92nd Street Y
With rapid advances in genome sequencing, genetic analysis and precision gene editing, it’s becoming ever more likely that embryo selection and genetic engineering could be used to optimize the intelligence of our future children.
How this will affect the future of our evolution as a species is still an open question. In this discussion, four brilliant minds come at this question from different perspectives:
Experimental psychologist Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, is one of the world’s leading authorities on language and the mind; his recent book, The Blank Slate, explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political implications.
Sociologist Dalton Conley, University Professor of the Social Sciences at New York University, looks at the issue in its social context; in addition to books on race and class, he also wrote Parentology, on the science of raising children, and a forthcoming book The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution tells us about our history, ourselves and our future (Princeton University Press, Fall 2017).
Theoretical physicist Stephen Hsu, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Michigan State University, was founder and CEO of SafeWeb, an information security startup acquired by Symantec, and is a scientific advisor to BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute).
Moderator Jamie Metzl is Senior Fellow for Technology and National Security of the Atlantic Council and a former National Security Council, State Department, US Senate, and United Nations official. A globally syndicated columnist and national media commentator, he is the author of the genetics thriller Genesis Code, and his forthcoming novel, Eternal Sonata (Arcade, Fall 2016), deals with stem cell treatments that reverse the aging process.
Subscribe for more videos like this: http://bit.ly/1GpwawV
Facebook: http://facebook.com/92ndStreetY
Twitter: https://twitter.com/92Y
Tumblr: http://92y.tumblr.com/
Instagram: http://Instagram.com/92ndStreetY
Vine: https://vine.co/92Y
On Demand: http://www.92yondemand.org
Source
Psychology is such a crazy field. Most of the best psychologists are all not psychologists but from other fields. It's like you cannot get unbiased unless you didn't start of not caring about it (I don't want to start counting my negatives).
Humble intelligence
The moderator just talks too much!
53:52 – Basically sums up why the future belongs to the Chinese.
Discussing "sensitive" topics like intelligence in China does not ruffle
any feathers. They are very straightforward, acknowledge when problems
arise, and work hard to solve them in lieu of politicizing and beating
around the bush. Something tells me the "best man for the job" adage
still rings true.
u should let Steven pinker speak more. the host is stupid
wtf moderator loved hearing himself talk.
Pinker looks freaking angry! He usually smiles.
A disaster of a panel.
Given the moderator's pedantic, glacial pace in topic coverage, I would've expected the audience to be in a high school auditorium. To further annoy intelligent, interested viewers, Metzl makes himself the node of the conversation, blocking any real discussion that doesn't advance his own topical interest. A moderator is supposed to facilitate conversation, not monopolize it.
Perhaps his background colors his efforts here (government/policy think tanks): is this a policy debate, or a collision of minds?
This would've been far more interesting if the moderator left and let the three experts moderate themselves. Or, if another moderator with tangential interest was chosen, like say Julian Assange or Eric Schmidt. Having gone through the process of writing novels (and creating the morals they carry), Metzl has very clear opinions about what this technology is supposed to mean. With a moderator like that, there is no point in having three "brilliant minds come at this question from different perspectives." Ultimately, a wasted opportunity.
Dear Moderator, you are obviously well-informed. But stop saying "I agree" or otherwise at every turn. You are dragging the conversation toward your own opinions.
IQ testing is pseudo science. There is no consensus on what intelligence is. The real intelligence that's responsible for innovation or seeing outside the box is really creativity and it is impossible to measure.
Is Rotogenflux Methods useful to increase your IQ of 20 points? We have learn many good stuff about Rotogenflux Methods (look on google search engine).
The host needs to learn how to get to his point quicker. I feel like I'm listening to his voice the majority of the time. What's the point in bringing in experts if you, as the host, don't shut the fuck up? I understand that framing for a question takes some time, but there was way to much of that with this pompous host.
If shared environment is so non-important, aren't those cram schools wasted money?
The moderator is like a bad journalist 'don't let the facts get in the way of a good story' – he makes his cheesy sci fi predictions but carelessly snubs Pinker in the process. Pinker then rebuts him with ruthless precision, to which the audience has to applaud. Cheesy sci-fi writer is then suitably embarrassed
This moderator is spectacularly annoying
I think Steve P got annoyed at the moderator after the whole "we'll come back in 50 years" bit, as he was unusually slightly aggressive after that point.
Pinker is the man. One of my favourite thinkers, and one of the most rational & brilliant analytical minds I have ever come across.
Serves you right – moderator – don't be a cocky asshole, and you won't get your ass handed to you by Pinker. Also as mentioned – correctly – the moderator is very annoying.
Easy for Pinker to say he and his wife would not choose to select for higher intelligence in their children, they already have a higher chance of having smarter kids just based on who they are.
I think a majority would choose to enhance. But maybe I'm off.
It's easy for Steven Pinker and his wife (Rebecca Goldstein) to "not think of their children as an IQ score" since both of them have an IQ of around 145-160. After all, what difference does it make whether their child will have an IQ of 130 or 140 or 150 or 160? However, if you asked parents with an IQ of 80-120 the same question, and if they were knowledgeable on the importance of IQ, I don't think they will be as sanguine as Steven is here. He and his wife are lucky to have been born extremely cognitively gifted, which means that they can be nonchalant on the subject of PGS (Preimplantation genetic screening). If I had the opportunity to select embryos based on their IQ, personality traits, height, attractiveness, etc., and modify the genomes of my fetuses safely, I would be first in line.
I wish the host wasn't there, each time I got exited to hear the guests he ruins it, "I wrotes a novel I"m so smart" " OK you have 1 minute to talk we are running out of time " really bro ???? . Both setve and stephen should have been given more time to talk .
Look at 57:00 stephen wants to talk so bad… OMFG LET THE MAN WHO BY CHANCE WAS BORN SOOOO SMART AND HAPPENS TO HAVE STUDIED GENETICS+MATH BACKGROUND TALK, THIS IS SOOO RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I also respect the class the guessed handled him with, those are great people.
What we easily can do though is pick through many combinations of gametes and/or zygotes and greatly increase a parent's offspring's chances of having a healthy, happy, & wealthy life. It would be hard to make parental choice unethical.
What an awfully inaccurate overly simplified summary of the bell curve. Guess we know why he came out looking like a stereotypical tech geek but simultaneously had the least to say.
He should’ve gotten a 3rd phd
What an idiot.
Pinker is just so fucking smart.
when will you do a second conference on the same subject ?
we are kind of hypocrite because if we are not selecting embryos for "general intelligence" (defined as what iq measures that is : short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition) we are actively distorting our kids brain to this "general intelligence" goal by putting our kids in a school system that clearly puts the emphasis over these traits at the expense of other types of intelligence (the obvious maths/arts imbalance in the traditional school curriculum). i also notice we have the same kind of hypocrisy when we teach our kids to not physically punch other kids in the face but it is ok to psychologically knock them off and humiliate them with every test grades or competitive sports, a distorted logic where there is only one good answer to a problem or a single winner to a race.