How far are we away from a new version of ourselves? That sounds like a question answered in a sci-fi movie or some alternate-universe web meme. "Human," in its various forms, is a relative newcomer in the history of the universe, and even as newcomer, we've documented 26 versions. What's next?
In this talk, Juan Enriquez, founding director of the Harvard Business School Life Sciences Project, "shows how technology is revealing evidence that suggests rapid evolution may be under way."
Running time: 16:49
Points to Ponder:
- Why are we here? Is there a theory besides the two Enriquez suggests? (1. we're it...it doesn't get any better than what we have right now OR 2. we're just another version of an evolving species)
- Enriquez hinted at some ethical situations we could potentially find ourselves facing as we continue to map genomes and identify differences. What worries you? Can you imagine ethical considerations for future generations - your grandchildren or great-grandchildren?
- There is great hope for curing disease and healing the sick/injured as we increase the ability to build organs or cell sets from single cells. Are there drawbacks?
- Could we be on the cusp of the beginning of the end of plastic surgery?
- What struck you in this talk? What stands out or seems remarkable or far-fetched?
Very thought-provoking. I think I agree with his #2 theory due to stem cell research and the amazing outcomes that have resulted in the infancy of this research. My concern is that we concentrate on fighting diseases and afflictions rather than creating a better human machine. I don't like the thought of messing with Mother Nature or playing God and creating new life forms. That would be a powerful tool in the hands of those with evil intentions.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I feel like I am already an evolutionary step behind the next generation, and I'm still young enough to be considered part of that generation. My five year old niece is already reading. She knew the alphabet by the time she was three; I remember learning it in kindergarten. Is this a product of nurture (we expect a lot more of our kids now than 20 years ago) or nature (the species is getting smarter)? I don't know.
ReplyDelete(I'm going to side step the ethical issues hinted at in this TED talk. That's a large can of warms I'm afraid I'd get buried alive in)
Another twist on the Sexy geek idea is that on line dating services linking people together that in the past would have never met.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I know a couple of high school sweethearts that married and have a child that has been diagnosed on the Autism scale.
I am also struck by the reality of the ethical issues surrounding the man-made evolution issue. Will parents one day choose the characteristics of their babies before they are conceived? How will it be regulated? Can it be regulated? Humans do not seem to be able to create laws that will not be broken, for example even though it is against the law an unknown but large numbers of people Speed, use heroine, drive drunk and on and on every day.
I read an article recently that discussed the ethical questions that will arise as more genes are mapped. Parents will decide not to have a child because certain characteristics are there or not there.
ReplyDeleteIf this hypothesis is correct, there will be a search for the perfect individual. The closer one comes to the ideal, the more alike the population will be and individuality will cease to exist unless some individuals want to be different and the "difference genes" are still around that are not controlled by a Supreme Ruler. This reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's "HARRISON BERGERON".
I think much of what was mentioned in this TED session will occur as Enriquez suggests. There are numerous changes in the medical field that makes me think a vast amount of changes are going to be seen in the next several years. Is this for the better or are we messing with things that we should leave be, as Dan mentions?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this lecture was very thought-provoking. At first, it sounds really scary....the idea that my great grandchildren would be a different species than me. But if you stop to think about it, I would guess my great grandmother would think Kinnick is a different species from when she was a child. The part that is the most exciting is that this type of research can cure disease and stop suffering. The part that is horrifying is that the search for the "perfect" human continues at a great pace. Shaun points out the biggest question that I am not sure has an answer....are we messing with things that we should leave be.
ReplyDeleteI ditto the comments above...VERY thought provoking. Rebuilding organisms, downloading memories, controlling the evolution of species, etc. doesn't sound like "evolution"....It sounds more like man-made inventions. I enjoyed everyone's comments!
ReplyDeleteWhile philosophically it may make sense to embrace the idea that we are all the same as human beings, I suspect that the science will tell us otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf only .004 % of gene code differentiates us from Neanderthals, then the hypothesis that my great grandchildren may be a different species from me may not be all that far fetched.
Very interesting presentation.
This is probably my favorite of the presentations so far, providing both updates on information and raising timely questions that go with that information. The questions about eugenics it raises are absolutely _not_ new, having been asked regularly for quite a while now, but the questions of whether evolution has already been happening at an astonishing rate (that 78% uptick in autism, viewed through this lens, is eye-opening) are fascinating. Of course, we live in a country where the entire idea of evolution is taboo in a great many places, so the extent to which we're prepared to cope with this in a deliberate way is highly questionable.
ReplyDeleteInteresting presentation, and I feel unqualified to assess anything that he said! Would there be a snowball effect related to the cloning/memory transfer technology he mentioned? If he proposes evolution is happening rapidly now, and we were to put memories into another body, would that new person be subject to more stresses of the proposed evolution?
ReplyDeleteI have not spent much time thinking or analyzing theories like this but find it fascinating. I think we are just another version of an evolving species because change is constant and we're a product of that change. I agree that the human species will look much different in 200 years.
ReplyDeleteI worry that we are taking too much control and that the issues we currently have in the way of disease and disorders are largely of our own doing. I think we are messing with the balance of life and some force, usually mother nature, will continue to humble us. I also think the more we try to control who we are, the more we are not going to be able to control. It's one thing to know how to map a genome, it's an entirely different thing to use it to control who we are.
The largest drawback I see to curing and healing is that everyone is going to expect it but it won't be available to everyone due to societal pressures. I think it will only make the more privileged people more privileged and dominant.
To that point, I think plastic surgery will continue to be a "poor person's" remedy until other curing/healing is more readily available.
I just hope that we can evaluate the ethics of this technology/ability before we start using it. We need to avoid a free-for-all atmosphere when it becomes available.
Too bad we don't have a crystal ball that would show us what this "new species" would be. could be a good thing, or not. Our great grand children will be different, but how is the question. What worries me is the producing of life. I think that is best left to nature and not to try for the perfect human via test tube and genetic engineering. I see great medical benefits to producing new skin and organs. Who wouldn't want to see a amputated limb replaced on a war vet? But then when we get to replacing organs in 100 year old people so they can live longer that might be carrying it a bit too far. When would it stop? How would we/the planet support all of this life if it never dies? I liked his points on brain evolution. The Autism increase is truly alarming.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard that sort of an explanation for the increase in Autism--that it is a sign of evolution. Is it new to the rest of you? I had always heard that there might be environmental factors, and/or it's easier to detect.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that we're not evolving. Still, natural evolution takes millions of years, so I'm not sure about his "sexy geek" theory. Could people evolve into a new species in just a century or a decade? I don' think so.
But he's also suggesting that we have the ability to speed up evolution with scientific/technological breakthroughs--gene printing, etc. Hmm. That is an ethical dilemma.
I think it's interesting that he's a business prof (I think--at least he's at the HBS), and he's talking about changes in biology/genetics. I wonder how different this discussion would be if a scientist talked about it. Would a scientist make claims that are as far-reaching and shocking?
The discoveries detailed in this talk are likely--let's say certain--to lead to some sticky ethical questions. I wonder how much that matters, other than to hand-wringers like us. Technology has been outrunning ethics, not to mention public policy, for as long as I can remember. If someone is wealthy enough, and wants to do "it" (whatever it is) it will happen, no matter whether we decide it's ethical or not.
ReplyDeletePossible good point: an end to claptrap about if you work hard enough you can be anything you want to be. I could have worked out like a maniac, and played basketball every waking moment, I would be a lot better basketball player than I am today (probably with more brittle knees, too). But there's no way I could have played in major college bb or the NBA. Is that genetic? Or just inherited ability, as we've always described it?
Re autism: I wonder how much of the increase is due to diagnostic standards and/or increased sensitivity to autism-spectrum conditions. My friend Steve was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome a couple years. Steve is 56. Presumably he's had it all his life, but when he was young no one thought to call it something. Perhaps no one even noticed.
While some of the things that he's speaking on (such as his mention of the "Sexy Geek") I think are really more a form of social conditioning as opposed to evolution (more positive portrayals of geeks, ability for people to group with likeminded individuals online, etc.),
ReplyDeleteI do think that it only makes sense that to some degree we are probably seeing some rapid forms of evolution or genetic selection that would not have been possible in previous eras. I would imagine that we are also seeing a larger variety of mixing of genetic code that previously would not have been possible or likely, due to the ability of populations to migrate vast distances quickly and easily, more reproduction between people of differing ethnic makeups. Some of his talk actually reminds me of a great YA series that I read in college for a class on Young Adult lit called "The Uglies" that dealt with idea of all humans not only being able to correct physical traits via surgery and other modification, but being forced to by the government to prevent the types to prevent the physical and emotional outcomes that stem from individuals being too different. Sort of a "If everyone is special, nobody is" approach to physical looks.
I think we still would be evolving, but we are also messing with the process! We our changing our bodies, our genetics, and anything "natural" about us. Had we had this technology before, the current species might have turned out a lot differently. I certainly find this to be an ethical dilemma. Even if we have the knowledge to do it, isn't it wrong to mess with the "natural" progression of mankind? Or, because we have figured out how to do it, is it okay? I think you could go back and forth on this forever, with proving examples of ways that it has both helped and hindered humans Also, many of the things that we are "fixing," may be due to our own environment, actions, exposure to man-made chemicals and other hindrances to our bodies. Do we owe it to ourselves to fix them since we hurt them in the first place?
ReplyDelete