Tucker Confronts Biotech CEO for Genetically Altering the Next Generation

Thanks for doing this. I appreciate it. I I'll just say at the outset, which I. told you off camera, I disagree with. this conceptually, I think, but I'm also completely ignorant of the. details. Yeah. So, I I kind of want to know what this is. before even asking you questions about. whether it's a good idea. Can you Can. you just I will stand back and let you. explain what you're doing? Yeah, so. first thanks for having me on. >> Um. So, patients.

there's one way of reproducing via IVF, right? So, you can conceive naturally. via sex or maybe if you're infertile or. if you have some sort of hereditary. disease or for some other reason, you do. IVF. Right. >> Um when you do Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm. going to I specialize in dumb questions. Can you just explain for people who. don't know. What is IVF? >> Chris, explain. Yeah, what is IVF? IVF. stands for in vitro fertilization. So, basically imagine the egg and the sperm, right? The foundation of life to make an. embryo. It's basically putting those. things together in a in a clinic, right? Um and then basically you take that. embryo and you transfer it into a woman.

and then it would implant and the. woman's pregnant. >> takes place outside the womb. >> Correct. Okay. Yeah. And so, during this process of IVF, what. you do is today, even if nucleus didn't. exist, even if genetic optimization. didn't exist, you make several embryos, okay? So, in your IVF clinic, you make. several embryos. Uh the amount of embryos you end up. making it varies, but you might have. four or five. You actually do genetic. testing on these embryos to identify. things like chromosomal abnormalities. like Down syndrome, for example, right? So, that's very commonplace. That's done. in basically every IVF clinic uh in the.

United States. They will actually screen. embryos, the genetics of the embryos, to. see if they have some sort of severe. chromosomal abnormality. What we do is we basically provide more. information on the embryos. So, we also. read the DNA, but now we give. information on things like other. hereditary disease risk, um also chronic. diseases, things like cancers, Alzheimer's, diabetes, um also traits. like IQ or height or etc. Um so, to be clear, we're not changing any DNA. There's this process in IVF where you. make embryos. Already genetic testing is.

done in embryos. What we do now is we. provide you a little bit more. information on your embryos. So, the. basically that information can be used. to implant which embryo the couple deems. to be best. So, basically you give more information. to couples to then choose which embryo. they want to implant. I don't want to. derail this conversation 2 minutes in. >> Okay. Um but you just said we can tell. the IQ of a person by the genetics? So, IQ. >> I was reliably informed IQ is not real, okay? And it's not determined by.

genetics. >> So, so there's there's So, I think it's. helpful to think about all these. different uh characteristics from. diseases to traits, right? People know. intuitively something like height, for. example, right? Height, they say, "Oh, that's that's genetic." Or something. like uh breast cancer, eye color, right? Um these things people intuitively know. are genetic. And so, you can actually. basically take these different. phenotypes and measure how genetic any. phenotype is. So, what does it actually. mean? Uh the most simple way of explaining it. is imagine you took um two identical. twins. So, they have the same DNA, right? And then basically you separate.

the twins, they grow up in different. environments. Sometimes in pop culture. people hear about these different. things, but you actually take twins and. they have again the same DNA, they're. identical DNA, and then you they grow up. in different places for whatever reason, so they're subject to different. environments. And then you can actually. measure basically how much more similar. they how how similar they are across all. these different phenotypes to see. basically how genetic something is. Twin. studies. Yes, twin studies. Yes. Um and. so, using twin studies, you can actually. get measurements of things from. diseases, right? Like cancers and. diabetes and Alzheimer's as mentioned, to things like height or IQ or BMI, um.

so twin studies show that IQ. specifically is about 50% genetic, but. to be clear, IQ is just one of over. 2,000 factors that we actually look at, right? Principally parents and patients, they come for disease. They always come. for disease. And remember that when the. embryos you're picking from, the most important determinant of the. genetics of your embryos is well, your. partner, right? So, you're actually not. changing DNA. This is not genetic. You're not changing DNA. You're not. making. uh like an embryo's DNA better. You're. basically reading the embryo's DNA that.

you have. So, when you pick your. partner, you're basically picking the. kind of genetic pool, and then you can. basically pick which embryo you deem to. be best based off of your preferences. and values. I mean, that this like. Again, I just want to say thank you for. doing this. >> Yeah, absolutely. I'm not here to attack. you at all. I think this is one of the. most important conversations we can. have, and I. >> I agree. I'm You're [clears throat] much. younger than I am. So, you weren't here for the debates. that took place in the early 1990s about. what traits are the product of genetics.

and which are the product of. environment, but up until pretty. recently, the public conversation has. settled on. a consensus that everything is. environment and that genetics aren't. real, and this was at the very center of. our national debate about race, Mhm. and crime and educational achievement, income, and it all grew out of or was. crystallized by a book called The Bell. Curve. Have you heard of this book? >> Yeah, I have, yeah. Yeah. So, um.

it seems like that debate is over and. we're and I'm not at This is not an. attack at all. It's just like crazy to. me that people are just saying this out. loud. Yeah, genetics plays a big role. Uh yeah, genetics plays a role. So, I. think. in [clears throat] in society today, when people think about uh like height. or cancers, I'm not And to be clear, I'm. not talking about there's hereditary. disease risk like PKU, Tay-Sachs, cystic. fibrosis, beta thalassemia. These are. conditions we also screen for, right? To. make sure that parents can you know, reduce suffering each generation. So, that's also part of what we do. Um and.

those conditions are basically. deterministic in nature, right? So, if. you have two bad copies of like cystic. fibrosis, >> Of course. you're going to get cystic. fibrosis, and it's debilitating. And so, there's like policies uh you know, that. basically encourage you know, Americans. and people around the world to to do. screening to not pass down basically an. invisible genetic burden to their child. Um Right. Right, that's like classical. kind of genetics. So, I think it's. interesting cuz you. you make. >> right? >> No, no, no, not eugenics. Eugenics Well, how is it not? It's It's improving the. human species. No, no, you're breeding. Eugenics refers to basically coercive.

use, coercively controlling human. reproduction, right? Forced. sterilizations, uh even euthanasia, um. controlling who can get married to who. So, No, no, no, no, no. Those are. methods by which you implement and. eugenics, but they're not the only ones. Eugenics simply means there's something. inherently Well, you can disagree with. the concept, but the concept is, coercive or not, the improvement of a species, in this. case the human species, through. selective breeding. Well, but there's no. selective breeding. Remember, patients. choose who they marry, and then in the.

embryos they have, right? You're not. changing any embryos. In the embryos. they have, patients can make their own. choice in which embryo they want to. implant. So, juxtapose like eugenics. >> that not selective breeding? This is. literally selective breeding. Well, breeding is, by definition, the process. of bringing new life into the world, and. you're deciding which of these embryos. becomes a person. And so, that is that is breeding. >> Well, it's not It's not choosing. people's marriages. It's not. giving them forced vasectomies, but it.

is breeding. That's what breeding is. Well, I would say that um. in IVF clinics for, you know, the last. couple decades, there's been this. process of basically taking these. embryos, getting more information on the. embryos, and then picking which embryo. you want to implant, Right. Um again, you're not changing DNA. You're not. You're not controlling who can get. married to who. Like just to be clear, if you go back um. eugenics is a term it came up with in. the late 19th century by a scientist. named Francis Galton, okay? He was a. British scientist. >> Yeah, a bunch of Havelock Ellis. Yeah, but Yeah, he came up with the term. eugenics. Interestingly, the term.

eugenics was actually about 20 years. before the term genetics. This is really interesting. A lot of. people don't know that. Yeah, this is. very important. Eugenics um naturally. did not require genetics. So, genetics, when they when the term was coined, it. was the the science of heredity, right? Of passing down information. The. Remember, the unit of heredity. identified as DNA, that was only until. the 1940s, Right. right? And then. identifying the structure of DNA was. actually after World War II in the. 1950s. So, we didn't even know for. basically um in 1927, and I think it was.

Buck versus Bell, the US Supreme Court. deemed forced sterilizations. constitutional, okay? At that point, we had no idea that. DNA was actually the genetic basis. This. is really, really important. People. always get this wrong because they they. don't they don't follow the timeline. Um. eugenics is a as a as a as an coercive. ideology to control populations had. nothing to do with molecular genetics, period. It had nothing to do with the. genetics. >> Um well, I think if you basically force. sterilize somebody against their will, I. mean, again, that's against the.

fundamental, you know, liberty of a. person. I There's no question I couldn't. agree more. Um but again, that was just. one manifestation of it. So, force. played no role in a lot of it. It was. steering people, giving them options, telling them that you know, if you. married this kind of person, here's the. outcome you're likely to get when you. have children. >> Well, force did play I mean, again, in. 1927, the United States the the the. Supreme Court deemed constitutionally. that forced sterilizations are. constitutional. I'm just saying that, and I couldn't be more opposed to that.

>> Yeah. In fact, the whole program, but. I just want to note as a factual matter. that forced sterilizations. were an incredibly ugly, evil. manifestation of an idea that was not. limited to forced sterilizations. The. idea is the same idea you're. articulating, which is people should try. to improve the human species by. selective creation of children. So, yeah, I disagree with that. I I just How. How is it different? >> So, Nucleus ultimately and what we give. patients also what patients actually. want, right? Again, patients are.

choosing their partner, they're choosing. to do IVF. Um they have basically. options, they have several embryos, they. get information. There's actually no um. best embryo, right? Well, so Nucleus is. a company and no patient can ever say, "Oh, this is the best embryo." Because. there's no um fundamental virtue rooted. in biological characteristics. So, like. the idea that like you could even have a. best, for example, is misguided. principally in my view. Because. something like virtue, right? And I. think of two kinds of virtue. There's. natural virtue and then divine virtue,

right? It's fundamentally not. biological. It's not physical. Genetics. can only program for physical things, and then people can basically make their. choices within the partners that they. choose in doing IVF to then pick the. embryo that sets the best set of. biological characteristics to them, but. there is no virtue. There is no morality. in that decision. Well, I've noticed. Yeah. But so do you think that it's. equally virtuous to have a child. intentionally have a child, which we can. now do with the genetic testing you're. describing, who has Down syndrome, Tay-Sachs, and.

CF? Is that as [clears throat] virtuous as. having a child who has none of those. things? Cuz I thought you just said that. it's good to get rid of those things. >> clear, virtue is independent of virtue. is independent of biological. characteristics. Parents can choose. based off their preference what they. want, what is best. So let me give an. example. Let me give an example. So. there was a case in reproductive. medicine where a deaf couple, they want. to have a deaf child. Yep. That that to them was what was was best, basically, right? That term best is. relative, context-specific to the. parent.

