Tucker Carlson debates a Nucleus biotech CEO on embryo screening, arguing that selecting for traits like IQ or height constitutes eugenics and risks creating a homogenized "private equity" society. While the CEO defends parental liberty and claims embryos lack souls due to natural attrition, Tucker warns against conflating instrumental value with moral worth, citing Dr. He Jiankui's CRISPR failures. They conclude that technology cannot encode virtue or divine connection, urging humility over Silicon Valley's techno-capitalist drive to optimize human evolution without spiritual grounding. [Automatically generated summary]
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.
That's done in basically every IVF clinic 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 embryos.
So we also read the DNA, but now we give information on things like other hereditary disease risk, also chronic diseases, things like cancers, Alzheimer's, diabetes, also traits like IQ or height or et cetera.
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 basically, That information can be used, then implant which embryo the couple deems to be best.
So basically, give more information to couples to then choose which embryo they want to implant.
So I think it's helpful to think about all these different characteristics from diseases to traits, right?
People know intuitively something like height, for example.
Right, height, they say, oh, that's genetic, or something like breast cancer, eye color, right?
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?
The most simple way of explaining it is imagine you took two identical twins.
So, they have the same DNA, right?
And then basically, you separated the twins.
They grew up in different environments.
Sometimes in pop culture, people hear about these different things where you actually take twins and they have, again, the same DNA.
They're identical DNA.
And then 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 are across all these different phenotypes to see basically how genetic something is.
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, et cetera.
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 gene editing.
You're not changing DNA.
You're not making 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 think this is one of the most important conversations we can have.
And I agree.
I'm, you're 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 and crime and educational achievement, income.
And it all grew out of or was crystallized by a book called The Bell Curve.
In, 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-Sax, 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, 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.
Well, I would say that in IVF clinics for the last couple of 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?
Again, you're not changing DNA.
You're not controlling who can get married to who.
Like, just to be clear, if you go back, eugenics is a term it came up with in the late 19th century by a scientist named Francis Galton.
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.
I'm just saying that, and I couldn't be more opposed to that than, in fact, to the whole program.
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.
Yeah, because that's the same idea you're articulating, which is people should try to improve the human species by selective creation of children.
So, nucleus ultimately and what we give patients, ultimately, what patients actually want, right?
Again, patients are choosing their partner, they're choosing to do IVF.
They have.
Basically options.
They have several embryos.
They get information.
There's actually no, um, best embryo, right?
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?
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 their partners that they choose and in doing IVF to then pick the embryo that sets the best set of biological characteristics to them.
But there is no virtue, there's no morality in that decision.
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 virtuous as having a child who has none of those things?
Because I thought you just said that it's good to get rid of those things.
To be 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 you an example.
Let me give you an example.
So there was a case in reproductive medicine where a deaf couple, they want to have a deaf child.
that, that to them was what was, what 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, uh, neurogen disease.
Very, very, 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, uh, debilitating, um, 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 passed away in her sleep.
If somebody wants to have a child based off their set of what they deem to be best, based off their lived experience, 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.
But no, but again, 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 could choose not to screen embryos for Down syndrome.
Okay.
They could make that decision.
And If they make that decision, they can then translate that embryo and have that baby.
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 on both hereditary disease, like cancer, as I outlined, like chronic diseases, as well as rare disease.
So genetics can help impact, you know, 4, $4.5 trillion of healthcare expenditure, but, and there is a but, remember those 4.5 trillion, somebody's making money for someone being sick.
But it's, of course, you say, of course, but I feel that we can't just take that as a given, right?
Like genetics as a science, if deplored, Can be used for parents to make their own decisions to dramatically reduce breast cancer risk, diabetes risk, if there's something in their family, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, help reduce that next generation.
So these things can be used to basically help build what we call generational health effectively.
So to be clear, in the United States, this has played out over the last 20 years.
Like people have been able to pick the sex of their child in IVF clinics, both in 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.
I mean, it's illegal and it's much harder in these countries.
In the United States, though, if you actually played out people making their own choices, it ends up being about, again, 50 50.
So this is actually interesting because what do you think of it?
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, which is an embodiment of this kind of liberty and choice, you see it ends up being about 50 50, which I think actually undercuts this idea that everyone's going to pick a boy, for example.
Natural virtue can be intellectually derived wisdom, courage, justice, temperance.
It's kind of classic Aristotle.
And then there's things like grace 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.
So, you can.
One, you can derive from like thinking, like what leads to basic eudaimonia, human flourishing.
That kind of virtue, natural virtue, coming from Aristotle.
And another kind is thinking about divine virtue, which is what goes beyond the intellect, which Thomas Aquinas basically brought together and thought about okay, there's this idea of natural virtue that the Greeks came up with.
And then, of course, there's this idea of divine virtue coming from the Old and New Testament about union with God.
And all religions actually talk ultimately about surrendering.
Personally, I do believe in God, just so you know, if that's not clear.
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.
In other words, Islam, and you can, I'm not Christian, you're Christian, so you can tell me more about the Christian view, but there's a concept of surrender in Christianity.
So in Islam, it means literally Islam means surrender.
And the thing is, when people realize or not there are moral philosophies, they end up succumbing to one anyways, whether you recognize it's the moral.
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 in 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 basically the, the, instead of saying, oh, 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 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 and 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 and wisdom, for example, 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, it 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.
Uh, thing you try 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?
Because 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 that it's deemed virtuous if the, the person can strive and embody virtue.
And so personally, and I'm still, by the way, 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, argue over things of the mind, not things that go beyond the mind, right?
And so, in the constant of virtue ethics, I think this is the child of moral philosophy we try to embody in saying, hey, and this comes back all the way to embryonic selection, which is, hey, there is no biological best.
There is none, right?
Again, the soul, which is non physical, ultimately does not rest, 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?
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 consciousness, even like a rock, right?
So, this idea that, you know, a rock has a consciousness, 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.
And then each thing has this consciousness, and accordingly, It's kind of made in, it's endowed with something that goes beyond just kind of its weight or matter, basically.
It's basically very non-empiric, just non-materialist.
And it basically believes this idea that, again, God has given this consciousness to everything.
And to be clear, the stories of sci fi, right, like Frankenstein, for example, or even Jurassic Park, to some example, but Frankenstein, this idea that we can make life, right?
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 Seven Days.
And it recounts what happened to him, and it makes the case to all of us for stepping away from our secular assumptions and 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 Tucker Carlson Books to bypass the censors and bring you things that are actually worth reading and sharing.
And we're starting this venture with what matters most, and that's Russell Brand's message of the promise of forgiveness and joy through Jesus.
We're proud to launch our new bookstore with Russell Brand's How to Become a Christian in Seven Days.
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 commit murder for this good, and maybe they have some good that they do not have.
I'll tell you what I think, but I just tell you that there's kind of, it's like very pluralistic.
And then somebody could say, murder's always bad, which is fine.
I respect that opinion, absolutely.
And then there's sort of this last bucket, which again, I keep coming back to this idea of virtue ethics, which is, what do you, like, how do you, can you have a cultivation of the spirit of the soul to think, hey, you know, 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?
Now, 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?
So going back to the panpsychic philosophy, right?
Which is this like, no, no, no, You know, rocks 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?
But when I think about it, I think, okay, I think about a rock, which I think has some kind of maybe 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 spectrum, it comes down to this question of at what point, basically, do we have this?
Is there a soul in an embryo?
And I tend to think, and I don't know, obviously, but I tend to think that an embryo doesn't have a soul.
So when you look at the way that actually people conceive naturally, what ends up happening is that you have these formations of kind of small formations of an embryo, okay, right, which is 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 you figure out IVF in natural conception, it is the case that 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 is a fundamental beauty, not just I mean, absolutely to an embryo, in that, and this is really important for me to say because I don't know how else 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 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.
In our culture, people will conflate greater performance with being morally better, which is, I think, a big problem.
So, there's two kinds of value instrumental value and moral value.
Instrumental value is contingent.
And this is actually really important.
All of them.
Biology, all of it, nature is contingent value.
For example, you know, 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?
In other words, the value of phenotypes actually changes depending on the environment, right?
And this is obvious to say, but it's actually, I think people miss this sometimes because they think there is 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.
The first part is, um, 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 two diabetes risk, someone else might want to do schizophrenia or Alzheimer's, depending on their family history.
Somebody else might want to 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 biologic characteristic.
So I think 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 plays out to where the fact that people are pretty memetic in what they pick.
Okay.
On the ground, what I'm seeing is.
I see couples, again, a diverse range of couples, to be clear.
This technology is going to get cheaper and cheaper.
Whole genome sequencing specifically, this is actually interesting.
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.
When I started the business about six years ago in 2020, it was about $1,000, right?
So, billion dollars to $1,000.
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, it should belong to everybody, right?
Because ultimately, every parent should have the right to reduce the suffering in their future child.
I mean, 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?
And, 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.
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.
So, the point, I don't want to bring the Nazis in because it's so emotionally fraught and they had all kinds of other sins.
But 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 nothing against people with Down syndrome, but we don't want more of them.
That was his argument because it will reduce human suffering.
He collapsed and he died from a heart attack, which, by the way, is the number one killer in this country.
Just because somebody 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.
So this is the problem of our time, okay?
Does not make them any less of a person.
I agree.
And so the fundamental moral failure, it was a moral failure of eugenics, which was misconstruing these things, which is the 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.
To be clear, first and foremost, 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 realistically, 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.
No, though, actually, the therapies for CF have, you know, that's a whole separate conversation.
I don't want to be boring.
But anyway, I would just say, like all expecting 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.
But to be clear, We can have more philosophy and then say, but most people will reject the idea that there's this idea of conflating reduced suffering.
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, 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 always pick for IQ.
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 thing about picking for IQ genetically is that when you pick for IQ, um, and this is interesting because when you tell patients this, you can see how they refactor their decisions.
When you pick for IQ, you're actually picking against conscientiousness and extroversion 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?
What happens is, and also you're making them, genetically speaking, more likely to be autistic.
So these things are genetic.
You can't defy these things.
So these things go in opposite directions.
So you start selecting for one, it actually takes these things away.
So let's assume that, to your point, there's a fashion of the day.
People are, we've seen this with fashion, we see this in tech, we see this, VC investors, they all allocate toward AI.
People will end up wearing the same thing in Soho and New York.
How is this possible?
People will go to the same private school as you were saying this.
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 a phenotype becomes relative to the other phenotypes.
So in this case, for example, if everyone picked for IQ, um, extroversion and conscientious starts decreasing, okay, in terms of the prevalence in the population, the more valuable that phenotype becomes.
In other words, the rarer that extroversion and conscientiousness becomes, the more valuable it actually becomes to actually flourish in a population.
It's, yeah, 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 kind of a factoid, but, um, Males, babies, they tend to actually have a higher risk of basically dying at infancy.
So it ends up happening.
Like, if you look at the general population, it's about 50 50, but actually, biology has it that it slightly errs toward males.
But let's take the sex example.
Let's say it plays out that, you know, over many generations, people, let's say it wasn't outlawed or people still practice it anyways, and people start picking across sex.
It's actually the same phenomena.
Whereas the number of males, for example, come down, the number of females come down because of frequency based 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.
I mean, 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?
It's actually an interesting point you make on sex because if you look at sex, It's a way of kind of playing out what happens if people pick across traits, right?
Because sex is 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.
And on that point, actually, interestingly, sometimes we receive criticism from, for example, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine for saying that traits are not reproductive medicine.
However, sex is ultimately a trait that people have been picking for the last 20 years.
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.
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?
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.
It doesn't matter.
You infect the world with COVID.
That just happened five 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.
Obviously, there's some environmental things you've taken averages, but yeah, 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 difference, yeah, which is pretty amazing.
But actually, I think it's just incident to nature.
Well, we can track it over the course of the decades since I've been.
The outcome could have actually occurred even if you.
Didn't necessarily do it.
It could have just happened that way.
But also, I would say that remember that there's gene editing, which is much further out.
It's the 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 the information, we can help deal with the chronic disease crisis in the United States, the rare disease crisis as well, right?
Yeah, it's a distinction without 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 with that in mind, I don't think it's just, I totally agree that of course centralized powers, whoever they are.
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 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 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.
So in, in China, um, the scientist who was known for using gene editing to, uh, engineer the first babies, actually, Dr. He, um, what he did was he engineered the CCR5 I believe that's what the gene was called.
And he used CRISPR.
CRISPR is a bacterial immune response system.
It stands for clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats.
Basically, it refers to the set of palindromic DNA sequences in a bacteria.
And he used that to make a gene editing device called CRISPR.
So basically, what he did was he knocked out the CCR5 gene.
And his justification for knocking out this specific gene was that.
It would make the children basically resistant to HIV, AIDS.
That was what he said.
This is really interesting for a lot of reasons.
One is because you 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 the unintended consequences, when you actually optimize for knocking out that specific gene, you're also opening up 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, the dangerous side of this to your point is that balance, which is in trying to do something good, what he deemed to be virtuous, if you will, 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.
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.
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 encode the soul, is what I'm saying.
People way overshoot the idea that, oh, technology is inevitable.
Technology is not inevitable.
This is driving me crazy.
People make choices that drive technology forward.
Technology does not just happen.
It's been, you know, 20 years of really, really 15 years probably since, you know, some of these more advanced screenings had existed, but they'd 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.
I don't want to bore our reviewers 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 are also products of the time in which we live and the systems in which we operate.
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've really hurt us over the last, say, six years by not acknowledging what they don't know, overstating their own foresight about things that no human being can know.
Like there's no respect for the limits of the human mind.
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 kind of be laughed at.
That was like their corporate motto.
You had Paul Graham had his, you know, hackers and painters, this idea of that that was kind of this like kind of beautiful early Silicon Valley spirit.
There was.
There was another case of 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 maybe capitalists and 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 completely, and you see that with AI companies all the time.
They'll celebrate, oh, we hit 100 million AR in two days or something.
And it fundamentally mistakes speed and the rate at which something grows with value, right?
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, like, you know, Be damned, just grow.
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.
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, 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.
But 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 still know some of them.
They were totally fixated on the upside in a good way.
They were like, this gives the Encyclopedia Britannica, you probably didn't know what that is, but it's a physical encyclopedia that's set on your shelf and costs like thousands of dollars.
That's replaced by this CD ROM, you know, this 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 that's like definitely upsides to technology, but also downsides.
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.
But, um, if we're going to proceed, One hopes with this kind of science in a way that creates rather than destroys, then we need to keep in mind, as you said 20 times, the spiritual dimension.
I think the key thing that we have to do as a business and the more 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 mistake instrumental value with moral value.
They're different things.
And I think 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 cannot exercise, lung cancer, even for things like schizophrenia, as I mentioned, strong genetic components, but you can take weed, which actually has made people more schizophrenic, for example.
So, there's an environmental component as well.
And so, I think you have to have the deep humility in saying there's no better.
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, I don't know, you just said biology has no moral reference because everything has a spirit.
I'm just wondering, is there like a line where like, we're not doing that, period, because it's wrong.
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 in a consequentialist framework, right?
Because there's no virtue.
You end up falling in a consequentialist framework and justifies the means to the point that everybody's scrolling and liking and clicking over and over.
There's a promise in Silicon Valley, 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?
What's the answer?
Well, one, it's really hard.
I imagine, and I'm hoping to practice for Nucleus and for hopefully this industry, 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 entire world, you're figuring out the entire ocean.