Tucker Confronts Biotech CEO for Genetically Altering the Next Generation

0:04Thanks for doing this. I appreciate it.

0:07I 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 will stand back and let you explain what you're doing? Yeah, so first thanks for having me on.

0:27>> 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 hereditary disease or for some other reason, you do IVF. Right.

0:40>> Um when you do Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm going to I specialize in dumb questions.

0:43Can you just explain for people who don't know What is IVF?

0:45>> Chris, explain. Yeah, what is IVF? IVF stands for in vitro 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?

0:57Um and then basically you take that embryo and you transfer it into a woman and then it would implant and the woman's pregnant.

1:03>> takes place outside the womb.

1:04>> Correct. Okay. Yeah.

1:06And 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 your IVF clinic, you make several embryos.

1:18Uh the amount of embryos you end up making it varies, but you might have four or five. You actually do genetic testing on these embryos to identify things like chromosomal abnormalities like Down syndrome, for example, right?

1:28So, that's very commonplace. 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.

1:38What 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 height or etc.

1:54Um so, to be clear, we're not changing any DNA.

1:58There'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 to implant which embryo the couple deems to be best.

2:12So, basically you 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.

2:19>> Okay. Um but you just said we can tell the IQ of a person by the genetics?

2:25So, IQ >> I was reliably informed IQ is not real, okay? And it's not determined by genetics.

2:31>> So, so there's there's So, I think it's helpful to think about all these different uh 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?

2:44Um 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?

2:54Uh the most simple way of explaining it is imagine you took um two identical twins. So, they have the same DNA, right? And then basically you separate the twins, they grow up in different environments. Sometimes in pop culture people hear about these different things, but 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 then you can actually measure basically how much more similar they how how similar they are across all these different phenotypes to see

3:17basically how genetic something is. Twin 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, 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

3:50partner, right? So, you're actually not changing DNA. This is not genetic.

3:54You'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.

4:10I mean, that this like Again, I just want to say thank you for doing this.

4:14>> Yeah, 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 [clears throat] much younger than I am.

4:23So, 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, and this was at the very center of our national debate about race, Mhm.

4:46and crime and educational achievement, income, and it all grew out of or was crystallized by a book called The Bell Curve. Have you heard of this book?

4:57>> Yeah, I have, yeah. Yeah.

4:58So, um it seems like that debate is over and we're and I'm not at This is 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.

5:09Uh yeah, genetics plays a role. So, I think in [clears throat] 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, Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, beta thalassemia. 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, >> Of course. you're going to get cystic fibrosis, and it's debilitating. And so,

5:38there'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.

5:47Um Right. Right, that's like classical kind of genetics. So, I think it's interesting cuz you you make >> right?

5:53>> No, no, no, not eugenics. Eugenics Well, how is it not? It's It's improving the human species. No, no, you're breeding.

5:58Eugenics refers to basically coercive use, coercively controlling human reproduction, right? Forced sterilizations, uh even euthanasia, um controlling who can get married to who.

6:08So, No, no, no, no, no. Those are methods by which you implement and eugenics, but they're not the only ones.

6:14Eugenics simply means there's something inherently Well, you can disagree with the concept, but the concept is, coercive or not, the improvement of a species, in this case the human species, through selective breeding. Well, but there's 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 >> that not selective breeding? This is literally selective breeding. Well, breeding is, by definition, the process

6:46of bringing new life into the world, and you're deciding which of these embryos becomes a person.

6:52And so, that is that is breeding.

6:54>> Well, it's not It's not choosing people's marriages. It's not giving them forced vasectomies, but it is breeding. That's what breeding is.

7:02Well, 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 Galton, okay? He was a British scientist.

7:26>> Yeah, a bunch of Havelock Ellis. Yeah, but Yeah, he came up with the term eugenics. Interestingly, the term eugenics was actually about 20 years before the term genetics.

7:35This 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 they when the term was coined, it was the the science of heredity, right?

7:45Of passing down information. The Remember, the unit 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, and I think it was Buck versus Bell, the US Supreme Court deemed forced 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 is a as a as a as an coercive

8:18ideology to control populations had nothing to do with molecular genetics, period. It had nothing to do with the genetics.

8:24>> Um well, I think if you basically force sterilize somebody against their will, I mean, again, that's against the fundamental, you know, liberty of a person. I There's no question 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.

8:50>> Well, force did play I mean, again, in 1927, the United States the the the Supreme Court deemed constitutionally that forced sterilizations are constitutional. I'm just saying that, and I couldn't be more opposed to that.

9:00>> Yeah. In fact, 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 forced sterilizations. The idea 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 How is it different?

9:25>> So, Nucleus ultimately and what we give patients also 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? Well, 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

9:58think of two kinds of virtue. There's natural virtue and then divine virtue, right? It's fundamentally not biological. It's not physical. Genetics can only program for physical things, and then people can basically make their choices within the partners that they choose in doing IVF to then pick the embryo that sets the best set of biological characteristics to them, but there is no virtue. There is no morality in that decision. Well, I've noticed.

10:17Yeah. 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-Sachs, and CF?

10:32Is that as [clears throat] virtuous as having a child who has none of those things? Cuz I thought you just said that it's good to get rid of those things.

10:38>> 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 want to have a deaf child. Yep.

10:53That that to them was what was was best, basically, right? That term best is relative, context-specific to the parent.

11:01We have patients, for example, that might have um, you know, Huntington's, which is a severe neurodegenerative disease.

11:07Yeah, very severe. It's autosomal dominant, means it's passed down. Right?

11:10And 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 neuropsychiatric or some sort of debilitating condition that runs in the family.

11:26Um, like in my case, you know, one of the reasons 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. A condition that can cause irregular heart beating and 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

11:55after 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.

12:08With Mother's Day coming up, Cozy Earth can provide the perfect gift, something she will use and appreciate every day.

12:15If 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.

12:24Visit cozyearth.com, use the code Tucker for 20% off. That's cozyearth.com, promo code Tucker for 20% off. We've got a post-purchase survey. Mention you heard about Cozy Earth from us on this show. I don't want to sidetrack you, but you threw in else Oh, you threw in schizophrenia, rather.

12:39>> Yeah. Is there I I don't know the answer. Is there evidence that that is genetically predisposed to it?

12:45Schizophrenia is very strongly There's a very strong genetic basis to schizophrenia, right?

12:48>> Really? Correct. Yeah, yeah, there And we know that.

12:50>> Yes, that is very well-established science.

12:53Um Yeah. Interesting. Sorry.

12:55>> Yeah. Sorry. I'm learning. Um okay. It's interesting. So um Okay, but you said it that 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.

13:12Uh it's not for me to tell a deaf couple whether they should or shouldn't have a deaf child, yeah. 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, but 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 say that. I can't possibly say that. It depends.

13:31>> I I think that's entirely the choice of the of the of the family. That's the family's choice.

13:36>> 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.

13:50Right? So you you said that. That's the policy. Like you know, you genetic test all the embryos at every IVF clinic because you want to make sure we have less Down syndrome, for example.

14:00>> But no, but that But again, but 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 parent's choice. A parent can choose not to screen embryos for Down syndrome.

14:13Okay? They could make that decision. And if they make that decision, they can then transfer that embryo and have that baby. That's entirely their choice.

14:20There's not like >> 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.

14:38Not entirely, but >> making choices though. Those are parents and couples making those choices.

14:42>> health care systems steer people in certain directions or have a preference?

14:46I think the health care system, unfortunately, right now is a sick care system. I mean, the health care 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 health care system spends about $5 trillion.

14:59It'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 as many people died of a chronic disease than COVID. 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,

15:31right? So genetics has a strong impact in both a hereditary disease like cancers as I outlined, like chronic diseases, as well as rare disease. So genetics can help impact, you know, four, four and a half trillion dollars of health care expenditure. But, and there is a but, remember those four and a half trillion dollars, somebody's making money for someone being sick. Well, yeah.

15:48>> And that's horrible. That's horrible.

15:50But it's Of course you say of course, but we 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 in the next generation. So these things can be used to basically help build uh what we call generational health effectively. Um so I I I don't >> You save a lot of money through improving the species through eugenics.

16:13Everyone 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 Wait, 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. We can just basically take a cheek swab. You can use something called procreation simulation to simulate basically the risk for your child. Okay? Um and that is a service that can basically help any couple too.

16:42So I just want to be clear that it's not just IVF patients as well. These are couples that then can employ the screening and then to have a a healthy baby.

16:50Um what about sex?

16:52What about sex?

16:54Well, 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.

17:10>> In India actually outlawed it, to be clear, too. So in IVF clinic, you can't even pick sex in India cuz there's a disbalance. But well, legally, but of course it happens all the time cuz there's a global preference for sons.

17:21And that's why you see so many more boys than girls, when in fact it's the opposite >> States, actually, if you look at the IVF, it's about it's about 50/50. I'm saying I'm I'm not talking about the US.

17:31But I'm How do you feel about that?

17:33Would 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 been able 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 Well, I mean, it's illegal in It's much harder in these countries. Yeah.

17:57Um 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 >> do you think of it? Would you say valid for someone to come in and say, I mean, you said this is a, you know, 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?"

18:23In 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 the embodiment of this kind of liberty and choice, um you see it ends up being about 50/50, which I think actually undercuts this idea that everyone's going to pick, you know, a boy, for example. Right? There's this notion >> specific and it's time, you know, it's 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

18:52family history, specific values, and Of course, of course. But well, 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.

19:03>> Mhm. And right. And I totally 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.

19:25To be clear, I think that there is no universal biological best, period, across any phenotype. Cuz biology is inherently neutral. Now, there is universal morality.

19:37Okay? Specifically, again, two kinds.

19:40There'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 I think it's different >> divine virtue?

19:52Divine virtue to me is more about union with God.

19:56So what's the difference between natural and divine virtue? Where does the soul come from? There's God. There's God.

20:00What do you mean? Why is there no God?

20:01Of course I agree, but I I don't know why there's a distinction between the virtues. Again, we're in the weeds Natural virtue, I'll tell you why.

20:08Natural virtue can be intellectually derived. Wisdom, courage, justice, temperance. It's kind of classic Aristotle.

20:16And 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 basic eudaimonia, human flourishing. Right? That that kind of virtue, natural virtue. Right? Coming from Aristotle. And the other kind is thinking about divine virtue which is what goes beyond the intellect. Right?

20:38Which Thomas Aquinas basically brought together and thought about okay, there's there's this idea of natural virtue that you know 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 about union with God and you know all religions actually talk ultimately about surrender. 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 Wi-Fi stops. Right?

21:00Makes sense. So if you got a barn, a job site, equipment parked outside, driveway criminals know there's a good chance that nobody is watching this cuz there's no Wi-Fi.

21:12And 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. So 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, alerts sent right to your phone.

21:46It's great for construction sites, ranches, farms, or anyone with a property that stretches beyond a router.

21:53And here's something we really appreciate. Defend does not sell your data. Not to tech companies, not to advertisers, not to China, no one. Your footage belongs to you. And that's big.

22:03Plans start at about five bucks a month.

22:04No contract. Cancel anytime. Visit defendsellcam.com.

22:08That's defendsellcam .com. What kind of God do you believe in?

22:13So I've meditated for about [clears throat] seven years.

22:17Um and what I keep coming across is the best way to articulate it. I see God as an experience versus an ideology which is that um there's a quote that's actually from Rumi.

22:29I think he articulates it well. Rumi's a a Persian poet. Um he says, "Imagine you go to the ocean and you come back with a pitcher of water."

22:38So the pitcher in my mind is is the ego.

22:40It's the it's 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 think 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 because it's it's it's this it's it's it's >> allude to it. You can't describe it directly cuz it's too big. It precisely.

23:07It's infinite. It's vast. That's why I 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.

23:20And you realize it's much bigger.

23:21And so um So that's your conception of God. Yes, that's my Again, I think God is more is more an experience. You 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.

23:36But so that I think you can try to use metaphors. You can try to explain it. 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 for sure. Now I couldn't agree with you more. 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 Mhm. and believe. And what's your view on that?

24:04>> Well, Islam specifically Islam literally means surrendering to one. Yes.

24:10I think that's the answer. In other words Islam and you can I'm not Christian.

24:15You're Christian so you can tell me more about Christian view, but there's a concept of surrender in Christianity. So in Islam there's this It means literally Islam means to surrender.

24:22Yeah, it's an experience. It's the whole thing. It's the whole thing. Literally.

24:24Surrendered to being tortured to death.

24:26>> Exactly. Yeah, of course. Right? And then in Buddhism as well. They call it different things in Buddhism. It's a little bit more like surrendering to the illusion of the ego for example.

24:33Um but the concept of surrendering I think is basically universal. Um There's no question.

24:41>> And so yeah. But um So right. That's my That's my answer. 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?

24:58I mean that's just a product of logic, but it's also like pretty spelled out in in every 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.

25:16Um there is one is the idea of consequentialism which is basically the end justifies the means which you'll see a lot of in today's culture. I had noticed that.

25:24>> Yeah, unfortunately even in Silicon Valley which we can talk about. Even in Silicon Valley? Did you Did you just say that actually?

25:30>> [laughter] >> Yeah, especially. Even in Silicon Valley? Especially in Silicon Valley.

