The Controversial Future of Genetic Testing 

How exactly is it abuse?

​@@The88Cheat reading comprehension is low on yt. 😂

There is a movie called Gattaca which is about this topic.

​@@jsweet1864The question is valid. I don't know what's up with the comment you made. Maybe you're the one with the appalling reading comprehension. 😂

@@LilliputianGYATT Something got deleted. This was over a freaking month ago so I don't know. Take your outrage somewhere else 🤡

😅

"Ohh..earning potential, that's a good one"

The risk of Narcissistic Personality Personalty would be a great thing to test for. It's a far greater burden on society than intellectual disability any way you calculate it.

@@seanjantz This guy doesn't know that future earning potential is largely determined by societal factors? Perhaps his parents should have screened their zygotes for fatuous self-satisfaction and entitlement before implanting him. 🙄🤨

lol

Darwin doesn’t choose the best, only the best adapted to procreate.

We're that couple. Ultimately, people associate masculine traits with higher competence and intelligence (albeit also lower beauty and approachability). Life is unfair, so we think it's best to anticipate that unfairness and deal with it head on. If our daughter chooses to change her name, then she'll do it. We're just giving out kids default settings we think will serve their best interests. It's up to them to determine how they shift those settings and we celebrate those independent choices. :)

Exactly, people are not data. Imagine the bullying this girl will endure knowing that it happens because mom and dad couldn’t handle her with a female name.

Exactly.

Yeah, that second couple seems out there…makes me sad for their children

We're those parents. !00%-it's through mistakes that we learn. We're not tiger parents so much as we're "give them all the tools we think may give them an advantage, provide them with a safe, loving, and supportive home and family, and leave it up to them to do what they will with all that."

@@SimoneandMalcolm How do you feel about the fact that this is prohibitively expensive to most families?

I feel sorry for these kids, with names like that and parents that are just as ridiculous, I’d love to see how these kids actually end up.

​@@SimoneandMalcolm what data are you referencing when you say "data shows strictly female names have a lot of negative outcomes"? Sounds like a load of crap.

​@@BlueMoonStudios what does it matter how expensive it is? The genie is out of the bottle. We can either choose to keep in the hands of only the elite few who can afford it or if we want to support it to make it less costly and more available. Someone somewhere will be willing to do it even if we make it illegal- money helps fix that especially if they can hop to a country where it isnt illegal. So many people with less means only see the immediate concern which is restricted access. In trying to spite that, they are only hurting their own family's potential to access it sooner. Do you think billionaires concern themselves with the ethical dilemma of limiting a technology because it isn't more widely available? How do you expect it become more available if its not refined and scaled up? Trying to put the genie back in the bottle will only make it more exclusive. Rich people will love that. We can make an even bigger health divide to go with our increasing class divide.

Its not just you.

I had a weird chill all over my body. I study history and well … it sounds like the beginning of something scary

@@Anna-fd3ui Same, i'm in college right now and I minor in history. This is definitely not looking good.

I think it shows their low IQ because there is no scientific evidence supporting what that company sold them. They got scammed and they made decisions on bogus "science".

They think it's geugenics only if it's enforced by the goverment, which is pretty dumb

Since they did it before birth, then it’s fine. Literally no human was harmed (like actual eugenics where people already born).

@@hecutsdown91 i said it had eugenics vibes which it does. not that it’s actually eugenics.

They are still loopy as hell and quiet possible racist

Master Morality.

@@holdencawffle626Honestly this comment is kinda racist.

This is how str8 people treat their children lol

@@PartnershipsForYou if I made a comment about how LGBTQ etc treated their kids then I'd be called a homophobe but you can be rude about straight people and nothing is wrong with that. Tell me again that there needs to be equality for non-straight people. Such rubbish honestly.

​@@PartnershipsForYouif it wasn't for man and women biological function and love, you wouldn't be here. That comment was disgusting. I very much met horrible lgbt parents too with a complex, because they feel they have something to prove. Your comment was so ignorant 🙄. Equality isn't what you want, just want to hurt folk

It's their first kid. They're in for a treat. 🤣

@@PartnershipsForYou perfect answer ever

Time seems endless & questions seeds necessary weeds alike

They seem like they would sue the company if their child was born with diabetes. Pretty sad.

The thing is there are a myriad of different genes that cause depression. Some of those have been observed to be linked to higher IQ. Then do they choose higher IQ but depression or lower IQ but no depression? Furthermore, higher IQ is also linked to autism and in some cases bipolar disorder. Fact of the matter is, if you want someone to be incredibly “successful” in life, 100% mentally “healthy” and normal is often not one of them. Most notable people in the world - geniuses, famous people, CEOs often times have either autism, depression, narcissism, bipolar disorder. Famous designers and artists too - from what I have witnessed myself in my family whom are very successful in the design and artist world they are heavily dyslexic and barely passed school but because of their dyslexia their brain sees the world differently which led to their incredible success. So yeah second family concerns me a little…

They'd probably consider her a 'failed experiment' 😢

I think it would be a lot better if they didn't let parents see the exact scores and just said we did the best ro optimize but any disease could still show up

"Type A." We used to call them "Yuppies."

What makes you say they're on the spectrum?

@@ansel203 the mom is commenting below

Exactly! 💯

You can thank your parents for giving you that.

But u wouldn't have been born if this existed

Dont give hope, you may have been born at the right time in human history to benefit from prospects of a quantum technological based reversal of devastating genetic disorders to proper coding. Stay away from private clinics wait until becomes adopted by regional medical centers as there are charlatans and worse today that are not on up and up - and far worse

​@@jameshowse300you're assuming they would suffer from, or even REALIZE not being born. 😂 That's honestly mentally ill

It's the ultimate un-seen goodwill to prevent someone's suffering without them ever knowing ❤

IQ is strongly correlated with higher incomes, higher test scores, and higher on almost any broadly agreed upon measure of success. The benefits massivley outweight any cost.

@@sevrent2811 higher iq is also strongly correlated with mental illness. mental illness is strongly correlated with sucide. If the child kills themselves, i dont think that is worth the high iq score. but you do you

​@@heartycoffee4754 oh, but you can choose genetic make up for lower risk of mental disease and higher intellectual abilities.

I think what frightens most people is the thought "I wouldn't exist, if my parents had this technology". And of course in egocentrical view we are the best thing to have ever existed for ourselves. So if this technology would have made me not to come into existence, it is evil.

Funny thing is what happens on paper isn't always what transpires in real life. I knew someone whose parents basically did this. His mother went through IVF with a high IQ physician sperm donor, only to find out her "smartest" child was the one conceived naturally with her ex car mechanic husband. You could choose the "best" embryo(s) and not yield the same results. Genetics is incredibly complicated. And environmental factors play a large role in development. Even in utero. A woman could choose the healthiest and successful embryo, but have a rocky pregnancy that undoes all of it.

Spot on.

Look the collinsinstitute (it is their school), they optimize children lol

I applaud them for looking out for their babies longterm health but their family presents as a bunch of robots. And not to mention the rigle casually sitting on the wall?? 💀

Yeah those people were fcking creepy.

"we dont want people thinking that were nazis or something" yea you're a bit past that line at the moment

It's not as black and white as that. There's no recipe for a ''perfect child''. Their child could have all those traits that they desired and still have a miserable life and vice versa. On paper it may sound perfect but we don't know how these things play out in real life. I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do it's just my humble opinion lol ✌️

Ever think of the reasons why?

given the state of america at the moment, i hope they consider moving shop to a more understanding country. Maybe one thats not currently burning books and pushing for cheap child labour.

​@@lvmonkey77nobody is burning or banning books

@@dogguy8603 should probably pay attention a bit more. “The 2022-23 school year has been marked to date by an escalation of book bans and censorship in classrooms and school libraries across the United States. PEN America recorded more book bans during the fall 2022 semester than in each of the prior two semesters. This school year also saw the effects of new state laws that censor ideas and materials in public schools, an extension of the book banning movement initiated in 2021 by local citizens and advocacy groups. Broad efforts to label certain books “harmful” and “explicit” are expanding the type of content suppressed in schools. Again, and again, the movement to ban books is driven by a vocal minority demanding censorship. At the same time, a 2022 poll found that over 70% of parents oppose book banning. Yet the bans continue. Many public school districts find themselves in a bind. They face threats and political pressure, along with parental fears and anxieties surrounding the books on their school shelves. School Boards, administrators, teachers, and librarians are told in some cases to “err on the side of caution” in the books they make available. Too often, they do just that.”

@@dogguy8603 a disturbing amount of people are definitely trying to ban books (from public access in schools, effectively banning them altogether for those who can't afford them)

if you were terminated before birth you wouldntb care

@@lindsayturner4981 That is a lie that people like you tell yourselves to feel better about the whole thing. Pre-birth infants can feel things. They may not understand why something is happening or what exactly will happen to them but they certainly can feel the pain of being cut into pieces in order to get their bodies out of the womb. And my point, which you are clearly not clever enough to understand, is that people like me deserve to live. Children like the disabled orphans I worked with in Asia are just as wonderful and loving as any other child. And most humans alive would have some genetic tendencies that could have caused them to be eliminated pre-birth if this testing had been standard.

@@AdeleiTeillana girl are you dumb if your not born you dont know anything 💀

@@AdeleiTeillana did they tell you that? lol

@AdeleiTeillana I absolutely love and appreciate your comment. This is so true and important. Thank you for saying what needs to be said!

Probably slightly Autistic

@@maximusmeridius5705 Oh, that's me. I and at least one of our kids are autistic. Hahahaha.

@@Joe-sg9ll this cracked me up XD

​@@Leo23XR glasses, clothes, haircut.

@@DiscretionwithReason she looks cool and powerful.

HA were you born yesterday?

im dumb, but cant healthy living and smart choices prevent these things?

@@PATTT_ bruh, some people are predispose to illnesses.

@@PATTT_ You're thinking of type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is caused by an L in the genetic lottery. Kids develop it before they even have the chance to live healthily and make smart choices.

​@@PATTT_ that's not being dumb just curious, why people like to limit and bring themselves down so often ?

Some people would go through the tired-and-true method of pumping out as many children as possible to increase the chances of having a healthy child.

Affordability is not a human right, though. People have been creating designer babies for decades now through IVF, elite donors, etc. However, it's not a common practice due to the fact that it is so expensive. What people tend to forget is that the more money wealthier people pump into experimental science/procedures, the faster scientists can innovate and lower the costs for everyone...eventually making it a relatively affordable service for all.

This is exactly what will happen.