We have patients, for example, that. might have um, you know, Huntington's, which is a severe neurodegenerative. disease. Yeah, very severe. It's autosomal. dominant, means it's passed down. Right? And by the way, this is actually. interesting. Something like Huntington's. or schizophrenia, these are exactly the. kind of conditions that in the 20th. century they would say, "Hey, these. people are unfit, right? They should not. be produced, right? Because they have. some sort of neuropsychiatric or some. sort of. debilitating. condition that runs in the family. Um, like in my case, you know, one of. the reasons why I started the business. is because one of my family members, she.

unfortunately went to sleep and she she. passed away in her sleep. Um So these. things are deeply personal to people, and they they Is that the result of a. genetic anomaly? Yeah. A condition that. can cause irregular heart beating and. cause sudden sudden death. Everyone. loves relaxing at home. Cozy Earth can. maximize that experience. If you haven't. tried their robes or their slippers, you. may be missing out. Soft, breathable, lightweight, the epitome of comfort, perfect for slow mornings. Put one on. after the shower, hang out in front of. the fire. You put on the robe, you don't. want to take it off. We haven't even.

mentioned the slippers, which are warm. and comfortable and easy to wear around. the house. By the way, at this point you. can wear them to Walmart. No one will. say anything. With Mother's Day coming up, Cozy Earth. can provide the perfect gift, something. she will use and appreciate every day. If you're nervous about making a. purchase, don't worry. Cozy Earth backs. everything with a 100-night sleep trial. and a 10-year warranty, all risk-free. Visit cozyearth.com, use the code Tucker. for 20% off. That's cozyearth.com, promo. code Tucker for 20% off. We've got a.

post-purchase survey. Mention you heard. about Cozy Earth from us on this show. I. don't want to sidetrack you, but you. threw in else Oh, you threw in. schizophrenia, rather. >> Yeah. Is there I I don't know the. answer. Is there evidence that that is. genetically predisposed to it? Schizophrenia is very strongly There's a. very strong genetic basis to. schizophrenia, right? >> Really? Correct. Yeah, yeah, there And. we know that. >> Yes, that is very well-established. science. Um Yeah. Interesting. Sorry. >> Yeah. Sorry. I'm learning. Um okay. It's. interesting. So um. Okay, but you said it that a minute ago.

that there is a nationwide, indeed a. global effort to. to get rid of conditions like. >> But again, deafness is a great example. Uh it's not for me to tell a deaf couple. whether they should or shouldn't have a. deaf child, yeah. But that can apply. across everything now, right? If. somebody wants to have a child based off. their set of what what they deem to be. best based off their lived experience, but that's their right and that's their. choice. So I'm not saying that it's. better to have a child that is not deaf, for example. I can't say that. I can't.

possibly say that. It depends. >> I I think that's entirely the choice of. the of the of the family. That's the. family's choice. >> That's a consistent position. I wonder. though, cuz but you described something. that's absolutely real, which is a. system globally that is designed to. minimize, to reduce the incidence of. certain. conditions. Right? So you you said that. That's the. policy. Like you know, you genetic test. all the embryos at every IVF clinic. because you want to make sure we have. less Down syndrome, for example.

>> But no, but that But again, but what's. important here is there's not some sort. of broad centralized body being like, "Oh, we need to all do this sort of. testing embryos." That decision rests in. the parent's choice. A parent can choose. not to screen embryos for Down syndrome. Okay? They could make that decision. And. if they make that decision, they can. then transfer that embryo and have that. baby. That's entirely their choice. There's not like. >> there's no And I I don't I mean I. Let's not be disingenuous. There is a. global effort to reduce the incidence of. certain conditions. Of course, everyone.

just assumes like you can't I mean that. that's why the incidence of Down. syndrome has fallen off a cliff. There's. been an elimination of Down syndrome. Not entirely, but. >> making choices though. Those are parents. and couples making those choices. >> health care systems steer people in. certain directions or have a preference? I think the health care system, unfortunately, right now is a sick care. system. I mean, the health care system. actually is very much not in the. business of prevention. I mean, it's. interesting. I was looking at these. stats, which is. the US health care system spends about. $5 trillion. It's a lot. Um About I think 4 trillion.

goes to chronic disease treatment. So. things like cancers and diabetes and. Alzheimer's. In 2021, four times as many. people died of a chronic disease than. COVID. Four times as many people died of. a chronic disease than COVID at the peak. of the pandemic. So you have to ask, what is the the real What is the real. pandemic here, okay? And on that point, you know, if you think about it, and also, by the. way, of the 5 trillion, so 4 trillion, about 80% is chronic disease. About 500. billion is about rare diseases. So these.

rare genetic conditions that I outlined, right? So genetics has a strong impact. in both a hereditary disease like. cancers as I outlined, like chronic. diseases, as well as rare disease. So. genetics can help impact, you know, four, four and a half trillion dollars. of health care expenditure. But, and. there is a but, remember those four and. a half trillion dollars, somebody's making money for someone. being sick. Well, yeah. >> And that's horrible. That's horrible. But it's Of course you say of course, but. we can't just take that as a given, right? Like genetics as a science, if. deployed, can be used for parents to. make their own decisions to dramatically. reduce breast cancer risk, uh diabetes. risk, if there's something in their.

family, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, help. reduce that in the next generation. So. these things can be used to basically. help build uh what we call generational. health effectively. Um so I I I don't. >> You save a lot of money through. improving the species through eugenics. Everyone People made this argument for. over 100 years. I get it. I'm just. wondering Well, I'm wondering a lot of. things, but um Wait, one thing to say, remember too that IVF is about 2% of the. way babies are born in the United. States. Most babies are still born. naturally conceived. So um. We we actually have a service for those.

couples as well. We can just basically. take a cheek swab. You can use something. called procreation simulation to. simulate basically the risk for your. child. Okay? Um and that is a service. that can basically help any couple too. So I just want to be clear that it's not. just IVF patients as well. These are. couples that then can employ the. screening and then to have a a healthy. baby. Um what about sex? What about sex? Well, I mean the number one thing that. people have used. prenatal testing for is choosing the sex.

of their child, right? So that's that's. what explains the demographic imbalance. in China, as you know. So um. that's like the number one thing. globally. India, same. >> In India actually outlawed it, to be. clear, too. So in IVF clinic, you can't. even pick sex in India cuz there's a. disbalance. But well, legally, but of. course it happens all the time cuz. there's a global preference for sons. And that's why you see so many more boys. than girls, when in fact it's the. opposite. >> States, actually, if you look at the. IVF, it's about it's about 50/50. I'm. saying I'm I'm not talking about the US.

But I'm How do you feel about that? Would it be okay with you if someone. came in and said, "Get rid of the girl. embryos?" So to be clear, that that's So. to be clear, in the United States, this. has played out over the last like 20. years. Like people have been able to. pick the sex of their of their child in. IVF clinics, both the United States and. then again, at some point. internationally, too, but eventually. became outlawed for the reason you. outlined, which is people generally pick. slightly more boys. Um Well, I mean, it's illegal in It's much harder in. these countries. Yeah. Um In the United States though, if you. actually played out people making their. own choices, it ends up being about um.

again, 50/50. So this is actually. interesting because. >> do you think of it? Would you say valid. for someone to come in and say, I mean, you said this is a, you know, ethically neutral question, you know, about whether or not to have a child. with this or that genetic condition. But. what about sex? Is that ethically. neutral? Is it okay, in your view, for a. couple to say, "I don't want any girls?". In In my view, that is the prerogative. of the parents to pick which sex they. want. And if you play that out across. many, many, many couples making their.

own independent choices, right? Which is. the embodiment of this kind of liberty. and choice, um you see it ends up being. about 50/50, which I think actually. undercuts this idea that everyone's. going to pick, you know, a boy, for. example. Right? There's this notion. >> specific and it's time, you know, it's. of course. But that applies across any. traits then, Tucker, which is people. There's not a universal best. It's very. much case-specific to the specific. family history, specific values, and Of. course, of course. But well, I think. we're we're talking about two different. things. You're talking about outcomes,

and I'm talking about the process and. whether the process itself is valid. >> Mhm. And right. And I totally I've. actually seen the numbers, so I know. that you are absolutely right on the. question of sex selection. But you think. it's okay, there's no moral problem at. all because this these are questions of. life and death. So I I do think moral. questions are relevant questions. You. don't think there's any moral question. around choosing by sex. To be clear, I think that. there is no universal biological best,

period, across any phenotype. Cuz. biology is inherently neutral. Now, there is universal morality. Okay? Specifically, again, two kinds. There's natural virtue, right? And also. divine virtue. Natural virtue can come. from the cultivation of the soul, which. is independent of biology. It's not in. the physical plane. And so I think I. think it's different. >> divine virtue? Divine virtue to me is more about union. with God. So what's the difference between natural. and divine virtue? Where does the soul. come from? There's God. There's God.

What do you mean? Why is there no God? Of course I agree, but I I don't know. why there's a distinction between the. virtues. Again, we're in the weeds. Natural virtue, I'll tell you why. Natural virtue can be intellectually. derived. Wisdom, courage, justice, temperance. It's kind of classic. Aristotle. And then there's things like grace and. and revelation which come from God. You. can't necessarily a human being's mind. is limited. It's finite. You can't. necessarily grasp that. So there has to. there's a there's a So you can one you. can derive from like thinking like what. leads to basic eudaimonia, human. flourishing. Right? That that kind of.

virtue, natural virtue. Right? Coming. from Aristotle. And the other kind is. thinking about divine virtue which is. what goes beyond the intellect. Right? Which Thomas Aquinas basically brought. together and thought about okay, there's. there's this idea of natural virtue that. you know the Greeks came up with. And. then of course there's this idea of. divine virtue coming from you know the. Old and New Testament. about union with God and you know all. religions actually talk ultimately about. surrender. Personally I do believe in. God just so you know if that's not. clear. Well here's something that. thieves count on. Security cameras. usually stop where Wi-Fi stops. Right?

Makes sense. So if you got a barn, a job. site, equipment parked outside, driveway. criminals know there's a good chance. that nobody is watching this cuz there's. no Wi-Fi. And that's why we like defend by. tacticam. It's a new sponsor of this. show. Defense cameras don't run on. Wi-Fi. They run on cellular just like. your phone. So they work everywhere. If. you've got cell signal, you've got. security. Middle of nowhere, edge of. your property, construction site, wherever you need it. You don't need.

Wi-Fi. Big difference. And you can see. why it matters. So we use these cameras. in places where Wi-Fi doesn't reach. The. setup is super simple. You mount the. camera, open the defend app and you are. live. You get clear footage, night. vision, alerts sent right to your phone. It's great for construction sites, ranches, farms, or anyone with a. property that stretches beyond a router. And here's something we really. appreciate. Defend does not sell your. data. Not to tech companies, not to. advertisers, not to China, no one. Your.

footage belongs to you. And that's big. Plans start at about five bucks a month. No contract. Cancel anytime. Visit. defendsellcam.com. That's defendsellcam. .com. What kind of God do you believe. in? So I've meditated for. about [clears throat] seven years. Um and what I keep coming across is the. best way to articulate it. I see God as. an experience versus an ideology which. is that um there's a quote that's. actually from Rumi. I think he articulates it well. Rumi's a.

a Persian poet. Um he says, "Imagine you. go to the ocean and you come back with a. pitcher of water.". So the pitcher in my mind is is the ego. It's the it's the logical mind. And then. the ocean is is God, the source, the. one, the divine, whatever you want to. call it. Okay. Um that's how I think. about God. So I think um. from my experience meditating and from. what I've seen, the again human mind, the intellectual mind is limited and. finite and there's basically this. vastness. It's it's hard to describe. which is why often the Sufis would use.

poetry to actually describe God because. it's it's it's this it's it's it's. >> allude to it. You can't describe it. directly cuz it's too big. It precisely. It's infinite. It's vast. That's why I. like the ocean as an example. Another. way I like to think about it is like if. you're a raindrop. and it's easy for us especially in. modern society to think the raindrop is. the world, but eventually you return to. the ocean. And you realize it's much bigger. And so um So that's your conception of. God. Yes, that's my Again, I think God. is more is more an experience. You can't. get God cannot be conceptualized. It. cannot be articulated. It's it's not a.

logical thing. You cannot use logic to. articulate God. I mean to me that's a. it's incompatible. But so that I think you can try to use. metaphors. You can try to explain it. I. always like the Sufi poets because I. feel like they do a really really nice. beautiful job of that. Um Certainly of. describing the vastness and fundamental. incomprehensibility of God for sure. Now. I couldn't agree with you more. And only. poetry can capture that, but it leaves. unanswered the core question for the. three Abrahamic religions which is what. does God want. for us to do Mhm. and believe. And.

what's your view on that? >> Well, Islam specifically Islam literally. means surrendering to one. Yes. I think that's the answer. In other. words. Islam and you can I'm not Christian. You're Christian so you can tell me more. about Christian view, but there's a. concept of surrender in Christianity. So. in Islam there's this It means literally. Islam means to surrender. Yeah, it's an experience. It's the whole. thing. It's the whole thing. Literally. Surrendered to being tortured to death. >> Exactly. Yeah, of course. Right? And. then in Buddhism as well. They call it. different things in Buddhism. It's a.

little bit more like surrendering to the. illusion of the ego for example. Um but the concept of surrendering I. think is basically universal. Um. There's no question. >> And so yeah. But um So right. That's my. That's my answer. That's the you know. that's the very beginning. That's the. conceptual understanding of it, but then. you move immediately into what does God. want you to do? What powers does he. have? What powers do you have? What are. the things you're allowed to do? What. are the things you're not allowed to do? I mean that's just a product of logic,

but it's also like pretty spelled out in. in every. in every one of the three religions that. derive from Abraham. So what's your view. of that? Like are there things that God. won't allow us to do? The way I think. about this is there's sort of three. different moral philosophies somebody. could adopt. Um there is one is the idea of. consequentialism which is basically the. end justifies the means which you'll see. a lot of in today's culture. I had. noticed that. >> Yeah, unfortunately even in Silicon. Valley which we can talk about. Even in. Silicon Valley? Did you Did you just say. that actually?

>> [laughter]. >> Yeah, especially. Even in Silicon. Valley? Especially in Silicon Valley. Then there's um Sam Altman may even be. doing it. I mean Yeah, I mean we Yeah, we can talk about that. And people And. the thing is whether people realize it. or not their moral philosophies, they. end up succumbing to one anyways whether. they recognize it. >> Of course. Everybody's religious. >> Yes. And then Yeah, exactly. And then. there's this concept of deontology which. is sort of like maybe you know the end. just does not justify the means and. there's rules. Right? Murder is bad, lying is bad, and you know it's kind of. no matter what the specific. circumstances are, these things are.

wrong. Right? There's that moral. philosophy you can adopt, deontology, which can be secular or non-secular is. my understanding of it. Um. then there's virtue ethics. >> Not really. Okay. If there are rules. why are they rules rather than. preferences? If you came up with them, they're preferences. If the power that. created the universe came up with them, then they're rules. They're laws. So one. has no meaning at all. Nothing can be. better than any anything else. Yeah, if. if they Yes. And the other is absolute. So like no, there can't be a secular. sorry Aristotle a secular understanding.

of. absolute value. I think there cannot be a secular. understanding of divine virtue. We can. We can We can get more into this what I. mean there, but let me just outline this. quickly and then I think I'll bring it. around. So there's consequentialism. which is most people I think. contemporary society adopt. There's. deontology, right? Which is as you. rooted rooted in some sort of maybe. there's some universal this is good, this is bad. Um then there's you know. virtue ethics. Right? Which is basically. the the instead of saying oh the the the. the consequence instead of saying oh.

this action is good because the. consequence was good or this action is. good because the action is inherently. good or or wrong because of some secular. or non-secular set of rules, you're. saying hey the the the actual thing that. you need to measure need to you need to. think about is the moral character of. the person doing the action. And then if. the moral character if they possess. these kind of cardinal virtues, things. like temperance and justice. um and wisdom for example, um. then it so follows that the action they. do would be virtuous. Right? So you try. to cultivate the soul basically. And. then in cultivating the soul and.

cultivating virtue confers basically. virtue in the action. Right? So. basically the first two in my view in my. view, deontology and consequentialism is. very much about the action. Right? It's. saying hey, is this outcome good based. off some. thing you're trying to max maximize? And. then deontology which is this concept of. forget about the outcome is good or not. Is this the right or wrong thing? Then. the concept of virtue ethics which is. instead of saying you know looking at. the action, right? Cuz ultimately human. beings produce action. Actions you know. aren't just there. Human beings produce. action. The quality of the action should. be measured or the it's deemed virtuous.

if the the person can strive and embody. virtue. Okay? And so personally and I'm. still By the way I'm talking about. natural virtue right now. I'm not even. talking about divine virtue. I'm talking. about in the intellectual plane, things. that people can think about and reason. or argue over, things of the mind, not. things that go beyond the mind. Right? And so in the concept of virtue ethics, I think this is the type of moral. philosophy we try to embody. in in saying hey, and this comes back. all the way to embryonic selection which. is hey, there is no biological best. There there there is none. Right? Again,

the soul the soul which is non-physical. ultimately. does not rest. It it cannot be. programmed in biology. So people can. have different preferences. Somebody. could say, you know, I want my son or. daughter to be a lawyer. Someone else. could say, you know, athlete. Someone. else could say an entrepreneur. Someone. else could say an artist. These are. different outcomes that are based off. people's local preferences. Physical. preferences, contextual preferences, but. they're smaller. Right? They're smaller. preferences. They're not a divine. preference. It does not just mean it's. that. Yeah, I Well, of course I disagree.

that there's no divine preference, but I. There's no divine preference in biology. because the divine isn't rooted in the. It's not It's not um Well, it depends. where you think biology came from I. guess. Well, I guess that's true. I mean. I also don't I. >> create life? No. No. [clears throat]. So this is actually a paradox that I. struggle with too because another thing. that I think a lot about is something. called panpsychism which is this idea. that basically. each object has its its consciousness. even like a rock. Right? And this might sound strange to people,

but. >> sound strange. >> sound strange. Okay. I don't think. you're fully off base. I don't know the. answer, but it's a crazy thing to. wonder. So this idea that you know a. rock has um. a consciousness. It's a it's a it's a. it's a being. Albeit you know not as. sophisticated as human consciousness, but it's there. And then it provides. this idea that. consciousness is this kind of spectrum. all the way up to let's say humans. Um and then each thing has this. consciousness and accordingly it's kind. of made in in in in in it's endowed with. um something that goes beyond just kind.

of its weight or or matter basically. It's basically very non-empiricist just. non-materialist. Um and it basically. believes this idea that again God has. given this consciousness to everything. Um and I and I and I tend to I actually. like that a lot. I actually like that a. lot for a lot of reasons. >> I just ask you a couple fundamental. questions? >> Sure, please. So you just said I think. you said. um that people cannot create life. I think nature. has a greater intelligence. and human beings sometimes people would.

say we are part of nature but we are. nature. But life So you're in the life business, right? I mean obviously you're We What. What IVF does for example is they they. use natural laws. We didn't make these. natural laws. Right. We We use natural. laws that exist. And then we and then basically and to be. clear we're not an IVF clinic. We work. in IVF clinics and IVF clinics are the. ones that doing IVF. We provide more. information. But in the context of IVF. you are using natural law. You are not making natural law. You're.

not You can't make a baby. This is you. know and. >> think there's a good chance you may be. violating natural law but I you know I. don't know. I'm not in charge. But I. just I I want to get to the fundamental. question though which is. who creates life? I think. I I would say God. But to be clear. so this is this is complicated. But. You're not the only one who doesn't who. isn't certain. I mean I I obviously I. don't know. But And and and I don't mean. to put you on the spot. Who creates.

life? It's. Come on. I shouldn't be even asking questions. like this and expecting you to have some. coaching answer because I don't think. anyone does. Other than to say God or to. say more precisely not us. Not us. Is that fair to say not us? >> Yeah, that is that is fair to say not. us. And we operate within the plan. And. and to be clear the stories of sci-fi, right? Like Frankenstein for example or. even Jurassic Park is an example. But. Frankenstein this idea that we can make. life, right? We We cannot make life. That's That's the That's That's the. lesson of these stories. >> say I think you've thought a lot more. about this than your average. businessman. So I'm I'm I was going to.

>> [laughter]. >> I didn't know how I was going to handle. this but you're a lot more thoughtful. than I expected for a young. entrepreneur. So thank you. Thank you, Tucker. >> No, I mean that totally sincerely. You've actually thought a lot about this. and I don't know that the answers to any. of these questions really but giving my. best shot. Um so but we both agree that. some higher being created life. We know. that we didn't. So we could we could. assign it to nature. We could assign it. to God. But we don't create life. We We. don't create life. We operate within. nature. Right. Operate within nature.

>> Amen. For decades Russell Brand was one. of the most famous actors and comedians. and agnostics. in the world. Today. he is one of the most sincere Christians. we know, a follower of Christ. His. personal transformation is remarkable. We saw it up close. He has now recounted. it in an amazing book called How to. Become a Christian in 7 Days. And. [music] it recounts what happened to him. and it makes the case to all of us for. stepping away from our secular.

assumptions and [music] returning to the. only thing that matters which is God. I've read it. It's amazing. And right. now there's only one place to get it, TuckerCarlsonBooks.com. This is the first release from our new. publishing company. We created. TuckerCarlsonBooks to bypass the sensors. and bring you things [music] that are. actually worth reading and sharing. And we're starting this venture. with what matters most [music] and. that's Russell Brand's message of the. promise of forgiveness and joy through. Jesus. We're proud to [music] launch our. new bookstore with Russell Brand's How.

to Become a Christian in 7 Days. It is. the message this country needs most. Find it today on TuckerCarlsonBooks.com. Do we have the right to take life? So. it So this is so So So. No, we don't. Um. Now, if we talk about embryo cuz I. assume this was your balloon to try to. say. >> sure what you're talking about. I mean. it has all kinds of implications. including for the Iran war but I'm just. it it's all around us the.

thoughtlessness with which we take life. It's It's not aimed at you. It's aimed. at everybody everybody on the globe. But. it's begins with the question do we have. the right to take life? >> So again let's think about the different. moral values that someone could have. here. If someone has consequentialism. they could say, "Hey look, we want to. you know commit murder for this good.". And maybe they have some good that they. do here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm telling you what I think but I just. tell you that there's this kind of it's. a very pluralistic. And then someone. could say murder's always bad which is. fine. I respect that opinion absolutely. And then there's sort of this this last.

bucket which again I'm going to come. back to this idea of virtue ethics which. is what do you like how do you do can. you have a cultivation of the spirit of. the soul to think, "Hey, you know what. what is right in this situation?". Because society does not have a. definitive answer to this question, right? People will sometimes say. knee-jerk they'll say, "Oh, murder's. always bad." But then they'll be pro the. death penalty. Right? Or they're pro pro. war. >> are inconsistent. There's no doubt about. it and they ignore their own. failings and highlight those of others. They've got planks in their eyes and. they're picking the sawdust out of yours. famously. So I get it. People are.

flawed. But I do think that we can. through a little bit of rigor arrive at. like what's right or wrong. >> Yes. I I mean yes. That's what we're. trying to do. >> can we say about the right of a person. to take another person's life? >> Well, I don't I don't I I personally I. don't think there there is a right. I. personally don't think there is a right. in any circumstance. I I don't see that. I don't see that. I mean. And of course there's this question like. what what is you know I don't think. there's a right period. I just don't. think so. Um well, I'm with you. I'm. with you now. I. I think we both understand.

it's hard not to want to exercise that. right when you can or someone annoys you. or there's a country you don't like or. there's a okay. Or So then what can we say about an. embryo in a lab? Is that life? So going. back to the panpsychic philosophy, right? Which is this idea No, [laughter]. no, no. No, no, no. We have to. No, no, TUCKER. IF YOU. I'LL GIVE YOU A proper answer. But these. things are not These are things are not. simple. I can't be like, "Oh, yes, it's. Let's bear with me for a second. There. is a spectrum of consciousness. There's. a spectrum from you know rocks to sent.

to a sentient being all the way to a. more conscious you know being like a. human a more complicated evolved fully. conscious being. And the question is. where does an embryo sit in that? That. is the fundamental question. You know, does an embryo have a soul for example? Um that is the key question. That is the. key question in my view. I totally agree. >> That is the key like let's just like. make no mistake. Anytime somebody argues. about an an embryo and IVF and to be. clear I just want to be very clear on. the purpose of our business. We do not. do IVF. We work within IVF clinics. >> Right. I just want to be very clear to. everyone listening. You sit at the. intersection of like every big trend.

No, we have a huge responsibility. Absolutely. >> And so I think I it's important to. before we can even argue oh is an embryo. life it's like what what what it where. does the life come from, right? Is it. the physical thing? Right? For me I. think about when I think about death I. think death is a doorway. That's my own. personal belief. This is a This is a. This is a vessel, right? You're not the. physical. You're not the physical. We're something. else. We're metaphysical. We're soul. Okay? And so then the the fundamental. question is that okay, well, does an embryo have a soul? Um and then. I think about it I always like to think. about things inductively. So don't I.

just want don't want to think about. embryo but I think about you know. there's a huge diversity and a range of. life. And I can in my head at least and. again this is the feelings of the. intellect. Like intellect can only do so. much. Okay? But when I think about it I. think okay, I I think about a rock which. I think has some kind of a. proto-consciousness some like very very. limited consciousness that we don't. understand. Maybe through some psychic. or meditative work you could try to you. know become a rock and try to understand. its like more subjective experience if. it exists, right? All the way to an. embryo to a dog to a human.

And so because of this um a spectrum it. comes out to this question of at what. point basically do we have this is is. there a soul in an embryo? And. I I tend to think and I don't know. obviously but I tend to think um. I I tend to think that an embryo doesn't. have a soul. Now Why do you think that? Well, I don't know. I don't know. Um I I. But why would you think that? >> I would think that there's there's. there's a couple reasons why which is an. embryo so I can take a more reductionist.

approach and I could say an embryo is. principally a cell and when you. reproduce already embryos actually. >> one cell. Yeah. It. divides exactly. Divides and becomes. many cells. But principally at first it. begins just as one I thought it was it. was the sperm and the egg made the. embryo. >> Yeah. So by definition. >> a cell. Yeah. Sperm meets egg it's a. cell and then it starts dividing. Um. and it becomes more and more of a. eventually into a a human. Um Sorry, I. was going to say I just lost my train of. thought. Um. So the question was at you said you you.

tend to think that an embryo does not. have a soul. and I asked why would you assume that? >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was articulating. why. Um. So when you when you look at the way. that um. When you look at the way that actually. people conceive naturally what ends up. happening is that um. you have these formations of of kind of. small formations of an embryo, okay? Right? Which is this an egg meets the. cell and then it travels down and tries.

to implant and then many times actually. naturally it doesn't implant. successfully. So nature already has it. such that forget about IVF. In in. natural conception it is the case that. um basically you have these embryo. formation and then ends up not forming. And now the way I see it is I see that. nature wouldn't make it such that or God. wouldn't make it such that an embryo. would have a soul if in natural. procreation it is the case that the. embryos come and go because I don't. think God in my personal belief I don't.

think God would basically be getting rid. of souls. I just don't think so. Now, do. I think that there's a fundamental. beauty not just I mean absolutely to an. embryo in that and and this is really. important for me to say because. I don't know how to say it. I do think. it is similar to like a wave that forms. and then again returns to the ocean. because everything returns to the ocean. So I I don't see it as something that's. like oh the embryo is being discarded. I. see it as returning back to the source. Even if I don't believe that it has an. explicit soul. Does that make sense? So. it's it's a little more of a nuanced.

argument. >> Right, yeah. Um it does make it kind of. sense. Uh. I don't think it's insane and again I. think it's I think you've thought about. this in a way that I'm very impressed by. even if I don't agree. And I just wish. more people in your business would like. think about this cuz that you know It's. important. >> yeah, right. It is important it's very. important it may be the most important. thing. >> It is. So um. I guess the difference between a wave. and IVF is the human choice.

involved in the latter. And so I guess the core problem that I. have with this is that I'm not convinced. that we have a right to make certain. choices. Do people have the right to make any. choice available to them? >> I think people don't have the right. in our culture. people will conflate greater performance. with being morally better. Which I think is a big problem. So. there's two kinds of value there's. instrumental value and there's moral. value.

Um instrumental value is contingent and. this is actually really important all of. um. biology all of it nature is contingent. value. For example um you know you you. you you you would maybe want an. entrepreneur potentially to be. more risk-seeking but you wouldn't want. your surgeon to be more risk-seeking, right? Um in other words the value of. phenotypes actually changes depending on. the environment. >> And this is obvious to say but it's. actually I think people miss this. sometimes cuz they think there's a. universal best. They'll say hey if you. optimize for X phenotype that I deem to. be best it will lead to a better person.

Doesn't lead to a better person. It. might lead to a more optimized outcome. but it doesn't lead to a better person. Dude you're destroying your own case. >> No I'm not I'm not though. I'm not I'm. not though. >> what you're saying is right. No no no. you're telling the truth about the way. people are which is lacking foresight. and understanding of the holistic. picture. So if people have the choice to. choose their own children we're going to. have a nation of private equity people. No I'm serious. They're going to. optimize for what's good right now. Yes. that that is Okay so this is actually. interesting.

A couple things. Oh wow. >> No I'm right. >> no no no Tucker. >> it better than I could. >> Tucker Tucker this is so interesting cuz. you're making an assumption. So there's. there's many parts of it. >> are yes I am. >> There's many there's many parts of this. The first part is will people basically. all choose in the same direction and you. know interestingly again people actually. want very different things and we see. that every day with patients. Right. which is like there's this idea that. like rich people will come in and be. like oh every rich person is going to. pick the same way. As you mentioned sex. is actually a great proxy for this, right? Sex selection in the United. States is about 50/50. And so if you. think about um you know any possible.

phenotype like even when you somebody. comes and says I want to optimize for. type 2 diabetes risk someone else might. want to do schizophrenia or Alzheimer's. depending on their family history. Um. somebody else might want to do do height. for example if they're both shorter. parents they might want to have a taller. kid. To be clear the traits always come. after diseases. But nevertheless so what. I'm saying is that. there's this notion there's this idea of. a universal best biological. characteristic. It doesn't exist. It. doesn't exist. >> No no we're arguing two different. things. I'm not saying I agree with you. completely and I believe that the. diversity baked into humanity comes from.

God. He created different tribes. Okay? He did that on purpose. Yeah. That's my. belief. And they're different from each other by. definition they're different tribes and. they have different characteristics and. a lot of those as you have been brave. enough to admit are genetic and that's. a fruit of the creation. God did that we. didn't. People. are very different. They demand. uniformity and by the way if you think. we're going to get diverse outcomes have. you been around rich people? They're not. only very similar they dress the same.

they have exactly the same attitudes. they want their kids to get into the. same six schools. I've lived in this. world my whole life it's the opposite of. what you're describing. They will all. change their Rich choose the same thing. Rich people make up a very very small. set of society. There's a big world out. there there's a big ocean out there. >> of IVF patients do they make up? What. percentage? Rich people about all of. them so. >> actually I wouldn't say it's about all. of them. There are a lot of people that. take So but you take Tucker if if they. can't generally like almost always cuz. they can't conceive naturally to be. clear. And natural conception is. available to all.

>> Um it it can quite cost quite a bit. No. but but Tucker this is but no I'm not. attacking anyone. >> I I know Tucker but this is important to. say which is people will conceive. naturally first. Naturally natural. conception is free to be clear. Um Yeah I that's what it cost me. >> Let's assume let's actually play this. out. Cuz actually it's really really. interesting and I actually think you do. touch on a fundamental uh. point on the way that people tend to. move together especially especially. wealthy people they tend to do the same. thing they tend to prevent It's it's a. it's every group I don't mean to pick on. rich people at all I'm one of them but I.

just I'm very familiar with them and. yeah. But but social societies are governed by. herd instincts. That's why it's society. and not just a collection of hermits. So I think there's there's a couple ways. that I think about this. There's the. kind of on the ground what I'm seeing. which I can tell you about what I'm. seeing and then I can tell you about the. more of we can talk about like more. broadly how this play out with the fact. that people are pretty mimetic in what. they pick. Okay? On the ground what I'm. seeing is I see couples again I a. diverse range of couples to be clear.

like. like. this technology is going to get cheaper. and cheaper. Whole genome sequencing. specifically this is actually. interesting. Um the cost of reading all of somebody's. DNA it used to be about a billion. dollars one billion, right? So the human. genome project in the early 2000s it. cost a billion dollars. Uh when I. started the business about uh six years. ago um in you know 2020 it was about a. thousand dollars, right? So a billion. dollars to a thousand dollars that's the. kind of wonder of making things cheaper. and making things more accessible. So I. do think there's a point where this. technology anyone can actually access.

that's like really important to stay to. say. And that's one of my missions is to. say hey this shouldn't only belong for. people who have means should belong to. everybody, right? Because ultimately. every parent should have the right to. reduce the suffering in their future. child. I mean I I just think every. parent should have that right. >> I would never argue against the desire. to reduce suffering. I guess but then you have to ask. yourself. if the reduction of suffering is. the most virtuous thing you could do. why are the societies on this planet.

with the least suffering falling apart. the quickest? Have you ever noticed. that? Well I think. in more contemporary society we've lost. the concept of virtue generally in in in. my view. >> there a connection between suffering and. virtue? And of course there is. It's a. one-to-one and there is no virtue. without suffering actually and suffering. is So in other words if you had a drug. that could eliminate anxiety just take a. pill no more anxiety. You could call it. I don't know pick a name. benzodiazepines.

And all of a sudden you could just like. eliminate the suffering and would there. be downsides to that? Oh there would be mass overdose deaths. there would be the zombification of the. entire population there would be. addiction physical addiction that you. could die because of which So I guess. what I'm saying is I'm not making a case. for anxiety which is horrible anyone. who's ever had it knows how horrible and. terrifying it is. I'm only saying that maybe there's a. purpose to suffering. We don't want to.

deal with it none of us does I certainly. don't. >> we can't transcend suffering in the same. way we can but maybe we shouldn't. But. we we can't. It's it's like saying let's. transcend gravity. We're in this world. while we're natural beings. >> and all I'm saying is societies I'm not. for suffering I'm against suffering. I. hate war. I you know I don't like suffering at all. and I think we should try to alleviate. it. All I'm saying is. maybe these aren't decisions that are up. to us and maybe there's a larger. picture that we can't see and maybe we.

should pay close attention to our. successful attempts to eliminate. suffering. and assess the fruits like what. happened? Did it work or did it cause. even more exquisite suffering more. grotesque suffering? >> I think that's a very fair in the. context of you know uh. you know there's a great example of. obviously opioids you know you know. people get addicted they think they're. getting rid of pain but in the process. in in getting rid of pain you're. actually creating more suffering. And. that's a fair point. Um I think in the. context of genetics and what we're doing.

is it's actually interesting because. it's it's non-invasive um genetic. the optimization technology costs you. know a couple thousand dollars which is. a lot. Right which is a lot and it's. going to keep going down it's going to. come down. I completely believe you. >> suddenly now at the very beginning um. you know you have these embryos. eventually you're already doing IVF. you're already picking an embryo. You. get more information. You can pick an. embryo with a you know 50% reduction. risk in breast cancer. Uh you can have. an embryo without you know BRCA which is. a breast cancer marker, right? You can. um you know schizophrenia debilitating.

condition really impacts families. Horrible. Horrible. >> Horrible. The worst. >> And and in fact these are the very. people who wouldn't want to have a child. who wouldn't want to. But now because of. the advent of more advanced screening. they are more comfortable having a. child. And that actually I think gets. lost too. >> I I'm with you. >> pro-genetic technology is fundamentally. anti-eugenic. It's actually pro-genetic. technology you're pro-natalist in that. way because the very people who would. have been deemed unfit by some. definition right because they have more. suffering. And to be clear if you suffer. more you have no less moral worth to be.

very clear. Um we've said that already we've. established that you and I agree on. that. Yeah. But these are the very. people that genetics is helping. That's. the very people they're helping the very. people who would have been deemed unfit. um by the 20th century now with through. this technology they're actually able to. have a child through IVF they're able to. have a child and feel comfortable doing. that. Um also there's been you know Wait. no I I can't um I'm not criticizing. anything you're saying it's just that. I'm a stickler for definitions cuz it's. important. >> Sure. This is eugenics.

And it had and it's I mean if you read. the early eugenicists some of whom were. really smart and really smart. >> Eugenics was an. >> international movement actually. It. spanned many many things to your point. Yeah. very aware and um it was. thoroughly discredited by the Nazis who. were the most enthusiastic eugenicists. of all. I mean they they cleared out the. mental hospitals. Yeah. And they cleared out the disabled. >> though. In that way it's actually. anti-eugenic because the very people. that like the Nazis for example would. target, right? People who are sick and. kill and kill and murder. That's kind of been forgotten to. history. Horrible. But those very people.

are now they can actually access this. technology. It's actually interesting. There was Hold on. Hold on. So the point. the the. I don't want to bring the Nazis in cuz. it's so emotionally fraught and they had. all kinds of other sins. But the the goal of the eugenicists was. the same. It was let's reduce human. suffering. Let's optimize human ability. Let's make this better by being. thoughtful about how we reproduce. And. let's bring whatever science we have.

They had much less than we have to bear. on this question. And they would make. they did make the argument. that Lothrop Stoddard, who was a Harvard. professor and a brilliant legit. brilliant guy, historian, a lot about. him was absolutely virtuous I would say. But he was also a wild-eyed eugenicist. because he was smart and he saw all this. human suffering. He's like let's get rid. of it. We don't It's something that. gives people Down syndrome. But we don't want more of them. That was. his That was his argument cuz it would. reduce human suffering. Fewer kids with.

Down syndrome few less suffering. >> Well it's a moral failure because the. eugenicists in my view misconstrued the. idea of again this idea of virtue with. biology. There is no virtue in. biological characteristics. He wasn't. making that case. was making the case. and the smart ones were. Less suffering. That's what they were. saying. Less suffering. >> But less suffering isn't more virtuous. And that's it's hard for people to like. what does he mean by that? You know Well. I agree. If just because I mean.

you know we've all we've all had we've. all had we've all had we've all had. loved ones that have passed away. God. forbid from some disease, right? I. mentioned my cousin. My grandmothers. both died of cancer as well. Um. my uncle died of of a heart attack right. when he was playing soccer with my dad. He was 45. Oof. He collapsed. and he died. from a heart attack which by the way is. the number one killer in this country. Um. just because somebody you know had. cancer, just because somebody has heart. disease, just because somebody has a.

condition, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, these conditions again they impact 200. million Americans. This is the problem. of our time. Okay? Does not make them. any less of a person. And so the the. fundamental moral failure It was a moral. failure of eugenics which is. misconstruing these things which idea. that it's better to reduce suffering. Better that plain term of better doesn't. come from the physical plane. It comes. from something beyond. But I'm not even. sure that we're disagreeing. I think. we're agreeing that there's no that your. physical condition is not a reflection. of your moral value. No and but but by.

the way the eugenicists got that. fundamentally wrong. Why? Maybe maybe. I'm sure some did but They were. consequentialists though. That's. actually important. Going back to the. kind of different moral philosophies if. you look through the world that way it. actually helps articulate things. They. viewed it as the end justifies the. means. We should actually do this forced. uh sterilizations. We should make it. constitutional. I think the ends justify. the means was a much less common. argument among the eugenicists as it is. now among the technologists. That's. that's for sure. And. these attitudes not only have not been.

suppressed or eliminated they've. flowered into like the dominant attitude. in the country. So they won. I'm just. saying I'm not trying to. I'm just saying that this idea that you. can make people better and in fact that. you should. >> No no but that's not what we're saying. though. Remember No Tucker Tucker this. is this is nuanced but it's really. important for people to understand. You're saying people have have the. opportunity to do it. But people have. the opportunity nucleus we never say hey. these are your five embryos this is the. best embryo. We cannot. We are not. divine. We we can never do that. I. understand. But but the choices that.

people make are governed by a lot of. things. Of course. But one of the you know their. their intuition their religious views To. be clear first and foremost it's it's. the direct experience of suffering. The patients that come to us without. fail. And to be clear they might want to. optimize for a trait as well. I'm not. saying of course they would right? People think about these things. holistically but the first thing they. care about is my mother had breast. cancer. You know my dad had prostate cancer. My. grandfather had Alzheimer's. So I just. had schizophrenia. I get it. And yeah. right? So you want to start with the. lived experience of the patient and then.

go from there. That's all baked in the. cake. Every person has experienced. suffering and every person has seen a. loved one die if you live long enough. And and I just want to be totally clear. so I don't seem self-righteous which I. never want to be. If I had had the. opportunity when my children were in. utero or before to say no to. schizophrenia, no to. you know the things that I really fear. is schizophrenia is at the top of the. list. I think it's the cruelest thing. Um but also CF Yeah. which you know is. in my family. All these things By the. way I'm a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Yeah a lot of people are. Yeah a lot of.

people are yeah. And um. >> And I don't want my baby God forbid to. have that. Of course not. No though. actually the therapies for CF have. you know that's a whole separate. conversation. I don't want to be boring. But um anyway I would just say like like. all expectant parents if I'd had a. chance to reduce or eliminate the risk. that my children would have these. horrible diseases or conditions. I would have taken it. How could you. not? So I'm not judging anybody. I get. it completely. I would have done it. My question is.

honestly what's the effect of giving. people this choice which is to improve. in their minds. You say you're morally. neutral on it. You're not attaching a. value to deafness or hearing but we're. not. Okay. But people do. Everybody does. Everyone. other than you does. Everyone other than. you does. No no no but to be clear we. can have more philosophy and then say. but most people would reject the idea. that there's this idea of conflating. reduced suffering. They would say that's. better. And then we can play that out. So let's play that out. Let's play out.

the how that actually is. So you tell me. what the what you imagine because this. is one of the biggest changes. in human history. >> say I Tucker I will say again that. people will make different choices. I I. really want to say that. There's there's. actually two parts of this argument on. people No no I'm not Some people will. make different choices but So. a lot of like. It's a random distribution of choices. Is that what you're saying? I'm not. saying that. I'm not [laughter] saying. that. Um what I am saying though is. people will bring their So when we think. about this like to make it like more.

intuitive for people. is. if you think about like our. there's this concept in cell molecular. biology. Okay? It's called um. It It's basically this concept called um. uh it's eluding me. Basically that the. more specialized something is the more. effective it is. So in biology you see. things specialize all the time. Right? So for example things begin in stem. cells they become neurons they become. immune cells they become different parts. of the body. Right? Because these bodies. have um different functions. And so they. need different specializations. Okay?

And when you actually I I'm a big. believer that like everything mirrors. everything. From the molecular. to the celestial. Everything. Okay? And so let me let me keep going with. this. And so. um. >> [clears throat]. >> I remember what it is. Specialization. breeds sophistication. Okay? That's true. in cell molecular biology which is. specialization breeds sophistication. The more specialized something is the. more sophisticated it is. Okay? And so. in a society if you look at like you. know people who are really high in their. craft. Right? Like Alyssa Liu figure.

skating versus like an Einstein versus. like an Elon versus like a I don't know. like an artist like Da Vinci. These. people have very different sets of. characteristics. And the way nature. works. is human beings cannot defy nature. It's. a seesaw. So let me give an example. Every every every single time people. always say this to me. They say oh. people pick for IQ. Let me put aside my moral argument. Let. me put aside my people won't actually. all ways pick for IQ but let's actually. assume that's the case. Let's assume. that's the case. Let's assume that's the.

case. Everyone will pick for IQ. One. interesting about picking for IQ. genetically is that when you pick for IQ. um and this is interesting cuz when you. tell patients this you can see how they. refactor decisions. When you pick for IQ. you're actually picking against. conscientiousness and extraversion. genetically. It's a seesaw. Right? It's. almost like if you're playing like a. FIFA my player or something and you make. somebody stronger they have less. agility. Right? So what happens is and. also you're making them. uh genetically speaking more likely to. be autistic. So these things are. genetic. You can't you can't um.

you can't defy these things. Right? So. these things go in opposite directions. So you start selecting for one it. actually take these things away. So it. starts becoming more of a. a value judgment. So wait let me let me. play this out. So let's assume that to. your point um. there's a a fashion of the day. Right? People are um. you know we've seen this with fashion we. see this in tech we see this you know. you see investors they'll allocate. toward AI. You know people will end up. saying wearing the same thing in Soho in. New York. You know how is this possible? Like people will go to the same private. schools. You were saying this. Right? All these things end up kind of the. taste follow through. So let's assume. all the rich people basically start.

optimizing for um IQ or everyone. actually start optimizing for IQ not. just rich people. Everyone start. optimizing for IQ. There's actually an. evolutionary mechanism it's called a. frequency dependent selection. What is. frequency dependent selection? What it. basically means is that the rarer. phenotype becomes relative to the other. phenotypes. So in this case for example. if everyone picked for IQ extraversion. and uh conscientiousness starts. decreasing okay in terms of the. prevalence in the population the more. valuable that phenotype becomes. In. other words the rarer that extraversion.

and conscientiousness becomes the more. valuable it actually becomes actually. flourish in a population. So you're. arguing it's a self-correcting problem. And that's the key point which is. we think. as humans. we can defy nature. We cannot defy. nature. We have to operate within. nature's bounds within evolution's. bounds. We have to operate within this. framework. So if that were true then why. did India ban sex-selective abortions? It's interesting because India.

specifically was about So let's actually. walk through this. India was about 5545 males to females. 5545 right? People actually think often it was. higher and by the way the natural rate. of having a boy is actually slightly. biologically higher than a girl. So. people think it's actually 50/50 is. actually not it's actually like 5248. So. actually to that perspective it's. actually it is statistically significant. but it's actually not insanely high. And. on that point also which is actually. interesting. >> Over a billion and a half people it's. Yeah if it can it can it can Absolutely. over generations but but actually it's.

not I think what's interesting here is. uh it's this is just a a kind of a. factoid but um. males uh babies they tend to actually. have a higher risk of basically dying in. infancy. So ends up having that you get. the general population is about 50/50. but actually biology has it that it's. slightly errs toward uh males. Um but. let's take the sex example. Let's say it. plays out that um you know over many. generations people let's say it wasn't. outlawed or people still practice it. anyways and people start picking uh. across sex. It's actually the same. phenomena whereas the number of males.

for example come down and the number of. females come down because of frequency. based uh selection. Let's say you're in. a population just very simply there's 70. males 30 females the value of female in. that population is much higher. And basically you can model this and. show that each successive generation. there are certain sets of genetics that. confer a slightly higher probability. than of having a female. And so that. will actually propagate such that the. genes that confer higher females would. keep proliferating through until the. population comes back to actually. equanimity. >> So why did they ban it? Well obviously. that's like a longer term evolutionary.

thing to saying that things will. self-correct but obviously it. >> and it was making a society unstable. It's not it it it. >> if human choice. on questions of life and death and. procreation at this granular level is. self-correcting and it's just inherently. good and there are no downsides then why. did the biggest country in the world ban. it? To be clear. I'm not saying that um. there is not short-term material. consequence for like something like sex. selection. Of of course there's. especially sex selection I'm not saying. that but I'm saying. >> more significant than any other kind of. selection? Sorry? What I don't why is.

that unique? Like sex selection it's not. actually Like well it's unique in that. >> over IQ. I mean these are deep these are. deep characteristics defining. characteristics. >> It's actually interesting point you make. on sex because um. if you look at sex it's it's a it's a. way of kind of playing out what happens. if people pick across traits right? Because sex is. it's not a disease it's a choice. Depending on what you want people make. different choices right? So it's. actually a good kind of heuristic of how. people will choose. Um and on that point actually. interestingly sometimes we receive.

criticism from for example the American. Society of Reproductive Medicine for. saying that um traits are not. reproductive medicine. However sex is ultimately a trait that. people have been picking for the last 20. years. So there's a bit of this. hypocrisy in in medicine. >> I guess what I'm trying to get to is the. really the core question which is is. there a downside to playing God? Okay. first of all we're not playing God but. of course there is. >> Of course we are. We're we're making. choices that were not available to us. until. very recently that have never in human. history been made by people ever not one. time. >> We cannot play God.

God God God created God created us God. created everything here. We cannot we. cannot we cannot play God. Let me let me. let me be more precise. Let me be more. precise and use a less charged way to. describe it. We are doing things that have never been. done in human history. That's actually. not true I would argue in this case. Well it's very true. >> Because um Well how long have test tube. babies IVF. >> IVF has been around since 1970s so it's. about uh 40 years actually. And by the. way it's not like you look around you're. like oh that's an IVF baby. >> I'm not attacking IVF. I'm certainly not. attacking IVF babies or people at all.

I'm merely saying that in the scope of. human history. this is brand new. When you say this. though what do you mean? The ability to. choose the traits of your children with. this level of precision to get a certain. number of embryos and say I want the. ones that don't have these conditions. that do have these traits. That has. never been tried in human history. period. >> I would. Well there's no debating that. >> no I would caveat a little bit. When you. remember You're picking from the.

Sumerians do this? Wait let me let me. just be clear. You're you're picking. from the pool that so when you pick your. partner for example you're setting the. possible genetic pool. So for example. two Obviously. this is what mating is. >> Yeah two short parents aren't going to. have a tall baby right? The same is. actually true for genetic optimization. You can't have two short parents have a. tall child with this technology. You can. have a taller child. I I understand but. we're we're okay those. but the the core point is this is. something this is an acceleration. Look. people want this. I wouldn't debate you. there.

And people do calculate these things as. they choose a mate. Of course. He's too. dumb I can't marry him. He's too short I. can't marry him. He's from you know. whatever there are lots of genetic. qualities that people don't want to pass. on. >> And in doing that they're actually. picking by the way the most important. set of outcomes for their child cuz it's. your partner it's the other side of it. Absolutely. But never with this level of precision. Never has there been a menu where you. can say where you can identify qualities. that you can't identify by smell or. sight. You can't know.

so much of what you've just described. except through brand new science. So I'm. not even attacking that. I'm merely. asking a question that has to be asked. which is what are the downsides? So I mean we talked about the I mean you. pointed out one of the downsides which. is like okay if everyone starts picking. for a specific sex for example right? Um. it can create a a a population problems. and even if I would argue and I did. argue um hey over time this actually be.

self-corrected which I think is actually. true. Um so this will be self-corrected right? But obviously in the short term there's. still like a acute problem right? Um but. I would say actually IVF has been. operating for again for 40 years. um and other policies like for example. one China's one child policy has led to. much greater problems. IVF is still the. way 2% of the way babies are born. I. think your principal concern on where. this can go awry. I mean. there's a long history in science.

fiction of people thinking oh. you know oh like you know I I I can you. know Frankenstein I I mentioned. Frankenstein there's literally that it's. somebody saying hey. oh I could make life right? And then. life then. >> How about we're going. >> Park actually too is this idea that hey. I can do this and then there's a. negative unforeseen consequences. I. would argue both those were. consequential. >> that's science fiction. I mean hey let's. create Lyme disease. Hey let's create. let's I don't know let's strengthen this. virus oh gosh it's out of the lab.

intentionally or not doesn't matter you. infect the world with COVID. That just. happened 5 years ago. So it's like we. don't need to look far to see the. unintended consequences of emerging. science. I'm not blaming anyone for it. I think. people have a terrible track record of. foreseeing the consequences of their. actions. We know that in our own sex. lives don't we? So. I think we can just say there. it's important with something this. powerful and potentially transformative. to. A admit that there will be unintended.

consequences because that's 100% true. always and think through B what those. consequences might be. >> I agree I agree. I think we should be. tangible with them though and make sure. people actually understand. So like. again IVF is the way 2% of the way. babies are born. IVF has been operating. in the United States for about 40 years. Um this is not like um. 40 years? I said 1970s it's probably. >> there I remember. The test tube baby was on the cover of. Time magazine. >> It was yeah. I mean people don't call. that Are there any consequences to that? Do do. >> IVF? Yeah have we studied the. consequences?

>> Yeah they've actually tracked um. children. Um the study sizes are a. little bit smaller from when I looked. into it and then one might expect but. basically they see no material. difference no. Is it is it true? That. what? The study sizes are smaller than I. would expect? >> difference at all between children born. from an IVF procedure and children. conceived naturally. >> Obviously there's some environmental. things you're taking averages but yeah. to my when I looked into this and I've. obviously talked to a lot of scientists. about this as well they said yeah. there's no there's no difference yeah. Which is pretty. amazing but actually I think it's.

>> know that? It's nature. Well we can. track it over the course of the decades. since IVF. >> nature of course it's something that we. are well it's it's by definition not. nature it's something that people are. doing in order to improve nature. Like. nature would be infertility. I'm against. infertility by the way I'm not arguing. for infertility but I'm just saying it's. whatever it is it's not nature it's the. opposite of nature. >> we're we are operating within nature. So. let's go on the framework of God created. in these natural laws we're using. natural laws. We are not making life. We didn't go to. a lab and make life. We're using the. principles of nature using the.

principles of heredity and we're. applying them. It's still beautiful. It's still very beautiful. I'm not. saying. So I think we are using nature I think. >> saying it's bad or not beautiful I'm. just saying it's not nature anymore than. nuclear weapons are nature. You can say. well they're made from atoms the you. know the essential building block of of. matter. Okay. But we're. we're exerting. force and our will on nature to create. an outcome that wouldn't occur if we. didn't do that. So it's by definition. not nature. >> could have actually occurred even if you. didn't necessarily do it it could have.

just the baby could have happened that. way. That's but but also I would say. that remember that there's gene editing. which is. much further out and this idea that you. can actually take an embryo and make it. whatever you want basically. Theoretically we can talk about that. which is very very different. So I think. the concept of IVF clinics using this. technology to give patients more. information when they're already getting. information on their embryos now we. expand information we can help deal with. the chronic disease crisis in the United. States the rare disease crisis as well. right? Genetics is unique in I've seen. oh no I appreciate the upside. No I. agree with you on the upside. I just.

want to know the downside. Yeah the. downside. >> I don't see here any there's no. downside. Of course I talk about of. course there's there's downside. >> you imagine it might be? Well I think. let's let's play this out okay? The first thing I'd say is that with IVF. at its prevalence today at 2% I I I. think it's it's actually more or less. fine it's 2% is about 1 in 50 babies. I. think I'm going to outline the scenario. where I think there's a lot more risk. and where human reproduction is going to. materially change right? We might argue. that you might argue this is a material. change. Right? I would actually argue I. would argue I would argue IVF IVF was.

the principal material change. >> arguing that it's a material change. because you're saying that we're going. to have less chronic disease, lower. health care costs, less suffering, and. that's all good. >> that. Patients can choose that. >> argued that would be the result and and. you're right. It will be the result and. I'm for it. I just want to say I'm for. it. I'm just saying. that whenever I hear the upside as you. would in any scenario including your. personal family investments, like tell. me the downside. If someone says, "Well, there's no downside." THEN I'M LIKE, "I. DON'T KNOW IF I TRUST YOU ANYMORE." SO,

what's the downside? Again, I will articulate downside. It's. just I have to explain [laughter]. No, you're going to blame some other. technology for the downside. >> going to blame some other technology. >> editing's bad. >> No, but what about the the technology. that you're offering has an upside? I. totally agree with you. >> Yeah. And that will be real and I'll support. it. Yeah. I would support I don't know. a lot of things. >> There's But what's the downside? Like. you must have thought about that. >> Of course. I mean the. the the the.

fundamentally the. this technology can be exploited by. centralized bodies to try to control. reproduction. >> Yes. That is the downside. That is the. story of the 20th century. Sorry if I. get emphatic, but it's just like yes, that is the downside. We've seen the. downside. We've experienced the. downside. But to be clear But to be. clear, that is a moral failure. That is. not a failure of the technology. I've. said I've established that Eugenics for. example was decades before genetics. Yeah, I'd say distinction not a. difference in my view, but What you're.

saying what you're saying is. without saying it explicitly that people. misuse the creation and they use it for. good, but they also use it for bad and. that's just how people are. And they've. always been that way and they will. always be that way. So, [snorts] with. that in mind. I I don't think it's just I totally. agree that of course centralized powers. whoever they are. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. I'm not even. sure who they are, but they clearly. exist. >> Governments principally. I mean that's. the 20th century of. >> the Epstein class that runs governments.

or whoever these these entities are. they they Yeah, that's bad. I totally. agree, but. the experience of India shows us that. given choice. people will also make the wrong. decisions as individuals. So, I'm just wondering what those. consequences might be. Let me just say. I'm interested in this because I have. hunting dogs and I've had them my whole. life and hunting dogs are bred for. certain qualities. And I watch it carefully and dogs have.

such short life cycles relative to. people that you can kind of in your. lifetime watch this happen, but they're. bred for certain I have flushing dogs, spaniels, and they're bred to. you know, work close to you, find the. bird, jump the bird, retrieve the bird. If you are not very careful about. breeding them or if you breed them only. for certain specific qualities, you can. wind up destroying the dog. And this is. well known in animal husbandry. It's. well known in bird hunting. It's well. known among anybody who deals with the.

animals. And I don't see people as any different. and I know that there are massive. consequences to the dog. Like you get. dogs that die of cancer at five. You get. dogs with hip dysplasia. You get dogs. with. unexplained rage that bite your. children. Like we can't foresee with any. precision the effects of our tinkering. with with reproduction. >> Absolutely. Let me actually give a real. example of this. So, in in China um the. scientist who was known for uh using. gene editing to engineer the first uh. babies actually, Dr. He.

Um what he did was he engineered the. CCR5 gene. I believe that's what the. gene was called. And um he used CRISPR. CRISPR is a bacterial immune response. system. It stands for, you know, clustered regularly interspaced short. palindromic repeats. Basically refers to. the um set of a palindromic DNA. sequences in a bacteria. Yeah, okay. And. he used that to make a gene editing. device. called CRISPR. And he basically used. CRISPR I remember that well. Um and CRISPR is composed of two things. It's com- composed of like a guide. Like.

basically imagine it takes the device to. the right part of the DNA which is like. a scissors. And then it actually Excuse. me, it takes it has a guide which takes. the um. CRISPR to the right part of the DNA and. then there's an endonuclease which. basically cuts the DNA. Um. a little bit more technical explanation. Basically, you can use. a bacterial immune response system, harness it as a gene editing device, okay? And this is what the scientist did. and I'm obviously you know about the. story and he went and actually she. engineered human embryos. Okay? It's. going on now. Uh in China? Oh, and other.

parts of the world, too. Basically, what he did was he knocked. out the CCR5 gene and what his. justification for knocking out this. specific gene was that. it would make the children um. basically. resistant to HIV AIDS. That was what he. said. Um this is really interesting for a lot. of reasons. One is because he didn't need gene. editing to do that. You could have. actually just done that with existing. genetic technology that was much. cheaper, much less expensive. But even. putting that aside, getting to the. fundamental thing that you're. articulating which is non-intended.

consequences. When you actually optimize. for uh the knocking out that specific. gene, you're also opening up the the. susceptibility of that baby to other. infectious disease. Because what CCR5. does is it encodes for a specific immune. receptor that basically when destroyed, it makes it easier for other pathogens. and to basically infect you. In other. words, there's this. there's this uh the the the dangerous. side of this to your point is that is. that balance which is in trying to do. something good what he deemed to be.

virtuous if you will, um it actually potentially could have. had very severe consequences on the. children's health. And so I think that's a very real. tangible example that we've seen of some. of the dangers. um and you know, balancing act the. balancing act that is nature. And that's. really important to say. >> What about in your life have you ever. wound up with something that you didn't. expect and maybe didn't want and found. it to be a great blessing over time? Yeah, absolutely. I mean. >> [clears throat]. >> meditation. And I mean I I I I. >> something that that's something you. should presumably you chose to try it.

>> you know, sometimes you you know, a broader force guides you to these. things. Yeah. You know, the experience. of having children is the most profound. example of that I think. If you ask any. parent um. or most parent many parents will tell. you like I didn't expect this at all. Yeah. Um I I didn't grow up with girls, didn't have a mom, didn't have sisters, didn't want girls, I don't understand. girls like my wife, but don't want girl. having a ton of girls. Never would have chose that. Yeah. And. really one of the great experiences of.

my life. Truly. I mean that. And. I'm not embarrassed to say this cuz my. girls know I feel this way. But. and I you know, anyway. I never would have if I'd had the. choice. It's just like I don't get. girls. I can't be the father of girls. Like what? And yet that again turned out to be this. great blessing and I I'm really glad I. didn't have the choice. Have you ever had an experience like. that? I mean yeah, I think some of the best. things that happen in life. are not things that you can control.

It's part of the divine. Yes. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. 100%. >> And sometimes there are things that man, you don't want at all. And but it's. actually good for you. Yeah. It's the. best for you. >> best thing for you. Yeah. The thing that. you want isn't the thing that you need. So, maybe if you get to be the author of. your own story and of your own children, if you the more control you have. the more you get what you want. the more totally you're destroyed. >> [laughter]. >> I don't know about that. >> get everything you want.

>> Um I don't that's been my experience. >> Tucker, remember though like. uh. genetics obviously is not deterministic, right? So, there's there's two other. parts of of of life. >> Wait, what? You were just telling me it. was we can get rid of all these diseases. which I'm for. But Tucker, a good. example is like lung cancer. You smoke, it gives you risk of lung cancer. There's there's some genetic component, but it can be both, right? I'm sure that. smoking is your enjoyment of life. Yeah. I just want to put in a good word for. smoking if I could. Yeah. Heart disease. as well, right? Obviously, it's there's.

a there's a you know, family history. component there, but there's also like. what you eat, how much you exercise, these things. Um and so. under the framework, you think okay, like what I think is really important in. life in life which again goes well. beyond genetics. You know, we're not. genetic determinists here obviously. That's just not the reality. Again, I. will go back to the spiritual and. cultivation of the soul. That cultivation of the soul to. eventually hopefully divine virtue, union with God, right? That. that is available to everyone.

independent of their biological. characteristics. And so I think it's. important not to again conflate No, you've made that point and I so. appreciate it. >> is [clears throat] such is that that is. the point. That is the point. The point. is that the union with God ultimately is. that is what life is about. So, you're. not actually removing Like this idea. that like you can Like if there was a. world where somehow parents could. perfectly predict the baby's going to be. like this and this and this. You can't. physically. You can't You can't. You can't encode the soul is what I'm. saying. It doesn't come from biology. So, the stochasticity always is what I'm.

arguing. Yeah, I mean, but you're. arguing the margin. I mean, what you're. saying is right. It's true. There's no. debating what you're saying. It's fast. and I appreciate that you're saying it. But it's equally true that we are. exercising powers that we didn't have. until very recently and that we know. more than we ever have. And I just think and I don't think we. can stop it. I don't think there's any. way we can stop it. If you weren't doing. this and the gene editors weren't doing. it, I mean I don't like that more. philosophy generally. Like I actually. think people I actually think people I. think people way overshoot that and stop.

it. People way overshoot the idea that. oh technology is inevitable. Technology. is not inevitable. This This drives me. crazy. People make choices that drive. technology forward. Technology does not. just happen. It's been, you know, um 20. years of really really. 15 years probably. since, you know, some of these more. advanced uh screenings has existed, but. they never actually been adopted, right? So, the idea that technology naturally. progresses is it's a narrative created. by Silicon Valley to try to justify. raising more money. And by the way,

taking away more responsibility. No, people make choices that drive. technology forward. >> you're to an extent right. I I mean, this is a whole separate conversation I. don't want to bore our remaining viewers. with, but I do think we make choices, that's absolutely right, and it's. incumbent on us to try to make the right. choices for ourselves and those around. us. Okay, all true. Those choices. matter, also true. >> Absolutely. >> We're also products of the time in which. we live in the systems in which we. operate. So, that's that's So, those. things are equally true. Again, I don't want to be boring, but I. agree with you, our choices are. important.

But there's also, again, a lack of. respect for what we don't know, which makes me very uncomfortable in. science. And one of the reasons that I. think that we should put a lot of. doctors and scientists in prison as soon. as we can is because they they really. hurt us over the last, say, 6 years by not acknowledging what. they don't know, overstating their own. foresight. >> Yeah. About things that no human being can. know. Like, there's no respect for the.

limits of the human mind, okay? And. suddenly we have these enormous powers. that are not actually matched to our. wisdom at all. And I just I just want to say out loud. I'm really worried about it, and I think. certain individuals should be punished. for doing this. Like, the guys who made. COVID in the lab, they're not in jail? Like, what? Mhm. Does that bother you? Do you think that's a lesson? Does that. tell us anything? Yeah, it does tell you. a lesson. Um we have to be responsible stewards of. the technology. Shouldn't there be.

punishment for people who like kill. millions through their foolishness? >> Yeah, well, yeah. I mean, I think the. key is that um. like. again, genetics can program for somebody. to be smarter, but it cannot make. somebody wise. And the idea that you can. genetically encode somebody's life, again, that's not true. Like not like nature like in the in the. in the DNA in the nucleus, that's not. true. So, I I want to be clear that. you're not controlling the the like life. outcome of your child. You're not going.

to be like, "Okay, now the child's going. to become, you know, LeBron James and. they're going to be on the start." That. that will come from the virtue of hard. work, etc. So, genetics is important. Genetics is important, it plays a. factor, it plays a role, but I'm not. going to sit here and say, "Oh, genetics. is everything." It's not. But nobody. knows in the case that it is. No, but. the argument that you can control. parents can control their child's life. trajectory would suggest that genetics. is pretty deterministic, but I'm saying. it's not. >> making the opposite argument, which is. you have no freaking idea what's going. to happen when you tamper with this. stuff. We actually know way less than we. think we do. We have less control than. we imagine, and that we should proceed.

with that in mind. That that's my only. argument. >> And but my question is much more. specific. You said the technology is not. inevitable, I kind of agree with you. >> inevitable, no. We certainly have an. obligation to do our best. For the. people who didn't do their best and who. hurt others, like the whole world, like. the guys who designed COVID in the Wuhan. lab, which they did, we've established. that, shouldn't there be some punishment for. them? And wouldn't that help future. generations make wiser decisions if they. saw that there were consequences to.

being thoughtless with technology? I I I think generally speaking. the kind of history, at least like the. modern history of like Silicon Valley, has gone from I think it had some idea. of kind of virtue ethics, right? Like, you know, Google back in the day was. don't be evil. If you say that today, you'll probably. be laughed at. Um. that was like their corporate motto. Um. you had um Paul Graham had his, you. know, hackers and painters, this idea of that.

that was kind of this like kind of um. beautiful early Silicon Valley spirit. There was um. Uh there was another case of um. Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford commencement. address. He ended it by saying, "Stay. hungry, stay foolish." Basically, humility, have humility. Open yourself. up to the world. Not just the natural world, but the. divine world. I think a lot of the. Silicon Valley ideology has moved from. sort of hackers and painters. to, you know, maybe capitalists and, you. know, politicians or the like. In other.

words, it's moved into kind of a. techno-capitalism. This idea that. technology is inevitable, this idea that. capitalism is inherently good, like it's. inherently good if something grows. I I. completely And you see it with AI. companies all the time. They'll. celebrate, "Oh, we we hit 100 million AR. in, you know, 2 days or something." And. it it fundamentally mistakes. speed. and the the rate at which something. grows with value, right? Cancer grows. very quickly, it's horrible. And so, I. think there's this fundamental idea.

that, you know, this kind of oh, grow, grow, grow, grow, that, you know, inherently the consequences um. like, you know, be damned, just grow, growth is inherently good. I think that. fundamental philosophy is so bad. Well, it's a self-justification. So, but I wonder where it grows from. So, the so I think you described crisply. and well the evolution of the attitudes. in Silicon Valley, generally speaking. From, "Hey, this is going to liberate. everybody, it's good.". to, "Hey, this hikes GDP and I've got a.

massive place in Atherton, therefore. it's good." And those are definitely. different. justifications, and I wonder to what you. attribute the change. Like, how did that. happen? How did you go from one place to. another? And here's my thesis in one. sentence. Power. Yeah. When you get a lot of power, Correct. >> you get corrupted. Yeah. Exactly. corrupts, yeah. So, there's no greater. power than determining what kind of kids. people are going to have. >> [laughter]. >> So, like, are you worried at all? Again, we don't determine what kind of kids.

you'll have. >> Overpopulation, you do. >> People are making their own choices. We. don't make the choice. No, I I we we don't. We don't. >> I mean, you could just say we're only. testing for these three things or. whatever. You could You design the. screen. Let's remember that virtue you. design the outcome of overpopulation. No, virtue is not in bio virtue is not. in biology. Okay. So, So, no, we do not. encode populations cuz human beings. can't encode like that is got that it it. it it makes a mistake assuming that we. are God. We are not God. We are not It's. going to affect the nature of people.

So, that's an inescapable fact, and I. think it's important to just like wear. the mantle. Like, this is what we're. doing, we're changing the nature of. people, we're going to try to make them. better. Nature is a very tricky word. The nature of people comes from God, it. doesn't come from genetics. The. substance of people, their intelligence, their height, their their lifespan. >> ultimately any human being should want, again, greater spiritual cultivation. Okay, but I'm just saying you are part. of not you alone or. even substantially, but you're part of a.

trend in science that. will change the nature of people. So, I do think it's worth just admitting. that because then once you realize the. burden on your shoulders, you can bear. up under it. Do you think? >> I think we Yeah, definitely this. technology I I just want to be very. careful with the word nature versus. biological characteristics. I agree that. we're changing biological. characteristics. >> how long people live? You're changing. that. So, that alone is how tall people. are, how well they do in the SAT.

>> But but again, it's not deterministic. that way. It's not like you can look at. somebody's DNA and be like, "Oh, they're. going to get a 1570 in their SAT." But I. agree with you though in. overpopulations, and we're talking about. populations, and you're saying it's, you. know, IVF is 2% or whatever, but I'm. just saying the technology we can see. where this is going. You offer people a. chance to have children who are. healthier and smarter, and they're going. to take it. And I've already admitted. that I would have taken it. Because I. love my children. Yeah. It's that. simple. So, we know this is going to. happen if the technology exists and it's. widely available. And so, that puts you, and not just you,

of course, this is hardly an attack, Mhm. but it puts you in a position of. having power over the course of. humanity, over the evolution. of humanity. We're watching humanity. change at the individual level. And like, that's a big burden, man. That's a burden that only God bore. before like 20 years ago. We are not. God, and we can never be God. >> Good. Well, that's a good start. We are. not God. We are not God. But you see it. as profound? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean,

I mean, it's a to to see patients who have had. some. I again I use the Huntington's example, right? To see a loved one die at age 25. because their brain decays, and then to. never want to have a child. >> Huntington's is really hard. >> And then to be able to use the. technology, the emotion, you know, the miracle that they can have. a baby, basically. And that's. that's that's amazing. It is amazing, but I with respect, I think having.

watched I mean, I was out in Silicon. Valley in the '90s covering this, and I. knew the people I installed on some of. them. They were totally fixated on the upside. Yeah. In a good way. Yeah. They were. like, "This gives the Encyclopedia. Britannica." You probably don't know. what that is, but it's a physical. encyclopedia that sat on your shelf and. cost like thousands of dollars. >> Yeah. That's replaced by this CD-ROM. You. know, this Yeah. collection of ones and zeros, and like. it's incredible the amount of. information. People will be so much. better informed. And now you look 30 years later, and. it's like definitely upsides to.

technology, but also downsides. >> Well, we're we're susceptible to the. same force cuz we're we're human. Well, that's exactly the argument I'm. making. >> Yeah. I I agree. Yeah, we are. susceptible to the same force. It's it's. it's how you know, how can how can we. continue to. do that spiritual work? Cuz it is spiritual work. Right? To cultivate the soul, to make sure we maintain in these values. that I'm that I've been articulating. >> I totally agree. So, here's my final. question, I'll stop torturing you. Okay.

Um [laughter]. yeah, I think you've done such a great. job, actually. >> Oh, thanks. I'm It's nothing to do with you. I'm. just worried about these things, and. you're smart, and you've, again, for the. third time thought about them to a. surprising degree for a guy who's also. trying to like build a company. I'm. impressed. Thank you. But um. if we're going to. proceed, one hopes, with this kind of science in. a way that creates rather than destroys, yeah, then we need to keep in mind, as. you said 20 times, the spiritual dimension. Yes. But the. spiritual dimension is a dividing point.

Some things are good for the spirit and. some things are bad for the spirit. Some. things are consistent with virtue. Yeah. Some things are not. And if we believe. in God, we believe God prefers some. outcomes over others. God has rules. Mhm. It's the nature of God. So. will there be. an attempt to say, "No, these are the. rules. Like you can't test for this. certain thing. You can't make this. choice. You have to constrain people's. choices at a certain point if you're.

going to remain consistent with any kind. of ethic?" Yeah. Now, I thought a lot about that. It's. very tricky because you need. >> Just as India did. India said, "There's. a billion people. You can't make that. choice. Sorry." No, it's That's a very. tricky. It's very tricky and very complicated. I think the key thing that we have to do. as a business and the moral line that. people can hold us to. is Nucleus. has not, is not, and will never say that. one embryo is better than another. embryo. We just won't. Because again, we.

cannot we cannot mistake instrumental. value with moral value. They're. different things. And I think in in in. in deeply recognizing that and deeply. realizing, by the way, the. indeterministic nature of genetics as. well, as I said, heart disease, you can. have a bad diet, you can not exercise, lung cancer. Even for things like schizophrenia, as I. mentioned, strong genetic components, but you can take, you know, weed. actually has made people. more schizophrenic, for example. So there's environmental components as. well. And so I think you have to have.

the deep humility in saying. there's no better. Maintain that moral. philosophy that cuz that's the That is. the foundation of from for me, that's. the foundation of the. >> it's better to be. non-schizophrenic than schizophrenic. I. don't think it's for me to say, though. I also Again, I also don't think, though, to be clear, when we use the term better, we we start. to apply moral value. And I again, I. don't think moral value lies in the. realm of biological characteristics. I. don't think so. So there's no moral. guide at all. No, that's not true. There's universal morality.

Uh But you can't say that it's better. not to have schizophrenia than to have. schizophrenia. Well, again, when we say. better, I think we're just like defining. differently. I think it's better in the. sense that it reduces suffering. Okay. Well, if that's your measure, then it's. better. Exactly. But what's your. measure? Exactly. But it's better in. terms of their worth than their. >> totally immoral. This is literally. immoral. It has no reference. >> No, not at all. Cuz everything has a. spirit, as I said. Just cuz I Every The. There's the physical world, and then. there's each thing has a divine spirit. to it, right? So each thing has some. virtue or opposite of virtue, vice, for.

example, right? That's true. That's a. true thing. But again, these things are. not actually incompatible with each. other. They're actually compatible. Um. But as a company, can you say there's. anything you won't do? As a On behalf of Nucleus, I think Well, when you say anything we won't do, you. mean like providing. >> just said that biology has no moral. reference cuz everything has a spirit. I'm just wondering, is there like a line. where like. >> don't. We're not. doing that. Period. Because it's wrong. >> We're not providing an analysis, for. example. Like we're not providing some That's.

what you mean. Or you mean like donating. sperm. >> certain behavior easier. When you say certain behavior, you mean. picking for a specific like. characteristic? I don't know. I mean, I. could manufacture fentanyl for a living. and say, "I'm not forcing people to take. it. It's their choice." But I would say. I'm not manufacturing fentanyl because. it's bad. It's just inherently bad. It. degrades people and it. In some cases, kills them. So I'm not. doing that. >> Yeah. So it I don't know that it Is it. enough to say, "Let the people decide?". >> No, it's not it's not. You have to you. have to be careful. Like giving an IQ. analysis, for example, right? We've gone.

through many, many iterations of best. way of doing it, and we sort of slow. rolled it out. Principally because we didn't want. people to misunderstand it. We don't. want people to think because again, genetically, it's just like not possible. in the same way that there's always. environmental components, that you can. just like look at somebody's DNA and. guess their SAT score. That's like. people's very simplistic model, which is. like Right? But So I'm saying that the. way We have a responsibility to very. carefully communicate that result so. that IVF clinic, the patient, the. physician, everyone understands it. And then when I. think when people understand it, it.

takes it from sort of the sensationalist. things and just grounds it. >> shift the moral responsibility from. yourself to your customer? >> responsible. We ship a product. >> I could I could I could make a product. and say, "Oh, this embryo is better than. this embryo." I mean, that would be. principally the most immoral line that. we could cross. I could say, for. example, "This embryo is going to be. super, super, super smart," right? No, we're careful in the way we say things. >> just a false claim, right? >> Yeah, I mean, it would be false, but. also like people. >> saying is that the moral decisions rest. with the customers, not with you. They. decide what's better. Is it better to. have a kid with Down syndrome or not?

They decide. You're not going to have. any role in the moral decision-making. >> Patients can't So again, there's no. moral value cuz that comes from God, but. patients can decide instrumental value, right? Like uh going back to the deaf. couple, the deaf couple deemed it to be. best, right, for what they want for the. outcome they're optimizing for. In this. case, best means optimizing for the set. of biological characteristics. um to for some outcome, right? For. example, somebody want want might their. Somebody might want their daughter to be. shorter to be a gym gymnast, for. example. Somebody else might want their. son to be tall to be a NBA player.

Someone else might say, "I don't care. how athletic they are. I don't care how. pretty they are. I want them to be an. academic and, you know, study really. hard their entire life." But depending. on those things, as I mentioned, cell. biology, specialization breeds. sophistication. You realize very. quickly, very intuitively, that the. value of a phenotype is contingent to. its environment. >> I I get it. So I I. This is where it comes back to. It's. like it's up to it's it's up to them, the parents, to decide what is their. instrumental value that they map to. these phenotypes and to pick. It's up to. you whether you want to take fentanyl. No, I get it. I get it. I just. I just hope it works. I I I think the.

worst things that I've ever done are the. things with the greatest promise. Mhm. Like the iPhone. Like I got I was so. psyched for the iPhone. I was like, "I. don't need a computer. I can work in my. living room." Yeah. >> Next thing you know, you can't have a. conversation with your wife. Yeah, social media is it's really bad. >> But it's bad because it's good. Benzodiazepines are great. That's why. they're terrible. Does that make sense? I I think. >> Benzodiazepines are like the greatest. drug. Have you ever taken a.

benzodiazepine? I took it one time in. high school. One of my A kid on my hall. in boarding school, his dad was a. pharmacist, and he had Valium. And I was. like, "I'll take anything, you know, whatever." I was a child. I was an. idiot. I take this thing, I was like, "That's the greatest thing I've ever. taken." And it was so good, I never took. it again cuz it freaked me out cuz there. was no downside. Yeah. Literally, all of. your like voices in your head, any woman. listening will know what I'm talking. about. Like the things are like, "Ah, whatever." going on in the background. Silenced. Everything's fine. You're not like. stoned. You're not out of it. You're.

just like great. You're improved. You're. your best self. And my animal sense, even in 10th grade, I was like, "That's bad." Yeah. Super. bad. Whereas you do other drug, you do. cocaine, stay up all night doing. cocaine, you suffer the next day. And so. there's it's really clear this is not. good, right? Benzos. are the best. And that's why they're the most. addictive, most dangerous, most. society-destroying product that we make. >> Yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes. sense.

The badness is in direct proportion to. the. the promise. The goodness. >> Yes. Yes. And then. there is a moral character of the person. giving out to that drug. And in social. media case, too, talking about moral. philosophy, optimizing for clicks and. dopamine, you end up falling a. consequentialist framework, right? Because there's no virtue. You end up. falling a consequentialist framework. that justifies the means to the point. that everybody's scrolling and liking. and clicking all day. >> 100%. It's the question that you're asking is. how do you.

There is this problem of power cuz power. corrupts absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. There's a promise local value, which is. there's a promise, but then you. underestimate the thing. It's like how. do you maintain virtue? Basically, the. question is how do you maintain virtue? How do you maintain your soul and your. spirit despite these pressures? Um What's the answer? Well, one, it's, you know, it's really hard. I imagine. I imagine that I'm I'm hoping to. practice for Nucleus and for the. hopefully this this industry, it's the. it's it's praying. It's meditation. It's deep, deep. humility with realizing, going back to.

what I said, there's a raindrop. If you think that the raindrop's the. entire world, you're forgetting about. the entire ocean. That's where I come. back to. Yeah. Well, you have a lot of authority. You have a lot of power for a young man, more than much more than I ever will. And so. use it wisely. And thank you for your. thoughtfulness and your willingness to. have this conversation. And I'm sure. it's been hellish for you, but you've. done a great job. So thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks.