That's a kippah, a traditional Jewish headdress to remind us of both our connection to the Divine and the nature of our general mundane daily life. Good eye!
they should check if missing a father or if you had a real/adoptive father changed the same way as if missing a mother or even check on if the mother had to go through many different mates and how that would change it if it changes the same way as missing a mother. It might explain a few hypothesis for me depending on the answers.
If they didn't, you can propose a study (or get a degree in Biology and _then_ propose a study) and spend the next two or three decades of your life answering your own questions and getting paid for it! :D
+Julia Linne eh, this question isn't that important to me as my other hypothesis or questions are. if it was , I would probably do something like you proposed, lol. good advice though. plus, I would rather leave that to someone else and answer questions/problems that would come after said answer of question or proof of hypothesis. that would be when the interesting stuff happens most likely.
There is research which has found differences between those who have fathers who are present during upbringing and those who have absent fathers. In girls this is correlated with earlier onset of puberty, early age of first intercourse and pregnancy. Boys as well puberty onset is affected. Problem is this is just correlational data, so it's hard to know whether the fathers absence is the cause, or instead the mothers/families response to father absence is what causes the change, but you are correct, epigenetic research here could be very enlightening. Sources: Quinlan (2003), Sheppard & Sear (2011).
This dovetails nicely with yesterday's talk by Katie Hinde on breast feeding and mother's milk. Perhaps there is more than just nutrition issues going on.
I really wish that TED would include a list of citations with its videos on RUclips. There are a lot of things that this guy says that give me a visceral "naw..." reaction. Based on what he presented in the video, I don't think that you can make a clear case that epigenetics alone can adequately explain his results. These results were supremely anticlimactic given the implications of the title. :)
1. Define "good characteristics". 2. Develop a daily plan of attack to change your habits to "good" habits. 3. Reward "good" habits and punish bad habits. 4. Profit!
+Oaxaca Not so. Did you listen to the whole thing? Sure, there is some speculation in it. But did you watch the whole thing? Did you see and understand the controlled experiments? What part of scientific method did you sleep through in school?
+Leeleeturn its a sad state of affairs when science winds up being considered the domain of 1 political group science isnt liberal its just many people think of it that way because most scientists are liberal
jiopjiop It sounded like whatever drug they administered isnt capable of removing the threat of addiction, only the addiction itself after one has been developed.
From what I understood they didn't actually "re-program" but simply slowed down the gene transformation so that the next time you remember about cocaine you won't crave it and your genes will turn back to normal (before cocaine) after a while. But by taking cocaine again your genes will resume that process and you're back from where you started probably this time with addiction.
amandus westin Have you ever done cocaine? It is super, super fun. Until the end. Then either get another 8ball or get a nap. Seriously you can only be an addict to understand his question. Also, cocaine is fun. Do you know we could probably have free energy if cocaine wasnt punishable
He was not very clear about any of the relevant technology. If CRISPR is able to manage methylation points, then it is still not clear if he knows where the addition or removal of the methyl group to cytosine and adenine residues in DNA that leads to the epigenetic modification of DNA and the reduction or enhancement of gene expression and protein production that in turn removes the 'memory' of the craving. The natural process of epigenesis seems to still be only a matter of correlation, and not causation. Like your memory of being robbed in the subway has a sort of holographic effect on your experience of every subway ride, the way that an experience causes constructive de/methylation at perhaps many relevant sites on every corresponding gene in all or most cells in the body? He offered no indication that it can be done, but just that we should do it. Not very helpful nor encouraging.
I know this observing others and from my own life. Of course how your parents raise and care for you make a difference (in so many ways). It is nice to have science confirm common sense.
I'm fairly confident that the entierty of the genetics community doesn't agree on all the ideas thrown here. Interesting study tho'. Let's give those ideas a couple more decades. Epigenetic drugs sounds both fascinating and dangerous. Ethics will have to play a huge role in those studies. I'm against genes modification by principle. Don't mess with things you don't master is my moto. But if we can prove they are by nature dynamic, that changes the game. If we can link a certain genome to a certain phenotype, then insure we can pinpoint the change to that specific genome, while also making sure we apply a well-defined change which will properly change the phenotype... Then why not ? Again, I would support this if and when we have a scientific and ethic consensus on the methodology. Genetic modifications by for-profit groups should be or remain unauthorized. Much like with autonomous cars or A.I., the overhaul technically is way over my head. I would support experimenting, but not commercialization or mass application just yet.
Add in the direct changes to the base genes offered by CRISPR and the possibilities/stakes seem unlimited. I don't know why, but this epigenetic approach seems less worrisome to me. But in both cases, I fear our technology has run far ahead of our ethical guidelines. We most definitely have something new under the sun now.
To be honest, the disagreement is mainly just old timers vs progressives. Just like how anyone who went to med school with neurology before the last 10 years will, 99.9% assert "The adult brain does not generate new neurons". University continues to teach this actually more often than not by professors that I've had. Yet with progressive research & discussion, it's all about realizing that this simply doesn't appear true and in contrary adult neurosis is actually appears profound. Yet, when progressives present treament plans that rely on the concept and capabilities of epigenetics... old timers ground the conversation by the seemingly infallible "We know the adult brain doesn't generate new neurons" Those divided on and refuting it aren't really doing so with new arguments, rather just by repeating the old text book definitions as if it's too concrete to be refuted at this point. The same goes with genetic studies. When we first defined genetics, it immediately become a bible, so to speak, amongst science whether you realize it or not. To consider it flawed, is pretty earth shattering in that regard.
Bryn Webster I did mention I was pro research. What I am against is mass application by for-profit organizations. Science is a dangerous tool, there should be control, oversight and consensus. Don't allow *any* rookie, nor *any* idea, to be explored and experimented with. We don't step forward in science blindly, nor do we do whatever experiment we want.
Art Work, I do agree but I think that's inevitable for now and not much worth discussing. We all know that it's wrong, that's Capatalism- but in place you can't expect any for any large scale research to be done so simply with the intent to save in in our back pockets for eventual, appropriately considerate application. Research only gets done if their is money ahead of it to be made, and the way things are structured people simply cant hold out on that money as long as would be ideal for collective wellbeing. So even research being done with underlying good intention must be milked prematurely, if it wishes to continue.
You are right, demon. Apart, maybe in the worth of discussing this where we seem to diverge. I believe we should communicate a lot more on the fields of science we are currently experimenting with. We should gather opinions (ethical ones for instance) from much more people to know whether or not it is right to experiment with things such as genetic traits of living things. I know that this would slow a lot of things down due to some people just not willing to "believe" in science. But then again, we've been at this science thing for millennials. There is no rush, only the need to do things right. If that implies waiting and defending ideas for a couple decades, that's just fine. You'll probably call me on the impossibility of doing the things I describe and you'd be right once again. But wouldn't it be better to just wait and have some oversight as often as possible ?
This is a fucking crazy discovery, but I dont get how we can change our DNA to cure things like addiction if the DNA is in every cell in our body. It seems ridiculously impossible but I hope not
at 11.10 szyf was talking about how as social stress increased in mothers, so did issues like autism and and metabolic problems. does this imply that outside stress continually has an affect on what genes are expressed, and/or possibly degrades DNA faster?
I have a question, he mentions that decreasing methylation during consumption of cocaine removed the addiction in rats. My understanding is that methylation during drug use will cause DNA to be transcribed that will support the neurogenesis and the strengthening of synaptic connections related to the drug. So I understand how reducing methylation during early consumption will reduce addiction by preventing this, but once these brain areas already exist, such as they would in a rat who has been addicted for a long time, how does reducing methylation prevent these brain areas and reward centers from being activated?
Perhaps the people are looking for answers / solutions to their problems, and then end up disappointed that not all their problems are solved by a TED Talk.
actually it changes over time. from what I have red, you start with 80% nature and end up with something about 20% nature and 80% nurture when you are hitting 60. Also changes from person to person, but thats the range I think is plausible.
There was nothing here about epigenetic inheritance, which is an even sketchier theory. So no, this is just an alternative explanation for the mechanics of nurture, other than the popular psychological ones.
If you pay attention, he is in fact talking about epigenetic ;) the "chemicals" he is talking about is actually the methylation of the genes and later on he mentioned the word quite a few times
al sto +al sto Since these (still very hypothetical) epigenetic phonomenon occur in children as a response to their environment, they aren't heritable. Each child's epigenetic profile would be solely a product of their environment. The only means of transmission from one generation to the next, is by envirornment being created by the parents that is itself a product of their epigentic genotype and self-selecting for those "epi-genes". It says nothing about nature vs nurture, only the nature of nurture. The idea that epigenetic traits are heritable is a completely hypothetical and untestable hypothesis put forward by SJWs and Jews to blame black failure on mistreatment by whites from previous generations.
Interesting experiences. I just felt uncomfortable with the "example" involving poverty. People poor are poor because capitalism need people to be explored to keep existing. And that isn't related with gene reprogramming.
I used to work in childcare & I can tell you we loved & nurtured those children! It's not a replacement for parents & we used to really feel for some children who were dropped off at 7:30am & picked up at 6pm by clearly exhausted parents, who had asked us to feed & bathe the kids & put them into their PJ's before they arrived & deprive them of an afternoon sleep so that they would fall asleep in the car or as soon as they got home, but childcare done RIGHT, where the parent comes in, spends some time with the child, arrives & again spends time with their child & child's friends, reading them stories & sharing their day with them, then takes them home to a home full of love can absolutely enhance a child's development & education not deny it to them! It's all about balance & quite frankly, even by about 3 years old, many children require FAR more stimulation than any single person/pair of parents can give them! Nothing wrong with a child having an additional source of learning & socialisation
Although this is pretty obvious its great to see empiric proof. Nature and nurture are two sides of the same evolutionary process, nature manifest in nurture and nurture then affects and becomes nature and so on.
Watch the TED "Addiction is a disease. We should treat it like one" Michael Botticelli, before this. If you already saw this, the one by Botticelli is till good.
I'm curious about the design of the final mentioned cocaine addiction experiment. Nevertheless extraordinary work! And... if so isn't the debate nature vs nurture over?
Didn't epigenetic drugs become illegal because doctors would prescribe these to serial killers and etc. where it made them forget everything to rid them of the urges to kill or rape in first place?
This always seemed like an obvious truth to me. The idea that the reproductive process is left entirely up to chance is not adaptive or an intelligent mechanism for survival. That's not to diminish or ignore that random mutations and survival within the environment are indeed factors that play a significant role within evolution. Intelligence is the ability to adapt. We live long lives and have learned to adapt to all sorts of things over the course of it, but use is any of that if i can -only- pass on 30 year old genetic information about physical makeup. Considering the environment can change a lot in 30 years, my offspring might actually have less of a chance than i did if none of the adaptive strategies i picked up were available to pass on.
The title in misleading. It states that this 'IS' as if it is a scientific fact, which it clearly is not. It is an interesting unproven possibility at best. When influencing the masses through talks like this, standards should be applied by declaring in the talk and title and notes that this is 'NOT' proven science. A little research reveals this is a talk organised by politically biased volunteers independent of TED. I note that this original disclaimer in the TED website and app is missing from this RUclips version.
i think he needs to work with a psychologist. i dont stand by a lot of his examples. i feel there are underlying biases in his presentation and i wonder weather or not that bias also effect his research conclusions.
Assuming the numbers are proportionate day-to-year, my understanding would be you'd need 30 years, not just one. I'd consider the ethical and health implications of finding out before you try though
Nice to see a talk about epigenetics but I feel he kind of missed his own point. He explained how the environment produces unwanted characteristics , yet his answer was to treat it with drugs. Wouldn't the answer be to change the environment :D? I mean, if you treat someone with drugs, and still leave the arrangements of society so that we are split into poor and rich, you still gonna get drug addicts , that you have to treat over and over and over again. Well at least it sounds profitable. Hooray for pharmaceutical companies I guess.
The talk seems good overall, but this supposed schism between geneticists and epigeneticists makes me shake my head. Of course some people would have these biases, but in general it must be kind of like in medicine, specialized doctors won't try to pin every other illness having some root in the organ or system they're specialized.
The age old question, do the ends justify the means. This gentlemen says that we could and would not do these experiments on humans for ethical reasons but then is it ethically right to intentionally inflict suffering on other feeling beings? Does one species have the right to inflict horrendous suffering to many other species to make their quality of life better?
Tim Fujio way to disregard a channel with thousands of videos on a panoply of topics because you saw a couple you didn't like. Did they trigger you with challenging ideas? Do you need a safe space cupcake?
Talks like this are why I originally subscribed to TED
Alex Hutcheson Yeah, it's kinda went to crap
Make TED great again
his cap makes it look like the side of his head was missing
That's a kippah, a traditional Jewish headdress to remind us of both our connection to the Divine and the nature of our general mundane daily life. Good eye!
@@drilonkennedy-gorne2049it’s just a pure black one against a pure black background does indeed look like a slice of his head is missing! Bless him.
I got loyalty got royalty inside my DNA
Watching this makes this music even more interesting than it was.
are you copying comment for Prince EA comment
Burkacci hahahahahahahahH nice one mate
When you think about it, this talk pretty much gives you a sober, scientific interpretation of the song's general sentiment.
Is this new Kendrick?
they should check if missing a father or if you had a real/adoptive father changed the same way as if missing a mother or even check on if the mother had to go through many different mates and how that would change it if it changes the same way as missing a mother. It might explain a few hypothesis for me depending on the answers.
If they didn't, you can propose a study (or get a degree in Biology and _then_ propose a study) and spend the next two or three decades of your life answering your own questions and getting paid for it! :D
+Julia Linne eh, this question isn't that important to me as my other hypothesis or questions are. if it was , I would probably do something like you proposed, lol. good advice though. plus, I would rather leave that to someone else and answer questions/problems that would come after said answer of question or proof of hypothesis. that would be when the interesting stuff happens most likely.
There is research which has found differences between those who have fathers who are present during upbringing and those who have absent fathers. In girls this is correlated with earlier onset of puberty, early age of first intercourse and pregnancy. Boys as well puberty onset is affected. Problem is this is just correlational data, so it's hard to know whether the fathers absence is the cause, or instead the mothers/families response to father absence is what causes the change, but you are correct, epigenetic research here could be very enlightening.
Sources: Quinlan (2003), Sheppard & Sear (2011).
"DNA is a dynamic movie in which our experiences are being written."
Assassin's Creed confirmed
What is an experience?
Series of activities which individual do perceiving by available senses and time-depended
Well this explains a lot. Guess my therapist wasn't wrong about my unaffective mom being the cause of a lot of my problems
ask your therapist about attachment disorders
This dovetails nicely with yesterday's talk by Katie Hinde on breast feeding and mother's milk. Perhaps there is more than just nutrition issues going on.
I really wish that TED would include a list of citations with its videos on RUclips. There are a lot of things that this guy says that give me a visceral "naw..." reaction. Based on what he presented in the video, I don't think that you can make a clear case that epigenetics alone can adequately explain his results.
These results were supremely anticlimactic given the implications of the title. :)
This makes me sad, because it feels like I have no potential to develop good characteristics.
How about sincerity ?
me too
1. Define "good characteristics".
2. Develop a daily plan of attack to change your habits to "good" habits.
3. Reward "good" habits and punish bad habits.
4. Profit!
4. profit by being the weird guy that thinks he is close to perfect
Totally the opposite, now you know you can program your DNA to get potential and develop good characteristics.
Oh, TED still posts videos about science?
Bernardo Patiño what are you saying? Science is liberal?? lol
Leelee, It's also Enlightening lol
leeisateam this isn't really science. It is speculation.
