The definition of a commodity is something that we cannot get ourselves and need a provider for to satisfy that need - therefore that would commodify human life. He compares the price availability of mobile phones and how the price went went down after some years to that of the future human enhancement cost and how that too will be available for all - which is once again a commodifying argument and doesn't honestly reflect the threat of what the woman asked at 1:11:32. All he says is another version of 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley from 1932. There are many things we can get better for us all, but looking at the last 200-300 years and how we have progressed, that intelligence, information and life standard, it still hasn't made us mature enough. Increasing the lowest "lovest level to a higher" will just change the face of current conflicts, interests, wars, society and so on. The solution for us maturing is a spiritual matter and demands a quality increase in other fields. After all, genetic determinism isn't a law of nature whereby our environment and what our minds are exposed to is the major influence. I also think he can't be serious in saying Europe won't take the lead just because EU has banned "cloned milk". I'm more with those who recognize that major meat and diary industry is wrong and not of this century - that's not 21h first century and not that there's a ban on cloned milk. He's obviously totally pro all this, even though he says he hasn't said it straight out that we ought to do these things. One things is clear and that is that all these technologies are going to be a reality and we need to have good policies towards them, keeping in mind that some countries will probably have mandatory pre-birth genetic engineering while other will have more restrictive and other perhaps none at all. /Thanks for the upload
Great lecture; very thought provoking. Thank you for posting and making available to a wide audience. Many thanks.
This is one of the best talks I've watched on 21 school/youtube.
as we progress as a species, it's apparently important to continue to ask, but why not eugenics?
The definition of a commodity is something that we cannot get ourselves and need a provider for to satisfy that need - therefore that would commodify human life. He compares the price availability of mobile phones and how the price went went down after some years to that of the future human enhancement cost and how that too will be available for all - which is once again a commodifying argument and doesn't honestly reflect the threat of what the woman asked at 1:11:32. All he says is another version of 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley from 1932. There are many things we can get better for us all, but looking at the last 200-300 years and how we have progressed, that intelligence, information and life standard, it still hasn't made us mature enough. Increasing the lowest "lovest level to a higher" will just change the face of current conflicts, interests, wars, society and so on. The solution for us maturing is a spiritual matter and demands a quality increase in other fields. After all, genetic determinism isn't a law of nature whereby our environment and what our minds are exposed to is the major influence. I also think he can't be serious in saying Europe won't take the lead just because EU has banned "cloned milk". I'm more with those who recognize that major meat and diary industry is wrong and not of this century - that's not 21h first century and not that there's a ban on cloned milk. He's obviously totally pro all this, even though he says he hasn't said it straight out that we ought to do these things. One things is clear and that is that all these technologies are going to be a reality and we need to have good policies towards them, keeping in mind that some countries will probably have mandatory pre-birth genetic engineering while other will have more restrictive and other perhaps none at all. /Thanks for the upload