This. This is exactly what was bouncing around in my head

@@britt0890 I think the problem is, in the US at least, only the wealthy will be able to afford to push the button.

I don’t think people with mental health issues should be allowed to adopt lol

Just be aware that mental health can develop due to environmental factors.

Then don't adopt. Ever. Who do you think abandon their babies? The mentally and physically healthy women? Wonder what genes your adopting then?

but if hes a man of science, he never will. the thing about science is the understanding that things change and that make it problematic to go to absolutes, more so predictions of the future (when our knowledge of the subject could be different). if you want to understand a person you need to "meet them where they live", and in the science world, that is not in absolutes. if you believe something to be 99.9% true, then you state it as such. rarely is there ever total certainty in anything. ("murphys law" is what it is because its a reminder that there is still a 0.1% chance of a different outcome. its also a reminder that it doesn't mean that 100 rolls of the dice means that that one weird 0.1% outcome has to happen once.). Your need for that absolute statement says more about you than with his statement than something he did or didn't say, imho. (and i don't mean that as a personal attack, but just as point of contention)

@@lvmonkey77way to be condescending and make your point moot with that last part and hate to break it to you but that's not humble

We are less than 5 years from being able to legally abort based on traits. Maybe they wont be "born this way" anymore.

That no was so shady. It was so shady. It was like when Clinton was denying having an affair with Lewinsky. Tsk As along as someone is willing to pay enough to get it done then someone will totally be willing to do it.

That's very upsetting.

I would kind of just prefer if they didn't reproduce at all lol

Royals incest. Yuk., Diversity is a proven virtue.

oof

They will name their next child "Waldo", as in: "Where's Waldo". And of course the child will be born astigmatic, same as the parents, and will eventually wear the same eyeglasses. Actually, they probably requested that the embryo have markers for nearsightedness lol.

I was looking for a comment that matched my thoughts!! They were creepy!! What was she wearing on the treadmill??

I am so sorry. He is in a better place now. May I ask, what was his illness?

if you have sex on campus of Harvard it will have high IQ

That is definitely unethical. Changing a kids life by making them make more money? Thats definitely unethical

Its probably based on a number of factors that are linked directly or coincidentally to earning potential like height, intelligence, maybe some personality traits that encourage risk.

I was thinking the same thing

You measure it by Intelligence, which is _genetic_ Because intelligence is highly correlated with socioeconomic status.

Thanks. That bugged me.

they said a lot of things that are factually incorrect or misleading. i think its because they are pushing their own beliefs and trying to justify it with a sheen of science, without it being actual science.

That they don't even get this basic, well known fact right is so telling. It's beyond alarming the level of ignorance and arrogance in the comments. People are desperate to be sold lies, magic and bridges. There is a big push on various forms of eugenics and this film is basically a misleading ad.

They're bankrupt, bury this and the rest of their garbage reporting in the backyard. Enough

Strong & important input, good stuff!

The data is limited all the more reason to experiment.

Yeah, epigenetic influences can't be seen in testing. Stuff like intelligence is also arbitrary.

Associations are like vegetables

I was like NOPE when he said "Oh No we're not Nazis." and then they laughed

The second family doesn't seem to understand the distinction between genetics and heritability. Depending on what study you reference, intelligence is roughly 50% heritability (as opposed to environmental) but that doesn't mean the correlated gene alleles have causal impacts. Additionally, high IQ has little/no impact on life outcomes even for bonafide geniuses. Further, the concept of genetic prediction of earning potential is balderdash informed by classism. I'm not even sure how you would select for "happiness" aside from avoiding alleles that are correlated with depression, but many people without depressive disorders have a low baseline level of happiness so that's not the same thing. The second family is trying to genetically select for things that have little/no identified genetic origins in a way that exemplifies their potential biases.

@bibis Thank you! Truthfully, I think about this a lot because I used to work in a genetic phenotyping lab and I now grieve for my contributions to that research. I should have been able to predict this outcome, but I was naive and believed our grant proposal for "targeted gene therapy". I later learned that the lead researchers of the project never believed it would result in that. Every genetic phenotyping researcher tacitly sees the disorders or diseases they are researching as burdens worth eliminating, so I left - but not before arming people like this. I hope we don't live long enough to see the unfathomable impacts to our species, but I will educate where possible and always advocate for the celebration of neurodiversity to ameliorate the harm I indirectly facilitated.

@@brittanycole271you’re straight up lying the heritability of IQ is around 65-80% and IQ is greatly predictive of positive life outcomes all across the board, it has one of the highest predictive validity out of any test in the soft sciences.

Good for you. Not everyone wants to do that can do that.

50% of intelligence is inherited, 50% is of how they were raised. If you want your children to have a healthy, smart life: spend time with them and read books with them and watch documentaries with them. Kids are curious, you’ll see. They want to learn a lot. Let them play an instrument as it trains their brain very well. Don’t let them become addicted to a phone or tablet, let them become addicted to discovering the world and knowledge. And nature ;)

@@truehappiness4Uso I’m stuck at 50% chance having a genetic mutation even when I’ve done the work to NOT have one 😭 science failed me

thats a mutation though, not something you inherit. sure you can test embryos but mutations still happen in dna after birth

​@@nsjhdhdhdbhsudgvdydb7751 you can inherit mutations

​@@nsjhdhdhdbhsudgvdydb7751 Many patients with pediatric brain cancer have a hereditary cancer syndrome (like Li-Fraumeni), which is caused by a germline mutation.

Time for everyone to read The Giver

There is no qualitative difference between these two things

@@garrysmodsketcheshow so

@@isabellavillanueva4639 both traits are heritable, but to different degrees

So use it to keep the bad away, but don't use it to make them better? Why? What's the (il)logic behind that?

​@@wtfdtreats because it's far less clear cut. Mind you, I'm not against positive selection tout court, though I recognize that there are much more complicated implications involved: - Consolidating inequality, rooting it in people's genes, in addition to their families material condition. - Promoting traits that may be positive for the individual but negative for it's interaction with society. - Losing genetic and population diversity: if everyone did it we'd probably have more standardized individuals, making societies less resilient to some external factors. Furthermore, while it's pretty easy to agree on preventing most genetic diseases it's much harder to agree on which positive genetic traits we should promote. Selflessness or self preservation? Obedience or indipendent thought?

​@@Carbos [Second couple from the video here] What is interesting is that there is decent data, so far as we understand it, indicating that people generally select traits that are overall *good* for society (kindness, empathy, happiness, intelligence, etc.)-this is something you can parse out when you look at how people select sperm donors, for example. Also, people want kids like them-not like some sort of uniform "optimal." There is no uniform optimal. So long as we maintain a pluralistic and diverse society (and we really hope that we do), people will select for diverse traits, even when this tech becomes more widespread and people even begin modding genes and going full cyborg. So we agree it's not clear cut, but we also think there's decent evidence suggesting that use of this tech will magnify goodness and plurality rather than sociopathy and homogeny.

@@SimoneandMalcolm Hello Simone and Malcolm! Thank you for taking the time to read and reply! 😊 It's comforting, for me, that people are choosing more pro-social traits to pass down, though I imagine that we're dealing with a pretty narrow data set (and probably limited to some groups of people), so I think it could be a bit early to draw significant statistical conclusions, from it. I don't know, should people have kids that are more like them? If I had any I'd certainly like them to share some of my personality traits but not others. You and I may agree on which traits are good, but those may drastically change, based on the kind of ideal society one has in mind. And on that subject, we are living in very divided nations, in a very divided world. A dictator might force the selection of subservient individuals. A tycoon might give out great benefits to families that accept to breed children designed to be optimal employees for his companies. All unsettling possibilities, although their chance of happening is out of mine or yours control or responsibility. Also, I'm not sure that we know enough about phasing out some genes that are not clearly disease inducing. Sure, a gene (or a polygenic combination of genes) might elevate the chance for depression, but what if it's linked to some very positive traits, as well? Anyway, I'll have much pondering to do on this matter. On a side note I'd like to commend your pioneering on this field. I'm sure it will provide humanity with precious data and I really hope it provides a happy life to your offspring and you both. 🤗

Being highly intelligent also carries increased risks of things like ADHD and anxiety. And even if you see some subtle hints of those issues in kids when they are still toddlers and preschoolers, you roll with the punches, and assume that all of the other strengths will make it be OK in the end. But even with very involved, appropriate parenting, help from psychiatric professionals, and sometimes even medication something like ADHD doesn't really become a major issue for them until they get to the age where they can no longer coast academically or vocationally based on intellect alone. And then that tendency for anxiety makes things worse because these are smart kids and young adults who are also upset with themselves for not being able to just power their way through every situation based on being smart. As much as we know about the human genome, there's still also much that we do not know. Things that might be desirable traits right now, with the way that society and even ecology functions in the current day, might end up being hindrances 50 years from now, if circumstances change.

I don't know about your condition, there are many who would do well if society was more accessable and less brutal. The social model of disability.

But wouldn't decent public healthcare like every other developed country in the world has make some of that easier ?

People telling you that healthcare is the answer are completely missing the point. I support your opinion here. I watch a wasting disease take my aunt over 25 years. It was horrible, and she was a wonderful person. I'm all for removing disease and suffering from the gene pool. I feel like this tech needs to be made available to anyone that wants it on a public basis. The long term benefits far outweight any short term cost.

@@ericcrear1359 thank you for being one of the only ones with common sense here.

You are saying that altering their life is a violation of God's work on creation or natural selection.

Hahaa, that's us! We always thought of ruling class vibes people as being a little more... y'know... private and grown up. Maybe not people to say the word "spicy" while wiggling spirit fingers. 🤣

@@SimoneandMalcolm Oh wow I never would have expected a response from you guys haha! I'm glad you did though. I took some time to click around your content and the dynamic you two have reminds me of my own relationship. Also while I don't agree with everything you guys both talk about, there is also a lot in common (plus your topics are very fun for the mind). I guess all I'm trying to say is the power of editing and context is very powerful. I take back my vibe check and respect what you are doing lol.

lmao right

unironically the most abusive part of this video

Titan's parents here: We choose not only gender neutral/masculine names for our kids but also (often) culturally distinct names as we want our kids to know that they're part of an intentional, cohesive family culture with clear values and stances rather than society's default template culture. Titan can always change her name if she wants to. How do you define short? Hahahaha

@@SimoneandMalcolmI’m curious about the studies that have shown negative consequences of a feminine sounding name

​@@SimoneandMalcolm you didn't answer the question though. You could choose a "normal" non gendered name. Why go with something so off the wall? I'd argue most people would think Titan is a boy as it's fairly masculine sounding (Nissan Titan, Titan Fitness)

@@SimoneandMalcolmset up your new spawned character however you want, players. Max those stats.