+Oaxaca Not so. Did you listen to the whole thing? Sure, there is some speculation in it. But did you watch the whole thing? Did you see and understand the controlled experiments? What part of scientific method did you sleep through in school?
+Leeleeturn its a sad state of affairs when science winds up being considered the domain of 1 political group science isnt liberal its just many people think of it that way because most scientists are liberal
Best TED talk I've watched in a long time.
So, how did they deprogram the genes?
Is nobody wondering that?
I want to be able to control whether I get addicted to cocaine or not.
Simple, don't take cocaine xD
jiopjiop It sounded like whatever drug they administered isnt capable of removing the threat of addiction, only the addiction itself after one has been developed.
From what I understood they didn't actually "re-program" but simply slowed down the gene transformation so that the next time you remember about cocaine you won't crave it and your genes will turn back to normal (before cocaine) after a while. But by taking cocaine again your genes will resume that process and you're back from where you started probably this time with addiction.
amandus westin Have you ever done cocaine? It is super, super fun. Until the end. Then either get another 8ball or get a nap. Seriously you can only be an addict to understand his question. Also, cocaine is fun. Do you know we could probably have free energy if cocaine wasnt punishable
He was not very clear about any of the relevant technology. If CRISPR is able to manage methylation points, then it is still not clear if he knows where the addition or removal of the methyl group to cytosine and adenine residues in DNA that leads to the epigenetic modification of DNA and the reduction or enhancement of gene expression and protein production that in turn removes the 'memory' of the craving. The natural process of epigenesis seems to still be only a matter of correlation, and not causation. Like your memory of being robbed in the subway has a sort of holographic effect on your experience of every subway ride, the way that an experience causes constructive de/methylation at perhaps many relevant sites on every corresponding gene in all or most cells in the body? He offered no indication that it can be done, but just that we should do it. Not very helpful nor encouraging.
I know this observing others and from my own life. Of course how your parents raise and care for you make a difference (in so many ways). It is nice to have science confirm common sense.
Too bad we had multiple generations of kids growing up without fathers. Yes, a single mother can be heroic, but nature is hard to fool.
I'm fairly confident that the entierty of the genetics community doesn't agree on all the ideas thrown here. Interesting study tho'. Let's give those ideas a couple more decades. Epigenetic drugs sounds both fascinating and dangerous. Ethics will have to play a huge role in those studies. I'm against genes modification by principle. Don't mess with things you don't master is my moto. But if we can prove they are by nature dynamic, that changes the game.
If we can link a certain genome to a certain phenotype, then insure we can pinpoint the change to that specific genome, while also making sure we apply a well-defined change which will properly change the phenotype... Then why not ?
Again, I would support this if and when we have a scientific and ethic consensus on the methodology. Genetic modifications by for-profit groups should be or remain unauthorized.
Much like with autonomous cars or A.I., the overhaul technically is way over my head. I would support experimenting, but not commercialization or mass application just yet.
Add in the direct changes to the base genes offered by CRISPR and the possibilities/stakes seem unlimited. I don't know why, but this epigenetic approach seems less worrisome to me. But in both cases, I fear our technology has run far ahead of our ethical guidelines. We most definitely have something new under the sun now.
To be honest, the disagreement is mainly just old timers vs progressives.
Just like how anyone who went to med school with neurology before the last 10 years will, 99.9% assert "The adult brain does not generate new neurons". University continues to teach this actually more often than not by professors that I've had. Yet with progressive research & discussion, it's all about realizing that this simply doesn't appear true and in contrary adult neurosis is actually appears profound.
Yet, when progressives present treament plans that rely on the concept and capabilities of epigenetics... old timers ground the conversation by the seemingly infallible "We know the adult brain doesn't generate new neurons"
Those divided on and refuting it aren't really doing so with new arguments, rather just by repeating the old text book definitions as if it's too concrete to be refuted at this point.
The same goes with genetic studies. When we first defined genetics, it immediately become a bible, so to speak, amongst science whether you realize it or not. To consider it flawed, is pretty earth shattering in that regard.
Bryn Webster I did mention I was pro research. What I am against is mass application by for-profit organizations. Science is a dangerous tool, there should be control, oversight and consensus. Don't allow *any* rookie, nor *any* idea, to be explored and experimented with. We don't step forward in science blindly, nor do we do whatever experiment we want.
Art Work,
I do agree but I think that's inevitable for now and not much worth discussing. We all know that it's wrong, that's Capatalism- but in place you can't expect any for any large scale research to be done so simply with the intent to save in in our back pockets for eventual, appropriately considerate application. Research only gets done if their is money ahead of it to be made, and the way things are structured people simply cant hold out on that money as long as would be ideal for collective wellbeing. So even research being done with underlying good intention must be milked prematurely, if it wishes to continue.
You are right, demon. Apart, maybe in the worth of discussing this where we seem to diverge. I believe we should communicate a lot more on the fields of science we are currently experimenting with. We should gather opinions (ethical ones for instance) from much more people to know whether or not it is right to experiment with things such as genetic traits of living things.
I know that this would slow a lot of things down due to some people just not willing to "believe" in science. But then again, we've been at this science thing for millennials. There is no rush, only the need to do things right. If that implies waiting and defending ideas for a couple decades, that's just fine.
You'll probably call me on the impossibility of doing the things I describe and you'd be right once again. But wouldn't it be better to just wait and have some oversight as often as possible ?
So, how do you target which genes to turn on/off with the so-called "epigenetic drug"?
So theoretically: yes, environment does determine who/what you'll be.
This is a fucking crazy discovery, but I dont get how we can change our DNA to cure things like addiction if the DNA is in every cell in our body. It seems ridiculously impossible but I hope not
at 11.10 szyf was talking about how as social stress increased in mothers, so did issues like autism and and metabolic problems. does this imply that outside stress continually has an affect on what genes are expressed, and/or possibly degrades DNA faster?
What a nice presentation!
Thank you very much for this research and this video.
This one is very good. This actually changes things
I got I got I got I got I got early life experiences inside my DNA
I have a question, he mentions that decreasing methylation during consumption of cocaine removed the addiction in rats. My understanding is that methylation during drug use will cause DNA to be transcribed that will support the neurogenesis and the strengthening of synaptic connections related to the drug. So I understand how reducing methylation during early consumption will reduce addiction by preventing this, but once these brain areas already exist, such as they would in a rat who has been addicted for a long time, how does reducing methylation prevent these brain areas and reward centers from being activated?
i am colorblind to the difference between red and green...
Mimir Fonten oh...
yeah, that does suck for the red and green picture...
me too
11:55 ... did he just say "can lead to death... and loss of human life" ?
Happy 420
I dont understand why there are always so much bad and pessimistic comment under TED vids
Perhaps the people are looking for answers / solutions to their problems, and then end up disappointed that not all their problems are solved by a TED Talk.
timothy mechling or even they are only looking for answers that push there view/agenda but get the truth and don't like it.
also possible.
they are epigenitecally reprogrammed to be idiotic in comment section
If this guy is for real, then this work is groundbreaking!
His whole career is about this. Definitely worth checking out!
Finally a good Ted-Talk...
Interesting. Glad to see a science lecture.
Very interesting and informative. Nature vs nurture debate solved?
actually it changes over time. from what I have red, you start with 80% nature and end up with something about 20% nature and 80% nurture when you are hitting 60. Also changes from person to person, but thats the range I think is plausible.
There was nothing here about epigenetic inheritance, which is an even sketchier theory. So no, this is just an alternative explanation for the mechanics of nurture, other than the popular psychological ones.
If you pay attention, he is in fact talking about epigenetic ;) the "chemicals" he is talking about is actually the methylation of the genes and later on he mentioned the word quite a few times
al sto +al sto Since these (still very hypothetical) epigenetic phonomenon occur in children as a response to their environment, they aren't heritable. Each child's epigenetic profile would be solely a product of their environment. The only means of transmission from one generation to the next, is by envirornment being created by the parents that is itself a product of their epigentic genotype and self-selecting for those "epi-genes". It says nothing about nature vs nurture, only the nature of nurture.
The idea that epigenetic traits are heritable is a completely hypothetical and untestable hypothesis put forward by SJWs and Jews to blame black failure on mistreatment by whites from previous generations.
Nature and nurture are basically the same. Both are environmental and uncontrollable.
beautiful.. great job!!
Interesting experiences. I just felt uncomfortable with the "example" involving poverty. People poor are poor because capitalism need people to be explored to keep existing. And that isn't related with gene reprogramming.
Yes and correlation does not equal causation.
1 minute since upload and there is still so many comments
Seems to me that the more we learn about the way we work the more simular we are to a program/IT-system.
given the information . . it seems irrational to put children into childcare . . .
I used to work in childcare & I can tell you we loved & nurtured those children! It's not a replacement for parents & we used to really feel for some children who were dropped off at 7:30am & picked up at 6pm by clearly exhausted parents, who had asked us to feed & bathe the kids & put them into their PJ's before they arrived & deprive them of an afternoon sleep so that they would fall asleep in the car or as soon as they got home, but childcare done RIGHT, where the parent comes in, spends some time with the child, arrives & again spends time with their child & child's friends, reading them stories & sharing their day with them, then takes them home to a home full of love can absolutely enhance a child's development & education not deny it to them! It's all about balance & quite frankly, even by about 3 years old, many children require FAR more stimulation than any single person/pair of parents can give them! Nothing wrong with a child having an additional source of learning & socialisation
I honestly thought the pattern on the thumbnail was the rhyme scheme for an MF DOOM song. Look it up if you haven't before btw.
How can I get this demethylization drug that will help with my polysubstance abuse?
Although this is pretty obvious its great to see empiric proof. Nature and nurture are two sides of the same evolutionary process, nature manifest in nurture and nurture then affects and becomes nature and so on.
What a talk!
Great talk
Nice speech ❤
Thank you..!!
Great talk, but I couldn't stop thinking about how the back of his head kept disappearing.
He's wearing a dark coloured kippah. Optical illusion
I like his hat.
It is a yarmulke or kippah. He is jewish.
Watch the TED "Addiction is a disease. We should treat it like one" Michael Botticelli, before this. If you already saw this, the one by Botticelli is till good.
I GOT I GOT I GOT I GOT
I see a lot of comments like this, but when did he say: i got?
Yehuda Moshe Ftaya Kung Fu Kenny says it in a recently released music video called DNA. by Kendrick Lamar.
LittleBigBallSack
K dot forever.
this speech reminds me the movie "gattaca" .
I'm curious about the design of the final mentioned cocaine addiction experiment. Nevertheless extraordinary work!
And... if so isn't the debate nature vs nurture over?
It has long been over, the answer was agreed-upon : a mix of both
Learnt this all in Bio class. Wow.
my first thought was :
ASSASSINS CREED?!
so loving children helps them in life? thanks.
So Kendrick Lamar was right?
Christopher Parker hahahaha
HAHAHA SO hilarous you better think (prefer) what a rapstar says than a scientific!
Didn't epigenetic drugs become illegal because doctors would prescribe these to serial killers and etc. where it made them forget everything to rid them of the urges to kill or rape in first place?
fiiiinally interesting stuff!
This always seemed like an obvious truth to me. The idea that the reproductive process is left entirely up to chance is not adaptive or an intelligent mechanism for survival. That's not to diminish or ignore that random mutations and survival within the environment are indeed factors that play a significant role within evolution.
Intelligence is the ability to adapt. We live long lives and have learned to adapt to all sorts of things over the course of it, but use is any of that if i can -only- pass on 30 year old genetic information about physical makeup. Considering the environment can change a lot in 30 years, my offspring might actually have less of a chance than i did if none of the adaptive strategies i picked up were available to pass on.
The comment section makes me realize Kendrick is great
I got loyalty in my DNA!
The title in misleading. It states that this 'IS' as if it is a scientific fact, which it clearly is not. It is an interesting unproven possibility at best. When influencing the masses through talks like this, standards should be applied by declaring in the talk and title and notes that this is 'NOT' proven science. A little research reveals this is a talk organised by politically biased volunteers independent of TED. I note that this original disclaimer in the TED website and app is missing from this RUclips version.
What about dads?
Qzhuo Its important that they lick their children too. 😉
Please reprogram my brain... I don't want to keep taking benzodiazepines TT-TT
so.. who else remembered Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind..
It should have been his beer friend giving this talk
i think he needs to work with a psychologist. i dont stand by a lot of his examples. i feel there are underlying biases in his presentation and i wonder weather or not that bias also effect his research conclusions.
it is so satisfied...now i can sleep well
woah this is enlightenment for me, I cant blame my gene anymore
so increase the methylation, do one year easy vacation on a remote island and then decrease the methylation again?
Assuming the numbers are proportionate day-to-year, my understanding would be you'd need 30 years, not just one. I'd consider the ethical and health implications of finding out before you try though
Nice to see a talk about epigenetics but I feel he kind of missed his own point. He explained how the environment produces unwanted characteristics , yet his answer was to treat it with drugs. Wouldn't the answer be to change the environment :D? I mean, if you treat someone with drugs, and still leave the arrangements of society so that we are split into poor and rich, you still gonna get drug addicts , that you have to treat over and over and over again. Well at least it sounds profitable. Hooray for pharmaceutical companies I guess.
mitkoogrozev he didn't make that a question and that answer wouldn't of been for that question either way, you may need to rewatch the vid.
Next on TED: Telegonia
"...can lead to death and loss of human life" -Moshe Szyf
wow!!!
Two fires in Alberta have been bigger natural disasters than quebec ice storm, just saying. I've been part of both.
Kendrick would not agree. then where is the loyalty and royalty huh ?
The talk seems good overall, but this supposed schism between geneticists and epigeneticists makes me shake my head. Of course some people would have these biases, but in general it must be kind of like in medicine, specialized doctors won't try to pin every other illness having some root in the organ or system they're specialized.
Explains why rats enjoy their backs getting tickled so much.
This makes me think about assasins creed.
Memories passed down through DNA.
Still different.
Now you buy a MacDonald for 1 dollar
but, are these experiments still ethically acceptable?
How is it ethical to experiment on animals but not humans?
Since when God 10:01 and Evolution 5:34 become friends?
qwertyrewty Since the beginning of time.
this will take victimhood to a new level
So it's ethical to experiment on our closest relative.
So it wouldn't be ethical to remove a child from its mother, but a monkey with the same emotions as humans is just fine...K.
So he basically participated to animal torture because testing on humans is not ethical ... Torture is never ethical!
The age old question, do the ends justify the means. This gentlemen says that we could and would not do these experiments on humans for ethical reasons but then is it ethically right to intentionally inflict suffering on other feeling beings? Does one species have the right to inflict horrendous suffering to many other species to make their quality of life better?
freud is right after all
Damn.
Abstergo anyone?
"... you can buy a McDonald for one dollar."
Nice to see smart people struggle with the ordinary.
Nonetheless, an interesting talk.
Isn't exactly that the cause of evolution?
Very interesting topic and interesting discoveries! The guy is cringy though
good talk. though obviously this guy knows nothing about cocaine based on his hilarious description of how human cocaine addiction starts
3rd
no body pray for me
I can't take seriously, anyone who allows religious doctrine, to dictate behavioural construct!!!
How many rats has been killed for the sake of this video ?
brah
Rats!
is he Jewish ???
Is that a problem for you?
I though ted talks only posted garbage about feminism and fat positivity. finally some actual science
Tim Fujio way to disregard a channel with thousands of videos on a panoply of topics because you saw a couple you didn't like. Did they trigger you with challenging ideas? Do you need a safe space cupcake?