This dialogue exposes the unsettling intersection of venture capital and eugenics, where human life is reduced to a series of optimizable data points. It serves as a stark reminder that scientific capability often outpaces our moral wisdom.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Tucker Debates Biotech CEO on Baby Customization, Eugenics, and God’s ExistenceAñadido:
Thanks for doing this. I appreciate it.
I I'll just say at the outset, which I told you off camera, I disagree with this conceptually, I think, but I'm also completely ignorant of the details.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I I kind of want to know what this is before even asking you questions about whether it's a good idea. Can you can you just I'll stand back and let you explain what you're doing?
>> Yeah. So, first, thanks for having me on, of course. Um so patients there's one way of reproducing via IVF right so you can conceive naturally via sex or maybe if you're infertile or if you have some sort of hearty disease or for some other reason you do IVF >> um when you do yeah >> I'm sorry I'm going to I specialize in dumb questions can you explain for people who don't know >> what is IVF yeah what is IVF >> IVF stands for invitro fertilization so basically imagine the egg and the sperm right the foundation of life to make an embryo it's basically putting those things together in a in a clinic Right.
Um and then basically you take that uh embryo and you transfer it into a woman and then implant and the woman's pregnant.
>> So conception takes place outside the womb.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> And so during this process of IVF, what you do is today even if nucleus didn't exist, even if genetic optimization didn't exist, you make several embryos.
Okay. So in an IVF clinic, you make several embryos. Uh the amount of embryos end up making it varies, but you might have four or five. you actually do genetic testing on these embryos to identify things like chromosomeal abnormalities like down syndrome for example right so that's very common place that's done in basically every IVF clinic uh in the United States they will actually screen embryos the genetics of the embryos to see if they have some sort of severe chromosomal abnormality what we do is we basically provide more information on the embryos so we also read the DNA but now we give information on things like other hereditary disease risk um also chronic diseases things like cancers Alzheimer's diabetes um also traits like IQ or or height or etc. Um so to be clear, we're not changing any DNA. There's this process in IVF where you make embryos already. Genetic testing is done in embryos. What we do now is we provide you a little bit more information on your embryos. So the basically that information can be used then implant which embryo the couple deems to be best. So basically give more information to couples to then choose which embryo they want to implant.
>> I don't want to derail this conversation 2 minutes in.
>> Okay. But you just said we can tell the IQ of a person by the genetics.
>> So IQ >> I was reliably informed IQ is not real.
Okay. And it's not determined by genetics.
>> So so there's there's so I think it's helpful to think about all these different characteristics from diseases to traits, right? People know intuitively something like height for example, right? Height they say, "Oh, that's that's genetic." Or something like uh breast cancer, eye color, right?
Um these things people intuitively know are genetic. And so you can actually basically take these different phenotypes and measure how genetic any phenotype is. So what does it actually mean? Uh the most simple way of explaining is imagine you took um two identical twins. So they have the same DNA, right? And then basically you separated the twins. They grow up in different environments. Sometimes in pop culture people hear about these different things where you actually take twins and they have again the same DNA.
They're identical DNA and then you they grow up in different places for whatever reason. So they're subject to different environments and you can actually measure basically how much more similar they how how similar they are across all these different phenotypes to see basically how genetic something is >> studies. Yes, twin studies. Yes. Um and so using twin studies you can actually get measurements of things from diseases right like cancers and diabetes and Alzheimer's as mentioned to things like height or IQ or BMI etc. Um, so twin studies show that IQ specifically is about 50% genetic. But to be clear, IQ is just one of over 2,000 factors that we actually look at, right? Principally parents and patients, they come for disease. They always come for disease.
And remember that when the embryos you're picking from, the most important determinant of the genetics of your embryos is well, your partner, right? So you're actually not changing DNA. This is not genetic. You're not changing DNA.
You're not making uh like an embryo's DNA better. You're basically reading the embryo's DNA that you have. So when you pick your partner, you're basically picking the kind of genetic pool and then you can basically pick which embryo you deem to be best based off of your preferences and values.
>> I mean that this like >> again I just want to say thank you for doing this. Absolutely.
>> I'm not here to attack you at all. I think this is one of the most important conversations we can have and I >> I agree.
>> I'm you're much younger than I am. So, you weren't here for the debates that took place in the early 1990s about what traits are the product of genetics and which are the product of environment.
But up until pretty recently, the public conversation has settled on a consensus that everything is environment and that genetics aren't real. that this was at the very center of our national debate about race >> and crime and educational achievement, income, and it it all grew out of or was crystallized by a book called The Bell Curve. Have you heard of this book?
>> Yeah, I have. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So, um it seems like that debate is over and we're and I'm not this not an attack at all. It's just like crazy to me that people are just saying this out loud.
Yeah. Genetics plays a big role.
>> Yeah, Gen X plays a role. So I think in in society today when people think about uh like height or cancers I'm not and to be clear I'm not talking about there's hereditary disease risk like PKU t-ax cystic fibrosis betaththalmia these are conditions we also screen for right to make sure that parents can you know reduce suffering each generation so that's also part of what we do um and those conditions are basically deterministic in nature right so if you have two bad copies of like cystic fibrosis you're going to get cystic fibrosis and it's dilitating and so there's like policies uh you know that basically encourage you know, Americans and people around the world to to do screening to not pass down basically an invisible genetic burden to their child.
Um, >> right.
>> Right. That's like classical kind of genetics. So, I think it's interesting because you eugenics, right?
>> No, no, no, not eugenics. Eugenics.
>> How is it not? It's improving human species through breeding.
>> No, eugenics refers to basically a corrosive use, corrosively controlling human reproduction, right? For sterilizations, uh, even euthanasia, um, controlling who can get married to who.
So, >> no, no, no, no. Those are methods by which you implement in eugenics, but they're not the only ones. Eugenics simply means there's nothing inherently well you can disagree with the concept, but the concept is corrosive or not. The improvement of a species, in this case, the human species through selective breeding. Well, but there is no selective breeding. Remember, patients choose who they marry and then in the embryos they have, right? You're not changing any embryos. In the embryos they have, patients can make their own choice in which embryo they want to implant. So juxtapose like eugenics.
>> How is that not selective breeding? This is literally breeding.
>> Well, breeding is by definition the process of bringing new life into the world and you're deciding which of these embryos becomes a person. And so that is that is breeding. It's not it's not choosing people's marriages. It's not >> giving them force vesctomies, but it is breeding. That's what breeding is. Well, I would say that um in IVF clinics for, you know, the last couple decades, there's been this process of basically taking these embryos, getting more information on the embryos, and then picking which embryo you want to implant, right?
>> Um again, you're not changing DNA.
You're not you're not controlling who can get married to who. Like, just to be clear, if you go back, um >> eugenics is a term it came up with in the late 19th century by a scientist named Francis Golton. Okay. He was a British scientist.
>> Yeah. Havlock Ellis. Yeah.
>> Yeah. He came up with the term eugenics.
Interestingly, the term eugenics was actually about 20 years before the term genetics. This is really interesting. A lot of people don't know that. Yeah, this is very important. Eugenics um naturally did not require genetics. So, genetics when the when the term was coined, it was the the science of heredity, right? Of passing down um information. The remember the units of heredity identified as DNA. That was only until the 1940s. Right. Right. And then identifying the structure of DNA was actually after World War II in the 1950s. So we didn't even know for basically um in 1927 in I think it was Buck versus Bell, the US Supreme Court deemed force sterilizations constitutional. Okay, at that point we had no idea that DNA was actually the genetic basis. This is really really important. People always get this wrong because they they don't they don't follow the timeline. Um eugenics as a as a as a as an corrosive ideology to control populations had nothing to do with molecular genetics. Period. It had nothing to do with genetics.
>> Why was it corrosive? Um well I think if you basically force sterilize somebody against their will I mean I think that's against the fundamental you know liberty of a person. There's no question and I couldn't agree more. Um but again that was just one manifestation of it. So force played no role in a lot of it. It was steering people giving them options telling them that you know if you married this kind of person here's the outcome you're likely to get when you have children. Well, force did play. I mean, again, in 1927, the United States the the Supreme Court deemed constitutionally forced >> constitution. I'm just saying that, and I couldn't be more opposed to that, in fact, to the whole program, but >> I just want to note as a factual matter that forced sterilizations were an incredibly ugly evil manifestation of an idea that was not limited to force sterilizations. Yeah, that is the same idea you're articulating which is people should try to improve the human species by selective creation of children.
>> So yeah, I disagree with that. I I just >> how is it different?
>> So nucleus ultimately and what we give patients ultimately what patients actually want, right? Again, patients are choosing their partner. They're choosing to do IVF. Um they have basically options, they have several embryos, they get information, there's actually no um best embryo, right? So nucleus is a company and no patient can ever say oh this is the best embryo because there's no um fundamental virtue rooted in biological characteristics. So like the idea that like you could even have a best for example is misguided principally in my view because something like virtue right and I think of two kinds of virtue there's natural virtue and then divine virtue right it's fundamentally not biological it's not physical genetics is only programmed for physical things and then people can basically make their choices within the partners that they choose and in doing IVF to then pick the embryo that sets the best set of biological characteristics of them but there is no virtue there's no morality in that decision. Oh, I've noticed. Yeah. But so do you think that it's equally virtuous to have a child intentionally have a child, which we can now do with the genetic testing you're describing, >> who has Down syndrome, Tay-SAX, and CF.
Is that as virtuous as having a child who has none of those things? Cuz I thought you just get rid of those things.
>> To be clear, virtue is independent of virtue is independent of biological characteristics. Parents can choose based off their preference, what they want. what is best. So let me give an example. Let me give an example. So there was a case in reproductive medicine where a deaf couple they wanted to have a deaf child.
>> Y >> that that to them was what was was best basically right? That term best is relative context specific to the parent.
>> We have patients for example that might have um you know Huntington's which is a severe neurogener disease. Yeah. Very severe. It's autoomal dominant means it's passed down. Right. And by the way this is actually interesting. something like Huntington's or schizophrenia.
These are exactly the kind of conditions that in the 20th century they would say, "Hey, these people are unfit, right?
They should not be produced, right?
Because they have some sort of neuroscychiatric or some sort of uh debilitating um condition that runs in the family. Um like in my case, you know, one of the reason why I started the business is because one of my family members, she unfortunately went to sleep and she she passed away in her sleep. Um so these things are deeply personal to people and they they >> is that the result of a genetic anomaly?
Yeah, air condition that can cause irregular heartbeating, can cause sudden sudden death. Everyone loves relaxing at home. Cozy Earth can maximize that experience. If you haven't tried their robes or their slippers, you may be missing out. Soft, breathable, lightweight, the epitome of comfort, perfect for slow mornings, put one on after the shower, hang out in front of the fire, you put on the robe, you don't want to take it off. We haven't even mentioned the slippers, which are warm and comfortable and easy to wear around the house. By the way, at this point, you can wear them to Walmart. No one will say anything. With Mother's Day coming up, Cozy Earth can provide the perfect gift. Something she will use and appreciate every day. If you're nervous about making a purchase, don't worry.
Cozy Earth backs everything with a 100 night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty, all risk-free. Visit cozyearth.com. Use the code tucker for 20% off. That's cozyearth.com. Promo code Tucker for 20% off. We've got a postpurchase survey. Mention you heard about Cozy Earth from us on this show. I don't want to sidetrack you, but you threw in Al. Oh, you threw in schizophrenia rather.
>> Yeah.
>> Is there I I don't know the answer. Is there evidence that that is genetically predisposed to it?
>> Schizophrenia is very strongly Yeah.
There's a very strong genetic basis to schizophrenia, right?
>> Really?
>> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. There is >> and we know that.
>> Yes. That is very well established science. Um Yeah.
>> Sorry. Yeah. I'm learning.
>> Okay. It's interesting. So, um Okay. But you said at the a minute ago that there is a nationwide indeed a global effort to to get rid of conditions like >> but again deafness is a great example.
>> It's not for me to tell a deaf couple where they should or shouldn't have a deaf child but that can apply across everything now right if somebody wants to have a child based off their set of what what they deem to be best based off their lived experience that that's their right and that's their choice. So I'm not saying that it's better to have a child that is not deaf for example. I can't do that. I can't possibly say that. It depends.
>> I I think that's entirely the choice of the of the of the family.
>> That's a consistent position. I wonder though cuz but you described something that's absolutely real, which is a system globally >> that is designed to minimize to reduce the incidence of certain conditions.
Right. So you you said that that's the policy like you genetic test all the embryos at every IVF clinic because you want to make sure we have less down syndrome for example.
>> But no but that but again the what's important here is there's not some sort of broad centralized body being like oh we need to all do this sort of testing embryos. That decision rests in the parents choice. A parent could choose not to screen embryos for down syndrome.
Okay they could make that decision and if they make that decision they can then transfer and have that baby. That's entirely their choice. It's not like >> I think there's no and I I don't I mean I let's not be disingenuous. There is a global effort to reduce the incidence of certain conditions. Of course, everyone just assumes like you can't I mean that that's why the incidence of Down syndrome has fallen off a cliff. There's been an elimination of Down syndrome.
Not entirely.
>> Those are parents making choices though.
Those are parents and couples making healthare systems steer people in certain directions that have a preference. I think the healthare system unfortunately right now is a sick care system. I mean the healthare system actually is very much not in the business of prevention. I mean it's interesting I was looking at these stats which is the US healthare system spends about5 trillion. It's a lot. Um about I think 4 trillion goes to chronic disease treatment. So things like cancers and diabetes and Alzheimer's. In 2021 four times many people died of a chronic disease than CO. four times as many people died of a chronic disease than COVID at the peak of the pandemic. So you have to ask what is the the real what is the real pandemic here. Okay.
>> And on that point you know if you think about it and also by the way of the 5 trillion so 4 trillion about 80% is chronic disease about 500 billion is about rare diseases. So these rare genetic conditions that I outlined right so genetics has a strong impact in both uh hereditary disease like cancer as I outlined like chronic diseases as well as rare disease. So genetics can help impact you know four$4.5 trillion of healthare expenditure but and there is a but remember those $4 and half trillion somebody's making money for someone being sick. Well, yeah, that's horrible.
But it's of course you say of course, but I can't just take that as a given, right? Like genetics as a science if deployed can be used for parents to make their own decisions to dramatically reduce breast cancer risk, uh, diabetes risk, if there's something in their family, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, help reduce that next generation. So these things can be used to basically help build uh what we call generational health effectively. Um, so I I >> save a lot of money through improving the species through eugenics. Everyone people made this argument for over 100 years. I get it. I'm just wondering, well, I'm wondering a lot of things, but um well, one thing to say, remember, too, that IVF is about 2% of the way babies are born in the United States.
Most babies are still born naturally conceived. So, um >> we we actually have a service for those couples as well where you can just basically take a cheek swab. You can do something called procreation simulation, and simulate basically the risk for your child.
>> Okay. Um and that is a service that can basically help any couple too. So, I just want to be clear that it's not just IVF patients as well. These are couples that then can employ these screening and then to have a healthy baby.
>> Um, what about sex?
>> What about sex?
>> Well, I mean the number one thing that people have used prenatal testing for is choosing the sex of their child, right?
So that's that's what explains the demographic imbalance in China as you know. So >> um >> that's like the number one thing globally. India same >> in India actually allotted to be clear too. So in IVF clinic you can't even pick sex in India because there's a disbalance but well legally but of course it happens all the time because there's a global preference for sons and that's why you see so many more boys than girls when in fact it's the opposite >> in the United States actually if you look at the IVF it's about it's about 50/50.
>> I'm saying I'm not talking about the US but how do you feel about that? Would it be okay with you if someone came in and said get rid of the girl embryos? So to be clear that that's So to be clear in the United States this has played out over the last like 20 years like people have known to pick the sex of their of their child in IVF clinics both the United States and then again at some point internationally too but eventually became outlawed for the reason you outlined which is people generally pick slightly more boys.
>> Um I mean it's illegal and it's much harder in these countries. Yeah. Um in the United States though if you actually played out people making their own choices it ends up being about um again 50/50. So this is actually interesting because >> what do you think of it? Is it valid for someone to come in and say, >> I mean, you said this is a, you know, an e ethically neutral question, you know, about whether or not to have a child with this or that genetic condition. But what about sex? Is that ethically neutral? Is it okay in your view for a couple to say, "I don't want any girls."
In in my view, that is the prerogative of the parents to pick which sex they want. And if you play that out across many many many couples making their own independent choices, right, which is an embodiment of this kind of liberty and choice, um you see it ends up being about 5050, which I think actually undercuts this idea that everyone's going to pick, you know, a boy, for example, right? There's this notion, >> well, it's culturally specific and it's time, you know, of course, but >> that applies across any traits then, Tucker, which is people there's not a universal best. It's very much case specific to the specific family history, specific uh values and culture.
>> Of course. Of course. But I think we're we're talking about two different things. You're talking about outcomes and I'm talking about the process and whether the process itself is valid >> and Right. And I totally I I've actually seen the numbers. So I know that you are absolutely right on the question of sex selection. But you think it's okay.
There's no moral problem at all because this these are questions of life and death. So I I do think moral questions are relevant questions. You don't think there's any moral question around choosing by sex? To be clear, I think that there is no universal biological best period across any phenotype because biology is inherently neutral. Now, there is universal morality. Okay?
Specifically, again, two kinds. There's natural virtue, right? And also divine virtue. Natural virtue can come from the cultivation of the soul, which is independent of biology. It's not in the physical plane. And so, >> I think different from divine virtue.
Divine virtue to me is more about uh union with God.
>> So natural virtues go. Where does the soul come from? What's >> there's a God? There's God. What do you mean? Why is there no God?
>> Of course I agree. But I I don't know why there's a distinction between the virtues. Again, we're in the we >> natural virtue. I'll tell you why.
Natural virtue can be intellectually derived. Wisdom, courage, justice, um temperance. It's kind of classic Aristotle. Uh and then there's things like grace and and revelation which come from God. You can't necessarily a human being's mind is limited. It's finite.
>> You can't necessarily grasp that. So there has to there's a there's a so you can one you can derive from like thinking like what leads to basically undemonia human flourishing right that that kind of virtue natural virtue right coming from Aristotle. Another kind is um thinking about uh divine virtue which is what goes beyond the intellect right which Thomas Aquinus basically brought together and thought about okay there's there's this idea of natural virtue uh that you know uh the Greeks came up with and then of course there's this idea of divine virtue coming from you know the old and new testament um about union with god and you know all religions actually talk ultimately about surrendering personally I do believe in god just so you know if that's not clear well here's something that thieves count on security cameras usually stop where wifi stops right makes sense so if you got a barn a job site, equipment parked outside along driveway. Criminals know there's a good chance that nobody is watching this cuz there's no Wi-Fi. And that's why we like Defend by Tacticam.
It's a new sponsor of this show. Defense cameras don't run on Wi-Fi. They run on cellular just like your phone. They work everywhere. If you've got cell signal, you've got security. Middle of nowhere, edge of your property, construction site, wherever you need it. You don't need Wi-Fi.
big difference and you can see why it matters. So, we use these cameras in places where Wi-Fi doesn't reach. The setup is super simple. You mount the camera, open the Defend app, and you are live. You get clear footage, night vision alert sent right to your phone.
It's great for construction sites, ranches, farms, or anyone with a property that stretches beyond a router.
And here's something we really appreciate. Defend does not sell your data. Not to tech companies, not to advertisers, not to China, no one. and your footage belongs to you and that's big. Plans start at about five bucks a month. No contract. Cancel anytime.
Visit defendellcam.com.
That's defendellcam.com.
What kind of God do you believe in?
>> So I've meditated for about 7 years. Um and what I keep coming across is the the best way to articulate I see God as an experience versus an ideology which is that um there's a quote it's actually from I think he articulates well is a a Persian poet um he says imagine you go to the ocean and you come back with a picture of water so the picture in my mind is is the ego is the is the logical mind and then the ocean is is God the source the one the divine whatever you want to call it okay >> um that's how I about God. So I think um from my experience meditating and from what I've seen the again human mind the intellectual mind is limited and finite and there's basically this vastness.
It's it's hard to describe which is why often the Sufis would use poetry to actually describe God. Um because it's it's it's this it's >> you can you can't describe it directly because it's too big >> precisely. It's infinite. It's vast.
That's why like the ocean as an example.
Another way I like to think about it is like if you're a raindrop and it's easy for us, especially in modern society, to think the raindrop is the world, but eventually you return to the ocean and you realize it's much bigger. And so um so that's your conception of God.
>> Yes, that's my again I think God is more is more an experience. It can't get God cannot be conceptualized. It cannot be articulated. It's it's not a logical thing. You cannot use logic to articulate God. I mean to me that's a it's incompatible. Um but so I think you can try to use metaphors. You can try to explain it. Um I always like the Sufi poets because I feel like they do a really really nice beautiful job of that. Um >> certainly of describing the vastness and fundamental incomprehensibility of God precisely. Oh, I couldn't agree with you more.
>> And and only poetry can capture that.
But it leaves unanswered the core question for the three Abrahamic religions which is what does God want >> for us to do >> and believe and what's your view on that?
>> Well, Islam specifically, Islam literally means surrendering to one.
Yes, >> I think that's the answer. In other words, Islam and you can I'm not Christian, you're a Christian, so you can tell me more about Christian's view, but there's a concept of surrender in Christianity. So in Islam, there's it means literally Islam means to surrender. Yeah. It's an experience.
>> The whole thing surrendered to being tortured to death.
Yeah. Of course, >> right. And then in Buddhism as well, they call it different things in Buddhism. It's a little bit more um like surrendering to the illusion of the ego, for example. Um but the concept of surrendering I think is basically universal. Um there's no question >> and so yeah but um that's the you know that's the very beginning. That's the conceptual understanding of it. But then you move immediately into what does God want you to do? What powers does he have? What powers do you have? What are the things you're allowed to do? What are the things you're not allowed to do?
I mean that that's just a product of logic, but it's also like pretty spelled out in in every um in every one of the three religions that derive from Abraham. So what's your view of that?
Like are there things that God won't allow us to do? The way I think about this is there's sort of three different moral philosophies somebody could adopt.
Um there's one idea of consequentialism which is basically the end justifies the means which you see a lot of in today's culture.
>> I I have noticed that.
>> Yeah. Unfortunately, even in Silicon Valley, which we can talk about >> even in Silicon Valley.
>> Did you just say that?
>> Especially Especially >> EVEN IN SILICON VALLEY.
>> Especially in Silicon Valley. Then there's U Sam Alman may even be doing it. I mean, >> yeah. I Yeah, we can talk about that.
And people and the thing is when people realize or not their moral philosophy, they end up succumbing to one anyways or they recognize it.
>> Everybody's religious.
>> Yes. And then Yeah. Exactly. And then there's this concept of deontology which is sort of like maybe you know the end just does not justify the means and there's rules right murder is bad lying is bad and you know it's kind of no matter what the specific circumments are these things are wrong right there's that moral philosophy you can adopt deontology which can be secular or non-cyclular is my understanding of it um then there's virtue ethics >> not really >> okay >> if they're rules why are they rules rather than preferences if you came up with them they're preferences if the power that created the universe came up with them then their rules than their laws.
>> So one has no meaning at all.
>> Nothing can be better than any anything else >> if they Yes.
>> And the other is absolute. So like no there can't be a secular sorry Aristotle a secular understanding >> of absolute value.
I think there cannot be a secular understanding of divine virtue. We can we can we can get more into this what I mean there but let me just outline this quickly and then I think I'll bring it around. So there's consequentialism which is most people I think in contemporary society adopt. There's deontology, right, which is as you rooted root in some sort of maybe there's some universal this is good, this is bad. Um, then there's, you know, virtue ethics, right? Which basically the the instead of saying, oh, the the the consequence instead of saying, oh, this action is good because the consequence was good or this action is good because the action is inherently good or wrong because of some secular or non-cular set of rules. You're saying, hey, the the the action thing that you need to measure and need to you need to think about is the moral character of the person doing the action. And then if the moral character if they possess these kind of cardinal virtues things like temperance and justice um and wisdom for example um then it so follows that the action they do would be virtuous right so you try to cultivate the soul basically and then in cultivating the soul and cultivating virtue confers basically virtue and the action right so basically the first two in my view in my view deontology and consequentialism is very much about the action right it's saying hey is this outcome good based off some uh thing you're trying to max maximize and then deontology which is this concept of forget if the outcome is good or not is this the right or wrong thing then the concept of virtue ethics which is instead of saying you know looking at the action right because ultimately human beings produce action actions you know aren't just there human beings produce action the quality of the action should be measured or it's deemed virtuous if the the person can strive and embody virtue okay and so per personally and and I'm still by the way talking about natural virtue right now I'm not talking about divine virtue I'm talking about in the intellectual plane things that people can think about and reason argue over things of the mind not that go beyond the mind, right? And so in the constant of virtue ethics, I think this is the try to moral philosophy we try to embody um and in saying hey and this comes back all the way to embriionic selection which is hey there is no biological best um there there there is known right again the the the soul the soul which is non-physical ultimately um does not rest it cannot be programmed in biology. So people can have different preferences. Somebody could say, you know, I want my uh son or daughter to be a lawyer. Someone else could say, you know, athlete. Someone else could say an entrepreneur. Someone else could say an artist. These are different outcomes that are based off people's local preferences, physical preferences, contextual preferences, but they're smaller, right? They're smaller preferences. They're not a divine uh uh preference. There's no such thing as that.
>> Yeah. I well, of course, I disagree that there's no divine preference, but I >> Well, there's no divine preference in biology because the divine isn't rooted in the it's not it's not um >> Well, it depends where you think biology came from, I guess.
>> Well, I guess that's true. I mean, I also don't create life.
>> No. No. So, this is actually a paradox that I struggle with, too, because another thing that I think a lot about is something called pans psychism, which is this idea that basically each object has its its consciousness, even like a rock, right? Um, and this might sound strange to people, but >> it doesn't sound strange.
>> It doesn't sound strange.
>> I don't think you're fully off base. I don't know the answer. I don't know.
It's a crazy thing to this idea that, you know, a rock has um a consciousness.
It's a it's a is a it's a being, albeit, you know, not as sophisticated as human consciousness, but it's there. And then it provides this idea that consciousness is this kind of spectrum all the way up to, let's say, humans.
Um and then each thing has this consciousness and accordingly it's kind of made in in in in it's endowed with um something that goes beyond just kind of its weight or or matter basically. It's basically very non-impurious just non-materialist um and it basically believes this idea that again God has given this consciousness to everything. Um and I and I tend to I actually like that a lot. I actually like that a lot for a lot of reasons.
>> Okay. So can I just ask you a couple fundamental questions?
>> Sure. Please. So you just said I think you said um that people cannot create life.
I think nature has a greater intelligence and human beings sometimes people will say we are part of nature but we are nature >> but like you're in the life business right I mean obviously you're >> we what what IVF does for example is they they use natural laws we didn't make these natural laws right we we use natural laws that exist and then we and then basically and to be clear we're not IVF clinic we work in IVF clinics and IVF clinics are the ones that doing the IVF we provide more But in the context of IVF, you are using natural law. You are not making natural law. You're not you can't make a baby.
This is, you know, >> well, I think there's a good chance you may be violating natural law. But I, you know, I don't know. I'm not in charge.
But I just I I want to get to the fundamental question though, which is >> who creates life?
I think I I would say God. But to be clear, so this is this is complicated, but you're not the only one who doesn't who isn't certain. I mean, I don't know.
But and and I don't mean to put you on the spot, who creates life? It's it's come on. I I shouldn't be even asking questions like this and expecting you to have some coach and answer because I don't think anyone does. Other than to say God or to say more precisely, not us.
>> Not us.
>> Is that fair to say not us?
>> Yeah, that is that is fair to say not us. And we operate within that plane.
And to be clear, the stories of sci-fi, right, like Frankenstein, for example, or even Jurassic Park is some example, but Frankenstein, this idea that we can make life, right? We we cannot make life. That's that's the that's that's the lesson of these stories.
>> Let me just say, I think you've thought a lot more about this than your average businessman. So, I'm I'm I was going to I didn't know how I was going to handle this, but you're a lot more thoughtful than I expected for a young entrepreneur. So, thank you.
>> Thank you, Tucker.
>> No, I I mean that totally sincerely.
have actually thought a lot about this and I don't know the the answers to any of these questions really but giving my best shot. Um so but we both agree that some higher being created life. We know that we didn't. So we could we could assign it to nature. We could assign it to God but we don't create life.
>> We we don't create life operate within nature. We operate with >> Amen. For decades Russell Brand was one of the most famous actors and comedians and agnostics in the world. Today he is one of the most sincere Christians we know, a follower of Christ. His personal transformation is remarkable. We saw it up close. He has now recounted it in an amazing book called How to Become a Christian in 7 Days. And it recounts what happened to him. And it makes the case to all of us for stepping away from our secular assumptions and returning to the only thing that matters, which is God. I've read it. It's amazing. And right now, there's only one place to get it. Tucker Cararlsonbooks.com.
This is the first release from our new publishing company. We created Tucker Carlson Books to bypass the sensors and bring you things that are actually worth reading and sharing. And we're starting this venture with what matters most, and that's Russell Brand's message of the promise of forgiveness and joy through Jesus. We're proud to launch our new bookstore with Russell Brand's How to Become a Christian in Seven Days. It is the message this country needs most.
Find us today on tucker carlsonbooks.com.
Do we have the right to take life?
So, so this is so, so, so no, we don't. Um, now if we talk about embryo, cuz I assume this was your >> I'm not sure. I mean, it has all kinds of implications including for the Iran war, but I'm just it it's all around us.
The thoughtlessness with which we take life. It's it's not aimed at you. would seem that everybody everybody on the globe but it begins with a question do we have the right to take life >> so again let's think about the different moral values that someone could have here if someone has consequentialism they could say hey look we want to you know commit murder for this good and maybe they have some good that they do >> I'm highly familiar with justifications for murder I just want to know what you think >> I'll tell you what I think but I just tell you that there's this kind of it's like very pluristic and then somebody could say murder is always bad which is fine I I respect that opinion absolutely and then there's sort of this this last bucket which again we keep playing back to this idea of virtue ethics which What do you like how do you do can you have a cultivation of the spirit of the soul to think hey you know what what is right in the situation because society does not have a definitive answer to this question right people will sometimes say knee-jerks they'll say oh murder is always bad but then they'll be pro the death penalty right or they poor poor war inconsistent there's no doubt about it and they ignore their own failings and highlight those of others they've got planks in their eyes and they're picking the sawest out of yours famously so I get it people are flawed but I do think that We can through a little bit of rigor arrive at like what's right or wrong.
>> Yes. I I mean what can we say about the right of a person to take another person's life?
>> Well, I don't I I I personally I don't think there there is a right. I personally don't think there is a right in any circumstance. I I don't see I don't see that. I mean and of course there's a question like what what is you know I don't think there is a right period. I just don't think so. Um >> well I'm with you. I'm with you now. I think we both understand >> it's hard not to want to exercise that right when you can or someone annoys you or there's a country you don't like or there's okay >> or so then what can we say about an embryo in a lab is that life so going back to the pany philosophy right which is this like Tucker no Tucker if you I'll give you a proper answer but these things are not these are things are not simple I can't be like oh yes it's just bear with me for a second there is a spectrum of consciousness. There's a spectrum from a you know rock to to a sentient being all the way to a more conscious you know being like a human a more complicated evolved fully conscious being and the question is where does an embryo sit in that that is the fundamental question you know does an embryo have a soul for example um that is the key question that is the key question in my view >> I totally agree >> that is the key like let's just like make no mistake anytime somebody argues about an an embryo and IVF and to be clear I just want to be very clear on the purpose of our business we do not do IVF we work within IVF right I just want to be very clear to everyone the intersection of like every big trend you know we have a huge responsibility and so I think it's important to before we can even argue oh is your life it's like what where does the life come from right is it the physical thing right for me I think about when I think about death I think death is a doorway that's my own personal belief this is a this is a this is a vessel right you're not the physical we're not the physical we're something else we're metaphysical we're soul okay and so then the fundamental question um is that okay well um doesn't have a soul Um and then I think about it I always like to think about things inductively. So don't I just want don't want to think about embryo but I think about you know there's a huge diversity or range of life and I can in my head at least and again this is the feelings of the intellect. lets only do so much.
Okay. But when I think about it, I think okay, I I think about a rock which I think has some kind of a protoconciousness, some like very very limited consciousness that we don't understand. Maybe through some psychic or meditative work, you could try to, you know, become a rock and try to understand it's like more subjective experience if it exists, right? Um all the way to an embryo to a dog to a human. And so because of this um spectrum, it comes down to this question of at what point basically do we have this is is there a soul in an embryo?
And uh I I tend to think and I don't know obviously, but I tend to think um I I tend to think that an embryo doesn't have a soul. Now, >> why do you think that?
>> Well, I don't know. I don't know. Um I I >> But why would you think that?
>> I would think that there's there's there's a couple reasons why, which is an embryo. So I can take a more reductionist approach and I could say an embryo is principally um a cell and when you reproduce already embryos actually >> just one cell >> yeah it it divides exactly divides and many cells but principally at first it begins just as one one cell >> I thought it was it was the sperm and the egg made the embryo. Yeah, by definition.
>> Yeah, it's a cell. Yeah, sperm meets egg. It's a cell and then it starts dividing. Um, and it becomes more and more of a eventually into a human. Um, sorry, I was I just lost my train of thought. Um, >> so the question was you said you you tend to think that an embryo does not have a soul and I asked why would you assume that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was articulating why. Um so when you when you look at the way that um when you look at the way that actually uh people conceive naturally what ends up happening is that um you have these formations of of kind of small formations of an embryo. Okay, right which is this an egg meets the cell and then it travels down and tries to implant and then many times actually naturally it doesn't implant successfully. So nature already has it such that you forget about IVF in in natural conception it is the case that um basically you have uh these embryo formation and then ends up not forming and now the way I see it is I see that um nature wouldn't make it such that or god wouldn't make it such that an embryo would have a soul if in natural procreation it is the case that the embryos come and go because I don't think god in my personal belief I don't think god would basically be getting rid of souls. I just don't think so. Now, do I think that there is a fundamental beauty not just I mean absolutely to an embryo in that and and this is really important for me to say because I don't know how else to say it. I do think it is similar to like a wave that forms and then again returns to the ocean because everything returns to the ocean. So I I don't see it as something that's like oh the embryo is being discarded. I see it as returning back to the source even if I don't believe that it has an explicit soul. Does that make sense? So it's it's a little more of a nuance argument.
>> Does make it kind of sense right? Yeah.
Um, it does make a kind of sense. Uh, I don't think it's insane. And again, I think it's I think you've thought about this in a way that I'm very impressed by even if I don't agree. And I just wish more people in your business would like think about this cuz that, you know, >> it's important >> the beginning. Yeah. Right. It is. It's very important. It may be the most important thing.
>> It is. So um I guess the difference between a wave and IVF is the human choice involved in the latter.
>> And so I guess the core problem that I have with this is that I'm not convinced that we have a right to make certain choices. Do people have the right to make any choice available to them? I think people don't have the right in our culture. people will conflate greater performance with being morally better which is I think a big problem.
So there's two kinds of value. There's instrumental value and there's moral value. Um instrumental value is contingent and this is actually really important. All of um biology, all of nature is contingent value. For example, um you know you you you you would maybe want an entrepreneur potentially to be more risk-seeking, but you wouldn't want your surgeon to be more risk-seeking, right? Um, in other words, the value of phenotypes actually changes depend on the environments, right? And this is obvious to say, but it's actually I think people miss this sometimes because they think there's a universal best.
They'll say, "Hey, if you optimize for X phenotype that I deem to be best, it will lead to a better person." Doesn't lead to a better person. It might lead to a more optimized outcome, but it doesn't lead to a better person.
>> You're destroying your own case.
>> No, I'm not. I'm not though. What you're saying is right. No, no. You're telling the truth about the way people are, which is lacking foresight and understanding of the holistic picture.
So if people have the choice to choose their own children, we're going to have a nation of private equity people.
>> No, I'm serious. They're gonna optimize for good right now. Yes. That that is Okay, so this is actually interesting.
>> A couple things. Oh, wow.
>> You know, I'm wow it better than I Tucker. This is so interesting because you're making an assumption. So there's there's about the way people are. Yes, I am.
>> There's many there's many parts of this.
The first part is um will people basically all choose in the same direction? And you know, interestingly again, people actually want very different things. And we see that every day with patients, right? Which is like there's this idea that like rich people will come in and be like, "Oh, every rich person is going to pick the same way." As you mentioned, sex is actually a great proxy for this, right? Sex selection in the United States is about 50/50. And so if you think about um you know, any possible phenotype, like even when you somebody comes and says, "I want to optimize for type two diabetes risk. Someone else might want to do schizophrenia or Alzheimer's." Depending on their family history, um somebody else might want to do do height, for example, if they're both shorter parents, they might want to have a taller kid. To be clear, the traits always come after diseases, but nevertheless, so what I'm saying is that there's this notion, there's this idea of a universal best biological characteristic. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist.
>> No, no, we're arguing two different things. I'm not saying I agree with you completely. And I believe that the diversity baked into humanity comes from God. He created different tribes.
>> Okay? He did that on purpose.
>> Yeah, >> that's my belief. And they're different from each other by definition. They're different tribes and they have different characteristics and a lot of those as you have been brave enough to admit are genetic and that's a fruit of the creation. God did that. We didn't.
>> People are very different. They demand uniformity. And by the way, if you think we're going to get diverse outcomes, have you been around rich people?
They're not only very similar, they dress the same. They have exactly the same attitudes. They want their kids to get to the same six schools. I've lived in this world my whole life. It's the opposite of what you're describing. They all change. Rich use the same thing.
>> Rich people make up a very very small set of society. There's a big world out there. There's a big ocean.
>> What set of IVF patients they make up?
What percentage rich people about all of them? So >> I would actually I wouldn't say it's about all of them. There are a lot of people that >> people who are dialed in to >> but people do IVF if they can't generally almost always because they can't conceive naturally to be clear and natural conceptions.
>> Um it it can cost quite a bit. No but but Tucker but no >> attacking anyone. I I know, Tucker, but this is important to say, which is people conceive naturally first, and naturally natural conception is free to be clear.
>> Um, but >> I that that's what it cost me.
>> Let's assume let's actually play this out cuz actually it's really really interesting and I actually think you do touch on a fundamental uh point on the way that people tend to move together, especially especially wealthy people.
They tend to do the same thing. They tend to it's every group. I don't mean to pick on rich people at all. I'm one of them, but I just am very familiar with them. And >> yeah, >> but but social societies are governed by herd instincts. That's why it's a society and not just a collection of hermits.
>> So I think there's there's a couple ways that I think about this. There's the kind of on the ground what I'm seeing which I can tell you about what I'm seeing and then I can tell you about the more we can talk about like more broadly how this play out where the fact that people are pretty mimemetic in what they pick. Okay. on the ground. What I'm seeing is I see couples again a diverse range of couples to be clear like like this this technology is going to get cheaper and cheaper. whole genome sequencing specifically, this is actually interesting. Um, the cost of reading all of somebody's DNA, it used to be about a billion dollars. One billion, right? So, the human genome project in the early 2000s, it cost a billion dollars. Uh, when I started the business about, uh, 6 years ago, um, in, you know, 2020, it was about $1,000, right? So, a billion dollars to $1,000.
That's the kind of wonder of making things cheaper and making things more accessible. So, I do think there's a point where this technology anyone can actually access. That's like really important to stay to say and that's one of my missions is to say hey this shouldn't only belong for people who have means should belong to everybody right because ultimately every parent should have the right to reduce the suffering in their future child I mean I just think every parent has that right >> I would never argue against the desire to reduce suffering I guess but then you have to ask yourself if the reduction of suffering is the most virtuous thing you could do why are the societies on this planet with the least suffering falling apart the quickest. Have you ever noticed that?
>> Well, I think in more contemporary society we've lost the concept of virtue generally in in in my view. But is there a connection between suffering and virtue?
>> And of course there is. It's a onetoone.
And there is no virtue without suffering actually. And suffering is so in other words, if you had a drug that could eliminate anxiety, just take a pill, no more anxiety.
>> You could call it, I don't know, pick a name, benzoazipines.
>> And all of a sudden, you could just like eliminate the suffering. And would there be downsides to that? Oh, there would be mass overdose deaths. there would be the zombification of the entire population.
There would be addiction, physical addiction that you could die because of which So I guess what I'm saying is I'm not making a case for anxiety which is horrible. Anyone who's ever had it knows how horrible and terrifying it is.
>> I'm only saying that maybe there's a purpose to suffering. We don't want to deal with it. None of us does. I certainly don't.
>> We can't we can't transcend suffering in the same way we can.
>> Maybe we shouldn't.
>> But we we can't. It's it's like saying let's transcend gravity. We are in this world natural.
>> We're trying to transcend suffering. And all I'm saying is societies I'm not for suffering. I'm against suffering. I hate war.
>> You know, I don't like suffering at all.
And I think we should try to alleviate it. All I'm saying is >> maybe these aren't decisions that are up to us. And maybe there's a larger picture that we can't see. And maybe we should pay close attention to our successful attempts to eliminate suffering and assess the fruits. like what happened? Did it work or did it cause even more exquisite suffering, more grotesque suffering?
>> I think that's a very fair in the context of, you know, uh, you know, there's a great example of obviously opioids. People get addicted, they think they're getting rid of pain. What are opioids? Exactly. Yeah. In getting rid of pain, you're actually creating more suffering. And that's a fair point. Um, I think in the context of genetics and what we're doing is it's actually interesting because it's it's noninvasive. um genetic the optimization technology costs you know a couple thousand dollars which is a lot right which is a lot but it's going to keep coming down it's going to come down and so suddenly now at the very beginning um you know you have these embryos eventually you're already doing IVF you're already picking an embryo you get more information you can pick an embryo with a you know 50% reduction risk in breast cancer uh you can have an embryo without you know bracka which is a breast cancer marker right you can um you know schizophrenia debilitating condition really impacts families horrible horrible and and and in In fact, these are the very people who wouldn't want to have a child who wouldn't want to but now because of the advent of more advanced screening they are more comfortable having a child and that actually I think gets lost too I >> progenetic technology is fundamentally anti-ugenic it's actually progenetic technology you're proatalist in that way because the very people who would have been deemed unfit by some definition right because they have more suffering and to be clear if you suffer more you have no less moral worth to be very clear um we've said that already we established that you and I agree on that. Um, but those are the very people that genetics is helping. That's the very people they're helping. The very people who would have been deemed unfit um by the 20th century. Now through this technology, they're actually able to have a child through IVF. They're able to have a child and feel comfortable doing that. Um, also there's been, you know, wait, no, I I can't um I'm not criticizing anything you're saying. It's just that I'm a stickler for definitions because they're important.
>> Sure. This is eugenics and it h and it's I mean if you read the early eugenicists some of whom were really smart really smart >> eugenics was an international movement actually it spanned many many things to your point >> very aware and um it was thoroughly discredited by the Nazis who were the most enthusiastic eugenicists of all I mean they they cleared out the mental hospitals >> and they cleared out >> but this is important though in that way it's actually anti-ugenic because the very people that like the Nazis for example would target right people who are sick and kill and kill and murder um >> it's kind of been forgotten to history.
>> Horrible. But those very people are now that can actually access this technology. It's actually interesting.
>> Hold on. Hold on. So the point the the I don't want to bring the Nazis in cuz it's so emotionally fraught and they had all kinds of other sins, >> but the the goal of the eugenicis was the same. It was let's reduce human suffering. Let's optimize human ability.
Let's make this better by being thoughtful about how we reproduce and let's bring whatever science we have they had much less than we have to bear on this question and they would make they did make the argument that Loth Stoddard who was a Harvard professor and a brilliant legit brilliant guy historian a lot about him was absolutely virtuous I would say but he was also a wildeyed eugenicist because he was smart and he saw all this human suffering He's like, "Let's get rid of it. We don't It's nothing against people with Down syndrome, >> but we don't want more of them." That was his that was his argument cuz it will reduce human suffering. Fewer kids with Down syndrome, few less suffering.
Well, it's a moral failure because the eugenicist in my view misconstrued the idea of again this idea of virtue with biology. There is no virtue in biological characteristics. He was making that case. No, he was making the case and the smart ones were >> people are talk please.
>> Less suffering. That's what they were saying. Less suffering. But less suffering isn't more virtuous. And that's it's hard for people to like wait, what does he mean by that? You know, >> well, I agree.
>> If just because I mean, >> I believe in a religion with suffering of it.
>> We've all had loved ones that have passed away, God forbid, from some disease, right? I mentioned my cousin.
My grandmother's both died of cancer as well. Um, >> my uncle died of a heart attack, right?
When he was playing soccer with my dad, >> he was 45.
>> He collapsed >> and he died. from a heart attack, which by the way is the number one killer in this country.
Um, just because somebody, you know, had cancer, just because somebody has heart disease, just because somebody has a condition, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, these conditions, again, they impact 200 million Americans. So, this is the problem of our time, okay, does not make them any less of a person. And so the the fundamental moral failure, it was a moral failure of eugenics which was misconstruing these things which idea that it's better to reduce suffering.
Better that plain term of better doesn't come from the physical plane. It comes from something beyond.
>> But I'm not even sure that we're disagreeing. I think we're agreeing that there's no >> that your physical condition is not a reflection of your moral value.
>> No. But but by the way, the eugenicist got that fundamentally wrong. Why?
>> Maybe. I'm sure some did, but >> they were consequentialist though.
That's actually important. Going back to the kind of different moral philosophies, if you look through the world that way, it actually helps articulate things. They viewed it as the end justifies the means. We should actually do this forced uh sterilizations. We should make it constitutional.
>> I mean, I think the ends justify the means was a much less common argument among the eugenicists as it is now among the technologists. That's for sure. And so these attitudes not only have not been suppressed or eliminated, they've flowered into like the dominant attitude in the country. So like they won. I'm just saying I'm not trying to I'm just saying there this idea that you can make people better and in fact that you should.
>> No, no, but that's not what we're saying though. Remember, no Tucker. Tucker, this is this is nuance, but it's really important for people to understand.
>> You're saying people h have the opportunity to do it.
>> But people have the opportunity.
Nucleus, we never say, "Hey, these are your five embryos. This is the best embryo." We cannot. We are not divine.
We We can never do that.
>> Understand? But but the choices that people make are governed by a lot of things.
>> Mhm.
>> Of course. But one of the, you know, their their intuition, their religious views.
>> To be clear, first and foremost, it's it's the direct experience of suffering.
The patients that come to us without fail, and to be clear, they might want to optimize for a trait as well. I'm not saying of course they would, right?
People think about these things holistically, but the first thing they care about is my mother had breast cancer. You know, my dad had prostate cancer, my grandfather had Alzheimer's.
So, I just started schizophrenia. I get it.
>> Right. And yeah, right. So, you want to start with the lived experience of the patient and then go from there.
>> That's all baked in the cake. Every person has experienced suffering and every person has seen a loved one die if you live long enough.
>> Yeah.
>> And and I just want to be totally clear so I don't seem self-righteous, which I never want to be.
>> If I had had the opportunity when my children were in utero or before to say no to schizophrenia, no to >> you the things that I really fear.
Schizophrenia is at the top of the list.
I think it's the crulest thing.
>> Um but also CF.
>> Yeah.
>> Which you know is in my family, you know, all these things.
>> By the way, I'm a carrier for cystic fibrosis.
>> Yeah. A lot of people are.
>> Yeah. A lot of people are. Yeah.
>> And um >> and I don't want my baby, god forbid, to have that. Of course not.
>> No. Though actually the therapies for CF have, you know, that's a whole separate conversation. I don't want to be boring.
But um anyway, I would just say like like all expectant parents, if Id had a chance to reduce or eliminate the risk that my children would have these horrible diseases or conditions, I would have taken it. How could you not?
>> Absolutely.
>> So I'm not judging anybody. I get it completely. I would have done it. My question is honestly what's the effect of giving people this choice which is to improve in their minds you say you're morally neutral on it not attaching a value >> to deafness or hearing but we're not okay but people do everybody does everyone other than you everyone other than you does >> no no no but to be clear we can have more philosophy and then say but most people will reject the idea that there's this idea of conflating reduced suffering they would say That's better and then we can play that out. So let's play that out. Let's play out how it actually >> So you tell me what the what you imagine because this is one of the biggest changes in human history.
>> I will say Tucker I will say again that people will make different choices. I I really want to say there's there's actually two parts of this argument on people. No no I'm not >> some people will make different choices but so a lot of like >> it's a random distribution of choices.
Is that what you're saying?
>> I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that. Okay. Yeah.
>> Um what I am saying though is people will bring their so one way think about this like to make it like more intuitive for people is if you think about like our there's this concept in cell molecular biology okay it's called um it it's basically this concept called um uh it's eluding me basically that the more specialized something is the more effective it is. So in biology you see things specialize all the time right? So for example things began stem cells they become neurons they become immune cells.
become different because these bodies have differentiz mirrors everything from the molecular to the celestial everything. Okay. And so let me let me keep going with this. And so um I remember what it is. Specialization breeds sophistication. Okay. That's true uh in cell molecular biology which is specialization breeds sophistication.
The more specialized something, the more sophisticated it is. Okay? And so in a society, if you look at like, you know, people who are really high in their craft, right? Like Alyssa Lou figure skating uh versus like an Einstein uh versus like an Elon versus like, I don't know, like an artist like Da Vinci.
These people have very different sets of characteristics. And the way nature works is human beings cannot defy nature. It's a seessaw. So let me give an example. Every every every single time people always say this to me, they say, "Oh, people pick for IQ." Let me put aside my moral argument. Let me put aside my people won't actually always pick for IQ. Let's actually assume that's the case. Let's assume that's the case. Let's assume that's the case.
Everyone will pick for IQ. One interesting thing about picking for IQ genetically is that when you pick for IQ, um, and this interesting when you tell patients this, you can see how they refactor the decisions. When you pick for IQ, you're actually picking against conscientiousness and extraversion.
Genetically, it's a seessaw, right? It's almost like if you're playing like a FIFA My Player or something and you make somebody stronger, they have less agility, right? So what happens is and also you're making them uh genetically speaking more likely to be autistic. So these things are genetic. You can't you can't um you can't defy these things, right? So these things go in opposite directions. So you start selecting for one, it actually take these things away.
So it starts becoming more of a a value judgement. So wait, let me let me play this out. So let's assume that to your point um there's a a fashion of the day, right? People are um you know, we see this with fashion, we see this in tech, we see this, you know, VC investors, they all allocate toward AI. you know people wear end up saying wearing the same thing in Soho in New York you know how is this possible right people go to the same private school as you were saying this right all these things end up kind of the taste follow through so let's assume all the rich people basically start optimizing for um IQ or everyone actually start optimize for IQ not just rich people everyone start optimize for IQ there's actually an evolutionary mechanism it's called a frequency dependent selection what is frequency dependent selection what it basically means is that the rarer a phenotype becomes relative to the other phenotypes so in this case for example if everyone picked for IQ Q um extraversion and conscientious starts decreasing. Okay, in terms of the prevalence in the population, the more valuable that phenotype becomes. In other words, the rarer that extraversion conscientious becomes, the more valuable it actually becomes to actually flourish in a population.
>> So you're arguing it's a selfcorrecting problem.
>> And that's the key point, which is we think as humans we can defy nature. We cannot defy nature. We have to operate within nature's bounds within evolution's bounds. We have to operate within this framework. So >> if that were true then why did India ban sex selective abortions?
>> It's interesting because India specifically was about so let's actually walk through this. India was about 5545 uh males to females 5545 right um people actually think often was higher and by the way the natural rate of having a boy is actually slightly biologically higher than a girl. So people think it's actually 50/50. It's actually not. It's actually like 5248. So actually through that perspective, it's actually it is statistically significant, but it's actually not insanely high. And on that point also, which is actually interesting >> over a billion and a half people, it's >> Yeah, it can it can it can absolutely over generations. But but actually it's not I think what's interesting here is uh it this is just kind of a factoid, but um males uh babies, they tend to actually have higher risk of basically dying at infancy. So it ends up happening, if you look at the general population, it's about 50/50, but actually biology has it that it slightly ers toward males. Um but let's take the sex example. Let's say it plays out that um you know over many generations people let's say it wasn't outlawed or people still practice it anyways and people start picking uh across sex. It's actually the same phenomena. Whereas the number of males for example come down the number of females come down because of frequency based selection. Let's say you're in a population just very simply there's 70 males 30 females. The value of female in that population is much higher. And basically you can model this and show that each successive generation there are certain sets of genetics that confer a slightly higher probability then of having a female. And so that will actually propagate such that the genes that confer higher females would keep proliferating through until the population comes back to actually equinimity.
>> So why did they ban it?
>> Well obviously that's like a longerterm evolutionary thing to saying that things will self correct self-correcting and it was making society unstable. It's not I mean if human choice on questions of life and death and procreation at this granular level is selfcorrecting and it's just inherently good and there no downsides then why did the biggest country in the world ban it?
>> To be clear I'm not saying that um there's not short-term material consequence for like something like sex selection of of course there especially sex selection. I'm not saying that but I'm saying >> why is that more significant than any other kind of selection?
>> Sorry. Why I don't why is that unique like sex?
>> It's not actually.
>> Well, it's unique in that over IQ. I mean, these are deep these are deep characteristics defining characteristics.
>> It's actually interesting point you make on sex because um if you look at sex, it's it's a it's a way of kind of playing out what happens if people pick across traits, right? Cuz sex is it's not a disease. It's a choice. Depending on what you want, people make different choices, right? So, it's actually a good kind of puristic of how people will choose. Um and on that point actually interestingly sometimes we receive criticism from for example the American Society of Reproductive Medicine for saying that um traits are not reproductive medicine. However, sex is ultimately a trait that people have been picking for the last 20 years. So there's a bit of this hypocrisy in in medicine.
>> I guess what I'm trying to get to is the really the core question which is is there a downside to playing God?
>> Okay, first off we're not playing God.
Of course there is.
>> Of course we are. We're making choices that were not available to us until very recently that have never in human history been made by people ever. Not one time.
>> We cannot play God.
>> God God created God created us. God created everything here. We cannot We cannot >> Let me Let me be more Let me be more precise and use a less charged way to describe it. We are doing things that have never been done in human history.
>> That's actually not true, I would argue in this case.
>> Well, it's very true >> because um >> when how long have test tube babies IVs?
IVF has been around since 1970s. So it's about uh 40 years actually. And by the way, it's not like you look around you're like, "Oh, that's an IVF baby."
>> A long I'm not attacking IVF. And I'm certainly not attacking IVF babies or people at all.
>> I'm merely saying that in the scope of human history, >> this is brand new.
>> When you say this though, what do you mean? the ability to choose the traits of your children with this level of precision to get a certain number of embryos and say, "I want the ones that don't have these conditions that do have these traits." That has never been tried in human history. Period.
>> I would well there's no debating that caveat. No, I would caveat a little bit.
When you So remember, you're picking >> some do this.
>> Wait, let me let me just be clear.
You're you're picking from the pool that So when you pick your partner, for example, you're setting the possible genetic pool. So for example, two short parents.
>> This is what mating is.
>> Yeah. Two short parents are not going to have a tall baby, right? The same is actually true for genetic optimization.
You can't have two short parents have a tall child with this technology. You have a taller child.
>> I I understand. But we're we're Okay, those but the the core point is this is something. This is an acceleration.
Look, people want this.
>> I wouldn't debate you there.
>> And people do calculate these things as they choose a mate.
>> Of course, he's too dumb. I can't marry him. He's too short. I can't marry him.
he's from, you know, whatever. There are lots of genetic qualities that people don't want to pass on.
>> And in doing that, they're actually picking, by the way, the most important set of outcomes for their child because it's your partner. It's the other side of it.
>> Absolutely.
>> Yeah.
>> But never with this level of precision.
Never has there been a menu where you can say where you can identify qualities that you can't identify by smell or sight. You can't know so much of what you've just described except through brand new science. So I'm not even attacking that. I'm merely asking a question that has to be asked which is what are the downsides?
So I mean we talked about the I mean you pointed out one of the downsides which is like okay if everyone starts picking for a specific sex for example right um it can create uh population problems and even if I would argue and I did argue um hey over time this actually be self-corrected which I think is that >> um so this will be self-corrected right but obviously in the short term there's still like a cute problem right um but I would say actually IVF has been operating for again for 40 years. Um, and other policies like for example one China's one child policy has led to much greater problems. IVF is still the way 2% of the way babies are born. I think your principal concern on where this can go arai. I mean there's a long history in science fiction of people thinking oh you know oh like you know I I I can you know Frankenstein I I mentioned Frankenstein. It's literally that. It's somebody saying, "Hey, huh, I could make life, right?" And then uh how about >> Jurassic Park actually too is this idea that, "Hey, I can do this." And then there's negative unforeseen consequences. I would argue both of those were consequential.
>> I think that's science fiction. I mean, hey, let's create Lyme disease. Hey, let's create let's I don't know, let's strengthen this virus. Oh gosh, it's out of the lab. Intentionally or not, it doesn't matter. You infect the world with COVID. That just happened 5 years ago. So it's like we don't need to look far to see the unintended consequences of emerging science. I'm not blaming anyone for it. I think people have a terrible track record of foreseeing the consequences of their actions. We know that in our own sex lives, don't we? So I think we can just say there it's important with something this powerful and potentially transformative to a admit that there will be unintended consequences because that's 100% true always and think through b what those consequences might be. That's all I'm saying.
>> I agree. I think we should be tangible with them though and make sure people actually understand. So like again IVF is the way 2% of the way babies are born. IVF has been operating in the United States for about 40 years. Um, this is not like um >> 40 years.
>> It's 1970s. It's >> Oh, I was there. I remember. Yeah. The test two baby was on the cover of Time magazine.
>> It was. Yeah. I mean, people don't call.
>> Are there any consequences to that? Do do >> IVF?
>> Yeah. Have we studied the consequence?
>> Yeah. They've actually tracked um children. Um the study size are a little bit smaller from when I looked into it than one might expect, but basically they see no material difference. No.
>> Is it is is that true >> that what the size? No measurable difference at all between children born from an IVF procedure and children conceived naturally.
>> Obviously there's some environmental things you take averages but yeah to my when I looked into this and I've obviously talked to a lot of scientists about this as well. They said yeah there's no there's no difference. Yeah, which is pretty amazing. But actually I think it's to nature. Well, we can track it over the course of the decades since >> this isn't nature. Of course, it's something that we are well it's it's by definition not nature. It's something that people are doing in order to improve nature. Like nature would be infertility. I'm against infertility. By the way, I'm not arguing from fertility.
I'm just saying it's whatever it is is not nature. It's the opposite of nature.
>> I think we're we are operating within nature. So let's go into the framework of God created the these natural laws.
We're using natural laws. We're not making life. We didn't go to a lab and make life. We're using the principles of nature, using the principles of heredity, and we're applying them. It's still beautiful. It's still very beautiful.
>> I'm not saying I think we are using nature.
>> I'm not saying it's bad or not beautiful. I'm just saying it's not nature anymore than nuclear weapons or nature. You could say, well, they're made from atoms, the you know, the essential building block of of matter.
Okay. But we're we're exerting force and our will on nature to create an outcome that wouldn't occur if we didn't do that. So it's by definition nature >> the outcome could have actually occurred even if you didn't necessarily do it. It could have just the baby could have happened that way. It's but but also I would say that remember that there's gene editing which is much further out in this idea that you can actually take an embryo and make it whatever you want basically theoretically we can talk about that which is very very different.
And so I think the concept of IVF clinics using this technology to give patients more information when they're already getting information on their embryos. Now we expand the information, we can help deal with the chronic disease crisis in the United States, the rare disease crisis as well, right?
Genetics is unique enough. I appreciate the upside. No, I agree with you on the upside. I just want to know the downside.
>> Yeah, the I don't I don't see hear any there's no downside.
>> Of course, talk of course there's there's downside.
>> What do you imagine it might be?
>> Well, I think let's let's play this out.
Okay. The first thing I'd say is that with IVF at its prevalence today at 2%.
I I think it's it's actually more or less fine. It's 2% is about one in 50 babies. I think I'm going to outline the scenario where I think there's a lot more risk and where human reproduction is going to materially change, right? We might argue that you might argue this is a material change, right? I would actually argue I would argue IVF. IVF was the principal material change.
>> You're arguing that it's a material change because you're saying that we're going to have less chronic disease, lower healthare costs, less suffering, and that's all good. choose that patients can choose that.
>> Well, you've argued that would be the result and you're right. It will be the result and I'm for it. I just want to say I'm for it. I'm just saying that whenever I hear the upside as you would in any scenario, including your personal family investments, like tell me the downside. And if someone says, well, there's no DOWNSIDE LIKE I DON'T KNOW IF I TRUST YOU ANYMORE, so what's the downside?
>> Again, I will articulate the downside.
It's just I have to explain.
>> No, you're going to blame some other technology. I'm not going to blame some other technology.
>> Gene editing is bad. No, >> but what about the the technology that you're offering has an upside? I totally agree with you >> and that will be real and I'll support it.
>> Yeah, >> I would support I don't know a lot of things.
>> But but what's the downside? Like you must have thought about that.
>> Of course. Of course. I mean the the the the fundamentally the this this technology can be exploited by centralized bodies to try to control reproduction.
>> Yes, >> that is the downside. That is the story of the 20th century. Sorry for getting emphatic, but it's just like yes, that is the downside. We've seen the downside. We've experienced the downside. But to be clear, but to be clear, that is a moral failure. That is not a failure of the technology. I've I've established that eugenics, for example, was decades before genetics.
Yeah, it's a distinction without a difference in my view. But >> what you're saying, what you're saying is >> without saying it explicitly that people misuse the creation and they use it for good, but they also use it for bad and that's just how people are and they've always been that way and they will always be that way. So >> with that in mind, >> I I don't think it's just I totally agree that of course centralized powers, whoever they are.
>> Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah.
>> I'm not even sure who they are, but they clearly exist. governments principally.
I mean that's the 20th century or the Epstein class that runs the governments or whoever these these entities are >> they they yeah that's bad. I totally agree. But the experience of India shows us that given choice people will also make the wrong decisions as individuals.
So I'm just wondering what those consequences might be. Let me just say I'm interested in this because I have hunting dogs and I've had them my whole life and hunting dogs are bred for certain qualities >> and I watch it carefully and dogs have such short life cycles relative to people that you can kind of in your lifetime watch this happen >> but they're bred for certain I have flushing dogs spananiels and they're bred to >> you know work close to you find the bird jump the bird >> retrieve the bird >> if you are not very careful about breeding them or if you breed them only for certain specific qualities qualities, you can wind up destroying the dog.
>> Yeah.
>> And this is well known in animal husbandry. It's well known in bird hunting. It's well known among anybody who deals with animals.
>> And I don't see people as any different.
And I know that there are massive consequences to the dog. You get dogs that die of cancer at five. You get dogs with hip dysplasia. You get dogs with unexplained rage that bite your children. Like we can't foresee with any precision the effects of our tinkering with with reproduction.
>> Absolutely. Let me actually give a real example of this. So in in China um the scientist who was known for using gene editing to uh engineer the first uh babies actually Dr. He um what he did was he engineered the CCR5 gene. I believe that's what the gene was called and um he used crisper. Crisper is a bacterial immune response system. It stands for you know clustered regularly interpace short palendroic repeats.
Basically refers to the um set of palendroic DNA sequences in a bacteria.
Okay. And he used that to make a gening device called crisper. And he basically used crisper.
>> Oh I remember very well.
>> Um and crisper is composed of two things. It's con composed of like a guide. It's like basically imagine it takes the device to the right part of the DNA which is like a scissors and then excuse me it takes it has a guide which takes the um crisper to the right part of the DNA then has endonucleus which basically cuts the DNA um a little bit of technical explanation basically you can use uh bacterial immune response system harness it was a gening device okay and this is what the scientist did and I'm obviously you know about the story and he went and he actually engineered human embryos okay and >> it's going on now >> uh in China Oh, other parts of the world too.
>> So basically what he did was he knocked out the CCR5 gene and what his justification for knocking out this specific gene was that it would make uh the children um basically uh resistant to HIV AIDS. That was what he said. Um this is really interesting for a lot of reasons. One is because you didn't need geneting to do that. You could have actually just done that with existing genetic technology that was much cheaper, much less expensive. But even putting that aside, getting to the fundamental thing that you're articulating, which is the unintended consequences, when you actually optimize for uh the knocking out that specific gene, you're also opening up the the susceptibility of that baby to other infectious disease. Because what CCR5 does is it encodes for a specific uh immune receptor that basically when destroyed, it makes it easier for other uh pathogens and to basically infect you. In other words, there's this there's this uh the dangerous side of this to your point is that is that balance which is in trying to do something good what he deemed to be virtuous if you will. Um it actually potentially could have had very severe consequences on the children's health.
And so I think that's a very real tangible example that we've seen of some of the dangers um and you know balancing act the balancing act that is nature and that's really important to say. What about in your life? Have you ever uh wound up with something that you didn't expect and maybe didn't want and found it to be a great blessing over time?
>> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, meditation and I mean I >> No, but something that that's something you presumably you chose to try.
>> I think you know sometimes you you know a broader force guides you to these things. Yeah.
>> You know the experience of having children is the most profound example of that. I think if you ask any parent um >> or most parent many parents will tell you like I didn't expect this at all.
>> Yeah.
>> Um I I didn't grow up with girls. Didn't have a mom. Didn't have sisters. Didn't want girls. I don't understand girls like my wife but don't want girl. Ended up having a ton of girls.
>> Never would have chose that.
>> Yeah.
>> And really one of the great experiences of my life. Truly. I mean that. And um I'm not embarrassed to say this cuz my girls know I feel this way. But uh and I you know anyway I never would have if id had the choice just like I don't get girls I can't be the father of girls like what?
>> Yeah.
>> And yet that again turned out to be this great blessing and I I'm really glad I didn't have the choice. Have you ever had an experience like that?
>> I mean yeah I think some of the best things that happen in life are not things that you can control. It's part of the divine. Yes.
>> Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. 100%. And sometimes there are things that man you don't want at all >> and but it's actually good for you.
Yeah.
>> It's the best for you.
>> It's the best thing for you. Yeah. The thing that you want isn't the thing that you need.
>> So maybe if you get to be the author of your own story and of your own children, if you the more control you have, the more you get what you want, the more totally you're destroyed.
>> It's not good for you to get everything you want.
>> Um I don't that's been my experience.
Tucker, remember though like >> uh genetics obviously is not deterministic, right? So there's there's two other parts of of of life.
>> Wait, what? You were just telling me it was we can get rid of all these diseases which I'm but a good example is like lung cancer. You smoke increase your risk of lung cancer. There's there's some genetics component but it can be both right your enjoyment of life. I just want to put in a good word for smoking if I could.
>> Yeah. Heart disease as well, right?
Obviously, it's there's a there's a, you know, family history component to it, but there's also like what you eat, how much you exercise, these things.
>> Um, and so under the framework, you think, okay, like what I think is really important in life in life, which again goes well beyond genetics, you know, we're not genetic determinists here, obviously, that's just not reality.
Again, I will go back to the spiritual and cultivation of the soul. That cultivation of the soul to eventually hopefully divine virtue union with God, right? that that is available to everyone independent of their biological characteristics. And so I think it's important not to again conflate optimizing that point and I but that point is such that that is the point that is the point. The point is that the union with God ultimately is that is what life is about. So you're not actually removing like this idea that like you can like if there was a world where somehow parents could perfectly predict the baby's going to be like this and this and this. You can't physically it it there you can't you can't um you can't encode the soul is what I'm saying. It doesn't come from biology. So there stoasticity always is what I'm arguing.
>> Yeah. I mean but you're arguing the margin. I mean what you're saying is right. It's true. There's no debating what you're saying. It's fact and I appreciate that you're saying it.
>> Yes.
>> But it's equally true that we are exercising powers that we didn't have until very recently and that we know more than we ever have.
>> And I just think and I don't think we can stop it. I don't think there's any way we can stop it. if you weren't doing this and the gene editors weren't doing it. I mean, >> I don't like that more philosophy generally. Like I actually I actually think people I think people way overshoot that it people way overshoot the idea that oh technology is inevitable. Technology is not inevitable. This this drives me crazy.
People make choices that drive technology forward. Technology does not just happen. It's been, you know, um, 20 years of really 15 years probably since, you know, some of these more advanced screenings has existed, but they've never actually been adopted, right? So, the idea that technology naturally progresses is it's a narrative created by Silicon Valley to try to justify raising more money. And, by the way, taking away more responsibility. No, people make choices that drive technology.
>> I think you're to an extent right. I I mean this is a whole separate conversation I don't want to bore our remaining viewers with but I do think we make choices that's absolutely right and it's incumbent on us to try to make the right choices for ourselves and those around us okay all true those choices matter also true we are also products of the time in which we live and the systems in which we operate so that's that so those things are equally true >> again I don't want to be boring but >> I agree with you our choices are important but there's also again a lack of respect ect for what we don't know which makes me very uncomfortable in science and one of the reasons that I think that we should put a lot of doctors and scientists in prison as soon as we can is because they they've really hurt us over the last say 6 years by not acknowledging what they don't know overstating their own foresight >> about things that no human being can know like there's no respect for the limits of the human mind okay and suddenly we have these enormous powers that are not actually matched to our wisdom at all. And I just I just want to say out loud, I'm really worried about it. And I think certain individuals should be punished for doing this. Like the guys who made CO in the lab, they're not in jail. Like what >> does that bother you? Do you think that's a lesson? Does that tell us anything?
>> Yeah, it is definitely a lesson. Um, we have to be responsible stewards of the technology. And >> should that be punishment for people who like kill millions through their foolishness?
>> Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, I think the key is that um like again, genetics can program for somebody to be smarter, but it cannot make somebody wise. And the idea that you can genetically encode somebody's life, again, that's not true. Like, like nature, like in the in the in the DNA, in the nucleus, that's not true. So I I want to be clear that you're not controlling the the like life outcome of your child. You're not going to be like, "Okay, now the child's going to become, you know, LeBron James and they're going to be on the star." That that will come from virtue of hard work, etc. So genetics is important. Genetics is important. It plays a factor. It plays a role. But I'm not going to sit here and say, "Oh, genetics is everything." It's not. It's not. Obviously, nobody's making the case that it is.
>> No, but the argument that you can control, parents can control their child's life trajectory would suggest that genetics is pretty deterministic.
I'm actually making the opposite argument, which is you have no freaking idea what's going to happen when you tamper with this stuff. We actually know way less than we think we do. We have less control than we imagine and that we should proceed with that in mind. That that's my only argument and but my question is much more specific. You said the technology is not inevitable. I kind of agree with you.
>> We certainly have an obligation to do our best.
>> Yeah. for the people who didn't do their best and who hurt others like the whole world like the guys who designed CO in the Wuhan lab which they did we've established that shouldn't there be some punishment for them and wouldn't that help future generations make wiser decisions if they saw that there were consequences to being thoughtless with technology I think generally speaking the kind of history at least like the modern history of like Silicon Alley has gone from I think it had some idea of kind of virtue ethics right like you know Google back in the day was don't be evil if you say that today you'll kind of be laughed at um that was like their corporate motto um you had um Paul Graham had his you know hackers and painters this idea of that that was kind of this like kind of um beautiful early Silicon Valley spirit there was um uh there was another case of um Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford for commencement address. He ended it by saying, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." Basically, humility, have humility. Open yourself up to the world, not just the natural world, but the divine world. I think a lot of the Silicon Valley ideology has moved from sort of hackers and painters to, you know, maybe capitalists and, you know, politicians or the like. In other words, it's moved into kind of a techno capitalism. This idea that technology is inevitable. This idea that uh capitalism is inherently good, like it's inherently good if something grows. I I completely and you see that with AI companies all the time. They'll celebrate, oh, we we hit 100 million AR in, you know, 2 days or something and it it fundamentally mistakes speed and the the rate at which something grows with value, right? Cancer grows very quickly. It's horrible. And so I think there's this fundamental idea that you know this kind of oh grow grow that you know inherently the consequences um like you know be damned just growth is inherently good. I think that fundamental philosophy is so bad.
>> Well, it's a self-justification. Yes.
So, but I wonder where it grows from.
So, the I think you described crisply and well the evolution of the attitudes in Silicon Valley generally speaking.
>> Yeah.
>> From hey, this is going to liberate everybody is good >> to hey this hikes GDP and I've got a massive place in Athetherton therefore it's good. And those are definitely different >> justifications. And I wonder to what you attribute to change like how did that happen? How did you go from one place to another? And here's my thesis in one sentence. Okay.
>> Power.
>> Yeah.
>> When you get a lot of power, >> you get corrupted. Exactly.
>> Power corrupts. Yeah.
>> So there's no greater power than determining what kind of kids people are going to have.
>> So like are you worried at all?
>> Again, we don't determine what kind of kids have overpopul.
>> We don't. No, we don't because people are making their own choices. We don't make the choice for them. People choicely make the choice.
>> No, I I we we we don't we don't you could just say we're only testing for these three things or whatever. You could you design the screen therefore you design the outcome of no virtue is not in bi virtue is not in biology.
>> Okay.
>> So so no we do not encode populations cuz human beings can't encode like that is go that it it it makes a mistake assuming like we are god we are not god we are not god.
>> It's going to affect the nature of people. So that's an inescapable fact.
And I think it's important to just like wear the mantle. Like this is what we're doing. We're changing the nature of people. We're going to try to make them better.
>> Nature is a very tricky word. The nature of people come from God. It doesn't come from genetics.
>> The substance of people, their intelligence, their height, their lifespan.
>> That's a key distinction though because ultimately any human being should want again greater spiritual cultivation. But I'm just saying you are part of not you alone or even substantially but you're part of a trend in science that will change the nature of people.
So I do think it's worth just admitting that because then once you realize the burden on your shoulders you can bear up under it. Do you think or >> I think we Yeah, definitely this technology I I just want to be very careful with the word nature versus biological characteristics. I agree that we're changing biological characteristics. how long people live.
You're changing that. So that alone is how tall people are, how well they do in the SAT, >> but but again, it's not deterministic in that way. It's not like you can look at somebody's DNA and be like, "Oh, they're going to get a 15 70 in the SAT." But I agree with you >> over populations and we're talking about populations and you're saying it's, you know, IVF is 2% or whatever. But I'm just saying the technology, we can see where this is going. You offer people a chance to have children who are healthier and smarter and they're going to take it. And I've already admitted that I would have taken it >> because I love my children.
>> Yeah. It's that simple. So, we know this is going to happen if the technology exists and it's widely available.
>> And so, that puts you, and not just you, of course, this is hardly an attack.
>> But it puts you in a position of having power over the course of humanity over the evolution of humanity. We're watching humanity change at the individual level. And like that's a big burden, man. That's a burden that only God bore before like 20 years ago.
>> We are not God and we can never be God.
>> Good. Well, that's a good start.
>> We are not God. We are not God.
>> But do you see it as profound?
>> Absolutely. Yeah. I mean I mean to to to see patients who have had some again I use the Huntington's example, right? To see a loved one die at age 25 because their brain decays and then to never want to have a child.
>> Huntingtons is really hard. and then to be able to use the technology, the emotion, >> you know, the miracle that they can have a baby basically. I that's that's amazing.
>> It is amazing. But I with respect, I think having watched I mean I was out in Silicon Valley in the ' 90s covering this and I knew the people I still know some of them.
>> They were totally fixated on the upside.
>> Yeah.
>> In a good way.
>> Yeah.
>> They were like this gives the encyclopedia bratannica. probably don't know what that is, but it's a physical encyclopedia that's sat on your shelf and costs like thousands of dollars >> that's replaced by this CD ROM. You know, this collection of ones and zeros and like it's incredible the amount of information. People will be so much better informed >> and now you look 30 years later and it's like definitely upsides to technology but also downsides.
>> Well, we're we're susceptible to the same force because we're we're human.
Well, that's exactly the argument I'm making.
>> Yeah, I I agree. Yeah, we are susceptible to the same force. It's it's it's how you know how can how can we continue to do that spiritual work because it is spiritual work right to cultivate the soul to make sure we maintain in these values that I'm that I've been articulating.
>> I totally agree. So here's my final question. I'll stop torturing you.
>> Okay.
>> Um I think you've done such a great job actually.
>> Oh thanks.
>> And I'm has nothing to do with you. I'm just worried about these things and you're smart and you've again for the third time thought about them to a surprising degree for a guy who's also trying to like build a company. I'm impressed.
>> Thank you.
>> But um >> if we're going to proceed one hopes with this kind of science in a way that creates rather than destroys >> then we need to keep in mind as you said 20 times >> the spiritual dimension.
>> Yes.
>> But the spiritual dimension is a dividing point. Some things are good for the spirit and some things are bad for the spirit.
>> Some things are consistent with virtue.
>> Yeah.
>> Some things are not. And if we believe in God, we believe God prefers some outcomes over others. God has rules.
>> It's the nature of God.
>> So will there be an attempt to say no, these are the rules. Like you can't test for this certain thing. You can't make this choice. You have to constrain people's choices at a certain point if you're going to remain consistent with any kind of ethic.
>> Yeah. No, I thought a lot about that.
It's very tricky because you need >> just as India did. India said to us billion people. You can't make that choice. Sorry.
>> No, it's that's a very tricky it's very tricky and very complicated.
I think the key thing that we have to do as a business and the moral line that people can hold us to is nucleus has not is not and will never say that one embryo is better than another embryo. We just won't because again we cannot pro we cannot mistake instrumental value with moral value.
They're different things. And I think in in in in deeply recognizing that and deeply realizing by the way the indeterministic nature of genetics as well as I said heart disease you can you know have a bad diet you can exercise lung cancer um even for things like schizophrenia as I mentioned strong genetic components but you can take you know weed actually has made people uh more schizophrenic for example um so there's environmental component as well and so I think you have to have the deep humility in saying there's no better maintain that moral philosophy that cuz that's the that is the foundation of from for me that's the foundation.
>> You say it's better to be non-s schizophrenic than schizophrenic.
>> I don't think it's for me to say though.
I also again I also don't think though to be clear when we use the term better we start applying moral value. Again I don't think moral value lies in the realm of biological characteristics. I don't think so.
>> So there's no moral guide at all.
>> No that's not true. there is universal morality uh which is natural law and it's better not to have schizophrenia than to have schizophrenia.
>> Well again when we say better I think we're just like define it differently. I think it's better in the sense that it reduces suffering.
>> Okay. If that's your measure then it's better.
>> Exactly. But what's your measure?
Exactly. But it's honestly better in terms of a word.
>> So this is totally immoral. This is literally immoral. It has no reference.
>> It's not immoral. No at all. Cuz everything has a spirit as I said. Just cuz I the there's the physical world and then there's each thing has a divine spirit to it. Right. So each thing has some virtue or opposite of virtue vice for example right that's true that's a true thing but again these things are not actually incompatible with each other they're actually compatible um >> but as a company can you say there's anything you won't do >> as a on behalf of nucleus I think well when you say anything we won't do meaning like >> I don't know you said the biology has no moral reference because everything has a spirit I'm just wondering is there like a line >> characteristic don't >> we're not doing that period because it's wrong >> we're not providing analysis for example like we're not providing some anal that's what you mean you're not going to make certain behavior easier when you say certain behavior you mean picking for a specific like characteristic I don't know I could manufacture fentanyl for a living and say I'm not forcing people to take it it's their choice >> but I would say I'm not manufacturing fentanyl because it's bad it's just inherently bad it degrades people and in some cases kills them so I'm not doing that >> so it I don't know that is it enough to say let the people decide >> no it's not it's uh you have to you have to be careful like giving IQ analysis for example right we've gone through many many iterations of the best way of doing it and we sort of slow rolled it out princely because we didn't want people to misunderstand it we don't want people to think because again genetically it's just like not possible in the same way that there's always environmental components that you can just like look at somebody's DNA and guess the SAT score that's like people's very simplistic model which is like but right but so I'm saying that the way we have a responsibility to very carefully communicate that result so the IVF clinic the patient, the physician, everyone understands it. And then when I think when people understand it, it takes it from sort of the sensationalist things and just grounds it.
>> Well, you shift the moral responsibility from yourself to your customer.
>> You still morally responsible. You ship a product.
>> In what way?
>> I could I could I could make a product and say, "Oh, this embryo is better than this embryo." I mean, that would be principally the most immoral line that we could cross. I could say, for example, this embryo is going to be super super super smart, right? No, we're careful in the way we say things.
>> Well, that's just a false claim, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean it would be false, but also like >> but what you're saying is that the moral decisions rest with the customers, not with you. They decide what's better. Is it better to have a kid with Down syndrome or not? They decide. You're not going to have any role in the moral decision.
>> Patients can't. So again, there's no moral value because that comes from God.
But patients can decide instrumental value, right? Like uh going back to the deaf couple, the deaf couple deemed it to be best, right? For what they want, for the outcome they're optimizing for.
In this case, best means optimizing for the set of biological characteristics um to for some outcome, right? For example, somebody might want might their somebody might want their daughter to be shorter to be a gym gymnast, for example.
Somebody might want their son to be tall to be an NBA player. Someone else might say, I don't care how athletic they are.
I don't care how pretty they are. I want them to be an academic and you know, study really hard their entire life.
Depending on those things, as I mentioned in cell biology, specialization breeds sophistication.
you realize very quickly, very intuitively that the value of a phenotype is contingent to its environment. So I I I this is what it comes back to. It's like it's up to it's it's up to them, the parents, to decide what is their instrumental value that they map to these phenotypes and to pick and take fentanyl. No, I get it. I get it. I just >> I just hope it works. I I I think the worst things that I've ever done are the things with the greatest promise, >> like the iPhone. Like I got I was so psyched for the iPhone. And I was like, I don't need a computer.
>> I can work in my living room. Next thing you know, you can't have a conversation with your wife.
>> Yeah. Social media is it's really bad.
>> But it's bad because it's good.
Benzoipines are great. That's why they're terrible. Does that make sense?
>> I I think benzoazipines are like the greatest drug. Have you ever taken a bzzoazipene? I took it one time in high school. One of my a kid on my hall in boarding school, his dad was a pharmacist and he had Valium and I was like, I'll take anything. Whenever I was a child, I was an idiot. I take this thing. I was like, "That's the greatest thing I've ever taken." And it was so good. I never took it in cuz it freaked me out. There was no downside.
>> Literally, all of your like voices in your head, any woman listening will know what I'm talking about. Like the things are like whatever going on in the background, >> silenced. Everything's fine. You're not like stoned. You're not out of it.
You're just like great. You're improved.
You're your best self. And my animal sense even in 10th grade I was like that's bad. Yeah, super bad. Whereas you do other drug, you do cocaine, stay all night doing cocaine, you suffer the next day. And so there's it's really clear this is not good. Right. Benzo are the best. And that's why they're the most addictive, most dangerous, most society destroying product that we make.
>> Yeah.
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. The badness is in direct proportion to the the promise, the goodness.
>> Yes. Yes. And then there is a moral character of the person giving out to that drug. And in social media case too, talking about moral philosophy optimizing for clicks and dopamine, you end up following a consequentialist framework, right? Because there's no virtue. You end up following a consecent framework and justifies the mean to the point that everybody's scrolling and liking and clicking all day 100%. So it it's the question that you're asking is how do you there is this problem of power cuz power corrupts. Absolutely.
>> Absolutely. There's a problem in Silicon Valley which is there's a promise but then you underestimate the thing. It's like how do you maintain virtue?
Basically the question is how do you maintain virtue? Um how do you maintain your soul and your spirit despite these pressures? Um what's the answer? Well one it's you know it's really hard. I imagine I imagine and I'm I'm hoping to practice for nucleus and for the hopefully this this industry it's the it's it's praying it's meditation it's deep deep humility with realizing going back to what I said there's a raindrop if you think that the raindrop is entire world you're fig well you have a lot of authority you have a lot of power for a young man more than much more than I ever will and so use it wisely and thank you for your thoughtfulness and your willing to have this conversation and I'm sure it's been hellish for you, but you've done a great job.
>> Thank you, Tucker. Thank you. I appreciate it.
>> Thanks.
Videos Relacionados
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Tendencias
Why Batman Lets The Joker Live 🤨
zackdfilms
9222K views•2026-05-30
They're Complete Trash
penguinz0
558K views•2026-06-04
The Murder of Deputy Caleb Conley
MidwestSafety
810K views•2026-06-04
I Bought FAKE HopeScope Merch (and paid a subscriber to give it a makeover) | Hopeful Hauls
HangWithHopescope
158K views•2026-06-04