Second family here: We all have limits to how much we want to optimize, sure, but why not do everything you can when human lives are at stake? And why not financially support technology in hopes of seeing a future in which it is more broadly accessible?

​@@SimoneandMalcolm I hope you read this comment. Y'all may think your fooling the world with the many stories and articles that have been written about your "super babies" but many of us see right through your words. We know what you are and what you want your children to be.

​@@jsweet1864Lmao, what?

I graduated in 06, thanks for making me feel worse:\

@@PATTT_ sorry lol

I’m sure it has more legal repercussions. Several young kids in a home where gun and ammo are literally stored together out in the open could open a neglect investigation

Yup that was me. I thought it was between takes. We had just got the gun the day before and I am usually not allowed in my wife's study (nor are the kids, its covered in locks). I told her to store the ammo and did not realize she thought leaving it on top of the gun was a good idea until I walked into the room for filming.

@@SimoneandMalcolmGood lord, I can’t tell what’s more pathetic, that you’re not allowed in the office, that “your”, “wife” (let’s be real here she’d file a SA suit against you if you even touched her let alone attempted to copulate the old fashioned way), or her clear lack of any sensible gun safety (you know straw sales are illegal right?) around children. “Thought we between takes” oh you goofy goober

Dude yes i noticed 😂

@@CaptainCaterpillarstbh I 80% bet that based on their response it’s a straw sale gun too

I wonder. I personally was given a unisex name at birth and hated it. I started going by my feminine middle name in high school and legally changed it at some point

It also sounds like bullshit…

Its an embryo. How would you measure its IQ?

Embryos can't sit the SAT to get a score!

@@tbird81 Yeah! They don’t even have an ass to sit on!

They have pretty detailed genetic information from a variety of people who've had success in business, or who have a high IQ. Research can no pick apart similarities and differences between those and what is considered standard. The differences 'LIKELY' show which are positive and negative traits. All they have to do is compare the genetics. So you have a list of people that all got this type of cancer and you have sample of their genes, you compare that genetic data and look for similarities, and then compare it again to those who didn't get that type of cancer. And you can narrow things down pretty accurately. They've already done this with athletes looking at genetics and comparing injuries to see who may be susceptible to certain types of injuries. There is a huge genetic profile of thousands of people being studied in the UK that has their health history tied to them. Neil deGrasse Tyson did a show on it. "Ethics of Genetic Testing with Dr. Stuart Kim & Neil deGrasse Tyson"

We're that second couple. Keep in mind that stigmatizing this or limiting access creates exactly the result that you (and we) fear: This being a "rich person" thing and not an "everyone who cares to access it" thing. It's entirely possible for this tech and IVF to be state-supported (and in the face of demographic collapse, more and more states will support it). If access is artificially gated, then only rich people will be able to fly over to countries or dark sites where they can access it. That's no bueno.

@@SimoneandMalcolm I agree with your point about artificial gating, but I would also bring into the discussion the fact that some people are just naturally opposed to this type of testing. For instance, I personally would never get polygenetic testing for anything beyond a life-threatening genetic disorder. My personal reason is that if it's not life-threatening then it should be hands-off to avoid individuals from weaponizing non-life threatening traits. In a world where we have readily available access, someone could see me as actively harming my children simply because I refuse to select for something like intelligence or agility. So long as there are individuals who are opposed to the concept, stratification will eventually exist and non participating individuals can be vilified for a perfectly reasonable assertion that it's a can of worms that they don't want to get involved in. The reason why it's generally vilified is because while it has good intentions, it is far too easy for someone to take those good intentions and use it as a discriminatory factor.

im not as concerned by the technology limiting access to intelligence as much i am this testing producing false equivalences between genetics and intelligence outside of the appropriate scientific fields. i can see scenarios where those with genetic screening are able to skip grades, be placed in advanced classes or awarded scholarships not out of merit, but out of the results of genetic testing

@@SimoneandMalcolm Provide concrete proof that your so called "demographic collapse" is not a normalization of population that may actually be better in the long run. It just sounds like you are harping on an unsubstantiated fear to promote your own agenda. Also, with state supported reproduction and selection of offspring, shouldn't you worry about other things like fascism or do you think that political and social problems will be solved by selection too?

Have you guys read brave new world 🤔

@@femme_fatalist haha, exactly :D I felt your comment however was spot on! A very balanced report on such an intriguing topic!

This comment sent me, thanks for this

hahahaha

lmao I noticed this too

Not just that, we have these "problems" for a reason. They are side effects of bigger problems we have solved. Removing the side-effect may bring back the original issue. I don't think they know what they're doing

I see they're also pragmatists as well (RU-vid channel) yet seem to want to be perfectionists with their children? Works well in practice, not most ideal or perfect.

You're making a lot of assumptions there though, and if the kids are smart they have a higher likelihood of being fine regardless.

@@funfunfun3624 explain

I have ADHD and I believe a lot of my family are nerodiverse, our differences make us more interesting... We need to help nerodivergent people thrive.

As someone with Autism, and someone who's family is also Autistic, I think our differences make us better people. Autism has the capacity to cause someone to have a more developed sense of justice, higher intelligence, etc. all of which can be seen as "desireable" traits in a child. Who decides what traits are good/bad? I know people with Downs Syndrome that wouldn't change it for anything. I don't think it's right to make a decision like that for someone. Their personal journey of their disorders makes them into who they are. And that's coming from someone who also struggles with treatment-resistent Anxiety, Depression, and BPD (all of which are common comorbidities with ASD). That's just my two cents, though.

You can't logically say that things like neurodivergency don't limit quality of life. ADHD and Autism both affect life quality. Very few people actually see those disabilities as "superpowers". That's a belief used as a coping mechanism, not a universal reality.

@@wholewheatstingray The only reason I need a "coping mechanism" is because of society's views on disability. I'm not minimizing my own struggles by embracing what I love about my disability. Without it, I'm not who I am. There are times when I wish I wasn't Autistic, sure, but it's because of outside factors that just happen to affect me differently like, for example, the overstimulating ordeal of going to the grocery store. When I have a meltdown, it isn't my fault, it's because my needs aren't being met and I can't identify what they are. Even having said that, there are still things I can do to minimize my discomfort, and I do. I don't think neurodivergence necessarily equals lower quality of life - it means a lower quality of life in a *neurotypical society*. If we accomodated disabled people more, their quality of life would improve. To say that we should just get rid of disability instead of accomodating it inherently paints disability as a negative thing. Disability is usually just a difference. Disability is also the one marginalized group that NOBODY is safe from. Everyone has the capacity to be disabled at some point in their life, so we should stop treating it like a boogeyman to get rid of and instead focus on what we can do to improve quality of life for EVERYONE.

If there was a world where the testing was used widely, then perhaps there would be ’new mental health conditions’: Then perhaps such testing would become ’fine-tuned’ & new ’problems’ would arise.

You’re about to get told off by people who think you should suffer because it makes. You unique

I agree with you our decendants should have the perfect body something that shouldn't limit them and help them pursue all of their passions without having to worry if they will get held back because of something there BORN with

Just don't make more babies AT ALL. You prevent ALL suffering completely then. Even the healthiest human has to experience the horror of dying. It can be prevented by never having been born. Nobody was even asked to be born. You guys all sat there debating who was best to be born and who not. The actual person forcibly brought to this world just to die was never asked.

​@@isabellavillanueva4639 You will eventually also break down in old age, suffer pain and then die.

@@eric-jr2nf right as a result of old age, not suffering with debilitating disabilities my whole life with pain and suffering

How is testing for IQ scary??? IQ correlates to many success in your life and if there are a set of genes that are shown to increase IQ why would you not want your child to have that advantage in life?? Also we already live in a world where people are discriminated against for their immutable characteristics the fact that you have people in this comment section saying how wanting to pick your child's genes is an immoral thing is actually insane to see. These are the types of people that would love to be willfully ignorant just to feel better about the world that they live in.

@@logiciangod3767 you're on point !

​@@logiciangod3767 IQ is a pretty arbitary skill though. It is the part of intelligence that's most feasible to test for, and since different kinds of intellectual skills are correlated it's often used as a placeholder for all. It is the kind of skills that computers do better than us though (completing patterns, processing systematic infornation quickly, ...) so in a modern world not a very important one

My name could have been Brighton & such I would think that you were right on! Why pick a fight when you can choose a value like might?

@@logiciangod3767 My older sister (oldest child) performs amazingly in IQ tests and was put into a more difficult stream at school. I have dyslexia and always had to work so much harder at school than her. She dropped out of college in the first semester because it was hard. I went straight through and got my masters in aeronautical engineering and have a successful career. Overall, I'm just a happier person than she is. I'm not sure why she expects everything to be easy, but I go into everything expecting to work hard for it. The difference is she lacks resilience. We did IVF and if I could have tested for anything, I would want to test for resilience. It's my best trait and you can only do so much teaching your children.

That's us! Lol thank you

@@SimoneandMalcolmall these people calling you out for being eugenicists are wrong. Don’t pay attention to them. People are afraid of change.

I mean it depends. Diabetes costs the government a lot of money, even in the USA but even more so in countries with socialised medicine. the more popular this becomes among the wealthy, the cheaper it becomes overall. Eventually it will be financially worth screening for it in high risk individuals.

@@Bringon-dw8dx If the wealthy are able keep their kids from getting Diabetes, then only the poor will purchase Diabetes medicine. The less popular the medicine becomes, the higher it'll cost.

Do you have a spare kidney? Mind lending me one?

I am poor

Still a sound point though

They are poorly enough understood that 20+ years later, we have zero breakthroughs on the common diseases HTN, DM,HF. And the cancer has not been “cured”….. I am resentful of this practice. Some pairing of humans are just not a good coupling for procreation…

Agreed! Societies would see lower overall healthcare burdens if tech like this were more widely used (and then there's the untold suffering that could be averted). We're the second couple in the video and while we're super against foisting this tech upon anyone, we strongly believe it should be an OPTION for everyone and society would be better off if it were.

How much does it cost to create a common life-saving drug? I heard about how some Canadians would come to USA and pay top dollar for medical care because in Canada they put you on waiting lists and the top care was not as good if you needed more advanced care.

@@logicaldebateUSA In UK people can, if they choose, pay privately for health care Just because you can afford to do so, is it equable that some can jump the queue while those with just as much right to care but less money cannot? In no case, though is there treatment only available through the private route, unless that treatment is not seen as particularly worthwhile or value for money.

@@nicolek4076 Some Canadians who will not jump that allegedly die and have died. It is like the stories about Canadians become so desperate they would use pliers to pull a tooth because they could not wait 6 months for their free dental appointment. I do not know how that is in Canada now but I heard it used to be that way. I am in USA and we have both styles. If you are the poorest of the poor you can get basic free health and dental care but you have to wait unless it is an emergency. There is dentists that the poor can go to where the US government pays the bill and there is dentists that will not accept it and are obviously is more for rich Americans. Some of them are in the same town a few minutes apart. The poor person dentists, most of them accept anyone though who will pay cash. If you are rich and want your dental care by them there is probably a 99.9% chance they will. A poor person will not be able to afford to pay cash at the rich persons dentist though but it usually will not make much difference but there is exceptions. If you are rich you could be seen much faster and I do not have a problem with that if it is a private company. If they let you skip to the front of the line in front of other cash paying customers because you offer more would be really shady though. There is some Americans that make too much money to get free health care and cant afford the insurance because they still are not rich. That is the spot to be in as an American that is the hardest. Some of those Americans who had no free health insurance and were not poor enough to get that in USA went to Canada for their free health care. Some of them would lie to get it or even marry a Canadian just for the benefits. Saying you have the right to care though in Canada they do give them that but they just have to wait. They could pay more in taxes for less waiting time but I doubt most want to do that. Some more advanced healthcare they cant/don't offer it like in USA though so even being a rich Canadian might require you to leave and a poor one would be screwed anyway. Neither Canada or USA is perfect but I still prefer the American way because our top care is almost always better than Canada and you have the option to get more wealthy or poorer to improve that situation for you and your family. Canadians it is one size fits all? In the UK also?

@@jimmyboard and her best friend might have never wanted to be alive in the first place.

@@jimmyboard sure, I get that. I’ve known some people with horrible diseases that resulted in much pain that either committed suicide or hoped for death. Like you mentioned it brought much suffering to the parents, the siblings and the children themselves. It can go either way, which is why the decision should always lie with the parents, hopefully with as much knowledge as possible.

You wouldn't have met her cause they wouldn't have selected her embro

I understand the sentiment, however it's not like they can alter an existing embryo to remove the defect. They simply don't choose that embryo. Which means neither you nor her would have been born in the first place.

If you were "put through" this testing you would have been aborted and so would your friend. She wouldn't have been "born free", she would be dead. Period.

Nurture takes more time ⌚ the bigger change your want to make.

ru-vid.comFk_N1iUwRXo

You are also now in a position to work on prevention. T2D isn’t solely genetic; there is a lifestyle factor

i think u can help reduce it

type 2 diabetes is mostly environmental/lifestyle.

Im curious what data he is refering too XD

@@gp-network4370 Gets his data from 4chan

"a boy named Sue"...

This is beyond stupid

Disturbing people

Lol that kid could have been a hero, a musical virtuoso, or even just a good person. Too bad. Normal earning potential! Better to have the kid that will lose a game of chess to an AI in 12 moves rather than 10. :P

I mean... most kids have a 🥑 immense pressure to morally succeed. And the 👍💯 Collin's don't seem the type to care about that. 😂

You saw about 5 minutes of an edited video, and can determine they’re sociopaths? Damn.

They are on the spectrum, not (necessarily) sociopaths.

fr this is what the founding fathers of science would have wanted 😮

Second couple here. Wouldn't you say most caring parents try to give their kids the best roll of the dice, be it through schooling or good nutrition and healthcare or providing a loving home and family? We see this sort of screening as being very similar to those things. Anyone who becomes a parent learns that control is impossible. We'd also argue that becoming a parent and learning that lesson ultimately reduces anxiety and eases control issues. But even parents with lower and anxiety and lower hunger for control are likely to want to equip their children to thrive.

What are you trying to control in life? How do you come to terms with it?

How are we defining disability and disease, though? Are disabled people better off not existing in your opinion? Disability is incredibly diverse. Billions of people have a condition that is considered a disability. From the perspective of output as the most important human function, I'll ask you this: how many great artists, inventors, scientists, writers and communicators would be weeded out of existence by these practices? I would argue that the lives of disabled people have meaning and value, regardless of perceived productivity and output. Human beings are not cogs in a profit machine. It is morally depraved to decide that some people should not exist based on disability. Diversity is our strength, and disability is part of that diversity. (I do understand the perspective of the first family wanting to avoid the risk of Type 1 Diabetes, especially with the insanity of insulin pricing. Otherwise healthy young people were murdered by pharmaceutical companies, in my opinion)

@@ansel203 Important perspective! A leap would probably be uncertain. The conceptualization of disability might be re-conceptualized & diversity would probably re-grow. Whether one smokes the weed or not is up to the disability of the initial plants. (It is not a metaphor or whatever it is called for the sober people)

@@ansel203 Lives have meaning & value, a parrot imitates!

Yeah they forgot the whole nurture part of nature and nurture. Can't avoid depression by not having the depression SNP's.

Your claims about IQ and twins is completely inversed.

@@tamerofhorses2200what they said was correct lol twins separated at birth don’t have the same iq bc environment plays a larger role than genetics in determining their iq. if genetics determined their iq, they would have the same iq even though they were separated at birth and raised by different families

@@rachel22cute No it doesn't. You're literally bullshitting. Twin studies show IQ loads at about 0.8 to heritability and not environment.

“Earning potential” lmao wtf??

We need genetic tests so expecting parents can be sure to avoid such a fate 😢

The fact that they look up to him is scary

A genius IQ having billionaire? Lmao so you'd rather condemn your child to something lesser, good parenting right there 🙄

​@@wtfdtreats sucking

@@wtfdtreats bro does not have a genius iq 😂😂

My son has a cleft palate, bilateral microtia and other minor issues. We would have appreciated a heads up so that first months would be easier but believe me I would not trade him for anything in this world. Such a happy and smart and curious kid with a brilliant sense of humor. ❤❤❤ Cleft palates are nothing serious, I hope more people understand that 🙏

That's great that you feel accomplished and like your life is worth living. Not all disabled people feel that way and you can't speak for everyone.

​@@wholewheatstingray...but they didnt even speak for everyone? Just their personal experiences..

Why does this concern you?

@@Bringon-dw8dxExactly, they're not raising them so why does it matter.

have you thought about the possibility, that disabilities and learning how to deal with them might be the only thing keeping us from being even more monstrous to each other, as we allready are? i am scared of a future without neurodivergence, without people who have learned that live isn`t just about fullfilling egocentric needs, but that understand the deep connection of caring and needing care. i understand the wish of not having children with terminal or painfull diseases, i lost a child to a genetic disease 10 years ago, but we shouldn`t forget, how many disabilities are really important for us as a species to stay human. that would be my moral issue. this talk leaves out the social definition of disability and i think for a fair discussion, this has to be recognized as well.

@@MegaRoteschorle There will always be people that will act monstrous towards others however that should not stop anyone from progressing as individuals as well as a society which has always been the goal . Establishing a deep connection and caring for others does not require co-dependency neither justifies anyone being kept in a position of co-dependency when they have another option We can still remain human while vastly improving the human condition. I am not exactly sure what you mean by a social definition of a disability or how that would apply to an individual's right to bodily autonomy to improve or alter themselves iin whatever way they see fit. I am am sorry to hear that you have lost a child as I can only imagine how hard that must have been for you.

”Great input, caring too Pizza Pie” - Ghadaffi

empathy does not correlate to better life or societal outcomes just because you say it. So what are you even on about? Their kids will be healthier, more attractive and more intelligent, thus leading to roughly better life outcomes and less negative life consequences. If you don't have to leave things to chance, _don't_

[Second couple from the video here] What makes you think that we think our kids are going to be superior or happier? With Titan, our daughter, we just factored in relative risks. This doesn't mean she's destined to be anything. Did we choose to have her before some of our other embryos because her risks are lower? Absolutely. But those are just risks-not guarantees. Knowing her risks is really helpful, though-this enables us to focus on early screening for some things. :)

@@SimoneandMalcolm , I think that people feel that this is simply an illusion of control over potential outcomes for your children. When you list "IQ" and "earning potential" as something that could even be determined by genetic testing there is a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature and the infinite amount of factors that come into play for the development of any individual.

Well said.

@@wtfdtreats, this is a very strange take to me. It is very naive to think that ANY real life outcome can be determined from genetic testing. AND um, empathy is one of the most important human attributes.

If one is not willing to see what may be of no surprise at all, then perhaps it is time to buy a lottery ticket.

Is there a list of what conditions they screen out that I could find somewhere?

If yall are terminating that many babies due to abnormalities, yall are Nazis. I have a condition that women are offered abortion for. I have been able to have a largely normal life, including having two healthy children of my own. Absolutely shameful to push twrmination due to medical issues.

right. i don't understand why it's controversial to give your child the best chance at life. life is already hard, why make it harder for the little human you're choosing to bring into the world?

I did a fetal screening for severe abnormalities in my naturally conceived child, but I would struggle to do IVF solely for the purpose of choosing which embryo was the "best." The "designer babies" aspect of it is what makes most people uncomfortable, I think. I don't think there's anything wrong with terminating when the child would have a severely diminished quality of life. However, if by "condition," you mean something like autism, I think that's crossing the line. Many people with autism have very rich and essentially normal lives, and (as someone who has a degree in psychology) it's not fully understood whether these types of psychological "conditions" (like depression, anxiety, ADHD, Autism, etc.) are truly maladaptive.

@@sydney6268 i personaly would never want my child to suffer from a condition like ADHD, Autism or Schizophrenia

She still has one condition you forgot: old age and death

Eugenics is good though, it just gets mislabelled as bad due to Germany and stuff like that.

@@kindereggsmasher6022exactly. People hate the term, but everyone supports eugenics in some form or another. Just ask them why they’re opposed to inbreeding or drinking while pregnant

@@el_9003 genocide is not acceptable, disability does not equate to tragedy.

@@autisticdan6151 Should inbreeding be accepted then?

​@@el_9003 I would accept inbreeding, but I will not accept your suggestion to cause human extinction.

evolution, to our current understanding, requires struggle (of the species and some of its individuals). longer term, for the speciess as a whole, it works out better for us to power through this stuff, and work together to try to make things work for all of us. At the moment all of us are going to die, anyway, in the shorter term... and thats somethign i think typical "american individualism" has trouble grasping... the larger scope, longer term stuff. even for shorter term, you get a perspective the rest of us will miss, and that perspective is important, often in ways we don't see until we are knee deep in the problem.

But what if you could have been born without any of the diseases? Because that’s realistically what is being presented here