the country where morals (or copyright laws) don't exist xD

Bigger muscles... yeh... That would be the SECOND thing they'll work on, after the first project was successful. Project HORSE COCK.

@@TheUltimateBlooper why do you think Chinese people don’t have morals because Xi is a monster. You dummy lol

@@TheUltimateBlooper I must inform you that copyright laws, create a very arteficial monopoly on things, and generally negaitvly impact people's life on Earth. see: Inzulin.

@@orion9590 I'm fully aware that the system is broken, don't worry. I'm glad I don't live in that garbage pile they call "the US" for that exact reason. That being said - there has to be SOME sort of protection for artists and inventors so that their work isn't blatantly stolen, but that would also have limits on how much cash you can actually make from it. It's complicated.

Agreed, he finds it fascinating that in this day and age, people still believe such things.

Philip Ehusani In this day and age, belief in the unprovable still makes people feel better.

@@gusg6197 Yup, that's the human psychology, we like to feel good, we hate responsibilities, so we feel better convincing ourselves that God is responsible for all things.

It helps that he lives in China, which as a (former?) Communist state, isn’t big on religion.

Philip Ehusani ...heh. I’m just a weirdo, but the main comforts I draw from the possibility (since I’m agnostic, though identifying as Presbyterian) is: that death won’t be the end, and that bad people will be held to account.

you are clearly bigoted, you should be happy that you are different and unique! Removing those diseases would be pure eugenics! They wouldn't suffer from seizures, they would suffer from how society treats them! /s

I assumed when you started the sentence with "furries of the world, this is how -", that you were going to end by saying "you will be edited out of future generations" 🤷

1) turning somebody into a wolf-man is probably something that has to be done from birth and not something you can do at a whim, raising all the ethical concerns of designer babies with the added horror of condemming a child to be a socially outcast sex object 2) this comment has 69 likes, how appropriate 3) laura the bot has become sentient, knowning that y'all need the soundproof curtains, i know you want them, buy them bitch

Your view is a little one-sided

@@user-rn8zj7tt8q What is your disagreement, friend?

@@redsnowpenguin well I agree with your arguement, but it can also be in chinese traditional culuture. Chinese people looks like lacking in awe of the gods because of political and economic development. And in thsi era, a well-educated scientist needs to take on greater responsibility，instead of letting prejudice continue

I think you reading too much into this. I don't think anyone can deny that some scientists are driven by discovery and not ethics. I mean, fuck jesus, but the interviewer was Asian as well and wasn't what he was going for.

@@marinaproger2324 The reporter, Adam Yamaguchi, is Japanese-American. #NotAllAsians are the same :-) America is strong in Adam. But more importantly, the clip just seemed like a case of cultural contexts not matching up. Yamaguchi was fumbling a little bit with wording, or in any case it looks that way to me. In America we have a shared language around Christianity where people understand that an ambiguous reference to higher powers in ethics discussions don't necessarily, literally, mean God. But the scientist he interviewed clearly didn't take the question that way, for reasons I already mentioned. LastWeekTonight is not wrong that there are cases of highly problematic gene-editing experiments from China. But unless they know something about the scientist interviewed in the clip, it's not right to characterize the clip as Chinese Scientist Laughing at Ethical Concerns.

oh fuck it

I don't care much about the seagulls - kill them all!!

As a graphic design student, I really appreciate this haha

hey me too ^.^ former though

Hilarious!

thank you :)

TimeandMonotony add some bear in there... Excelsior!

Justin Kincaid I'm super cereal

all I could think about when he said that

ManBearPig. Half man, half bear, half pig.

JR Gracie manbearpig!!!

My concern precisely

You may think it isn't a bad thing, but science and biology says otherwise.

@@dingkong5034 science and biology are the tools, you're making a philosophical argument here, not a scientific one. Disabled people should have the right to self determination, and not have our futures decided by some eugenicist fools.

@@dingkong5034 Grandin Temple would like to have a few words with you. Also, at least 16% of STEM majors. Get back to me when someone else not only cares about animal welfare, but also singlehandedly redesigns an entire industry around it, and dramatically reduces accidents and deaths regarding livestock.

Had to be me, someone else might have gotten it wrong...

That was fixed.

He just made them steaks, I don't know why they hated him so much...

The scientist can be saved (Just saying)

Or just let the dumb korgan take over, save the salarian scientist and destroy the cure!

PowahSlap Entertainmint i hate you

PowahSlap Entertainmint I hate you too, well done

you spelled gene wrong

Really? I transformed my jeans into a denim jacket.

No, that's a far worse crime than eugenics

Was it about how scary black people would freeze people?

@@XxXNOSCOPEURASSXxX I think he might be talking about the story where a dead doctor keeps himself from decomposing in a super cold apartment.

Did the joke make a boom when it flew over your head at the speed of fucking sound?

@@lloydhedges3011 I guess? It's 4 months since I posted that.

@@kinagrill if you think there's time limit on comment responses than you might not understand the basic premise of social media chum.

Blaze Absolute unit

dumb thicc

They're getting all the bitches

SWOLL BOIS

Guess what the Chinese scientists are eating at the table

EE Ehrenberg Only that a kitchen knive is such a primitive tool in comparison that this analogy is very weak as an argument. Nothing you do with your kitchen knive will have implications for the ecosystem or the planet as a whole.

EE Ehrenberg: But after cutting ourselves, we expect our fingers to heal. Also, given only 10 fingers, that are located in our extremities, there is a limit to the damage to your organism if you lose a finger. But they're not talking fingers, they are talking cells. If you use a "knife" to make a failed cell, and if that failure doesn't prevent replication, your organism wastes resources making failed cells. Your failed cell might not play well with others. It might form compromised tissues;it might fail to produce a necessary protein; it might make a protein that isn't useful, etc. That's my simple way of looking at this. You might make someone sick, and unlike text editing, there's no way to "undo" the mistake. Some scientists are using CRSPR and they know what they are doing, they have high quality laboratories where they can carefully control the environment, and they probably are doing quality checks to verify they get what they expect. Right now, I believe there are strict laws about using CRSPR on human cells. I personally wouldn't look for a robust solution from a person who uses the verb hacking in the same sentence as CRSPR.

NO! Anyone with an IQ over 60 can look at a knife and know exactly how it work and accurately predict the out come of using it without risking an entire ecosystem and starting a trend that will change the very nature by which people ordered in society.

my fear as a biologist, is that genes are extremely complicated. multiple genes can affect one epigenetic expression, and one gene can affect several expressions. (to put it in simplest terms I mean) for example, those belonging to haplogroup J2 (there are other haplogroups who also contain the same genetic trait I'll be talking about, but for now, let's just use J2 - Sicilians, Greek, Mediterranean, etc - for our example) have a higher propensity to develop one of the various Thalassemia conditions, which is bad, however, with that mutation comes an increased resistance to Malaria. Its a mutation developed through microevolution, though the mutation that brings good benefits (resistance to Malaria) is controlled by the same genes that cause the Thalassemia traits as well. (technically, it's a lot more complicated than that. People with alpha Thalassemia have smaller red blood cells, and it's mainly due to the distribution of small amounts of hemoglobin in larger quantities of cells. So it's not like they block malaria, just that the mutation mitigates the damage until the immune system handles the rest. But I'm getting off topic...) In short, no single gene acts alone, and we wont be able to affect change with one part without possibly causing other potential defects or changes. And not all defects are just negatives. Sometimes those smaller negatives arose to mitigate a larger negative. Erasing those smaller negative make us vulnerable to those larger ones again.

Despite some of the other replies, I think this is a perfect and simply analogy.

"Playing god" is a meaningless analogy, since gods do not exist.

@Forx_o That's not edgy, he's just stating a fact. At least regarding "Gods" as defined by religions.

Brian F Considering a lot of people believe in God, it’s not a meaningless statement. Just because you don’t believe in one doesn’t nullify the entire implication and meaning of “playing God”. I’d imagine you can still comprehend what that phrase means without being religious yourself.

@Liz T I agree with Brian, I think it's kind of meaningless without the context of religion. When you say it assuming God is real, you mean it in a way that implies it's a bad thing, because we cannot be so "arrogant" I guess, to defy God's will? Or some shit like that. It's stupid if you consider that there is no God, because that just means we are trying to improve upon the random shit that happened naturally, which is sometimes disadvantageous to us, so of course we want to fix it. If we can fix something that's bad, we should do it, and saying it's "playing God" is just a bullshit argument that has no meaning in a rational society. Edit: And of course, I'm not saying that there are no risks, far from it, but "Don't play god" is not a good way to warn a scientist against the potential risks of something, it's something that people say because they are afraid of god, not because they concluded rationally that such a thing could be risky.

Liz T the problem is that they use the term "playing god". when you could say "playing mother nature" and mean the same thing yes, you could argue that it's arrogant for humans to think we understand nature so much that we can message with it and know the results, but in the end, from the day we started selectively breeding livestock we have been screwing with nature

Radical Theories In the segment with the Chinese guy, all the interviewer said was that people think that things like gene editing are left to a higher power, implying God. I wasn't referring to what John said.

But is it “playing god” to save the child god obviously wanted to die?

Didn't God flood the planet for gene editing?

For many people, it’s just a simple phrase. It would have made more sense to say something like “Is playing with nature on this level the best idea.”

There are plenty of sects that don't allow ANY medicine for this exact reason. It's a stupid argument there, and it's a stupid argument here.

There once was a man who came from Nantucket Who gathered some mice which he kept in a bucket He altered those mice Engineered with a splice So a mouse won't get Lyme's when a tic would fuck it.

There once was a man from Nantucket Who gathered some mice in a bucket He altered those mice Engineered with a splice Because you know what, fuck it

are served with rice

You forgot the zalgo.

Ross Howard-Hildige it also might be because of the communist party's policy on religion, its a different world in china

​@@PropheticShadeZ Except China is now more capitalist than communist (they have 1 million millionaires) but yes, China keeps a close eye on all religions to make sure people are not becoming extremists, or political, like they are in the US which is unconstitutional. Time to strip tax-exemption from churches that are pushing politics. The US should start doing some of that b/c there are too many people in the US who just want to "kill" science and there are religious groups in the US that are STILL abusing and oppressing women/girls. The Chinese are laughing at how absurd we've become! They are much more advanced in biotechnology than the US now because religious groups in the US are causing us to fall behind in biotechnology and many other areas of science. China just invested $350 billion into biotechnology. Thank George H.W. Bush, who banned stem cell research in 2001, for setting the US back a generation or two! We could be much further advanced if religion would just stay away from scientific research! There was a PhD student at Vanderbilt who was growing tiny hearts, life-saving work, inside of mice. His goal was to get rid of the shortage of organs for transplant. The religious people in that state shut down his work! He had to find a University to continue his work. It's a losing battle for those people b/c even if they kick science out of their state b/c of "beliefs," people will go to another state. I'm starting to be jaded by "state's rights." We should become like a normal country and not have 50 different laws. It's starting to get out of hand. People shouldn't have to move from the state they've lived in their whole lives just so they can stop their child's seizures with medical cannabis, or move b/c they want to die with dignity, or force women to have to go to another state for a safe abortion. z

Jae Lynn while i agree that the us has problems, and china does have advantages, i think the most important difference is that the us is able to debate and discuss the gov policy, while that freedom of information hinders complex debating. Hurting the countries ability to change. In america accountability is a constantly strived for goal, china has recently become an example of how totalitarian thinking can oppress 20% of the human race under the nose of democratic nations

Only the US anyone cares about god these days :P And yea, horrible reference. Most of modern people are not religious except in the US

MrDanisve religion is still all over the world dumbass 😒

Additionally, companies that test for ancestry have no obligation to destroy your DNA once tested and are free to monetize it and sell it to their partners.

well maybe you wont need medicine or insurance anymore after you updated yourself. we have to make sure they dont regulate it or they will force us to buy the intermediate steps (drugs,treatments) i want the free market 1 stop update solution. but fearmongerers and politicians will prevent that.

Science creates wonderful tools, some ideas not worth exploring, others just plain stupid. But that doesn't stop the servile scientist of a corrupt government or corporation to do whatever they wish for more control and power i.e. government/politicians or for more profit, i.e. CEO of some corporate conglomerate who only exploit people and damage the environment.

Yea, I don't know what response John Oliver was expecting from a scientist on a question like that.

I loved his reaction, he was almost laughing at our society and how we prevent a technology because, "Oh no! It challenges our god."

Out of all the things in gene-editing people can be scared of, They choose an imaginary person

Regardless of your view on religion the interviewer points out the vast influence and power humanity gains through gene editing and he questions how and whether we are capable of dealing with this responsibility. So if you don't take his question too literal I find it extremely relevant indeed.

I don't think the main issue behind the "God Argument" is that "oh let's not piss off god" its the idea of "let's not play god" or just falling into being overconfident with power and not really being able to control it.

You really aren't educated when it comes to pseudoscience you moron.

Just to be fair, "real scientists" are idiots educated, they doesn't want the cure for diseases or make mankind better than before, they are always feeding the pharmaceutical industry who doesn't want purchase the discovery to cure diabetes or something. Because they know, if someone discover the cure of whatever they'll need to lose billions to put on the shelves of their pharmacy. To be fair, no one should suffer for something they don't asked for like being too short or too tall, too thin or too fat, black mainly or white, man or woman and etc... If someone can revert this natural state to something you want like transgenderism which isn't realistic, but can actually remove an entire reproduction system to what you ever wanted. Some mofos are afraid of this because it can take out his post of privilege, making a perfect world or idealizing one. Would wash this prejudice, hate and everything. No one would be more or less, everybody on the same pattern.

57goku - Then they shouldn’t eat anything that contains GMOs. Humans have been messing with the genetics of things for a long time including the plants and animals that most of us eat daily. Most of those who use God as a defense are hypocrites who don’t apply what they say to all aspects of their lives.

Pygmy Norton alright? Who’s to say they’re okay with eating genetically modified foods? And everyone has different ideas of when we’re going too far. My point is they just want to feel like people aren’t being reckless when they say that phrase. You’re being mad extra, I don’t want to debate what’s a valid thing to be against

Meanwhile the people are so opposed to human gene editing because it is "playing god", praise others for getting IVF or sperm donations when "god" is clearly yelling: "YOU BETTER NOT F**KING REPRODUCE!!!"

I giggled when he said that. It was perfect.

bill bill heard it first on wrestletalk

Dwayne “Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson” Johnson

Oli from Wrestletalk said has been using it for years!

Not to infer that they are "less than" an average person. But if science can eliviate them from these burdens, or prevent children from having to deal with complications, how is that not the moral choice?

Yeah but the bad thing is we won't be able to remake Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or Austin Powers.

Dan “not to “imply””. Infer is the message someone else takes from reading your comment, while imply is the message you are trying to put across.

You should read Far From the Tree by Andrew Solomon. It provides a much more nuanced look into the possible elimination of these conditions and the impact that may have on our society.

@@amandadavenport2020 "Diversity is good for society" is a bad argument for not eliminating medically harmful or disadvantaging conditions. No one owes it to society to live in pain, have a shortened average lifespan, or have to accept some other detrimental condition for everyone else's benefit.

only thing being that fucking up with cooking will just lead to a bit of inedible pasta dispised by god fucking up with crispir could have severe consequences

@@defensivekobra3873 that's not actually true, sometimes you might cook something that's truly toxic n can make u severely ill but we have escaped that by making recipes that are safe n use foods that are not dangerous. the same will happen with crispr, scientists will discover safe methods through which genes can be edited n test it rigorously before allowing the masses to use it

@@kushal4956 yes, you can take the appropriate safety precautions to make sure nothing bad happens, but the tech is still at least somewhat more dangerous. Plus if a meal is poisonous, it is usually something you can discover within days, wheras some potential long-term drawback of gene editing might only be noticed after a decade or two

It reminded me of when Bart creates a horrible creature while learning magic.

I knew I could find Nina in the comments

It reminded me of some terrifying late-game unicorn-like creatures in Salt & Sanctuary. They charge at you, stick their horn in you, and then in all probability they'll suck all the life out before you can free yourself.

Can we go one day without mentioning the damn chimera?!?!

@@Crazyashley42 her name was Nina!!!

We are raised so entrenched in religion in, America, that it can be difficult to see a point of view that does not fear the phrase 'playing God'. The fact that I am an atheist and still I instinctively capitalized that 'g' in God is just one example of our lifelong programming. I no longer feel bitter toward religion as a whole but still find it frustrating when religious beliefs interfere with scientific advancement. 'Playing God' is what humanity has always done. That is the free will we supposedly have.

Yeah, I'm surprised John didn't address how the interviewer portrayed the west as religious nuts, when this is hardly the case (specially EU)

I don't care as long as whoever is doing it accepts full responsibility for the outcome.

It's not easy to incorporate a minute long story about a mouse fucking a tick in the middle of a gene editing deep dive...yet somehow, he does it!

You know what some may call him a maverick some may call him an anchor some may call him an adult ....... *chuckles* haaaaaa

What do you find interesting if you think gene editing is boring? Just out of curiosity.

Dominika circles and math... mostly squares..................... *Not troll comment I swear*

Its true, i seriously never cared about the mouse who finds a tick on tender but maybe we could figure out some sort of support group for them so they dont get so desperate.

Jason Is Awesome! Actually, Chinese scientific establishment lags in the field of bioethics. Thats a structural problem, going back decades... this problem also affects Russian scientific community, since the USSR was much more focused on results as dictated by the Party demands. Not saying that they are devoid of morals, or that the Western scientists are very ethical, but there are different ingrained cultures regarding what is and what is not prioritised in each academic/scientific circles.

Unfortunately for Russia, there has been major national losses for ignoring bioethics/morality. We as a peoples(species) keep morality around because it is more optimal than being a Saturday cartoon villain or some bbeg, for large majority of situations considering physical limits of being human in general. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/i4F0moWhn52msGQ.html

the_rugged it seemed to me that it was more of a language issue. Here in the US, you don’t necessarily have to use that phraseology rigidly - it can just mean that you’re screwing with something that you don’t necessarily understand the consequences of. I think the scientist was genuinely scoffing at the potential belief that someone thinks that gene editing ought to be left with gods. I think the statement was poorly represented, and can understand how people might take it literally. Whether or not China or the USSR have thoroughly developed their ethical standards for science is a separate argument. Although, if ours is more developed, it might explain why we (in the West) have moral reservations when we discuss gene editing.

There is no GOD. That's why the asian scientist was laughing... and also the fact that there would be peoiple that would rather let others suffer orbe diffrent just becouse they think some higher being wants them to.

Jason Is Awesome! People without faith are the most dangerous creatures. That's why China under CCP's rule can do harm to the whole world.

OHM-968692 but many can be stemmed from the god argument

That is not the God argument, it means omniscience or knowing the consequences of one's actions. What people really mean is that when you're making such drastic changes which have happened naturally over millions of years in organisms through evolution while maintaining balance with the environment then you better know what you're doing. At this stage the scientists are in no position to truly understand how this will affect the environment, that level of understanding is only possessed by Nature (or God or higher power whatever your religious inclination is). So it is best to proceed with extreme caution as the scientist experimenting in Nantucket island shows.

Random User yes, you can just ask about omnipotence and its moral aspects, instead of saying are they want to be Gods? or Does God allow.

OHM-968692 -Thank 🙌 U. Da very people Dat into(+) da world 2 jesus R da very people using our ($) 2 fund(-) experiments HELLO sumthing (=) about getting scammed da MASSES love

Bas Rensen 😁 they gave u jesus while they do not believe n use ur money to experiment

What blows me away here is that apparently, there's a weirdo out there who seems to think that the Gatherer's Gardens were a brilliant idea and that all the insane mutants were completely unrelated.

Well, suppose they do turn their DNA into a picasso painting! What's the worst that could happen?^^ ...Oh right... unimaginable body horrors with a potentially contagious level of instability.

YES!!

Just use Latex instead.

Epicmonk117 I dont fucking get the point of unicorns, I like my horses like I like my comments; pointless.

The point of a unicorn is to be magical. Can gene editing make them magical? No? Then move the fuck on!

"Let's put horns on horses" is like saying "let's make venomous rats" or "let's make seagulls that breathe fire."

You're absolutely right, we should create them NOW. I mean, let's be honest, horse populations are pretty easy to control, so unicorns wouldn't get out of hand. On the other side, they could ignite the curiosity of little kids to go into life sciences, or science in general.

Scotland Dobson i think that was the point:p

'Love is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed'

Kyle Li ah jeez

Lol, best comment here!

So I guess Dr. Sanchez just accidentally turned on Fox News?

The fucking squirrels!

Mark the time.

Brainbuster my bad lol

Um, no? Not like it would matter, but you're wrong. Born female, and she has that last name because her parents had that last name.

Illuminati confirmed!

Raf Jesus Christ it's her last name as well

There are a few with dwarfism that don't experience these issues at least with the same level of severity. Those are usually the ones fighting trying to pretend it something that should be preserved. It is honestly pretty sick wanting your kid to be a dwarf.

Troy Warren exactly. For a much less severe version, I'm really nearsighted. Without my glasses, all I can see beyond about 20 feet is vague blurry shapes. Thankfully, I can compensate with my glasses and not be hindered in any significant way. That doesn't change the fact that I'd be better off with naturally 20/20 vision and, given the option, I'd rather not pass my poor vision on to my kids. Though I think "person with dwarfism" is a preferable term to "dwarf" because it emphasizes the fact that dwarfism is something you have, not something you are.

Element115 What is a "normal human"? We very so greatly around the globe that very little room for "normal" exists. While I understand the urge to change a future child's life by removing a disability, I also fear that it could be used to erase certain communities with their own cultures. There are many people with Autism (like myself) who cope with it and move on. I feel like erasing the chance for my child to have Autism is just as bad as having killed it for being born with Autism. Many other people with disabilities feel the same way.

Maybe you didn't know this, but there are people without dwarfism that have those problems too. It is not up to you to decide what is "normal," this is precisely why eugenics isn't just morally outrageous, it is also an outright pseudoscience.

Heraclitus Blacking You can discuss all day about what is considered normal, but that isn't going to change the fact that people with certain conditions like dwarfism have considerable disadvantages compared to those who don't. It's great that those people learn to cope with those disadvantages, but it's still morally outrageous for some of them to want their children to have those disadvantages too, IF there was a reasonable option to prevent it. Also, just because some people have similar symptoms without dwarfism, doesn't make the condition of those who's symptoms come from dwarfism less bad.