25:34Then there's um Sam Altman may even be doing it. I mean Yeah, I mean we Yeah, we can talk about that. And people And the thing is whether people realize it or not their moral philosophies, they end up succumbing to one anyways whether they recognize it.

25:46>> Of course. Everybody's religious.

25:49>> 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 circumstances are, these things are wrong. Right? There's that moral philosophy you can adopt, deontology, which can be secular or non-secular is my understanding of it. Um then there's virtue ethics.

26:08>> Not really. Okay. If there are 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 they're rules. They're laws. So one has no meaning at all. Nothing can be better than any anything else. Yeah, if if they Yes. And the other is absolute.

26:27So like no, there can't be a secular sorry Aristotle a secular understanding of absolute value.

26:36I 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 contemporary society adopt. There's deontology, right? Which is as you rooted rooted 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 is basically the the instead of saying oh the the the the consequence instead of saying oh this action is good because the consequence was good or this action is

27:04good because the action is inherently good or or wrong because of some secular or non-secular set of rules, you're saying hey the the the actual thing that you need to measure 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 in the action. Right? So

27:34basically 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 thing you're trying to max maximize? And then deontology which is this concept of forget about the outcome is good or not.

27:47Is this the right or wrong thing? Then the concept of virtue ethics which is instead of saying you know looking at the action, right? Cuz 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 the it's deemed virtuous if the the person can strive and embody virtue. Okay? And so personally and I'm still By the way I'm talking about natural virtue right now. I'm not even talking about divine virtue. I'm talking about in the intellectual plane, things that people can think about and reason or argue over, things of the mind, not

28:14things that go beyond the mind. Right?

28:16And so in the concept of virtue ethics, I think this is the type of moral philosophy we try to embody in in saying hey, and this comes back all the way to embryonic selection which is hey, there is no biological best.

28:28There there there is none. Right? Again, the soul the soul which is non-physical ultimately does not rest. It it cannot be programmed in biology. So people can have different preferences. Somebody could say, you know, I want my 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 preference. It does not just mean it's

28:58that. Yeah, I Well, of course I disagree that there's no divine preference, but I 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 I >> create life?

29:15No. No. [clears throat] So this is actually a paradox that I struggle with too because another thing that I think a lot about is something called panpsychism which is this idea that basically each object has its its consciousness even like a rock. Right?

29:29And this might sound strange to people, but >> sound strange.

29:32>> sound strange. Okay. I don't think you're fully off base. I don't know the answer, but it's a crazy thing to wonder. So this idea that you know a rock has um a consciousness. It's a it's a it's 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.

29:53Um and then each thing has this consciousness and accordingly it's kind of made in in in in in it's endowed with um something that goes beyond just kind of its weight or or matter basically.

30:03It's basically very non-empiricist just non-materialist. Um and it basically believes this idea that again God has given this consciousness to everything.

30:11Um and I and I and I tend to I actually like that a lot. I actually like that a lot for a lot of reasons.

30:16>> I just ask you a couple fundamental questions?

30:17>> Sure, please. So you just said I think you said um that people cannot create life.

30:24I think nature has a greater intelligence and human beings sometimes people would say we are part of nature but we are nature.

30:33But life So 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.

30:46And then we and then basically and to be clear we're not an IVF clinic. We work in IVF clinics and IVF clinics are the ones that doing IVF. We provide more information. But in the context of IVF you are using natural law.

30:58You are not making natural law. You're not You can't make a baby. This is you know and >> 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?

31:14I think I I would say God.

31:18But 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 I obviously I don't know. But And and and I don't mean to put you on the spot. Who creates life? It's Come on.

31:33I shouldn't be even asking questions like this and expecting you to have some coaching answer because I don't think anyone does. Other than to say God or to say more precisely not us. Not us.

31:43Is that fair to say not us?

31:44>> Yeah, that is that is fair to say not us. And we operate within the plan. And and to be clear the stories of sci-fi, right? Like Frankenstein for example or even Jurassic Park is an example. But Frankenstein this idea that we can make life, right? We We cannot make life.

31:54That's That's the That's That's the lesson of these stories.

31:57>> say I think you've thought a lot more about this than your average businessman. So I'm I'm I was going to >> [laughter] >> 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.

32:09>> No, I mean that totally sincerely.

32:11You've actually thought a lot about this and I don't know that 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. We operate within nature. Right. Operate within nature.

32:30>> 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.

32:48We saw it up close. He has now recounted it in an amazing book called How to Become a Christian in 7 Days. And [music] it recounts what happened to him and it makes the case to all of us for stepping away from our secular assumptions and [music] returning to the only thing that matters which is God.

33:04I've read it. It's amazing. And right now there's only one place to get it, TuckerCarlsonBooks.com.

33:09This is the first release from our new publishing company. We created TuckerCarlsonBooks to bypass the sensors and bring you things [music] that are actually worth reading and sharing.

33:18And we're starting this venture with what matters most [music] and that's Russell Brand's message of the promise of forgiveness and joy through Jesus. We're proud to [music] launch our new bookstore with Russell Brand's How to Become a Christian in 7 Days. It is the message this country needs most.

33:34Find it today on TuckerCarlsonBooks.com.

33:38Do we have the right to take life?

33:41So it So this is so So So No, we don't. Um Now, if we talk about embryo cuz I assume this was your balloon to try to say >> sure what you're talking about. 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.

34:02It's It's not aimed at you. It's aimed at everybody everybody on the globe. But it's begins with the question do we have the right to take life?

34:08>> 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."

34:16And maybe they have some good that they do here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

34:20Yeah.

34:22I'm telling you what I think but I just tell you that there's this kind of it's a very pluralistic. And then someone could say murder's always bad which is fine. I respect that opinion absolutely.

34:29And then there's sort of this this last bucket which again I'm going to come back to this idea of virtue ethics which is 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 this situation?"

34:40Because society does not have a definitive answer to this question, right? People will sometimes say knee-jerk they'll say, "Oh, murder's always bad." But then they'll be pro the death penalty. Right? Or they're pro pro war.

34:49>> are inconsistent. There's no doubt about it and they ignore their own failings and highlight those of others.

34:56They've got planks in their eyes and they're picking the sawdust 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.

35:06>> Yes. I I mean yes. That's what we're trying to do.

35:07>> can we say about the right of a person to take another person's life?

35:11>> Well, I don't I don't 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 that I don't see that. I mean And of course there's this question like what what is you know I don't think there's a right period. I just don't think so. Um well, I'm with you. I'm with you now. I 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 a okay.

35:39Or So then what can we say about an embryo in a lab? Is that life? So going back to the panpsychic philosophy, right? Which is this idea No, [laughter] no, no. No, no, no. We have to No, 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 Let's bear with me for a second. There is a spectrum of consciousness. There's a spectrum from you know rocks to sent 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

36:09is the fundamental question. You know, does an embryo have a soul for example?

36:12Um that is the key question. That is the key question in my view.

36:16I totally agree.

36:16>> 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 clinics.

36:26>> Right. I just want to be very clear to everyone listening. You sit at the intersection of like every big trend.

36:30No, we have a huge responsibility.

36:32Absolutely.

36:32>> And so I think I it's important to before we can even argue oh is an embryo life it's like what what what it 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.

36:49You're not the physical. We're something else. We're metaphysical. We're soul.

36:52Okay? And so then the the fundamental question is that okay, well, does an embryo 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 and a range of life. And I can in my head at least and again this is the feelings of the intellect. Like intellect can 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 proto-consciousness some like very very limited consciousness that we don't understand. Maybe through some psychic

37:21or meditative work you could try to you know become a rock and try to understand its like more subjective experience if it exists, right? All the way to an embryo to a dog to a human.

37:30And so because of this um a spectrum it comes out to this question of at what point basically do we have this is is there a soul in an embryo? And 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.

37:48Now Why do you think that?

37:50Well, I don't know. I don't know. Um I I But why would you think that?

37:55>> 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 a cell and when you reproduce already embryos actually >> one cell. Yeah. It divides exactly. Divides and becomes many cells. But principally at first it begins just as one I thought it was it was the sperm and the egg made the embryo.

38:15>> Yeah. So by definition >> 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 a human. Um Sorry, I was going to say I just lost my train of thought. Um So the question was at you said you you tend to think that an embryo does not have a soul and I asked why would you assume that?

38:38>> 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 people conceive naturally what ends up happening is that um you have these formations of of kind of small formations of an embryo, okay?

38:56Right? 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 forget about IVF. In in natural conception it is the case that um basically you have these embryo formation and then ends up not forming.

39:15And now the way I see it is I see that 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's 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 to say it. I do think it is similar to like a wave that forms and then again returns to the ocean

39:47because everything returns to the ocean.

39:49So 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.

39:54Even 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 nuanced argument.

40:01>> Right, yeah. Um it does make it 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.

40:17>> yeah, right. It is important it's very important it may be the most important thing.

40:21>> It is. So um I guess the difference between a wave and IVF is the human choice involved in the latter.

40:33And 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.

40:43Do people have the right to make any choice available to them?

40:46>> I think people don't have the right in our culture people will conflate greater performance with being morally better.

40:55Which I think is a big problem. So there's two kinds of value there's instrumental value and there's moral value.

41:00Um instrumental value is contingent and this is actually really important all of um biology all of it nature is contingent value. For example um you know you 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 depending on the environment.

41:22>> And this is obvious to say but it's actually I think people miss this sometimes cuz 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.

41:31Doesn't lead to a better person. It might lead to a more optimized outcome but it doesn't lead to a better person.

41:35Dude you're destroying your own case.

41:37>> No I'm not I'm not though. I'm not I'm not though.

41:39>> what you're saying is right. No 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.

41:55No I'm serious. They're going to optimize for what's good right now. Yes that that is Okay so this is actually interesting.

42:01A couple things. Oh wow.

42:02>> No I'm right.

42:03>> no no no Tucker.

42:04>> it better than I could.

42:05>> Tucker Tucker this is so interesting cuz you're making an assumption. So there's there's many parts of it.

42:09>> are yes I am.

42:09>> There's many there's many parts of this.

42:11The first part is 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 2 diabetes risk someone else might

42:35want 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.

42:53>> 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?

43:04He did that on purpose. Yeah. That's my belief.

43:08And 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.

43:19People 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 into the same six schools. I've lived in this world my whole life it's the opposite of what you're describing. They will all change their Rich choose the same thing.

43:41Rich people make up a very very small set of society. There's a big world out there there's a big ocean out there.

43:45>> of IVF patients do they make up? What percentage? Rich people about all of them so >> actually I wouldn't say it's about all of them. There are a lot of people that take So but you take Tucker if if they can't generally like almost always cuz they can't conceive naturally to be clear. And natural conception is available to all.

44:01>> Um it it can quite cost quite a bit. No but but Tucker this is but no I'm not attacking anyone.

44:06>> I I know Tucker but this is important to say which is people will conceive naturally first. Naturally natural conception is free to be clear.

44:12Um Yeah I that's what it cost me.

44:15>> 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 prevent It's it's a it's every group I don't mean to pick on rich people at all I'm one of them but I just I'm very familiar with them and yeah.

44:34But but social societies are governed by herd instincts. That's why it's society and not just a collection of hermits.

44:42So 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 of we can talk about like more broadly how this play out with the fact that people are pretty mimetic in what they pick. Okay? On the ground what I'm seeing is I see couples again I a diverse range of couples to be clear like like this technology is going to get cheaper and cheaper. Whole genome sequencing specifically this is actually interesting.

45:08Um 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 six years ago um in you know 2020 it was about a thousand dollars, right? So a billion dollars to a thousand dollars 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

45:35people 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 I just think every parent should have that right.

45:44>> I would never argue against the desire to reduce suffering.

45:49I 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.

46:12>> there a connection between suffering and virtue?

46:16And of course there is. It's a one-to-one 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 benzodiazepines.

46:31And all of a sudden you could just like eliminate the suffering and would there be downsides to that?

46:37Oh 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.

46:56I'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.

47:02>> we can't transcend suffering in the same way we can but maybe we shouldn't. But we we can't. It's it's like saying let's transcend gravity. We're in this world while we're natural beings.

47:12>> and all I'm saying is societies I'm not for suffering I'm against suffering. I hate war.

47:18I 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?

47:45>> I think that's a very fair in the context of you know uh you know there's a great example of obviously opioids you know you know people get addicted they think they're getting rid of pain but in the process in 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 non-invasive um genetic the optimization technology costs you know a couple thousand dollars which is a lot. Right which is a lot and it's going to keep going down it's going to come down. I completely believe you.

48:13>> 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 BRCA which is a breast cancer marker, right? You can um you know schizophrenia debilitating condition really impacts families.

48:31Horrible. Horrible.

48:32>> Horrible. The worst.

48:34>> And and 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.

48:46>> I I'm with you.

48:47>> pro-genetic technology is fundamentally anti-eugenic. It's actually pro-genetic technology you're pro-natalist 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.

49:02Um we've said that already we've established that you and I agree on that. Yeah. But these 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 with 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 cuz it's important.

49:28>> Sure. This is eugenics.

49:30And it had and it's I mean if you read the early eugenicists some of whom were really smart and really smart.

49:37>> Eugenics was an >> international movement actually. It spanned many many things to your point.

49:40Yeah. 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.

49:48Yeah. And they cleared out the disabled.

49:50>> though. In that way it's actually anti-eugenic because the very people that like the Nazis for example would target, right? People who are sick and kill and kill and murder.

49:58That's kind of been forgotten to history. Horrible. But those very people are now they can actually access this technology. It's actually interesting.

50:04There was 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.

50:12But the the goal of the eugenicists was the same. It was let's reduce human suffering. Let's optimize human ability.

50:22Let's make this better by being thoughtful about how we reproduce. And let's bring whatever science we have.

50:30They had much less than we have to bear on this question. And they would make they did make the argument that Lothrop Stoddard, who was a Harvard professor and a brilliant legit brilliant guy, historian, a lot about him was absolutely virtuous I would say.

50:46But he was also a wild-eyed 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 something that gives people Down syndrome.

50:55But we don't want more of them. That was his That was his argument cuz it would reduce human suffering. Fewer kids with Down syndrome few less suffering.

51:02>> Well it's a moral failure because the eugenicists in my view misconstrued the idea of again this idea of virtue with biology. There is no virtue in biological characteristics. He wasn't making that case. was making the case and the smart ones were.

51:18Less suffering. That's what they were saying. Less suffering.

51:20>> But less suffering isn't more virtuous.

51:23And that's it's hard for people to like what does he mean by that? You know Well I agree.

51:28If just because I mean you know we've all we've all had we've all had we've all had we've all had loved ones that have passed away. God forbid from some disease, right? I mentioned my cousin. My grandmothers both died of cancer as well.

51:40Um my uncle died of of a heart attack right when he was playing soccer with my dad.

51:45He was 45. Oof. He collapsed and he died from a heart attack which by the way is the number one killer in this country.

51:54Um 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. 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 is misconstruing these things which idea that it's better to reduce suffering.

52:18Better 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 and but but by the way the eugenicists got that fundamentally wrong. Why? Maybe maybe I'm sure some did but They were consequentialists 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

52:44means. We should actually do this forced uh sterilizations. We should make it constitutional. 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 that's for sure. And these attitudes not only have not been suppressed or eliminated they've flowered into like the dominant attitude in the country. So they won. I'm just saying I'm not trying to I'm just saying that 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 nuanced but it's really

53:18important for people to understand.

53:19You're saying people have 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. I understand. But but the choices that people make are governed by a lot of things.

53:34Of 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.

53:42The 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?

53:48People think about these things holistically but the first thing they care about is my mother had breast cancer.

53:52You know my dad had prostate cancer. My grandfather had Alzheimer's. So I just had schizophrenia. I get it. 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.

54:06And 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 know the things that I really fear is schizophrenia is at the top of the list. I think it's the cruelest thing.

54:23Um but also CF Yeah. which you know is in my family. All these things By the way I'm a carrier for cystic fibrosis.

54:29Yeah 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.

54:40But um anyway I would just say like like all expectant parents if I'd 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? So I'm not judging anybody. I get it completely. I would have done it.

54:57My 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. You're not attaching a value to deafness or hearing but we're not Okay.

55:15But people do. Everybody does. Everyone other than you does. Everyone other than you does. No no no but to be clear we can have more philosophy and then say but most people would 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.

55:29So let's play that out. Let's play out the how that actually is. So you tell me what the what you imagine because this is one of the biggest changes in human history.

55:38>> say I Tucker I will say again that people will make different choices. I I really want to say that. 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.

55:52Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying that. I'm not [laughter] saying that. Um what I am saying though is people will bring their So when we 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?

56:20So for example things begin in stem cells they become neurons they become immune cells they become different parts of the body. Right? Because these bodies have um different functions. And so they need different specializations. Okay?

56:32And when you actually I I'm a big believer that like everything mirrors everything. From the molecular to the celestial. Everything. Okay?

56:40And so let me let me keep going with this. And so um >> [clears throat] >> I remember what it is. Specialization breeds sophistication. Okay? That's true in cell molecular biology which is specialization breeds sophistication.

56:53The more specialized something is 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 Liu figure skating versus like an Einstein versus like an Elon versus like a 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 seesaw. So let me give an example.

57:18Every every every single time people always say this to me. They say oh people pick for IQ.

57:22Let me put aside my moral argument. Let me put aside my people won't actually all ways pick for IQ but 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 about picking for IQ genetically is that when you pick for IQ um and this is interesting cuz when you tell patients this you can see how they refactor decisions. When you pick for IQ you're actually picking against conscientiousness and extraversion genetically. It's a seesaw. Right? It's almost like if you're playing like a FIFA my player or something and you make

57:49somebody 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.

58:03So you start selecting for one it actually take these things away. So it starts becoming more of a a value judgment. 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?

58:14People are um you know we've seen this with fashion we see this in tech we see this you know you see investors they'll allocate toward AI. You know people will end up saying wearing the same thing in Soho in New York. You know how is this possible?

58:24Like people will go to the same private schools. You were saying this. Right?

58:27All 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 optimizing for IQ not just rich people. Everyone start optimizing 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 phenotype becomes relative to the other phenotypes. So in this case for example if everyone picked for IQ extraversion and uh conscientiousness starts decreasing okay in terms of the prevalence in the population the more

58:56valuable that phenotype becomes. In other words the rarer that extraversion and conscientiousness becomes the more valuable it actually becomes actually flourish in a population. So you're arguing it's a self-correcting problem.

59:08And 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?

59:28It's interesting because India specifically was about So let's actually walk through this.

59:34India was about 5545 males to females 5545 right?

59:39People actually think often it 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 is actually not it's actually like 5248. So actually to 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 if it can it can it can Absolutely.

59:59over generations but but actually it's not I think what's interesting here is uh it's this is just a a kind of a factoid but um males uh babies they tend to actually have a higher risk of basically dying in infancy. So ends up having that you get the general population is about 50/50 but actually biology has it that it's slightly errs toward uh 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

60:30for example come down and the number of females come down because of frequency based uh 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.

60:40And basically you can model this and show that each successive generation there are certain sets of genetics that confer a slightly higher probability than 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 equanimity.

60:57>> So why did they ban it? Well obviously that's like a longer term evolutionary thing to saying that things will self-correct but obviously it >> and it was making a society unstable.

61:05It's not it it it >> if human choice on questions of life and death and procreation at this granular level is self-correcting and it's just inherently good and there are no downsides then why did the biggest country in the world ban it? To be clear I'm not saying that um there is not short-term material consequence for like something like sex selection. Of of course there's especially sex selection I'm not saying that but I'm saying >> more significant than any other kind of selection? Sorry? What I don't why is that unique? Like sex selection it's not actually Like well it's unique in that >> over IQ. I mean these are deep these are

61:38deep characteristics defining characteristics.

61:41>> 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?

61:49Because sex is it's not a disease it's a choice.

61:53Depending on what you want people make different choices right? So it's actually a good kind of heuristic of how people will choose.

61:57Um 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.

62:07However 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.

62:14>> 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 of all we're not playing God but of course there is >> Of course we are. We're 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.

62:28>> We cannot play God.

62:30God God God created God created us God created everything here. We cannot we cannot we cannot play God. Let me let me let me be more precise. Let me be more precise and use a less charged way to describe it.

62:40We are doing things that have never been done in human history. That's actually not true I would argue in this case.

62:45Well it's very true.

62:46>> Because um Well how long have test tube babies IVF >> 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.

62:56>> I'm not attacking IVF. I'm certainly not attacking IVF babies or people at all.

63:02I'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.

63:25>> I would Well there's no debating that.

63:27>> no I would caveat a little bit. When you remember You're picking from the Sumerians 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 Obviously this is what mating is.

63:41>> Yeah two short parents aren't going to have a tall baby right? The same is actually true for genetic optimization.

63:45You can't have two short parents have a tall child with this technology. You can 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.

64:00And 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.

64:11>> And in doing that they're actually picking by the way the most important set of outcomes for their child cuz it's your partner it's the other side of it.

64:16Absolutely.

64:18But never with this level of precision.

64:21Never 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?

64:44So 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 a a a 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 actually true.

65:03Um so this will be self-corrected right?

65:06But obviously in the short term there's still like a acute 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 awry 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 there's literally that it's somebody saying hey oh I could make life right? And then life then

65:43>> How about we're going >> Park actually too is this idea that hey I can do this and then there's a negative unforeseen consequences. I would argue both those were consequential.

65:50>> 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 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.

66:11I'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.

66:35>> I agree 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.

66:46Um this is not like um 40 years? I said 1970s it's probably >> there I remember.

66:52The test tube baby was on the cover of Time magazine.

66:53>> It was yeah. I mean people don't call that Are there any consequences to that?

66:57Do do >> IVF? Yeah have we studied the consequences?

67:00>> Yeah they've actually tracked um children. Um the study sizes are a little bit smaller from when I looked into it and then one might expect but basically they see no material difference no. Is it is it true? That what? The study sizes are smaller than I would expect?

67:12>> difference at all between children born from an IVF procedure and children conceived naturally.

67:18>> Obviously there's some environmental things you're taking 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.

67:27Which is pretty amazing but actually I think it's >> know that? It's nature. Well we can track it over the course of the decades since IVF.

67:33>> 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 for infertility but I'm just saying it's whatever it is it's not nature it's the opposite of nature.

67:48>> we're we are operating within nature. So let's go on the framework of God created in these natural laws we're using natural laws.

67:56We are 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.

68:04It's still very beautiful. I'm not saying So I think we are using nature I think >> saying it's bad or not beautiful I'm just saying it's not nature anymore than nuclear weapons are nature. You can 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 not nature.

68:27>> could have actually occurred even if you didn't necessarily do it it could have just the baby could have happened that way. That's but but also I would say that remember that there's gene editing which is much further out and this idea that you can actually take an embryo and make it whatever you want basically.

68:40Theoretically we can talk about that which is very very different. 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 information we can help deal with the chronic disease crisis in the United States the rare disease crisis as well right? Genetics is unique in I've seen oh no I appreciate the upside. No I agree with you on the upside. I just want to know the downside. Yeah the downside >> I don't see here any there's no downside. Of course I talk about of course there's there's downside

69:07>> you imagine it might be? Well I think let's let's play this out okay?

69:11The first thing I'd say is that with IVF at its prevalence today at 2% I I I think it's it's actually more or less fine it's 2% is about 1 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 I would argue IVF IVF was the principal material change.

69:32>> arguing that it's a material change because you're saying that we're going to have less chronic disease, lower health care costs, less suffering, and that's all good.

69:39>> that.

69:41Patients can choose that.

69:41>> argued that would be the result and 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. If someone says, "Well, there's no downside." THEN I'M LIKE, "I DON'T KNOW IF I TRUST YOU ANYMORE." SO, what's the downside?

70:03Again, I will articulate downside. It's just I have to explain [laughter] No, you're going to blame some other technology for the downside.

70:07>> going to blame some other technology.

70:09>> editing's bad.

70:10>> No, but what about the the technology that you're offering has an upside? I totally agree with you.

70:15>> Yeah.

70:16And that will be real and I'll support it. Yeah.

70:20I would support I don't know a lot of things.

70:24>> There's But what's the downside? Like you must have thought about that.

70:28>> Of course. I mean the the the the fundamentally the this technology can be exploited by centralized bodies to try to control reproduction.

70:40>> Yes. That is the downside. That is the story of the 20th century. Sorry if I get 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 said I've established that Eugenics for example was decades before genetics.

70:58Yeah, I'd say distinction not 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, [snorts] 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.

71:27>> Governments principally. I mean that's the 20th century of >> the Epstein class that runs 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.

71:48So, 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.

71:59And 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, spaniels, and they're bred to you know, work close to you, find the bird, jump the bird, retrieve the bird.

72:16If you are not very careful about breeding them or if you breed them only for certain specific qualities, you can wind up destroying the dog. And this is well known in animal husbandry. It's well known in bird hunting. It's well known among anybody who deals with the animals.

72:31And I don't see people as any different and I know that there are massive consequences to the dog. Like 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.

72:49>> Absolutely. Let me actually give a real example of this. So, in in China um the scientist who was known for uh using gene editing to engineer the first uh babies actually, Dr. He.

73:00Um what he did was he engineered the CCR5 gene. I believe that's what the gene was called. And um he used CRISPR.

73:07CRISPR is a bacterial immune response system. It stands for, you know, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Basically refers to the um set of a palindromic DNA sequences in a bacteria. Yeah, okay. And he used that to make a gene editing device called CRISPR. And he basically used CRISPR I remember that well.

73:25Um and CRISPR is composed of two things.

73:28It's com- composed of like a guide. Like basically imagine it takes the device to the right part of the DNA which is like a scissors. And then it actually Excuse me, it takes it has a guide which takes the um CRISPR to the right part of the DNA and then there's an endonuclease which basically cuts the DNA.

73:42Um a little bit more technical explanation.

73:44Basically, you can use a bacterial immune response system, harness it as a gene editing device, okay? And this is what the scientist did and I'm obviously you know about the story and he went and actually she engineered human embryos. Okay? It's going on now. Uh in China? Oh, and other parts of the world, too.

74:02Basically, 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 the children um basically resistant to HIV AIDS. That was what he said.

74:16Um this is really interesting for a lot of reasons.

74:20One is because he didn't need gene editing 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 non-intended 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 immune receptor that basically when destroyed, it makes it easier for other pathogens and to basically infect you. In other

74:52words, there's this there's this uh the the 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.

75:06And 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.

75:15>> What about in your life have you ever wound up with something that you didn't expect and maybe didn't want and found it to be a great blessing over time?

75:23Yeah, absolutely.

75:25I mean >> [clears throat] >> meditation. And I mean I I I I >> something that that's something you should presumably you chose to try it.

75:32>> 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.

75:46Yeah. 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 having a ton of girls.

75:56Never would have chose that. Yeah. And really one of the great experiences of my life. Truly. I mean that. And I'm not embarrassed to say this cuz my girls know I feel this way. But and I you know, anyway I never would have if I'd had the choice. It's just like I don't get girls. I can't be the father of girls.

76:14Like what?

76:16And yet that again turned out to be this great blessing and I I'm really glad I didn't have the choice.

76:21Have you ever had an experience like that?

76:24I mean yeah, I think some of the best things that happen in life are not things that you can control.

76:31It's part of the divine. Yes. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. 100%.

76:34>> 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.

76:40>> best thing for you. Yeah. The thing that you want isn't the thing that you need.

76:43So, 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.

76:57>> [laughter] >> I don't know about that.

76:59>> get everything you want.

77:01>> Um I don't that's been my experience.

77:03>> Tucker, remember though like uh genetics obviously is not deterministic, right? So, there's there's two other parts of of of life.

77:12>> Wait, what? You were just telling me it was we can get rid of all these diseases which I'm for. But Tucker, a good example is like lung cancer. You smoke, it gives you risk of lung cancer.

77:20There's there's some genetic component, but it can be both, right? I'm sure that smoking is your enjoyment of life. Yeah.

77:25I 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 there, but there's also like what you eat, how much you exercise, these things.

77:34Um 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.

77:45That's just not the reality. Again, I will go back to the spiritual and cultivation of the soul.

77:52That 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 No, you've made that point and I so appreciate it.

78:07>> is [clears throat] such is 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 You can't You can't You can't encode the soul is what I'm saying. It doesn't come from biology.

78:29So, the stochasticity 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 fast and I appreciate that you're saying it.

78:39But 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.

78:47And 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 think people I actually think people I think people way overshoot that and stop 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 really 15 years probably since, you know, some of these more

79:20advanced uh screenings has existed, but they never actually been adopted, right?

79:23So, 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 forward.

79:33>> 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.

79:49>> Absolutely.

79:50>> We're also products of the time in which we live in the systems in which we operate. So, that's that's So, those things are equally true.

79:56Again, I don't want to be boring, but I agree with you, our choices are important.

80:01But there's also, again, a lack of respect 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 really hurt us over the last, say, 6 years by not acknowledging what they don't know, overstating their own foresight.

80:25>> Yeah.

80:26About 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.

80:41And 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 COVID in the lab, they're not in jail? Like, what? Mhm.

80:51Does that bother you?

80:53Do you think that's a lesson? Does that tell us anything? Yeah, it does tell you a lesson.

80:57Um we have to be responsible stewards of the technology. Shouldn't there be punishment for people who like kill millions through their foolishness?

81:05>> 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.

81:21Like not 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 start." That that will come from the virtue of hard work, etc. So, genetics is important.

81:38Genetics 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. But nobody knows in 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, but I'm saying it's not.

81:51>> 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.

82:03>> And but my question is much more specific. You said the technology is not inevitable, I kind of agree with you.

82:09>> inevitable, no. We certainly have an obligation to do our best. For the people who didn't do their best and who hurt others, like the whole world, like the guys who designed COVID 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?

82:34I I I think generally speaking the kind of history, at least like the modern history of like Silicon Valley, 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.

82:50If you say that today, you'll probably 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.

83:04There was um Uh there was another case of um Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford commencement address. He ended it by saying, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." Basically, humility, have humility. Open yourself up to the world.

83:20Not 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 capitalism is inherently good, like it's inherently good if something grows. I I completely And you see it 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

83:55grows 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, grow, grow, that, you know, inherently the consequences um like, you know, be damned, just grow, growth is inherently good. I think that fundamental philosophy is so bad. Well, it's a self-justification.

84:14So, but I wonder where it grows from.

84:16So, the so I think you described crisply and well the evolution of the attitudes in Silicon Valley, generally speaking.

84:23From, "Hey, this is going to liberate everybody, it's good."

84:27to, "Hey, this hikes GDP and I've got a massive place in Atherton, therefore it's good." And those are definitely different justifications, and I wonder to what you attribute the change. Like, how did that happen? How did you go from one place to another? And here's my thesis in one sentence. Power.

84:45Yeah. When you get a lot of power, Correct.

84:47>> you get corrupted. Yeah. Exactly.

84:50corrupts, yeah. So, there's no greater power than determining what kind of kids people are going to have.

84:55>> [laughter] >> So, like, are you worried at all? Again, we don't determine what kind of kids you'll have.

85:01>> Overpopulation, you do.

85:02>> People are making their own choices. We don't make the choice.

85:07No, I I we we don't. We don't.

85:09>> I mean, you could just say we're only testing for these three things or whatever. You could You design the screen. Let's remember that virtue you design the outcome of overpopulation.

85:18No, virtue is not in bio virtue is not in biology. Okay. So, So, no, we do not encode populations cuz human beings can't encode like that is got that it it it it makes a mistake assuming that we are God. We are not God. We are not It's going to affect the nature of people.

85:32So, 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.

85:44The nature of people comes from God, it doesn't come from genetics. The substance of people, their intelligence, their height, their their lifespan.

85:51>> ultimately any human being should want, again, greater spiritual cultivation.

85:55Okay, 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.

86:08So, 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?

86:15>> 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.

86:23>> how long people live? You're changing that. So, that alone is how tall people are, how well they do in the SAT.

86:30>> But but again, it's not deterministic that way. It's not like you can look at somebody's DNA and be like, "Oh, they're going to get a 1570 in their SAT." But I agree with you though in overpopulations, 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

86:54happen if the technology exists and it's widely available.

86:58And so, that puts you, and not just you, of course, this is hardly an attack, Mhm. 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.

87:14And like, that's a big burden, man.

87:16That's a burden that only God bore before like 20 years ago. We are not God, and we can never be God.

87:21>> Good. Well, that's a good start. We are not God. We are not God. But you see it as profound? Absolutely.

87:26Yeah. I mean, I mean, it's a to to see patients who have had some I 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.

87:46>> Huntington's is really hard.

87:47>> And then to be able to use the technology, the emotion, you know, the miracle that they can have a baby, basically. And that's 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 installed on some of them.

88:05They were totally fixated on the upside.

88:09Yeah. In a good way. Yeah. They were like, "This gives the Encyclopedia Britannica." You probably don't know what that is, but it's a physical encyclopedia that sat on your shelf and cost like thousands of dollars.

88:17>> Yeah.

88:18That's replaced by this CD-ROM. You know, this Yeah.

88:23collection of ones and zeros, and like it's incredible the amount of information. People will be so much better informed.

88:28And now you look 30 years later, and it's like definitely upsides to technology, but also downsides.

88:33>> Well, we're we're susceptible to the same force cuz we're we're human.

88:37Well, that's exactly the argument I'm making.

88:39>> 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?

88:49Cuz it is spiritual work.

88:50Right? To cultivate the soul, to make sure we maintain in these values that I'm that I've been articulating.

88:57>> I totally agree. So, here's my final question, I'll stop torturing you. Okay.

89:00Um [laughter] yeah, I think you've done such a great job, actually.

89:03>> Oh, thanks.

89:05I'm It's 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, yeah, then we need to keep in mind, as you said 20 times, the spiritual dimension. Yes. But the spiritual dimension is a dividing point.

89:33Some things are good for the spirit and some things are bad for the spirit. Some things are consistent with virtue. Yeah.

89:40Some things are not. And if we believe in God, we believe God prefers some outcomes over others. God has rules.

89:45Mhm. It's the nature of God.

89:47So 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.

90:04Now, I thought a lot about that. It's very tricky because you need >> Just as India did. India said, "There's a billion people. You can't make that choice. Sorry." No, it's That's a very tricky.

90:12It's very tricky and very complicated.

90:16I 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 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 have a bad diet, you can not exercise, lung cancer.

90:49Even for things like schizophrenia, as I mentioned, strong genetic components, but you can take, you know, weed actually has made people more schizophrenic, for example.

90:57So there's environmental components 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 of the >> it's better to be non-schizophrenic than schizophrenic. I don't think it's for me to say, though.

91:15I also Again, I also don't think, though, to be clear, when we use the term better, we we start to apply moral value. And I 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.

91:28There's universal morality.

91:30Uh But you can't say that it's better not to have schizophrenia than to have schizophrenia. Well, again, when we say better, I think we're just like defining differently. I think it's better in the sense that it reduces suffering. Okay.

91:40Well, if that's your measure, then it's better. Exactly. But what's your measure? Exactly. But it's better in terms of their worth than their >> totally immoral. This is literally immoral. It has no reference >> No, not at all. Cuz everything has a spirit, as I said. Just cuz I Every 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

92:07anything you won't do?

92:09As a On behalf of Nucleus, I think Well, when you say anything we won't do, you mean like providing >> just said that biology has no moral reference cuz everything has a spirit.

92:18I'm just wondering, is there like a line where like >> don't. We're not doing that. Period. Because it's wrong.

92:25>> We're not providing an analysis, for example.

92:28Like we're not providing some That's what you mean. Or you mean like donating sperm >> certain behavior easier.

92:33When you say certain behavior, you mean picking for a specific like characteristic? I don't know. I mean, 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 it In some cases, kills them. So I'm not doing that.

92:50>> Yeah. So it I don't know that it Is it enough to say, "Let the people decide?"

92:55>> No, it's not it's not. You have to you have to be careful. Like giving an IQ analysis, for example, right? We've gone through many, many iterations of best way of doing it, and we sort of slow rolled it out.

93:05Principally 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 their SAT score. That's like people's very simplistic model, which is like Right? But So I'm saying that the way We have a responsibility to very carefully communicate that result so that 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

93:32things and just grounds it.

93:33>> shift the moral responsibility from yourself to your customer?

93:36>> responsible. We ship a product.

93:39>> 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.

93:50>> just a false claim, right?

93:52>> Yeah, I mean, it would be false, but also like people >> 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?

94:00They decide. You're not going to have any role in the moral decision-making.

94:03>> Patients can't So again, there's no moral value cuz 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 want want might their Somebody might want their daughter to be shorter to be a gym gymnast, for example. Somebody else might want their son to be tall to be a NBA player.

94:30Someone 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." But depending on those things, as I mentioned, cell biology, specialization breeds sophistication. You realize very quickly, very intuitively, that the value of a phenotype is contingent to its environment.

94:46>> I I get it. So I I This is where 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. It's up to you whether you want to take fentanyl.

94:56No, 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. Mhm.

95:06Like the iPhone. Like I got I was so psyched for the iPhone. I was like, "I don't need a computer. I can work in my living room." Yeah.

95:14>> Next thing you know, you can't have a conversation with your wife. Yeah, social media is it's really bad.

95:18>> But it's bad because it's good.

95:20Benzodiazepines are great. That's why they're terrible.

95:24Does that make sense?

95:27I I think >> Benzodiazepines are like the greatest drug. Have you ever taken a benzodiazepine? 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, you know, whatever." 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 again cuz it freaked me out cuz there was no downside. Yeah. Literally, all of your like voices in your head, any woman listening will know what I'm talking about. Like the things are like, "Ah,

95:54whatever." going on in the background.

95:55Silenced.

95:56Everything'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.

96:04And 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 up all night doing cocaine, you suffer the next day. And so there's it's really clear this is not good, right?

96:18Benzos are the best.

96:21And that's why they're the most addictive, most dangerous, most society-destroying product that we make.

96:27>> Yeah.

96:28Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes sense.

96:30The badness is in direct proportion to the the promise. The goodness.

96:35>> Yes.

96:36Yes. 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 falling a consequentialist framework, right?

96:48Because there's no virtue. You end up falling a consequentialist framework that justifies the means to the point that everybody's scrolling and liking and clicking all day.

96:54>> 100%.

96:56It's the question that you're asking is how do you There is this problem of power cuz power corrupts absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely.

97:04There's a promise local value, 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?

97:12How do you maintain your soul and your spirit despite these pressures?

97:15Um What's the answer? Well, one, it's, you know, it's really hard. I imagine I imagine that I'm I'm hoping to practice for Nucleus and for the hopefully this this industry, it's the it's it's praying.

97:27It's meditation. It's deep, deep humility with realizing, going back to what I said, there's a raindrop.

97:34If you think that the raindrop's the entire world, you're forgetting about the entire ocean. That's where I come back to.

97:39Yeah. Well, you have a lot of authority.

97:41You have a lot of power for a young man, more than much more than I ever will.

97:45And so use it wisely. And thank you for your thoughtfulness and your willingness to have this conversation. And I'm sure it's been hellish for you, but you've done a great job. So thank you.

97:52>> Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks.