[08:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=535s) IVF Precedent, He Jiankui, and the Shifting Boundaries of Bioethics
The conversation opens with a discussion on whether gene editing might trace the same historical trajectory as in vitro fertilization (IVF). When British physiologist Robert Edwards enabled the birth of the first "test-tube baby" in 1978, the technology provoked fierce moral outrage and was accused of shattering sacred ethical boundaries. Yet by 2010, approximately four million children worldwide had been born through IVF, allowing couples struggling with infertility to build families; the earliest IVF babies have since grown up to conceive children naturally. This precedent prompts the speakers to question whether current moral objections to genetic intervention are absolute truths or merely transient cultural stages. When Chinese researcher He Jiankui performed his controversial germline gene editing, his public-interest justification claimed to confer disease resistance, yet he encountered intense backlash, much of it rooted in religious and traditional views of human nature.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Evolution of Reproductive and Genetic Interventions
accDescr: Flowchart illustrating the historical shift from IVF controversies to modern genomic screening and oncology.
subgraph IVF_Era["IVF Historical Precedent"]
A["1978: First Test-Tube Baby (Edwards)"] --> B["Severe Ethical Backlash"]
B --> C["2010: 4M+ Births & Normal Reproduction"]
end
subgraph Genetic_Frontier["Genetic Interventions & Red Lines"]
D["Germline Modification Debate (He Jiankui)"]
E["14-Day Embryo Culture Rule"]
F["Risk of Rogue 'Kitchen Labs'"]
end
subgraph Clinical_Impact["Clinical Genomics"]
G["Human Genome Project"] --> H["NIPT Maternal Blood Screening"]
H --> I["Over 100 Monogenic Diseases Identified"]
G --> J["1971 'War on Cancer' to Targeted Oncology"]
end
C -.->|"Ethical evolution"| D
D --- E
E --- F
F -.->|"Public awareness & regulation"| G
```
The panel reflects on the philosophical contradictions in human attitudes toward life sciences. For millennia, agriculturalists have hybridized plants and altered the genetics of crops without moral panic; questioning why humans treat the modification of our own species so differently raises the question of whether this reluctance is simply a form of "human-centric humanism." While gene modification has not yet permanently corrupted the human gene pool, intervening in heredity without understanding the entire genetic code creates serious intergenerational unknowns. An intervention enacted today carries unpredictable consequences ten, twenty, or several generations down the line, demonstrating that humanity must balance technical capacity with long-term humility.
- **1978 Milestone**: Robert Edwards facilitated the birth of the first IVF baby (Louise Brown), initially facing severe ethical condemnation.
- **2010 Scale**: Over 4 million children had been born via IVF globally, with first-generation individuals successfully giving birth naturally.
- **Philosophical Paradox**: Plant hybridization has been practiced for thousands of years, highlighting humanity's distinct double standard when applying bio-intervention to ourselves.
---
[10:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=638s) The 14-Day Red Line, Germline Modification, and the Menace of "Kitchen Labs"
Addressing these generational risks, the speakers detail the foundational ethical barricades established by the international scientific community, chief among them the "14-day rule." Under this consensus, in vitro research on human and non-human primate embryos (such as chimpanzees and monkeys) must be terminated around the fourteenth day. This cut-off is not an arbitrary date; before 14 days, the primitive streak has not formed, the nervous system has not developed, and the embryo lacks the capacity to perceive pain. It functions as a fragile compromise between scientific inquiry and religious sensibilities, acknowledging that the entity has not yet crossed into personhood.
An even firmer line is drawn against modifying human germline cells (sperm, eggs, and early embryos). Altering germline DNA permanently embeds artificial edits into subsequent generations, opening a door with no clear exit since science cannot yet determine which edits are universally beneficial. However, the speakers candidly observe that international regulations and ethical guidelines "can only restrict good people" who willingly follow the law. They warn that rogue scientists operating in unregulated jurisdictions or isolated island nations could easily bypass these prohibitions. The threat is no longer limited to well-funded state laboratories; rogue biohackers are now working in home-based "kitchen labs," as popularized in streaming documentaries, modifying biological material and even their own bodies. To counter this asymmetry, where "evil rises by one foot, virtue must rise by ten," meaning ethical treaties, legislation, and public transparency must expand ahead of emerging biotechnological threats.
- **The 14-Day Embryo Rule**: Embryonic culturing in vitro must be halted at 14 days, coinciding with the onset of neural development and pain perception.
- **Germline Cell Prohibition**: A global ban remains in place against editing inheritable reproductive cells to protect the human gene pool.
- **"Kitchen Labs" & Biohacking**: Home laboratories operating outside academic and governmental oversight present unprecedented regulatory enforcement challenges.
---
[13:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=780s) Global Divide in Genetic Research: Conservatism vs. Radical Ambition
The discussion shifts to how different countries regulate and pursue genetic research, highlighting sharp regional divides. Continental Europe stands out as the most conservative bloc, heavily constrained by historical and religious sensitivities. In contrast, the United Kingdom has taken a surprisingly progressive, and at times radical, path; despite its European ties, Britain was among the earliest nations to authorize cytoplasmic human-animal hybrid embryos for research. The panel traces this British boldness to its scientific heritage as the birthplace of Charles Darwin. Darwin held onto his theory of evolution for twenty years out of fear of religious backlash, only publishing *On the Origin of Species* in 1859 after Alfred Russel Wallace independently arrived at the same idea and warned he would publish first.
The United States adopts the most aggressive and open posture toward biotechnology. The speakers argue that American permissiveness is not merely cultural openness, but a stance backed by unchallenged technological hegemony: the U.S. controls the underlying internet infrastructure and the vast majority of global biological databases, removing any fear that foreign rivals might outpace them. In Asia, the landscape is shifting rapidly. Japan, once a regional powerhouse, has fallen behind in population-scale genomics and gene banking, choosing instead to concentrate its resources on niche biomedical disciplines such as induced pluripotent stem cells, immunotherapy, and heavy-ion radiotherapy. China now leads Asia in large-scale genetic sequencing and genomics infrastructure, while Singapore and South Korea are maintaining aggressive investments to outpace regional competitors.
| Country / Region | Regulatory & Research Stance | Primary Focus / Strategic Advantage |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **Continental Europe** | Highly conservative | Strict ethical limits, strong precautionary principle |
| **United Kingdom** | Historically bold / radical | Human-animal hybrid embryo research, Darwinian tradition |
| **United States** | Highly open / aggressive | Dominance over global genetic databases and digital infrastructure |
| **Japan** | Lagging in genomics/gene banking | Stem cell research, immunotherapy, heavy-ion radiation therapy |
| **China** | Leading in Asia | Large-scale genomics, population gene banks, clinical screening |
| **Singapore & South Korea** | Active and accelerating | Competitive regional genomics and biotech innovation |
---
[15:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=902s) Clinical Realities: Down Syndrome Screening, NIPT, and the "War on Cancer"
The panel turns to the practical, life-altering benefits of genomics in everyday medicine, focusing on Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). Down syndrome (trisomy 21), which occurs in roughly 1 out of every 600 to 800 live births—a condition familiar to the Chinese public through figures like the orchestra conductor Zhou Zhou—traditionally required invasive amniocentesis for definitive prenatal diagnosis. Amniocentesis carried inherent risks of infection and miscarriage. Today, high-throughput sequencing allows doctors to screen for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies simply by drawing peripheral blood from the pregnant mother, detecting cell-free fetal DNA floating in maternal plasma.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Evolution of Prenatal Diagnostic Technologies
accDescr: Diagram contrasting traditional invasive amniocentesis with modern non-invasive maternal blood screening.
subgraph Traditional_Method["Traditional Screening"]
A["Suspected Chromosomal Abnormality"] --> B["Invasive Amniocentesis"]
B --> C["Risk of Miscarriage / Infection"]
end
subgraph Modern_Genomics["Modern NIPT Screening"]
D["Maternal Blood Draw"] --> E["Cell-Free Fetal DNA Sequencing"]
E --> F["Early Non-Invasive Detection"]
F --> G["Informed Parental Choice"]
end
```
This diagnostic power introduces complex ethical decisions surrounding parental choice and "informed consent." The panel highlights cultural differences in how families respond to prenatal findings. In Western nations, many parents who discover conditions like a cleft lip, cleft palate, or polydactyly choose to carry the pregnancy to term, asserting the child's right to life and relying on post-natal corrective surgeries. Conversely, in developing regions, the lifelong emotional and economic burden of severe chromosomal disorders like Down syndrome can overwhelm an entire family, making early detection and termination a critical option. Enabled by the Human Genome Project—humanity's deciphering of the "book of life"—NIPT has been performed roughly 20 million times worldwide since its clinical adoption around 2010, and it can now identify over 100 single-gene disorders, including hereditary deafness and thalassemia.
Finally, the dialogue links this genomic revolution to oncology. While true hereditary cancers passed down through the germline represent a small percentage of cases, most tumors arise from somatic mutations acquired over a lifetime. Gene technology has transformed cancer treatment, allowing oncologists to move beyond the traditional "three-horse carriage" of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy toward precision targeted therapeutics. The speakers trace this lineage back to the post-Apollo space era: following the 1969 moon landing, President Richard Nixon leveraged American scientific ambition in 1971 by substantially expanding funding for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and officially declaring a national "war on cancer."
- **Down Syndrome Prevalence**: Trisomy 21 occurs in approximately 1 in 600 to 800 pregnancies worldwide.
- **NIPT Adoption**: Performed approximately 20 million times globally since 2010, replacing risky amniocentesis with simple maternal blood tests.
- **Expanded Screening Range**: Capable of detecting more than 100 identifiable monogenic conditions, including thalassemia and congenital deafness.
- **The "Three-Horse Carriage" of Oncology**: Traditional cancer care relied on surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, which is now augmented by precision targeted genetic therapies.
- **1971 "War on Cancer"**: Initiated under Richard Nixon through the National Cancer Act, applying post-Apollo technological optimism to cancer biology.
[17:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1062s) The War on Cancer and the Genetic Turning Point
The discussion opens with Yin Ye revisiting the United States’ ambitious mid-20th-century scientific campaigns. Fresh off the triumph of the Apollo moon landings and at the absolute zenith of American geopolitical power, President Richard Nixon launched the "War on Cancer" with the National Cancer Act of 1971, pouring billions of dollars into research in hopes of totally eradicating the disease. At the time, cancer mortality was soaring, making the American public health crisis strikingly similar to what China faces today. Yet after fifteen years of immense expenditure, the campaign fell short of its grand promise.
By 1986, the cover of *Science* magazine featured Nobel laureate Renato Dulbecco, who introduced a concept that has since become ubiquitous in public discourse—and especially prominent in the Chinese real estate market: the "inflection point" or turning point (*拐点*). Dulbecco argued that medicine had reached a crossroads: unless humanity undertook the monumental task of sequencing the human genome, cancer could never be conquered. Tumors, Dulbecco declared, are fundamentally genetic diseases that mutate and evolve dynamically over time.
- **The 1971 Cancer Initiative:** Aimed to replicate the moon landing's success by pouring billions into oncology, but hit a wall after 15 years.
- **Renato Dulbecco’s 1986 *Science* Landmark:** Proposed the sequencing of the entire human genome as the prerequisite for understanding and treating malignancies.
---
[18:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1105s) Epigenetics, Emotions, and the Physicality of Mind
Dou Wentao questions whether a person without preexisting oncogenes is entirely immune to cancer. Yin Ye clarifies that, aside from rare hereditary syndromes, oncogenic mutations are not strictly fixed at birth; they accumulate over a lifetime through physical, chemical, and biological exposures. Even psychological states play a direct physiological role: persistent anger and emotional distress introduce cellular stress, prompting replication errors that slip past an overwhelmed immune system. When asked if prolonged bad moods can genuinely alter gene expression, Yin Ye confirms that emotional distress and environmental pressures alter cellular dynamics almost immediately, without needing a full lifetime to manifest.
This prompts banter around the table about forcing oneself to laugh hysterically to stay healthy, which Yin Ye gently moderates, recommending mindfulness and calm over manic forced laughter. Bridging biology and modern physics, Yin Ye notes that just as physics unified space with time and recognized mass-energy equivalence, modern science views mental cognition as inherently material. Thinking expends tangible energy and consumes physical matter; the mind is not an abstract ghost, but a biological process operating on physical substrates. While anger does not instantaneously cause a tumor, it immediately disrupts the nervous system, triggering harmful neurochemical metabolites that foster anxiety, depression, mania, or withdrawal. Furthermore, severe outcomes like strokes require pre-existing organic vascular disease rather than anger alone, representing the cumulative breakdown of biological homeostasis over time.
---
[20:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1219s) The Ship of Theseus and the Topology of Memory
Life itself, Yin Ye reflects, is fundamentally an anomaly sustained through continuous replication. Evolution depends upon imperfect replication: genetic variations arise, some grant fitness advantages, and natural selection preserves them. In our daily lives, this frantic cellular turnover never stops. During a single hour of casual conversation, over a million cells inside each person die and are renewed.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Cellular Turnover and Neural Topology
accDescr: Diagram illustrating how cell renewal over time relates to the Ship of Theseus paradox while neural topology preserves personal identity.
subgraph S1["Cellular Renewal (Ship of Theseus)"]
A["Continuous Cell Turnover<br/>(1M+ cells renewed per hour)"] --> B["7-Year Cycle:<br/>Total Somatic Replacement"]
B --> C["Material Substrate Changes<br/>('Three Lifetimes' Passed)"]
end
subgraph S2["Structural Invariance"]
D["Central Nervous System"] --> E["Hippocampal-Cortical Wiring"]
E --> F["Invariant 3D Topology<br/>(Preserves Memory and Identity)"]
end
C -.->|"Reconciled by"| F
F --> G["Degradation in Dementia:<br/>Loss of Invariant Topology ('Who are you?')"]
```
This ceaseless renewal evokes the ancient Greek paradox of the Ship of Theseus: if every wooden plank on a voyaging vessel is replaced piece by piece until no original timber remains, is it still the same ship? In human biology, nearly all somatic cells are replaced over roughly seven years. Dou Wentao remarks that since they first met and sat down to talk, they have undergone "three lifetimes" of renewal.
When asked why friends still recognize each other despite complete physical turnover, Yin Ye explains that one critical element remains invariant: the structural topology of the central nervous system. The precise geometric and synaptic wiring between neurons connecting the hippocampus to other cortical areas stays stable, serving as an enduring three-dimensional identification card. When that topology degrades—as in Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia—the structural identity dissolves, leaving the person asking loved ones, "Who are you?"
---
[21:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1313s) HeLa Cells and the Paradox of Cellular Immortality
Dou Wentao brings up an intriguing rumor that a statue at the entrance of BGI features the inscription "Immortality" (*永生*) on its base, wondering if replacing parts indefinitely could theoretically make a biological organism immortal. Yin Ye explains that on a material and cellular level, immortality already exists in biological science.
He cites the famous case of HeLa cells, derived in 1951 from cervical cancer tissue taken from an African American woman named Henrietta Lacks. Although she was not an informed volunteer, her cells became the foundation of modern biomedical research. Unlike normal human cells, which encounter the Hayflick limit and senesce, HeLa cells replicate indefinitely. Over the decades, the cumulative mass of HeLa cells grown in laboratories worldwide has surpassed Henrietta Lacks’ original body weight tens of thousands of times over, functioning as the global gold standard for cancer research. Malignant cells, Yin Ye observes, are paradoxical entities: in their pathological defiance of programmed death, they achieve true biological immortality.
---
[22:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1357s) Selfish Genes, Human Nature, and Three Dimensions of Genetic Health
Dou Wentao presses on whether genetic research has actually made a difference in controlling cancer, noting that the disease remains rampant. Yin Ye steps back to frame the tension between science and ethics: "Humanities without science is often just ignorance; but science without humanities is dangerous." While genes are inherently selfish—as formulated in evolutionary biology—human survival depends on selfless morality overcoming genetic selfishness.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Three Genetic Dimensions of Human Health
accDescr: Categorization of human health challenges into invading foreign genes, congenital prenatal conditions, and somatic mutations over time.
H["Human Health & Genetics"] --> Cat1["1. Foreign Invading Genes<br/>(Infections & Microbiome)"]
H --> Cat2["2. Innate Congenital Genes<br/>(Prenatal Health & NIPT)"]
H --> Cat3["3. Somatic Mutations Over Time<br/>(Environmental Exposure & Tumors)"]
Cat1 --> R1["Microbial balance breaks down<br/>into sepsis or infection"]
Cat2 --> R2["Chromosomal conditions (e.g., Down syndrome);<br/>requires social welfare support"]
Cat3 --> R3["Replication errors + longevity<br/>lead to malignant neoplasms"]
```
Yin Ye breaks down human health into three distinct genetic arenas:
1. **Foreign Invading Genes (Infections and Microbiota):** Humans live in continuous symbiosis with trillions of viruses and bacteria. Pathologies like sepsis do not simply emerge from external invasion, but from a breakdown in the ongoing biological negotiation between the host's immune system and its resident microorganisms, often precipitated by aging.
2. **Innate Congenital Genetics (Prenatal Screening):** Conditions determined in the womb, such as Down syndrome, dictate initial quality of survival. Yin Ye mentions non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and notes that BGI actively employs individuals with Down syndrome ("Down babies"). He points out that debates over abortion often occupy an abstract, infinite ethical high ground, whereas reality is dictated by concrete social conditions: outside of rare supportive environments, most children born with severe developmental conditions never even have the chance to visit a public park.
3. **Somatic Mutations Over Time (Tumors):** Genes that begin healthy but mutate across decades of physical, chemical, and environmental exposure.
---
[24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1497s) Longevity as the Primary Driver of Cancer Incidence
Addressing Dou Wentao's question about why cancer feels far more widespread today, Yin Ye emphasizes a fundamental demographic truth: humanity is living long enough to develop it. Cancer incidence is primarily a byproduct of dramatic gains in life expectancy.
In 1949, the average life expectancy in China was under 39 years—a figure pulled down by infant mortality, poverty, and unrecorded deaths. Today, average life expectancy in mainland China has reached 77 years, while Hong Kong leads the world at 86 years. In Japan's Osaka prefecture, average female life expectancy has already surpassed 90. Barring catastrophic global war, children born in the 21st century are projected to routinely approach 90.
These gains are pushing humanity toward the evolutionary upper boundary of our biological design, which mammalian projections place between 100 and 175 years (with 120 frequently cited as a working biological baseline). However, as longevity rises, replication errors inevitably accumulate. By the time an individual reaches age 80, the statistical probability of developing a malignant tumor at least once climbs to roughly 22% to 25%—meaning approximately one out of every four 80-year-olds will face a cancer diagnosis.
- **China's Life Expectancy Trajectory:** Under 39 years in 1949; 77 years in mainland China today; 86 years in Hong Kong.
- **Estimated Biological Lifespan Limit:** Theoretical human ceiling projected between 100 and 175 years (standard mammalian model around 120 years).
- **Age 80 Malignancy Rate:** Between 22% and 25% (roughly 1 in 4) lifetime tumor probability.
[26:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1571s) Eliminating Cervical Cancer and the Power of Early Genetic Screening
The conversation centers on the philosophy and reality of preventative oncology, captured by the maxim: "There are no sudden-onset tumors, only suddenly discovered ones." The discussion highlights cervical cancer as the very first cancer targeted for global elimination. Public health initiatives aim for a landmark goal by 2047, using the deliberate and precise term "eliminate" rather than "eradicate," with the objective of driving the incidence rate down below 4 per 100,000 (and potentially below 1 in 10,000). Cervical cancer remains the second deadliest cancer killer of women worldwide behind breast cancer, yet it is uniquely conquerable through two complementary technological pillars: widespread HPV vaccination before sexual debut and regular genetic screening.
The dialogue clarifies a common misconception regarding human papillomavirus (HPV). Cervical cancer should not be viewed merely as a sexually transmitted disease, because HPV is ubiquitous in the environment. While men are anatomically straightforward to keep clean, the female cervix is far more complex and difficult to cleanse. When female immune defenses dip, persistent chronic infection with high-risk oncogenic HPV strains can take hold. This oncogenic transformation is not instantaneous; it is an agonizingly slow process spanning anywhere from several years to over a decade. The panel solemnly notes the tragic loss of Hong Kong icon Anita Mui to cervical cancer, underscoring that routine check-ups during this long latency window can intercept the disease early. Interventions can be as minimal as medical monitoring, drug therapy, or quick in-situ surgical excisions of the cervical surface before malignancy spreads.
When asked where genetics enters the equation, the explanation turns to viral genomics. Just as the COVID-19 virus targets and enters epithelial cells of the respiratory tract, HPV invades cervical epithelial cells. Genetic testing does not just look at human DNA; it identifies the specific genomic signatures of high-risk HPV variants in swabbed cells. Because cervical cancer arises from repeated, long-term chronic infection, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends testing every three years alongside vaccination to catch and eliminate anomalies immediately.
The preventative paradigm extends directly to other malignancies, particularly colorectal cancer. Previously, colon cancer detection relied almost entirely on invasive colonoscopies—procedures that demand advance bookings, bowel preparation, clinical visits, sedation or anesthesia, and heavy medical resources. Today, stool DNA screening allows doctors to analyze exfoliated epithelial cells shed from the intestinal lining. This genetic triage drastically streamlines healthcare delivery: out of every 100 patients previously sent for colonoscopy, screening can identify the roughly 5 who test positive and truly need an invasive scope, sparing 95 individuals the ordeal while conserving hospital capacity. Through such non-diagnostic early screening methodologies, medical science is currently poised to manage and monitor around seven to eight common cancer types before they ever manifest clinically.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Early Screening Funnel
accDescr: Diagram illustrating the shift from traditional late diagnostics to preventative genetic screening workflows for cervical and colorectal cancers.
subgraph Cervical["Cervical Cancer Pathway"]
C1["High-Risk HPV Infection<br/>Latent period: years to over a decade"] --> C2["HPV Genetic Testing & Vaccination<br/>Screening every 3 years"]
C2 --> C3["Early Intervention<br/>Medication or in-situ surface surgery"]
C3 --> C4["Target by 2047: 'Eliminate'<br/>Incidence under 4 per 100,000"]
end
subgraph Colorectal["Colorectal Cancer Screening Funnel"]
CR1["General Population<br/>e.g., 100 Individuals"] --> CR2["Stool DNA Testing<br/>Analyzes shed intestinal lining cells"]
CR2 -->|"Negative (~95 individuals)"| CR3["Avoid Invasive Procedures<br/>Saves clinical & personal resources"]
CR2 -->|"Positive (~5 individuals)"| CR4["Targeted Colonoscopy<br/>Under anesthesia / bowel prep"]
end
```
- Cervical cancer is the primary candidate for near-total elimination, targeting an incidence under 4 per 100,000 (and down toward 1 in 10,000) by 2047.
- Breast cancer ranks as the number one cancer killer among women, followed by cervical cancer in second place.
- HPV latency spans several years to more than ten years, leaving a wide therapeutic window for simple in-situ procedures.
- Stool DNA screening reduces colonoscopy demand from 100 baseline patients down to just the 5 who test positive.
- Preventative genetic screening platforms are currently targeting roughly seven to eight major cancer varieties.
---
[29:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1768s) Beyond the Central Dogma: Genetic Complexity and Why Evolution Needs Sex
The discussion shifts from clinical application to theoretical genetics, tracing how our understanding of the genome has transformed. In the 1960s and 1970s, molecular biology adhered strictly to the Central Dogma of life: one gene transcribes into one protein, and that protein directs metabolism. While accepted as settled doctrine for decades, that simplistic one-to-one linear model proved incorrect. Nature operates as an intricate, interdependent network: several genes can dictate a single trait, or a single gene can regulate multiple distinct proteins and functions. The speakers compare this unpredictable complexity to playing mahjong—the moment you lock in your strategy for a winning hand, unexpected tiles send the game drifting in a new direction. Echoing the iconic line from *Jurassic Park*, "Life always finds a way," the participants note that biology refuses to stay rigidly boxed in.
This complexity prompts fundamental evolutionary questions: Why does the human genome require 3 billion base pairs, and why was sexual reproduction invented in the first place? If biological machinery is so sophisticated, asexual reproduction would seem far more efficient on paper. The evolutionary necessity of sex lies in the pace of generational turnover and genetic variation. Simple organisms like *Escherichia coli*, viruses, and yeast rely on asexual binary fission, dividing every 20 minutes to produce exponential generations and rapid spontaneous mutations. Humans, by contrast, take roughly 20 years to produce a single generation.
Because higher species possess vast, highly stabilized genomes that do not mutate or rearrange easily on their own, waiting for beneficial single-generation mutations would lead to evolutionary stagnation. Sexual reproduction solves this dilemma through genetic recombination—shuffling the genetic deck with every pairing: "If this hand of cards isn't good, we use sex to mix them up." Historical and population-wide cross-breeding (such as Han Chinese populations mixing across diverse groups) continually introduces new combinations of traits, some advantageous and some not, but collectively sustaining robust genetic diversity and ecological adaptability. Consequently, the panel notes that widespread sexual repression acts as a direct inhibitor of biological and genetic vitality.
- The 1960s–70s Central Dogma (one gene = one protein) has been superseded by complex multi-gene and pleiotropic network models.
- The human genome encompasses approximately 3 billion base pairs.
- *E. coli* replicates once every 20 minutes, whereas humans reproduce once every 20 years, making rapid asexual mutation unviable for human adaptation.
- Sexual reproduction functions as an evolutionary card-shuffle mechanism designed to preserve genomic adaptability across long generational cycles.
---
[31:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=1893s) The Carrier of Information, Emergence, and the Probability of Life
The participants grapple with the tangible material reality of genetics. When scientists speak abstractly of genetic codes, software, and biological information, what is actually holding and reading that data? In computer hardware, information exists within physical silicon microchips, utilizing transistors with binary states (0 and 1) or semiconductors with tri-state logic. How can organic molecular matter, constructed from chemical base pairs, give rise to intelligence, self-organization, and consciousness?
The answer lies in the profound physical and philosophical concept of "emergence." Emergence describes the phenomenon where simple, uniform components accumulate in scale until they cross a critical threshold, suddenly giving birth to entirely novel macro-properties that none of the constituent parts possessed individually. To illustrate, an analogy is drawn to the development of a city. A city does not begin because an overarching authority sketches a metropolis from scratch; it might begin as a single crossroads, a lone transit station, or a solitary house. Over thousands of years, as millions of separate human decisions and structural elements accumulate, the urban organism transitions from an agricultural cluster into a modern metropolis. A settlement requires roughly 100,000 residents to function as a modern city, and it takes an aggregated population of at least 500,000 people to sustain an infectious epidemic; below that critical mass, an outbreak cannot perpetuate itself.
This quantitative leap explains biological cognition:
- A mouse possesses approximately 70 million neurons.
- A monkey possesses roughly 6.1 billion neurons.
- A human brain contains an astounding 86.1 billion neurons—roughly 14 times that of a monkey and over 1,200 times that of a mouse.
Just as the primitive "reptilian brain" stem expanded through evolution into the massive mammalian cortex, conscious intelligence emerges naturally from this astronomical scaling of neural connections, echoing Pythagorean notions of mathematical order in the physical universe.
The segment concludes by addressing the sheer mathematical probability of life's emergence on Earth. Dou Wentao brings up a famous skepticism: comparing the spontaneous generation of human life from primordial chemical conditions to a tornado blowing through a junkyard of scattered car parts and leaving behind a fully assembled, working automobile. Can 3.4 billion years of terrestrial history truly account for a whirlwind assembling an engine? Yin Ye challenges the assumption that the starting line and ending line are neatly linear, noting that science cannot even be certain whether life on Earth is strictly indigenous or arrived from outer space via panspermia. Against the backdrop of an observable universe spanning 14.6 billion years, the emergence of organic complexity follows deep physical principles that transcend pure random chance.
- Emergence defines the spontaneous manifestation of macro-level properties from the quantitative accumulation of micro-level units.
- Minimum population threshold for an epidemic to continuously propagate: roughly 500,000 individuals.
- Modern urban status historically requires a minimum settlement size of approximately 100,000 people.
- Comparative neuroanatomy: mice have 70 million neurons; monkeys have 6.1 billion; humans possess 86.1 billion neurons.
- Terrestrial biological evolution spans roughly 3.4 billion years within an observable cosmic timeline of 14.6 billion years.
嘉宾们从人工智能的边界展开了深度辩论。尹烨提出，在当下的 AI 中他看不到真正的希望，因为目前的 AI 充其量只能称作“计算”（calculation），或者说是某种“算计”（scheming）。但这两者有着天壤之别：计算具有确定性，依靠矩阵和概率区间在既定框架内运作；而算计则调动了大量深层的人类智慧，具有完全的不可预测性。尹烨指出，很多人向他炫耀自己的算法系统多么精准、绝不出错，但他反驳道：“你的智能必须能够犯错，一个不能犯错的系统绝对不是智能。”
[54:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=3242s) Cultivating Authenticity and the Ripple Effect of Beauty
The conversation opens with a reflection on how genuine appreciation and discernment are nurtured from an early age. In traditional merchant families, elders would hand real gold bars to young children to play with as everyday toys. The rationale was simple yet profound: by handling authentic, high-quality materials from infancy, children intuitively internalized the weight, texture, and concept of true value, making it impossible for counterfeit or cheap imitations to fool them later in life. This principle extends far beyond wealth; immersing oneself regularly in nature—an experience that costs nothing—or engaging with genuinely good, unadulterated things builds an innate standard of taste that influences how a person perceives life, food, and culture.
This leads into a discussion about how the appreciation of beauty possesses transformative power across all dimensions of character and society. The speakers playfully recall the classic civic campaign of the "Four Beauties and Three Loves" (五讲四美三热爱), trying to list the components of the "Four Beauties"—heart, language, behavior, and environment. To illustrate the tangible impact of environmental aesthetics, an anecdote is shared about an interview with the principal of an impoverished middle school in Hubei. When that principal first took over, the school was plagued by an abysmal culture: rampant cheating on exams, teachers aiding students in academic dishonesty, and an overwhelming atmosphere of neglect that made families avoid the institution.
Rather than issuing heavy-handed disciplinary rules, the principal took an unconventional, grassroots approach starting in the bathrooms. Enlisting the school’s art teacher, he instructed everyone to bring in live plants, flowers, and greenery to beautify the restrooms. Once the restrooms were transformed, a psychological shift rippled through the entire campus. Students and staff began to notice the shift, realizing their physical environment was improving, which sparked a shared desire to respect and maintain the campus. This small aesthetic intervention became the catalyst for an overhaul of the entire school culture, proving how an awakening of aesthetic appreciation can gradually alter human behavior and community norms from the ground up.
---
[55:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=3340s) Realism in Taste: Queues, Marketing, and the Dilemma of Judgment
When a guest remarks that relying purely on innate aesthetics sounds like pure "idealism," the discussion pivots toward "realism"—how ordinary people actually make daily choices when they lack the confidence or knowledge to evaluate quality themselves. In reality, when consumers cannot discern taste on their own, the safest survival strategy is following the herd: look for the restaurant with the longest queue. The underlying logic is that if dozens of people are waiting in line, the food cannot be terrible, because an entire crowd cannot be fooled indefinitely. In modern life, this behavior translates into browsing crowdsourced rating apps and online recommendations.
The alternative shortcut in consumer society is judging an establishment by its surface aesthetic: chic interior decor, clever branding, and compelling storytelling. While such establishments may not necessarily offer superior craftsmanship or quality, their carefully constructed narratives seduce patrons who lack personal judgment.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Consumer Decision Pathways
accDescr: Chart illustrating how consumers evaluate dining and lifestyle quality through direct knowledge, herd behavior, or marketing.
One speaker readily admits the limits of individual expertise. While he considers himself an expert on pan-fried buns (*shengjianbao*)—knowing precisely which cut of pork is ideal, the exact gluten levels of the flour, and every nuanced step of the frying process—he confesses to being completely illiterate in other domains like fine wine. When confronted with a bottle costing tens of thousands of yuan versus one costing a few hundred, he cannot reliably tell the difference. In such specialized categories, regular consumers are forced to depend on outside authority figures and institutional mechanisms:
- **The Relentless Pursuit of "Classic" Status:** Brands that have maintained prestige and market dominance over generations.
- **Heavy Marketing Capital:** Elaborate promotional campaigns and compelling origin myths that persuade buyers to step through the door.
- **The Life Analogy:** Deciding what to eat mirrors navigating life choices: you either possess genuine internal criteria, or you navigate by social proof and expert marketing.
---
[58:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=3485s) Quality for the Common Folk and the COVID Trajectory Joke
The dialogue clarifies that true quality is not an exclusive privilege reserved for high-end luxury or the wealthy. Humble street snacks and everyday comforts—like a properly crafted pan-fried bun—demonstrate that common, affordable food can achieve peak culinary excellence. Quality in ordinary life does not hinge on vast financial resources; it reflects a natural alignment between a person's palate and their honest means.
Taste and quality are characterized mathematically as a fraction: the numerator represents one's boundless desires, while the denominator represents available resources and actual capacity. If someone's expectations balloon excessively while their material resources remain modest, their perceived quality of life plummets.
This tension between genuine taste and external status prompts a dry joke from the pandemic era: *"Because of COVID-19, I was forced to upgrade my standard of living—otherwise, I'd go broke from shame."* The humor stemmed from the rigorous public tracing of infected individuals' epidemiological itineraries:
- Every infected patient's travel log and dining history was published down to the minute.
- People joked that they had to stop eating at cheap, greasy diners and start frequenting upscale bistros and high-end hotels purely so their public contact-tracing trajectory would look respectable if published.
- The humor points to an uncomfortable truth: people dread public exposure of mundane habits, begging the question of whether chasing a "high-quality life" is often just an elaborate performance to "save face" (*mianzi*) rather than personal fulfillment.
---
[01:00:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=3638s) The Photogenic Economy, Catering vs. Gastronomy, and the Cost of Quality
The conversation turns to how the modern hospitality industry deliberately manipulates this anxiety through "vibe" and atmosphere. Catering training seminars openly instruct entrepreneurs on how to exploit the public's psychological vulnerabilities. Restaurants design interiors specifically to be "photo-friendly" (*daka* spots), tailoring lighting and angles for selfie sticks and lifestyle apps. A widespread commercial trick is designing an environment where a customer spends 85 yuan but walks away with the psychological illusion of having enjoyed a 250-yuan luxury experience.
This reveals a deep divide between corporate catering (*canyin*) and genuine gastronomy (*meishi*). While gastronomy focuses on the authentic, aesthetic appraisal of craft and flavor, modern commercial catering is an engineered optimization puzzle. Fast-food chains like McDonald's represent the pinnacle of this calculation: every ingredient, labor hour, and operational second is standardized to hit the optimal profit line.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: The Law of Diminishing Returns in Quality
accDescr: Diagram showing how cost scales exponentially once a baseline standard of quality is exceeded.
This standardization imposes harsh diminishing returns on consumers:
- Spending 50 units of money might get an experience to a passing baseline of 60 points.
- Spending an additional 50 units might only bump the quality incrementally to 65 points.
- Pushing further to achieve a 70-point experience requires an exponential jump to 200 units.
This exponential cost curve applies universally to food, clothing, automobiles, and housing: beyond the standardized baseline, every fractional gain in real quality demands double or triple the financial expenditure. As a counter-strategy, one guest mentions hunting for newly opened clothing boutiques where owners still over-invest in superior textiles and tailoring before commercial compromises take over.
The discussion concludes on the societal anxiety surrounding aesthetics. Linking quality to taste and art has triggered intense anxiety among parents, especially as artistic and aesthetic literacy (*meiyu*) is formally integrated into secondary school admissions exams (*zhongkao*). Amid this serious reflection, the panel is momentarily derailed by playful banter when someone fumbles with a cup, teasingly observing that whether in dining or everyday objects, genuine high quality remains stubbornly elusive.
[01:04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=3864s) Aesthetic Education, Parental Anxiety, and Skill vs. Taste
The discussion turns toward the burgeoning cultural craze among modern parents who enthusiastically flock to museum exhibitions with their children. Parents will sign up for classes, study up on exhibits, and stand in long queues with their kids in tow—regardless of whether they genuinely understand or appreciate the art themselves. While one speaker humorously interjects to ask if this sudden dedication is merely because art appreciation now "counts toward their grades," the panel acknowledges that the phenomenon reflects a deeper, generational transformation tied directly to socioeconomic progress. Having achieved material stability, modern society has arrived at a threshold where parents earnestly yearn for the next generation to develop a refined aesthetic sensibility, believing that instilling the ability to differentiate between beauty and ugliness early in childhood will cultivate lifelong good taste.
However, the speakers draw a sharp, critical boundary between rote technical mastery and authentic aesthetic understanding. It is increasingly common to see children who can perform technically proficient piano pieces or produce competent drawings, yet possess no genuine comprehension of music or artistic expression. Learning the mechanics of an instrument or a paintbrush does not automatically translate into an aesthetic soul; without experiential resonance and emotional connection, technical proficiency remains an empty exercise detached from real appreciation.
- **Parental Drive**: Driven partly by educational criteria and partly by generational aspiration, families treat museum outings and art classes as essential cultural investments for their children.
- **Skill vs. Aesthetics**: A clear distinction is drawn between mechanical competence (playing piano keys or drawing lines) and true artistic sensibility, which requires internal cultivation rather than mere drilling.
---
[01:05:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQaaHt0lLM&t=3916s) Cultivating Future Sensibilities: *Design Ah* and Everyday Aesthetics
The conversation deepens into how genuine aesthetic education can be nurtured, moving beyond formal instruction into lived, sensory experiences. One speaker shares a deep appreciation for the acclaimed Japanese educational television series *Design Ah* (*デザインあ*), an imaginative project that enlisted nearly half of Japan's design elite—including luminaries such as Kenya Hara and Taku Satoh—to spearhead its planning and visual identity. Composed of short, ten-minute episodes, the show dismantles everyday objects down to their fundamental elements, playfully demonstrating how the built world is conceived, assembled, and optimized. The creator's guiding ambition was not immediate commercial return, but the far-sighted goal of "cultivating the designers of 60 years from now."
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Cultivating Long-Term Aesthetics through Everyday Design
accDescr: Flow showing how top design masters deconstruct basic objects to inspire future generations and everyday living.
subgraph Masters["Foundational Design Effort"]
A["Top Industry Leaders<br/>(Kenya Hara, Taku Satoh)"] --> B["10-Minute Concept Episodes<br/>(Deconstructing Everyday Objects)"]
end
subgraph Impact["Generational & Personal Impact"]
B --> C["Long-Term Vision<br/>(Cultivating Designers 60 Years Ahead)"]
B --> D["Everyday Application<br/>(Quality in Cramped Rented Rooms)"]
end
```
The panel reflects on the conventional, misguided prejudice that top-tier thinkers, artists, and creators should not "waste" their talents on children's programming or entry-level fundamentals. On the contrary, having industry masters dedicate themselves to basic sensory enlightenment allows design thinking to take root organically. The discussion concludes by bringing these grand concepts back to down-to-earth realities: aesthetic mindfulness should not be a luxury reserved for the affluent. Even for young people renting cramped urban apartments—spaces barely wide enough to stand in—quality of life and thoughtful design can still be pursued through the deliberate, small details of daily existence.
- **Program Spotlight**: *Design Ah* (*デザインあ*), an episodic series running roughly ten minutes per segment, designed to demystify everyday objects and structural aesthetics.
- **Core Collaborators**: Spearheaded by prominent figures in Japanese design, most notably graphic designer Kenya Hara and graphic/package designer Taku Satoh.
- **The Sixty-Year Vision**: The show's core ethos centers on laying subtle creative foundations to nurture the creative designers of six decades into the future.
- **Everyday Quality**: A final prompt addresses practical living: how young urban renters residing in minimal square footage can nevertheless cultivate dignity, aesthetic awareness, and quality through conscious attention to small details.
[0:00] They are different from bacteria. The
[0:01] antibiotics we have today only work on
[0:02] bacteria; antibiotics simply cannot
[0:04] deal with viruses.
[0:05] >> Mm-hmm.
[0:05] >> Viruses are inside the cells. This
[0:07] means if I want to kill the virus
[0:08] inside a cell, I have to kill your
[0:10] human cells first. So, the toxicity
[0:12] means that while killing the virus, I
[0:13] might damage eight hundred enemies
[0:15] while losing a hundred of my own.
[0:16] >> That is entirely possible.
[0:18] >> Therefore, dealing with viruses is an
[0:20] extremely difficult task.
[0:22] >> So in the end, we humans and most
[0:23] viruses have reached a state of
[0:25] harmonious coexistence. Let me ask you
[0:29] a frightening question, but even though
[0:31] it's scary, we can't ignore it. Is it
[0:34] possible that some virus could
[0:35] eventually lead to the extinction of
[0:37] humanity? As of now, there is no such
[0:40] precedent. Because this involves
[0:43] another issue, which is that humans
[0:45] must maintain what we call sufficient
[0:47] species diversity. We cannot rely on
[0:50] monocultures. For example, if you take
[0:53] these cherry tomatoes—many people
[0:55] initially ask, "Boss, are these
[0:57] genetically modified?" They really
[0:59] aren't. Because the first gene we
[1:01] identified to regulate crop traits is
[1:03] called QTL, I can adjust this gene to
[1:05] make them larger or smaller. It was
[1:08] discovered in 1988, making it the first
[1:10] crop gene, which is why we can easily
[1:12] adjust the size of tomatoes today.
[1:14] However, if the whole world only had
[1:16] one type of tomato, only cultivated
[1:18] varieties and no wild species, then a
[1:20] single viral infection could wipe them
[1:22] all out. So if we want to survive in
[1:24] the long run, we must protect
[1:26] biodiversity. You know, I was reading
[1:28] this popular science book, and it
[1:30] mentioned......
[1:31] >> that species in nature preserve many
[1:33] genes that might be very useful to us
[1:35] in the future. For example, it
[1:37] mentioned crocodiles.
[1:38] >> Yes.
[1:39] >> Crocodile genes are even more effective
[1:41] than any of our antibiotics.
[1:42] >> Yes, they have their own protective
[1:44] state. You mentioned that we have now
[1:46] completed the sequencing of the human
[1:47] genome's 3 billion base pairs.
[1:50] >> We have. Have we figured out which gene
[1:52] controls which disease, is that all
[1:54] clear now?
[1:56] >> No. We've probably only figured out
[1:58] less than 5 percent.
[1:59] >> But that 5 percent you mentioned—is
[2:01] that what you think you've figured out,
[2:03] or...
[2:03] >> You have a point.
[2:04] >> Is it actually figured out?
[2:05] >> You have a point; it's what we*think*
[2:07] we've figured out. Within the scope of
[2:09] our knowledge today, does everyone with
[2:10] a certain gene definitely develop the
[2:12] disease? Actually, regarding the
[2:13] highest level of expression, we have a
[2:14] term called "penetrance," which refers
[2:16] to the probability that having a
[2:17] specific gene will result in the
[2:18] expression of that trait. Actually,
[2:20] it's just over 90%; there's still 10%we
[2:22] can't explain. Life always has
[2:23] exceptions, right? It's not accurate.
[2:25] Like me, because I’ve done this gene
[2:27] testing, they keep emailing me saying,
[2:29] "Your fear of heights is such and such,
[2:31] " and I’m like, "I don’t have a
[2:32] fear of heights." They probably think
[2:34] people with DNA similar to mine have a
[2:36] high likelihood of acrophobia.
[2:38] >> That’s how it is; they often confuse
[2:40] correlation with causation. Mixing up
[2:42] correlation and causation is something
[2:44] we in the genetics field encounter
[2:45] often. So, you can't really rely on
[2:47] these consumer gene tests for a medical
[2:48] diagnosis; you still need to follow a
[2:50] strict set of clinical diagnostic
[2:51] standards, and the things you can
[2:53] actually diagnose within that framework
[2:54] are quite limited, really not that many
[2:56] . But regarding the issue you raised,
[2:58] Professor Du, it’s possible we may
[2:59] never be able to fully map a gene. So,
[3:02] I’m asking you this question because
[3:03] it relates to many of the concerns we
[3:05] in the humanities have about the future
[3:07] , for instance, what we see in the news
[3:09] every day—like claiming we've
[3:11] identified the gene to cure cancer.
[3:14] >> And now, we even have so-called gene
[3:16] editing technology.
[3:18] >> This gene editing technology sounds
[3:20] simple enough; if a specific gene
[3:22] causes the disease, you just snip it
[3:24] out. But my question is, how do you
[3:27] know for sure? If you tweak this one,
[3:29] won’t it affect others? Could one
[3:32] move set off a chain reaction? Do we
[3:33] have any certainty about this at all?
[3:35] No certainty, you are absolutely right
[3:37] about that. You’re right, it's
[3:39] exactly like the saying: when you press
[3:40] down one gourd, another pops up. This
[3:42] is actually a very clear issue for
[3:44] everyone regarding gene editing. Many
[3:47] people ask me, "Can we edit a perfect
[3:48] human being?" I say it’s simply
[3:50] impossible. First of all, what does "
[3:52] perfect" even mean for a human? Second,
[3:53] there are just too many unintended
[3:55] consequences. The only thing we can do
[3:56] today is to correct certain errors;
[3:58] that is the extent of it. For example,
[3:59] with thalassemia, the specific
[4:01] condition might be caused by just a
[4:02] single base pair error. So, I repair
[4:04] that gene. At the very least, I enable
[4:06] this child—who otherwise would need a
[4:07] bone marrow transplant, constant
[4:09] treatment, and medication—to use
[4:10] their own cells. I can do that, and
[4:12] medical ethics only allow us to go this
[4:14] far, based on two core factors: first,
[4:15] fixing what is wrong—if you are sick,
[4:17] I make you normal. Second, this is not
[4:19] germline editing. I’ve edited it for
[4:21] them, but it doesn't carry over. It
[4:23] isn’t passed on to their sperm or
[4:24] eggs, because we cannot edit the
[4:26] germline. To do that would be to create
[4:28] ...It's equivalent to customizing
[4:30] babies.
[4:31] >> What about that professor from SUSTech,
[4:33] is he not doing well?
[4:34] >> Is his name He Jiankui?
[4:36] >> Shenzhen scientist He Jiankui claimed
[4:38] that a pair of gene-edited babies named
[4:40] Lulu and Nana were born in China in
[4:42] November. Nothing was changed except
[4:45] the one to prevent HIV.
[4:50] >> To a certain extent, if we re-examine
[4:52] He Jiankui's gene-edited baby incident,
[4:54] it had two core issues; the first was
[4:56] insufficient informed consent. That is,
[5:00] there were flaws in the process between
[5:02] the recipients and the final conclusion
[5:04] reached.
[5:05] >> That is, the pregnant women who
[5:07] participated. They didn't really know
[5:09] what this was for, maybe just simply
[5:10] understanding that "after I edit this,
[5:12] you won't get this disease." That might
[5:14] be what we call informed consent. "
[5:17] >> Your child won't get infected in the
[5:19] future," something like that; it was
[5:20] insufficient. The second problem is
[5:26] that during this process, he actually
[5:28] missed the target, meaning he didn't...
[5:32] >> What do you mean by missing the target?
[5:34] >> Specifically, it's like this: AIDS is
[5:36] something everyone finds terrifying,
[5:38] but there is indeed a group of people
[5:40] in nature who don't get AIDS. Why don't
[5:42] these people get AIDS? They have a gene
[5:44] called CCR5. If 32 base pairs are
[5:49] knocked out from the 31-base-pair
[5:51] sequence of this gene, the AIDS virus
[5:53] can't find the door and can't get in.
[5:57] We can understand it that simply.
[5:59] >> So this person has a defect, but it
[6:00] actually prevents the virus from
[6:01] entering.
[6:02] >> Uh, you can put it that way, because we
[6:04] only truly recognized AIDS in the mid-
[6:06] 80s, around 1985 or 1986. Before that,
[6:08] it might have been a defect, but after
[6:11] that, it became a natural immunity to
[6:13] AIDS, so...
[6:13] >> That is an advantage. It counts as an
[6:15] advantage; that's what I meant by there
[6:17] being no absolute "optimal."
[6:18] >> There is no "optimal." If you look at
[6:20] He Jiankui's original intention, it was
[6:21] still good, because if the parents
[6:23] already have AIDS, how can I ensure the
[6:25] offspring don't get infected? The
[6:26] simplest way is, why not just make them
[6:28] immune to AIDS? Then I should have
[6:30] accurately knocked out those 32 base
[6:31] pairs, but he didn't hit the target.
[6:33] >> Oh, so there was a technical error.
[6:35] >> There was a technical error, and he
[6:36] knew it, yet he still proceeded.
[6:38] >> Hmm.
[6:39] >> So this makes it even harder to justify
[6:41] . The Shenzhen Nanshan District
[6:44] People's Court delivered its
[6:45] first-instance verdict publicly.
[6:47] >> The court found that since 2016, He
[6:49] Jiankui and others forged ethical
[6:51] reviews and, under the guise of using
[6:54] human embryo CCR5 gene editing to
[6:56] produce babies immune to AIDS, applied
[6:58] human embryo gene editing technology to
[7:00] assisted reproductive medicine.
[7:03] Recruited multiple couples where the
[7:05] male partner was HIV-positive to
[7:06] undergo gene editing and assisted
[7:08] reproduction. Using identity theft and
[7:11] deception, they had unknowing doctors
[7:13] implant gene-edited embryos into women
[7:15] using assisted reproductive technology,
[7:17] resulting in two pregnancies and the
[7:19] birth of three gene-edited babies. The
[7:23] defendant He Jiankui was sentenced to
[7:25] three years in prison and fined 3
[7:27] million RMB; all three defendants
[7:29] pleaded guilty and expressed remorse in
[7:31] court. At the time, there was a concern
[7:36] that by modifying the genes of these
[7:38] fertilized eggs—what you call
[7:40] germline cells—it sounded like it was
[7:42] polluting the gene pool. There is that
[7:46] theory, right? Because do these two
[7:50] children have the right to reproduce in
[7:51] the future? If they do have the right
[7:56] to reproduce, their modified genes
[7:57] would then be passed on. You could
[8:01] understand it this way: none of our
[8:03] genes are perfect. Take myself for
[8:04] example: I am at least a known carrier
[8:06] of eight serious genetic mutations. If
[8:09] my partner and I were to have children,
[8:10] there would be a one-in-four chance of
[8:12] giving birth to a child with a
[8:14] potentially severe or fatal condition.
[8:16] But everyone has them. Everyone here
[8:18] surely has them, because basically no
[8:19] one is perfect. As I said, these traits
[8:22] might be legacies that evolved
[8:23] historically to combat even more severe
[8:25] conditions.
[8:26] >> Mhm. So, in that sense, if we just talk
[8:29] about whether these two children being
[8:31] edited will affect their survival in
[8:33] the future? I don't think it will, in
[8:36] all probability. But once this door is
[8:38] opened, as you said, we could end up
[8:40] creating anything. So this door itself
[8:43] is what we are discussing today—
[8:45] >> It's an ethical issue.
[8:46] >> It is an ethical issue, but now it has
[8:48] been given legal weight; biosafety laws
[8:50] specifically mandate that this cannot
[8:51] be done.
[8:52] >> Mhm.
[8:52] >> It cannot be done—at least, "good"
[8:54] people shouldn't do it. But have you
[8:55] noticed that the fact that "bad" people
[8:57] might do it is a major problem?
[8:58] >> But could this thing, over time, be
[9:00] like IVF, right? That was also highly
[9:04] controversial at the time, and now it
[9:05] is considered a very advanced
[9:07] technology.
[9:09] >> You are right. In 1978, Edwards created
[9:12] the first test-tube baby.
[9:14] >> IVF was equivalent to that; he was also
[9:16] heavily criticized back then. All sorts
[9:18] of ethical boundaries were broken. By
[9:20] 2010, four million children had been
[9:22] born through this technology. Couples
[9:24] who previously couldn't conceive were
[9:26] able to have children, and the first
[9:27] generation have even become mothers
[9:29] themselves—they are able to give
[9:31] birth.
[9:31] >> It can still regenerate, this is a
[9:33] >> natural, and it is natural, so in this
[9:35] sense, this is still a...this is...a
[9:37] question of understanding technology
[9:40] and an ethical boundary. When He
[9:42] Jiankui was doing the low-power IVF,
[9:44] his purpose, judging by our original
[9:46] intent and public interest, seemed
[9:48] right. At the time, the opposition to
[9:50] him was more from a religious
[9:51] perspective, but they forgot that we
[9:53] have actually been doing so-called
[9:55] hybridization between plants for
[9:56] thousands of years. We have always been
[9:58] doing IVF on plants, so why is it not
[10:00] allowed when it comes to humans? That
[10:02] is another issue entirely. Isn't this a
[10:05] form of human-centric humanism?
[10:08] >> Or perhaps, it hasn't caused any damage
[10:10] to our gene pool.
[10:12] >> These questions will always be
[10:13] understood step by step as we move
[10:15] forward. In other words, things we
[10:17] thought were wrong 50 years ago, we
[10:19] might consider right in another 50
[10:21] years. Yes, it is indeed, just as you
[10:23] said, we still do not fully know the
[10:26] secrets of genes.
[10:28] >> But we have already started to
[10:29] intervene.
[10:30] >> Yes.
[10:30] >> So, do we not need to consider the
[10:33] impact of this intervention 10, 20, or
[10:35] even several generations down the line?
[10:38] >> It needs to be considered, which is why
[10:40] today, even regarding this IVF section,
[10:42] there are still a few fundamental
[10:44] ethical rules that cannot be touched,
[10:46] for example, the 14-day rule. Regarding
[10:48] in vitro fertilization, it is actually
[10:50] limited to non-human primates,
[10:52] including chimpanzees and monkeys, and
[10:54] must be terminated at around 14 days.
[10:56] It cannot be continued. It cannot be
[10:58] continued. Especially for scientific
[11:00] purposes.
[11:01] >> It can only be done for 14 days in
[11:02] vitro; it cannot be continued
[11:03] indefinitely.
[11:04] >> Hmm, why is that?
[11:05] >> Does this count as a certain definition
[11:07] of life?
[11:07] >> It counts as a form of respect. It
[11:09] counts as a form of respect.
[11:10] >> Within 14 days, how should I put it,
[11:12] it's not considered much of a life yet.
[11:15] This is a global consensus. Behind this
[11:20] convention, as you mentioned, some
[11:21] think it starts to have pain, some
[11:23] think the nervous system has started to
[11:25] develop, that the entity is starting to
[11:27] become human. Starting to become human,
[11:31] but more importantly, it is actually a
[11:32] compromise between the scientific
[11:34] community and the religious community.
[11:35] >> Pretty much, that's how it's understood
[11:37] . The reasons behind it are very
[11:39] complex, but it is a combination of
[11:40] factors. This is something no one
[11:41] should touch. Secondly, as you just
[11:43] mentioned, we cannot modify germ cells.
[11:45] This is a consensus because if this
[11:47] door is opened, there will be no end to
[11:49] it, as you don't know what changes are
[11:50] the right ones to make. But I have also
[11:52] made myself very clear. You can only
[11:54] restrict good people, you can only
[11:55] restrict those who follow the rules.
[11:57] But what if I go to some island nation?
[11:58] There might be some mad scientists like
[12:00] in Hollywood blockbusters who start
[12:02] doing it; this issue is just like human
[12:03] cloning. Actually, you might not know,
[12:05] but perhaps someone has already started
[12:07] conducting such experiments.
[12:08] >> Maybe there really are.
[12:10] >> Maybe there really are.
[12:11] >> Oh, I saw a documentary on Netflix,
[12:13] though I’m not sure if they were
[12:15] tampering with germ cells. You just
[12:17] find that some foreigners are really
[12:19] bold; they work in their own home
[12:21] laboratories, modifying their own genes
[12:23] —it's called a kitchen lab.
[12:25] >> Yes, a kitchen lab.
[12:27] >> That's exactly it. So, I’m talking
[12:29] about two issues. The first is that
[12:31] when evil rises by one foot, virtue
[12:33] must rise by ten. Research cannot fall
[12:35] behind. But as for how to apply it, we
[12:38] need to act on two fronts: one is
[12:39] having ethical conventions, and the
[12:41] second is our so-called public
[12:43] awareness. The public knows that any
[12:46] technology faces this issue; it all
[12:47] depends on how we regulate it. We must
[12:49] let more good people use technology for
[12:51] the right problems to ensure that
[12:53] technology doesn't cause chaos.
[12:54] >> This "rising ten feet for every one
[12:55] foot of evil" means ethics and laws
[12:57] must also rise by ten feet. Exactly.
[13:00] >> It's necessary, otherwise, we are now
[13:02] at a very dangerous crossroads,
[13:04] arguably for the first time in history.
[13:09] >> Regarding life—while we still don't
[13:11] fully understand it, our knowledge of
[13:13] life itself now surpasses everything we
[13:15] have known before. Can it be understood
[13:20] this way: that humanity has reached a
[13:22] juncture where there are things we know
[13:23] we can do? We’ve always known this to
[13:28] some extent, but now it has become a
[13:30] general consensus. It shouldn't just be
[13:32] discussed within the scientific
[13:34] community, but also in ethical circles,
[13:36] and our public should have full
[13:37] information—at least the right to be
[13:39] informed.
[13:39] >> Do different countries have
[13:41] disagreements?
[13:41] >> There are disagreements.
[13:43] >> For example,
[13:43] >> Europe is the most conservative.
[13:45] >> Extremely conservative.
[13:46] >> Oh, I see. But since the UK has left,
[13:49] it remains quite radical. Our earliest
[13:52] human-animal hybrid embryos were all
[13:54] created in the UK. Goodness.
[13:56] >> Ah, this is remarkable, because this is
[13:58] the birthplace of Darwin. In 1859, when
[14:00] Darwin finally put his work together,
[14:02] it was something that subverted
[14:04] creationism. You can imagine the
[14:05] constraints he faced back then, and the
[14:07] fact that because Wallace said, "If you
[14:09] don't publish, I will," Darwin, who had
[14:10] held back for 20 years, finally
[14:12] published the first edition in 1859.
[14:13] This is a truly incredible fact. So, to
[14:16] a large extent, Brexit today is also
[14:17] because they feel they can no longer
[14:19] find common ground with the EU on many
[14:21] issues. The U.S. is the most radical
[14:23] and open; they don't worry about other
[14:24] countries moving faster than them. So,
[14:26] while they appear very inclusive, that
[14:28] inclusivity is actually built on the
[14:29] clear technological hegemony they have
[14:31] already established, for instance,
[14:32] global databases and internet
[14:34] infrastructure are all in their hands.
[14:35] >> What about Japan and China?
[14:37] >> In the gene banking industry right now,
[14:39] Japan is lagging behind. Japan is
[14:41] relatively strong in fields like stem
[14:43] cell research, immunotherapy, and
[14:44] heavy-ion therapy. In Asia, China is
[14:46] undoubtedly number one in genetic
[14:48] research, and beyond that, Singapore
[14:49] and South Korea have both been more
[14:51] active than Japan recently. Therefore,
[14:53] Japan has already started to fall
[14:55] behind in this area, and the greatest
[14:57] good that current genetic research can
[14:58] do is to have everyone working hard in
[15:00] this direction.
[15:02] >> Right, let me give you an example. For
[15:05] instance, there is a technology called
[15:07] ...originally, having a child with Down
[15:09] syndrome—everyone should have heard
[15:11] of this, like the conductor Zhou Zhou
[15:13] —the incidence rate is quite high,
[15:15] about 1 in 600 to 800.
[15:18] >> In the past, if you wanted a definitive
[15:20] diagnosis, you almost always had to
[15:22] undergo amniocentesis.
[15:24] >> Right.
[15:25] >> Today, because of genetic technology,
[15:27] you can just draw blood from the
[15:29] pregnant mother.
[15:30] >> To know if it is...
[15:31] >> To know if the child is healthy or has
[15:33] issues, and then the parents can make a
[15:35] choice. If you think it's fine, you
[15:37] give birth; if you think there's a
[15:38] problem, because it's very early, you
[15:40] can basically terminate the pregnancy
[15:42] at that point to prevent the tragedy
[15:44] from widening. But even just talking
[15:46] about this issue, there are ethical
[15:47] problems abroad.
[15:49] >> For example, if you do this prenatal
[15:51] screening, the child might have a cleft
[15:54] lip.
[15:55] >> Cleft lip.
[15:56] >> Cleft palate.
[15:57] >> So, abroad, you see many parents
[15:59] feeling, "I won't terminate; my child
[16:01] with a cleft lip also has the right to
[16:03] live, and I will give birth to them."
[16:06] Okay, so as I said just now, the term I
[16:08] used is "informed consent." The right
[16:10] to choose must always belong to the
[16:12] mother. It actually depends on the
[16:13] parents, but more importantly,
[16:15] listening to the mother's surgical
[16:16] options for repair, for example,
[16:18] polydactyly or others are no problem;
[16:19] things that were once untreatable are
[16:21] now treatable. The burden brought by
[16:23] Down syndrome is something many
[16:24] families in developing countries simply
[16:26] cannot bear. This is to say, it is a
[16:28] matter of individual perspective; there
[16:30] is nothing absolute about it. What I
[16:31] mean is that this technology is not
[16:33] only popular in China, it has become
[16:35] widespread all over the world. This is
[16:36] precisely thanks to the Human Genome
[16:38] Project; because we now understand what
[16:40] this "book of life" looks like, I have
[16:41] this technology to know the child's
[16:43] condition by drawing the mother's blood
[16:44] . This technology has now been
[16:46] performed about 20 million times
[16:48] worldwide. It has been in use since
[16:50] 2010.
[16:50] >> So what other diseases can be treated
[16:52] this early?
[16:53] >> There are over 100 identifiable genetic
[16:55] diseases that can be addressed.
[16:58] Thalassemia gene. Deafness gene.
[17:00] >> Cancer. Regarding cancer, generally
[17:03] speaking, if you are born with it, it
[17:05] comes from the womb; we call this
[17:07] hereditary tumor, and the proportion is
[17:09] very low. Most cancers are problems
[17:12] that develop later on. But it is
[17:14] precisely because of gene technology.
[17:16] Today's cancer treatment is no longer
[17:19] just the old "three-horse carriage" of
[17:21] radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery
[17:23] . Actually, this touches on why the
[17:25] Human Genome Project was done; it was
[17:27] precisely to combat tumors. In 1969,
[17:31] Apollo landed on the moon; in 1971,
[17:33] Nixon took office and immediately
[17:35] increased investment in the NCI,
[17:37] proposing a "war on cancer" project,
[17:40] because we had already landed on the
[17:42] moon. He hoped that by spending
[17:46] billions of dollars, he could
[17:47] completely conquer cancer, because at
[17:49] that time, American national power was
[17:51] at its peak.
[17:52] >> And the mortality rate was extremely
[17:54] high.
[17:54] >> Back then, the U.S. was a bit like
[17:56] China today; cancer was the biggest
[17:58] problem. However, after 15 years, it
[18:01] failed, so in 1986, the cover of the
[18:03] American magazine Science featured a
[18:06] Nobel laureate named Dake who coined a
[18:08] term, a word used a lot in China today,
[18:10] often in real estate: "inflection point
[18:13] .""
[18:15] >> Point," he said, if we don't sequence a
[18:17] person's genes, we will never be able
[18:19] to conquer tumors, because tumors are
[18:21] genetic diseases and they change over
[18:23] time.
[18:25] >> Is that right? It means if the genome
[18:27] doesn't have these cancer genes, this
[18:29] person definitely will not develop
[18:30] cancer. The issue is that these cancer
[18:32] genes aren't there to begin with;
[18:34] except for hereditary tumors, they
[18:35] mostly come from physical, chemical,
[18:37] and biological factors in our lives.
[18:39] Even getting angry can accumulate
[18:41] harmful mutations. It's because we made
[18:42] a mistake in the replication process.
[18:44] Then, because your immune system didn't
[18:46] catch it, it slowly developed into
[18:48] cancer.
[18:48] >> For example, if you have a bad mood for
[18:50] a long time,
[18:51] >> can it change your genes?
[18:52] >> Yes.
[18:53] >> Right.
[18:53] >> It will, very clearly.
[18:55] >> In your lifetime, your emotions and
[18:57] environment will change you. You don't
[19:00] even need to wait for a lifetime; you
[19:02] can feel the change that very same day.
[19:05] >> Quick, start laughing! Quick, laugh!
[19:07] Conversely, it means...
[19:08] >> But you shouldn't laugh too
[19:10] hysterically, either.
[19:10] >> Right, just use mindfulness instead,
[19:12] and this person will change for the
[19:14] better.
[19:14] >> So now we......
[19:15] >> are getting to the mysteries.
[19:16] >> In physics, space and time are no
[19:18] longer separate, and matter and energy
[19:19] are also starting to blur together.
[19:21] What you call energy has a material
[19:22] basis.
[19:23] >> So it's true that thoughts can actually
[19:24] change things.
[19:25] >> Thinking requires energy, it consumes
[19:27] matter. Therefore, the mind itself is a
[19:29] very important theoretical basis for a
[19:30] person. Today, in science, we say these
[19:33] two things are inseparable.
[19:35] >> But we just can't determine exactly
[19:36] when anger or laughter leads to what,
[19:38] right? Currently, it seems that getting
[19:41] angry at least has a high probability
[19:43] of causing a series of symptoms. Of
[19:45] course, the first symptoms it causes
[19:47] won't be cancer; it primarily affects
[19:49] your nervous system first. Because you
[19:51] will produce a large amount of harmful
[19:53] substances, which could even lead to
[19:55] things like depression, manic episodes,
[19:57] anxiety, or withdrawal. These problems
[19:59] ......
[20:00] >> but it won't lead to a stroke.
[20:02] >> Strokes are more organic in nature. In
[20:04] other words, although anger can lead to
[20:06] , say, a stroke or similar issues, the
[20:08] premise is that your physical condition
[20:10] already has problems. It won't happen
[20:12] if your blood vessels are perfectly
[20:14] clean; that's very rare. It is always
[20:16] an accumulation of many symptoms. Just
[20:19] like he said, life itself is an
[20:21] exception. Because genes are constantly
[20:25] passed down, the reason we can evolve
[20:27] is precisely because there is always
[20:29] some variation. Some variations allow
[20:31] for survival of the fittest. It
[20:33] accumulates and accumulates; in fact,
[20:35] this replication is happening in our
[20:37] bodies at this very moment, and
[20:38] sometimes the replication goes wrong.
[20:41] >> That plants the seeds for something bad
[20:43] . You can understand it this way: just
[20:46] by chatting for an hour, at least a
[20:47] million cells in our bodies have been
[20:49] renewed. They die while we speak, and
[20:51] new ones are born. That’s why there
[20:53] is that ancient Greek story called the
[20:55] Ship of Theseus. This ship sets sail.
[20:57] If you replace the planks one by one
[20:59] until all of them are changed, is it
[21:01] still the original ship? For us humans,
[21:05] all our cells are replaced every seven
[21:07] years, so we aren't the same people; we
[21:09] aren't the original ones. Since we met
[21:13] and started chatting, three lifetimes
[21:15] have passed.
[21:16] >> A rebirth, then.
[21:17] >> Yes, three lifetimes already. What are
[21:19] you saying has been transformed?
[21:21] >> I haven't finished yet. The reason we
[21:22] still recognize each other in this
[21:24] process is that, despite exceptions,
[21:26] there is one thing that hasn't changed.
[21:27] The structure of our central nervous
[21:29] system hasn't changed; the topology of
[21:31] our central nervous system, which means
[21:32] you can remember Professor Xu.
[21:34] Professor Xu can remember Wentao; the
[21:36] connections of those few neurons
[21:37] between the hippocampus and other brain
[21:39] regions—that topology remains
[21:40] unchanged. The topology is like a phone
[21:42] number or an ID card; it’s
[21:43] three-dimensional information.
[21:45] >> Then what if someone gets dementia?
[21:46] >> That means the topology has changed. Is
[21:48] that how we should understand it?
[21:49] Otherwise, people... "
[21:50] >> Who are you? Who are you?"
[21:53] >> So, I heard there’s a statue at the
[21:54] entrance of your company with "
[21:56] immortality" written on the base. "
[21:58] Living forever, immortal."
[21:59] >> Ah, so if you keep replacing parts, you
[22:01] can actually achieve this immortality?
[22:03] >> Materially, it can be imperishable.
[22:05] Just like all the tumor cells we use
[22:07] today come from an American woman, well
[22:09] , let's call her a pioneer; she wasn't
[22:11] a volunteer, but these cells are called
[22:13] HeLa cells. They still exist today,
[22:15] still reproducing, still replicating;
[22:17] those cells have become immortalized.
[22:19] The amount of reproduction and
[22:20] replication has now exceeded her
[22:21] original body by tens of thousands of
[22:23] times. Meaning this one person has been
[22:24] replicated ten thousand times over. We
[22:26] use these cells for experiments; they
[22:28] are essentially the gold standard for
[22:30] tumors. Tumor cells are just something
[22:32] immortal.
[22:32] >> One thing at a time, let's take it one
[22:34] by one.
[22:35] >> Mm.
[22:37] >> First, regarding the point that cancer
[22:39] is related to genes: up to now, hasn't
[22:41] genetic research failed to help us
[22:43] control or eliminate cancer? Is that
[22:47] the case?
[22:48] >> Let me say a couple of truisms—
[22:50] correct but empty words. Humanities
[22:52] without science is often just ignorance
[22:54] . Just talking about humanities without
[22:56] scientific support. But the reverse is
[22:58] even more dangerous: science without
[23:00] humanities is dangerous. Well, of
[23:01] course. So, essentially, genes are
[23:04] selfish. But if human nature were also
[23:06] selfish, we'd be doomed. We actually
[23:08] use selfless human nature to restrain
[23:09] the selfishness of genes. This is a
[23:11] critical element of what makes us human
[23:13] .
[23:13] >> Uh-huh, these aren't empty words; they
[23:15] are very important.
[23:16] >> This is, of course, something many
[23:18] people hear and dismiss as a "correct
[23:20] platitude." Let me state this
[23:21] conclusion first; throughout this
[23:23] process, let’s simply understand it
[23:25] from the perspective of human health.
[23:27] There are three things highly related
[23:29] to genes. The first thing everyone
[23:31] knows: foreign invading genes,
[23:33] infections.
[23:34] >> Pneumonia is typical, yes.
[23:35] >> The vast majority.
[23:37] >> Actually, I wouldn't even call it an
[23:38] infection, because we are always in a
[23:40] state of "infection"—in quotes—
[23:42] since you carry so many bacteria and
[23:43] viruses; it's just that you are usually
[23:45] at peace with them. They aren't causing
[23:47] trouble. We generally assume you're
[23:49] infected. You get sepsis because your
[23:51] negotiation with your microorganisms
[23:52] has broken down.
[23:53] >> Mm.
[23:54] >> It broke down. This breakdown leads to
[23:56] too many issues—aging, the immune
[23:58] system failing, and other problems.
[24:00] This is the foreign invading machinery.
[24:01] We just talked about the first one:
[24:03] non-invasive prenatal genetic testing.
[24:06] This is something innate, determining
[24:08] birth defects and also every person's
[24:10] quality of survival. Because defects
[24:12] carried from the womb can be very
[24:13] troublesome, especially hereditary
[24:15] diseases. If social welfare in this
[24:16] area were better, people wouldn't
[24:18] discriminate, and I think having a
[24:19] child with Down syndrome is fine. If
[24:21] you actually see these children with
[24:22] Down syndrome, for example, at BGI now,
[24:24] we hire them as employees; we have
[24:26] several "Down babies" ourselves, and
[24:28] they are all lucky. Most people with
[24:30] Down syndrome haven't even seen what a
[24:31] park looks like; I'm sorry to say it,
[24:33] but it's the truth. You cannot stand on
[24:35] an infinite ethical high ground to
[24:36] discuss issues like abortion; it must
[24:38] be discussed within a specific social
[24:40] context.
[24:40] >> The hope we see now is precisely what
[24:42] you mentioned: tumors that mutate over
[24:44] time. Tumor genes start off healthy,
[24:46] but due to physical, chemical, or
[24:48] biological factors, they mutate. These
[24:51] are genes that change over time, and we
[24:53] now have ways to handle this part of
[24:54] the genes. Let me give a few examples.
[24:57] First, why do we feel there are more
[24:59] tumors? Actually, it’s a big issue:
[25:01] it’s because we are living too long.
[25:03] Yes, it is.
[25:04] >> In 1949, the average life expectancy
[25:05] for Chinese people was less than 39
[25:07] years old. 39 was the statistical
[25:09] figure, but many were not even recorded
[25:11] . Today, the average life expectancy in
[25:13] China is 77 years old. Hong Kong, China
[25:15] , is the highest, at 86 years old. On
[25:17] average, you can live to 86; a child
[25:19] born at this moment has a high
[25:20] probability of living to 86, assuming
[25:22] no war or other issues. For children
[25:24] born this century, our current
[25:26] prediction is that they may approach 90
[25:27] years old. In Japan, women in the Osaka
[25:30] region are now already living past 90.
[25:32] This means humans are striving to reach
[25:34] the limits of our genetic design, which
[25:36] we currently estimate to be between 100
[25:38] and 175 years. So we settled on 120
[25:40] years at the time, which was actually
[25:42] based on projections from mammals.
[25:44] It’s highly likely that, collectively
[25:46] , we are all heading toward living to
[25:48] be 90 or 100; that’s a very probable
[25:50] timeline. And if a human lives to be 80
[25:52] , what is the probability of developing
[25:54] a tumor? About one in four.
[25:55] >> About one in four.
[25:56] >> At age 80. If a person can live to 80,
[25:58] there is about a 22%to 25%chance of
[26:00] developing a tumor at least once. You
[26:03] might say some people get one tumor and
[26:05] then another, but that's rare; most
[26:06] people either die from one tumor or,
[26:08] once it's treated, don't get another.
[26:11] >> That is usually how it goes, so the
[26:13] most important thing is how we can
[26:15] detect it early and prevent it.
[26:17] >> So we say:
[26:21] >> There are no sudden-onset tumors, only
[26:23] suddenly discovered ones; this is the
[26:25] first tumor identified that can be
[26:26] wiped out. By 2047, the whole world is
[26:30] working on this—they use a very
[26:32] precise term, not "eradicate," but "
[26:34] eliminate." The goal is to bring the
[26:36] incidence rate below 4 per 100,000. Can
[26:39] you guess what tumor this is that
[26:41] relates to women?
[26:42] >> Could it be related to the uterus?
[26:44] >> Cervical cancer.
[26:45] >> Correct, cervical.
[26:46] >> Cervical cancer.
[26:48] >> Oh, because now there’s that—we can
[26:49] get that kind of...
[26:50] >> Two technologies. One is that the
[26:52] vaccine has become widely available.
[26:53] >> And it's currently administered before
[26:55] the onset of sexual activity.
[26:56] >> Cervical cancer actually shouldn't be
[26:58] called a sexually transmitted disease,
[27:00] because this virus is widely present.
[27:01] Some people ask, why don't men get it?
[27:03] Men are very easy to clean. The female
[27:05] cervix is generally difficult to clean;
[27:07] when the immune system is weak, it can
[27:09] be chronically infected with high-risk
[27:11] HPV. Slowly, it changes.
[27:12] >> How long does this process take?
[27:14] Several years to over a decade. We know
[27:16] that Anita Mui also passed away because
[27:18] of this. Mhm.
[27:19] >> So, during this process, as long as you
[27:21] have one check-up, I can intervene. In
[27:23] the early stages, I might use some
[27:25] medication or pay a little more
[27:26] attention; if that doesn't work, I can
[27:28] perform a simple in-situ surgery. I can
[27:31] resolve it very quickly, because it’s
[27:32] all on the surface.
[27:34] >> Right, for people who are in their
[27:35] teens now. But what does this have to
[27:37] do with genes? Do genes play any role
[27:39] in this?
[27:41] >> This is critical, because these
[27:43] cervical epithelial cells can be
[27:44] invaded by the HPV virus, just as the
[27:46] COVID-19 virus invades the epithelial
[27:49] cells in our respiratory tract. It's
[27:52] just specific to gender. What I check
[27:54] is the gene. I must see the genes of
[27:58] the high-risk HPV viruses that cause
[28:00] cervical cancer, so I know whether this
[28:02] woman needs intervention if I can...
[28:06] >> Determine a certain type of cancer very
[28:08] early through genes.
[28:11] >> Because this is a cancer caused by
[28:13] infection, and it's a long-term,
[28:15] repeated, chronic infection, the WHO
[28:17] currently recommends a vaccine every
[28:19] three years and testing to handle
[28:21] issues immediately. So by 2047, we have
[28:24] a chance to bring the incidence rate
[28:26] down to below 1 in 10,000. Hmm.
[28:29] >> Because it is still the second biggest
[28:30] killer of women; the first is breast
[28:32] cancer, and the second is cervical
[28:33] cancer. Yeah.
[28:34] >> But other cancers are different.
[28:35] >> Other cancers are increasing, for
[28:37] example, colorectal cancer. It's the
[28:39] same thing; didn't we use to have to do
[28:40] colonoscopies for colorectal cancer?
[28:42] >> Now we test stool samples.
[28:44] >> If the stool test comes back positive,
[28:46] then you do a colonoscopy. This turns
[28:48] the original 100 people who needed
[28:49] colonoscopies into five. You save
[28:51] medical resources for these 95 people,
[28:53] because doing a colonoscopy is
[28:54] troublesome for you and for the doctor;
[28:56] you need anesthesia, advance
[28:57] appointments, bowel prep, and a
[28:58] hospital visit—well, not a stay, but
[29:00] at least a clinical visit. These
[29:02] processes are actually because things
[29:03] weren't precise in the past. Now, let
[29:05] me give you another approach: still
[29:07] testing genes. I check these genes in
[29:09] the shed cells of the large intestine
[29:11] or colon lining during this process.
[29:14] These early screening techniques are
[29:16] not diagnoses; they are screening
[29:17] technologies. Through such technology,
[29:21] we can potentially manage about seven
[29:23] or eight types of cancer this way.
[29:28] >> This gene thing, it implies a future
[29:30] where we gradually learn more about
[29:31] which gene controls what, and we are
[29:33] knowing more and more.
[29:36] >> We first know it's like this: one gene
[29:37] corresponds to one protein, because our
[29:39] law of life is just like that—gene to
[29:41] protein, protein to metabolism. This is
[29:43] called the Central Dogma of life.
[29:44] >> Hmm. In the 1960s and 70s, this was a
[29:47] theory, a settled conclusion. Later, we
[29:49] found it was wrong; it's not one gene
[29:51] to one thing. It could be several genes
[29:53] to one thing, or one gene to several
[29:55] things. This is very close to what you
[29:57] just said: it's a network-like
[29:58] structure, extremely complex. Once you
[30:00] press for a mahjong win, you’ll start
[30:02] to drift; there’s a line from
[30:04] Jurassic Park that still sticks with me
[30:05] : "Life always finds a way."
[30:07] >> Life will always find a way out; you
[30:08] can't keep it contained.
[30:09] >> You go east, I go west; you go west, I
[30:12] go east. Anyway, you can't pin it down,
[30:14] so why are there 3 billion pairs?
[30:16] >> Why does the human race need 3 billion
[30:18] gene pairs, right?
[30:18] >> Hmm.
[30:19] >> That's a very interesting question.
[30:21] Actually, we don't know either. We do
[30:24] know that when all life evolves to a
[30:26] certain high level, first of all, why
[30:29] is sex necessary?
[30:30] >> Exactly. Logically, if it’s so
[30:32] magical, it should be fine without sex.
[30:34] >> It’s because once humans—or some
[30:36] species—become highly advanced, their
[30:38] genes don't rearrange easily anymore.
[30:40] We say asexual reproduction is for
[30:42] things like E. coli, viruses, or yeast
[30:44] —simple fungi—where one becomes two
[30:46] , then four, because E. coli reproduces
[30:48] every 20 minutes. Humans only produce a
[30:50] new generation every 20 years. For your
[30:52] genetic mutations to emerge, the best
[30:53] way is to find a partner and mix things
[30:55] up.
[30:56] >> If this hand of cards isn't good, we
[30:58] use sex to mix them up. Like Han
[31:00] Chinese mixing with other groups; it
[31:02] might give birth to new traits, which
[31:04] could be good or bad. But this
[31:07] maintains the human genome and keeps
[31:09] the possibility of genetic diversity
[31:11] alive, so the existence of sex itself
[31:13] is for cross-breeding.
[31:15] >> It’s the hope that the species can
[31:17] produce traits better suited to the
[31:19] environment, because in asexual
[31:20] reproduction, the traits are fixed
[31:22] since there's very little room for
[31:23] change.
[31:24] >> So, widespread sexual repression is bad
[31:27] for humanity.
[31:28] >> That’s right; that’s definitely
[31:29] right. Yes, it’s very detrimental to
[31:31] biological diversity.
[31:33] >> Exactly, and I still don't quite get
[31:35] the material basis of it. Sometimes
[31:40] it's hard to imagine, as you abstractly
[31:42] say there's a genetic code and
[31:43] information inside.
[31:46] >> Right. But we understand that in
[31:49] computers, because it's actually on a
[31:50] computer chip, it can be timed or
[31:52] whatever, it has that structure.
[31:55] >> But for humans, what is the physical
[31:57] carrier of that information? Why does
[31:59] something—who hears this information
[32:01] —actually manufacture it?
[32:03] >> We can understand it this way: let's
[32:05] use a computer chip as an analogy. Hmm.
[32:07] >> You say a transistor is just 0 and 1.
[32:09] If you add a semiconductor, it’s
[32:11] tri-state, with a middle state—so
[32:13] three states. How can this stuff have
[32:14] intelligence?
[32:15] >> Right.
[32:16] >> It’s just that when it accumulates
[32:18] enough, we call this "emerge," or
[32:20] emergence. This term, in physics and
[32:23] philosophy, means when you take
[32:25] something simple and reach a certain
[32:27] point, it suddenly gives birth to a
[32:28] property it didn't have before. You
[32:33] know, I once watched a film about how
[32:35] consciousness is created, like why the
[32:37] brain suddenly develops consciousness.
[32:41] You know, it uses a very interesting
[32:43] analogy. It says—well, this is just
[32:46] one theory—you can think about how a
[32:49] city is formed.
[32:51] >> Like, maybe it starts with just one
[32:53] station. There’s no city yet. Right.
[32:56] >> A city isn't built based on anyone's
[32:58] orders; it happens as millions of
[33:00] things accumulate. It’s like the
[33:03] human brain, which initially had a
[33:05] brain stem, a simple "reptilian brain."
[33:09] Then, as you evolve, you get the cortex
[33:11] —and it asks when a city develops
[33:13] self-awareness.
[33:15] >> It’s like there were no cities at
[33:16] first, maybe just one place with an
[33:18] intersection and one house.
[33:21] >> This is like something reaching a
[33:22] sufficient quantity. Is that what you
[33:25] mean?
[33:26] >> Giving birth to this, the word is "
[33:27] emergence."
[33:28] >> Like self-awareness.
[33:29] >> Emergence.
[33:30] >> You suddenly feel, ah...
[33:32] >> The city has intelligence. Actually, a
[33:34] modern city. Looking at history, we've
[33:36] gone from an agricultural society to
[33:38] now in 10,000 years. What kind of city
[33:40] counts as a modern city? It needs at
[33:42] least 100,000 people. The minimum group
[33:44] size for an epidemic outbreak is
[33:46] 500,000 people. Below this number,
[33:48] epidemics don't exist. Because there
[33:50] simply aren't enough people to spread
[33:51] it to. It’s this number; after
[33:54] reaching a tipping point, it suddenly
[33:56] possesses a kind of...
[33:57] >> This is Pythagoras's external world
[33:59] connection.
[33:59] >> Hmm.
[34:00] >> So look at mice; we say they have 70
[34:02] million neurons, monkeys have 6.1
[34:04] billion, and humans have 86.1 billion.
[34:07] 86.1 billion. So we are about 14 times
[34:10] that of a monkey, and mice only have 70
[34:12] million. You are at least a thousand
[34:14] times that of a mouse, so of course you
[34:16] emerge with so much so-called
[34:17] intelligence. But regarding life, I'm
[34:21] saying why must it go through this DNA
[34:23] method? Because I once heard someone
[34:27] use an analogy—though I'm not sure if
[34:29] it's correct—saying that under
[34:31] various circumstances, the various
[34:32] factors on Earth could produce life
[34:34] like humans. He compared the
[34:38] probability of this to something like
[34:40] what? He said it's like scattering car
[34:45] parts across a playground, then a
[34:46] tornado blows them up, and when they
[34:48] land, they have assembled into a car.
[34:53] >> Right.
[34:54] >> Is this possible? Depends on how long
[34:56] it takes? This process took 3.4 billion
[34:59] years.
[35:00] >> Hmm.
[35:00] >> Can 3.4 billion years allow a pile of
[35:02] car parts to assemble themselves into a
[35:04] car in the wind?
[35:06] >> That is to say, the starting point and
[35:07] the end point are simply linked as if
[35:09] there were a strict correlation between
[35:11] them. In fact, first of all, I don't
[35:14] even know if our life today is
[35:16] definitely indigenous.
[35:17] >> Hmm, it's possible it's from outside.
[35:19] >> That's also possible, but even if it
[35:21] came from outside, the universe has
[35:23] been observed for 14.6 billion years.
[35:25] In this process, there are several
[35:26] pieces of evidence that can well verify
[35:28] the principle being discussed. First, a
[35:31] better analogy might be throwing those
[35:33] parts into the sea and getting a
[35:35] submarine. It requires a liquid
[35:37] environment.
[35:38] >> Hmm.
[35:39] >> So it is a very important carrier; it's
[35:41] not like a gas drifting everywhere, nor
[35:44] like a solid that is completely fixed.
[35:46] Liquid itself is very important, so the
[35:48] Earth's distance from the sun is very
[35:50] important. So H2O is important; it just
[35:53] so happens to allow for the creation of
[35:55] liquid water. Liquid water can increase
[35:58] the probability of these parts
[35:59] colliding; that's the first point.
[36:03] Second, these chemical molecules
[36:05] naturally have a tendency to lower
[36:07] their free energy, or to lower their
[36:08] entropy. This is a fundamental physical
[36:12] property. Do I know what entropy is?
[36:15] >> I only know about negative entropy, as
[36:17] people say.
[36:18] >> Entropy—yes, entropy is a
[36:19] thermodynamic concept representing the
[36:21] degree of disorder. If we don't manage
[36:23] anything, the Earth will become
[36:24] increasingly chaotic.
[36:25] >> So, according to the laws of
[36:27] thermodynamics, in the end, everything
[36:28] will return to nothingness. The
[36:30] universe will exhaust its energy and
[36:31] enter a dead state. Therefore, humanity
[36:33] , or the reason each of us is alive, is
[36:34] that life is a process of negative
[36:36] entropy. Positive entropy is chaos;
[36:38] negative entropy is order. So it is
[36:39] order, representing the degree of
[36:41] organization.
[36:42] >> It's just that this whole law, whether
[36:43] it's purely physical or can be applied
[36:45] to human affairs, is also very
[36:47] interesting. Everything naturally
[36:49] becomes increasingly disordered. For
[36:51] example, if a building has no property
[36:53] management, it becomes increasingly
[36:55] disordered and messy; that is entropy.
[36:57] >> Right, that's entropy, and the degree
[36:59] of it is damage. So, humans,
[37:00] transforming from a jumble of random
[37:02] atoms into such an ordered existence,
[37:04] that is negative entropy.
[37:05] >> Mm. But it seems the natural direction
[37:08] for everything is how it was originally
[37:10] formed. You can imagine when the first
[37:13] virus was formed, say, a simple virus,
[37:15] it had to find a way to survive. It had
[37:18] to engage in negative entropy; it had
[37:20] to start managing itself. Of course,
[37:22] the virus isn't a great example because
[37:24] it's a parasite. So, it's generally
[37:25] believed that an autotrophic organism
[37:27] emerged first, then simplified into a
[37:29] virus, because there must be something
[37:31] that can sustain itself before a
[37:32] parasite can follow. If everything were
[37:34] parasitic from the start, who would
[37:36] they be parasitizing?
[37:37] >> Mm.
[37:38] >> But the process of forming a virus is
[37:39] actually something we’ve simulated
[37:41] through many chemical experiments,
[37:43] proving it can occur in nature. At the
[37:45] very least, it's possible to go from a
[37:46] group of inorganic substances to
[37:48] organic ones.
[37:49] >> Wow, we've heard so much. I want to ask
[37:51] Professor Xu, after hearing so much
[37:53] from Professor Yin, I’d like to know
[37:55] your thoughts on this.
[37:56] >> I still have one question, a very, very
[37:58] important question. You see, as in "
[38:00] 100,000 Whys," a very important
[38:02] question is: I understand that
[38:04] researching these genes can help treat
[38:06] diseases, right? It can help us
[38:08] understand humans.
[38:09] >> So, what is the worst-case scenario for
[38:12] this current genetic research? There
[38:14] are a few issues, but one very
[38:16] important one is that we are destroying
[38:18] biodiversity. This destruction of
[38:20] biodiversity comes in two forms. The
[38:23] first is, as many people have asked me,
[38:25] we’ve been eating masked palm civets
[38:27] for years, so why did things go wrong
[38:29] with them in 2003? It’s because you
[38:32] started encroaching on the bats '
[38:34] territory. Your exploratory reach is
[38:36] getting stronger; your range of
[38:38] exploration into the wild is expanding.
[38:40] You go mining, you go to the poles for
[38:42] all sorts of extreme adventures, and
[38:44] you release many of these bats. In
[38:47] reality, it's releasing viruses that
[38:49] already existed in nature. These bats,
[38:52] having nowhere else to go, might
[38:54] accidentally cross paths with a civet
[38:56] —like, say, by defecating on it—and
[38:59] they interact.
[39:00] >> Then you eat the civet, and the species
[39:02] barrier is broken. We see this in many
[39:04] disaster movies, that’s exactly how
[39:06] they portray it. I believe the
[39:07] probability is very low, of course, but
[39:08] in nature, this probability is not
[39:10] small either, because you have no idea
[39:11] how many bats or masked palm civets
[39:13] there are. The second issue is that
[39:14] many times you think you’ve done the
[39:16] right thing, but you’ve actually done
[39:18] it wrong, for example, the issue of
[39:19] species homogenization I just mentioned
[39:21] . You know, a lot of people ask me,
[39:22] what kind of species do we have that
[39:24] are definitely genetically modified? I
[39:27] could give many examples, but let me
[39:29] start with one everyone is familiar
[39:31] with—everyone has surely eaten papaya
[39:33] . Mm-hmm.
[39:35] >> Because non-GM papayas can no longer
[39:37] survive.
[39:38] >> Non-GM papayas are now so susceptible
[39:40] to fungal infections that they can
[39:41] hardly grow in nature anymore, so the
[39:43] vast majority of papayas we eat today
[39:45] are genetically modified themselves.
[39:47] >> But conversely, all species have
[39:49] evolved step by step through genetics.
[39:52] Now, do you know what the mRNA vaccines
[39:54] being administered overseas are?
[39:56] >> Mm-hmm.
[39:57] >> Aren’t they just injecting a segment
[39:59] of genes?
[39:59] >> Right.
[39:59] >> So people are not that worried about
[40:01] this issue anymore. That is a segment
[40:03] that doesn't even need to pass through
[40:04] your digestive system; I can inject it
[40:06] directly into your body, and you
[40:07] consider it a vaccine, so does our mRNA
[40:09] count as genetically modified?
[40:10] >> It depends on how you understand
[40:11] genetically modified; actually, when we
[40:13] discussed GM in the past, we always
[40:14] seemed to worry that eating a gene
[40:16] segment would contaminate our human
[40:17] organelles. Yes.
[40:18] >> But in reality, for example, like wild
[40:21] rice stems (jiaobai), this vegetable we
[40:23] eat,
[40:23] >> it’s also a natural GMO.
[40:25] >> Is that so?
[40:26] >> Wild rice stem.
[40:27] >> It’s a grass, botanically speaking,
[40:30] it belongs to the same family as rice
[40:32] and millet; wild rice stem used to be
[40:34] called "gu-jiao-mi," it was originally
[40:36] one of the six grains, and the rice it
[40:38] produced was called "gu-mi."
[40:41] >> Mm, it’s a grain.
[40:42] >> It’s a grain; why did it become a
[40:44] vegetable later on? Because it was
[40:46] genetically modified by a fungus.
[40:47] >> Today, when we sequence the genome of
[40:49] the wild rice stem, we can see a
[40:50] segment of fungal DNA inserted. It
[40:52] causes the stem to enlarge because once
[40:53] it invades, it causes trauma, and that
[40:55] trauma makes it swell; after it swelled
[40:56] , people found it quite good as a
[40:58] vegetable. This has been a GMO for over
[40:59] a thousand years, but you’ve eaten it
[41:01] until today without being afraid. But
[41:02] these are all good things; my question
[41:03] is what are some of the bad
[41:05] possibilities?
[41:05] >> That is exactly the issue I’m talking
[41:07] about; do you know why there are so
[41:08] many Irish people in America today?
[41:10] >> Mm.
[41:10] >> Because the Irish fled to America. Why
[41:12] did the Irish flee to America? It’s
[41:14] because when you rely on potatoes,
[41:16] >> why was there that Great Famine? It's
[41:17] because of the potato. Why was there a
[41:19] Great Famine caused by potatoes?
[41:20] Because you only brought one type of
[41:22] potato. Once a single fungus infects
[41:24] this potato, they all die. They lack
[41:26] wild potato genes and can't resist a
[41:27] foreign pathogen; they were all
[41:29] greenhouse-raised. So when the British
[41:32] Empire stopped providing aid to Ireland
[41:34] , the Irish began fleeing to America.
[41:37] That is the issue; that is the problem
[41:39] caused by species homogenization.
[41:41] Initially, people thought it was a good
[41:43] thing. During the age of exploration,
[41:45] bringing potatoes over caused Europe's
[41:46] population to expand rapidly. In the
[41:48] Netherlands and Ireland, people ate two
[41:50] meals a day: big potatoes, small
[41:51] potatoes, small potatoes, big potatoes,
[41:53] fried big potatoes with small ones;
[41:54] that was the process. But when you only
[41:56] plant this one type of potato, its
[41:58] genetics are very fragile. It hasn't
[42:00] maintained its ability to resist
[42:02] naturally; originally, the potatoes in
[42:04] the Andes weren't for humans to eat. In
[42:07] nature, they had strong resistance, but
[42:09] today you've turned them into a species
[42:11] that exists solely to supply humans
[42:13] with starch. Then we're in trouble.
[42:17] >> So, can we understand genes as
[42:19] essentially a carrier of information, a
[42:21] carrier that carries information?
[42:23] >> Exactly.
[42:24] >> Right, so we actually need to maintain
[42:26] a balance and diversity within a
[42:27] certain range. And you mentioned there
[42:30] are these 3 billion pairs, right?
[42:32] >> We humans are made of 3 billion pairs,
[42:35] which means I am information; I am this
[42:37] carrier. So, a friend of mine said, he
[42:41] thinks, could it be that in the process
[42:43] of human evolution, one day we'll find
[42:45] our current carrier can no longer fully
[42:47] sustain the amount of information? He
[42:51] mentioned that AI, or even things like
[42:53] Bitcoin, he believes are being prepared
[42:55] for AI, because they can carry much
[42:57] more information than we can.
[42:59] >> Right, will the quantity increase? From
[43:01] 3 billion to 3.1 billion? It’s like
[43:04] this: genetically speaking, one cell
[43:06] has 3 billion. There are 86 billion
[43:07] neural connections, meaning you have 86
[43:09] billion cells, each carrying 3 billion
[43:10] base pairs, and this topological
[43:12] structure barely changes after
[43:13] adulthood. If it changes, we begin to
[43:15] experience neurodegeneration;
[43:16] Alzheimer's and Parkinson's start to
[43:18] emerge. That is the logic of our
[43:19] central nervous system today.
[43:20] >> In this process, many people are
[43:22] actually discussing now, "Oh, will AI
[43:23] replace humans?" Are we currently in
[43:25] the early stages of the "Hacker Empire"
[43:27] ? There’s a term out there today
[43:29] called "Metaverse," right? Actually, in
[43:31] genetics, we have a term called "
[43:33] Metagenomics," the microbiome. The
[43:35] microbiome involves taking all of your
[43:37] bacteria and human genes together.
[43:38] Because the amount of genes carried by
[43:40] your bacteria is about 150 times that
[43:42] of a human.
[43:43] >> Bacterial genes are 150 times more
[43:45] numerous than ours.
[43:46] >> Since the volume of bacteria is three
[43:48] to ten times yours,
[43:49] >> they add up to form a collective. Oh.
[43:52] >> Bacteria live in a collective way,
[43:53] it’s not...
[43:55] >> You could put it this way: more
[43:56] microbes mean more power; more microbes
[43:58] , more genes, that’s how it is. So,
[44:01] that is to say,
[44:02] >> you need to understand one very
[44:04] important fact: I don’t see this hope
[44:06] in today's AI.
[44:07] >> Mm-hmm.
[44:08] >> Today’s AI is something I can only
[44:09] call "calculation."
[44:10] >> Mm-hmm.
[44:11] >> Perhaps "scheming."
[44:12] >> Mm-hmm.
[44:13] >> These two words are different;
[44:14] calculation and scheming are not the
[44:16] same. Of course, many people tell me, "
[44:18] My system is extremely accurate and
[44:19] precise," and I reply that your
[44:20] intelligence must be able to make
[44:21] mistakes. A system that cannot make
[44:23] mistakes is definitely not intelligent.
[44:24] >> You mean to say that calculation is
[44:26] science.
[44:27] >> Scheming is human nature.
[44:28] >> Scheming is intelligence.
[44:30] >> Calculation and scheming certainly fall
[44:32] within the realm of intelligence,
[44:33] whereas calculation, theoretically, is
[44:35] deterministic.
[44:35] >> Calculation is mechanical, isn't it?
[44:37] Scheming requires mobilizing a vast
[44:39] amount of wisdom. Calculation just
[44:41] gives you a matrix and a probability
[44:43] within a certain range, while scheming
[44:45] ...
[44:46] >> This thing is completely unpredictable.
[44:48] For example, take AlphaGo, right?
[44:51] Playing Go against humans.
[44:53] >> Playing.
[44:55] >> In the end, many people said our human
[44:57] brains were destroyed. I said no, what
[45:00] is a human brain? A human brain is a 40
[45:04] -watt computer powered by a few
[45:06] sunflower seeds or a couple of steamed
[45:08] buns. What is AlphaGo? It’s a
[45:12] supercomputer. It requires millions of
[45:14] watts of power to function.
[45:16] >> Resisting it.
[45:16] >> Mm-hmm.
[45:18] >> It means that in an industrialized
[45:20] society where everything is
[45:21] standardized, our souls are also
[45:23] crushed by this standardization. My "
[45:26] aesthetics" aims to restore this thing
[45:28] called emotion. So when Cai Yuanpei
[45:31] talked about "replacing religion with
[45:33] aesthetics," he meant how to utilize
[45:35] emotions. Could it be that if something
[45:38] has quality, regardless of what it is,
[45:40] it ultimately evokes beautiful emotions
[45:42] in me? Why did you mention those
[45:44] industrial standards just now? Because
[45:46] perhaps only by reaching such standards
[45:48] can it trigger your beautiful emotions.
[45:49] If it’s just some messy, chaotic
[45:51] thing, it probably can’t stir up
[45:53] those beautiful feelings. If you can't
[45:55] say it, is evoking beautiful emotions a
[45:57] standard of quality?
[45:58] >> Teacher Xu, the aesthete,
[46:00] >> I still think, because of Xiaoqing, I
[46:02] still want to talk about the issue of
[46:04] eating.
[46:05] >> Mhm. The standardization of hamburgers
[46:08] is quite obvious. We usually eat them
[46:11] when we're in a hurry to fill our
[46:12] stomachs, but at least they achieve one
[46:14] benefit, which is basic cleanliness,
[46:16] right? Compared to, if...
[46:19] >> Sanitary and healthy,
[46:22] >> Of course, they have many problems too,
[46:24] but basically, if we want something
[46:25] slightly better, say for dinner, we
[46:27] wouldn't go to that kind of shop.
[46:32] >> At that point, people are very
[46:33] particular, so we go to some reputable
[46:35] restaurants that are also chains, like
[46:37] having a few in Shanghai or a few in
[46:39] Beijing; going to those places is safer
[46:41] . Mhm.
[46:46] >> And if we go a step further, for
[46:48] instance, wanting quality, style, and
[46:50] atmosphere, there are generally two
[46:52] paths we tend to follow. One is
[46:57] expensive places, like going to a
[46:59] famous hotel, a high-end suite, having
[47:01] caviar and such; at least you're paying
[47:03] for the quality. And what about the
[47:07] other? Is that reliable? For example,
[47:10] in Taipei, there are beef noodle shops
[47:12] where you have to queue for a long time
[47:14] , and they pride themselves on not
[47:16] opening any chain branches. They say, "
[47:19] I only have these few shops, many
[47:20] people come, and my broth recipe hasn't
[47:22] changed for years." So, are these
[47:24] reliable? Is the quality of these
[47:26] actually good?
[47:28] >> Uh, for beef noodles, they are reliable
[47:30] , I can only say that, but you...
[47:32] >> The test of time and crowds. Right, but
[47:36] if you say it's just...
[47:38] >> Beef noodles.
[47:39] >> Gourmet food.
[47:41] >> Mhm, if it's the highest realm of
[47:43] gourmet food, it might actually fall a
[47:45] bit short. They are very refined in
[47:48] their specific trade. Japan has even
[47:51] more of these, like specialized sushi
[47:53] shops or tempura shops.
[47:55] >> Small shops.
[47:56] >> Very small shops, very famous, with
[47:59] lines that go on forever. For instance,
[48:02] there's a shop that serves loach. How
[48:05] could we Japanese eat loach? Loach
[48:07] seems like something only people from
[48:09] my hometown eat, but the Japanese eat
[48:10] it right near Asakusa. Not far from
[48:13] there, you eat loach, and you have to
[48:15] queue. Is it fried? No, it's served in
[48:20] a small iron pot placed on a charcoal
[48:22] stove, boiled with scallions cut in big
[48:25] chunks—it's a soup-based dish.
[48:28] >> Oh, it has broth, I see.
[48:31] >> And they also have carp sashimi. In
[48:34] China, for example, when we made "A
[48:36] Bite of Shunde," we had to include
[48:38] specific subtitles: "Please be careful,
[48:40] there are parasites, so take caution,"
[48:43] otherwise it would be risky to
[48:44] broadcast.
[48:46] >> Teochew raw pickled seafood, we just
[48:48] eat the Teochew raw seafood. Oh my,
[48:50] it’s so good that you can’t even
[48:52] keep your eyes open, delicious! But
[48:55] when we make programs, we have to say
[48:56] be careful with raw seafood and pay
[48:58] attention to personal health, as not
[49:00] everyone's stomach can adapt to it. At
[49:05] this restaurant, you can eat raw carp
[49:07] sashimi. Eating raw carp, fish from the
[49:11] river. This, however, is how the
[49:16] Japanese have eaten it for hundreds of
[49:18] years, and people today still love it
[49:20] so much.
[49:22] >> This kind of shop intentionally doesn't
[49:24] open chain stores, intentionally.
[49:28] >> They certainly don't; there's another
[49:30] very important reason why they don't
[49:31] open branches, which is actually
[49:33] related to ownership—they own the
[49:35] building, so if the economy fluctuates,
[49:36] they don't have to worry about rent.
[49:41] >> Hmm.
[49:42] >> Hmm, so couldn't they just buy a few
[49:44] more buildings?
[49:46] >> Yes, of course they could buy more
[49:48] buildings, but not opening chain stores
[49:50] is like some restaurants being just
[49:52] like documentaries; some documentaries
[49:54] are sold based on the producer. Some
[49:57] documentaries are sold based on the
[49:59] director. Talk shows are the same; some
[50:01] shows are sold based on the platform,
[50:03] and some are sold based on the host.
[50:06] >> Pointing at me.
[50:07] >> So this kind of beef noodle shop is
[50:09] equivalent to being sold based on the
[50:11] host.
[50:11] >> Exactly, it’s sold based on him; he
[50:13] doesn't believe he has the ability to
[50:15] do so much, and I believe many people
[50:17] have tried. I've tried doing more, it's
[50:20] just that. I can't do it.
[50:22] >> I asked the owner, because we had been
[50:24] waiting in line for a long time.
[50:25] >> Yongkang Street. Yes, waiting in line
[50:27] for a long time, it was windy and cold
[50:29] outside, and when we finally got a seat
[50:31] , it was very crowded, right? So when I
[50:33] asked him, I said, "Why don't you open
[50:35] more branches? Why not open a few more?
[50:38] " He said, "If I open more, I can't
[50:40] manage them well." I feel this is a
[50:43] very simple approach, much like a
[50:45] writer who doesn't want to overproduce
[50:47] and doesn't want to worry about sales
[50:48] —it brings us back to the point that
[50:50] he puts quality first.
[50:53] >> But if the building isn't their own,
[50:56] yes, yes, yes.
[50:57] >> They can't handle the market
[50:58] competition.
[50:59] >> Well, it's not quite that; if you do
[51:01] well, I'll just take it back from you
[51:02] and do it myself.
[51:03] >> But I do think, as you said, for
[51:05] example, the word "Pin"(quality/class)
[51:08] and "Zhi"(quality/substance). "Pin" is
[51:10] about the level or rank.
[51:11] >> Yes. "
[51:12] >> Zhi" is about consistency inside and
[51:14] out.
[51:15] >> Whether it's understanding the unspoken
[51:17] or character itself, do you admit there
[51:19] are levels of quality to them?
[51:21] >> Quality is composed of more objective
[51:23] factors. Hmm.
[51:24] >> Taste, on the other hand, is relatively
[51:27] more subjective.
[51:28] >> Right.
[51:28] >> Isn't it?
[51:29] >> This is where taste comes into play.
[51:32] >> But taste itself has many facets;
[51:34] it’s a system that seems to have its
[51:36] own hierarchy. For instance, in tea
[51:39] circles, they might consider their way
[51:41] superior and yours inferior.
[51:45] >> We’ve encountered this while filming;
[51:47] I once went to film a tea maker. I said
[51:50] , "Wow, this is truly good tea." I
[51:53] mentioned I’d had tea from two
[51:55] masters in the past couple of days. He
[51:58] asked whose tea I’d had, and I
[52:00] mentioned another name. He said, "Then
[52:02] don't bother drinking my tea today."
[52:04] >> Oh my.
[52:05] >> Wow, there are actually people like
[52:07] that?
[52:07] >> What could that possibly mean?
[52:09] >> From mutual appreciation to this?
[52:10] >> Right, it means he thinks you don't
[52:12] understand tea, so you can't appreciate
[52:14] his.
[52:15] >> Whether it’s about momentary
[52:16] appreciation or Cai Yuanpei’s ideas
[52:18] on...
[52:19] >> The question of beauty. It originally
[52:22] held moral implications, which I find
[52:24] very interesting. Confucius spoke about
[52:27] "virtue like physical beauty," and I
[52:29] think aesthetic education is a real
[52:31] method for that.
[52:33] >> Asking people to sacrifice themselves
[52:35] for others requires overcoming certain
[52:37] human vices or animal instincts, right?
[52:41] >> But if a person learns to recognize
[52:43] beauty and ugliness, there are
[52:44] behaviors I believe you wouldn't do
[52:46] simply because you'd find them too ugly
[52:48] . It’s not necessarily about being
[52:51] high-minded; in truth, if you have a
[52:53] certain level of taste, you just find
[52:55] it too ugly. That’s the power of
[52:58] aesthetics. So, if we take it a step
[53:01] further, we reach what Xiaoqing
[53:03] mentioned: the concept of "tasting."
[53:06] Like the current buzzword: "Taste it,
[53:08] really savor it."
[53:11] >> Do you think those who can't savor
[53:13] things lack the sensitivity, or perhaps
[53:15] they’ve just never made the effort in
[53:17] this regard? But if you do make the
[53:20] effort, I’d say you might avoid being
[53:22] taken advantage of. Amidst so many
[53:25] choices, if you pay special attention
[53:27] to the aftertaste and distinguishing
[53:29] flavors—like when one expert
[53:31] recommends this red wine, I’ll try it
[53:33] . Another says that red wine is good,
[53:36] so I’ll try that. This is a bit like
[53:38] how to navigate the chaotic choices of
[53:40] life, isn't it? It means consulting
[53:42] many sources, but ultimately you must
[53:43] be honest with your own senses. However
[53:45] , your senses require learning and
[53:47] development. They require you to
[53:49] improve.
[53:49] >> This, this is, of course, especially
[53:51] related to training. I'm reminded of a
[53:54] rather extreme example; it seems to be
[53:56] from Akira Kurosawa's daughter. She
[53:59] wrote in her memoirs that her father
[54:00] told her that in some Edo-period
[54:02] merchant families, to let children know
[54:04] what was good and what was authentic,
[54:05] they would give them real gold bars.
[54:07] They let them play with them as toys,
[54:09] so they would be exposed to authentic
[54:10] things from an early age. It’s even
[54:12] said that by growing up this way, they
[54:13] not only learned what was authentic
[54:15] when they got older, but they also had
[54:16] this concept of "authenticity" from
[54:18] childhood. I think if a person
[54:19] frequently comes into contact with, for
[54:21] example, nature—which doesn't cost
[54:23] money—or other genuinely good,
[54:25] natural things, you might slowly
[54:27] develop this kind of experience in
[54:29] various aspects, not just in food. So,
[54:32] what you just mentioned is that the
[54:33] appreciation of beauty can lead to
[54:35] changes in various aspects. I was
[54:37] talking about the "Four Beauties and
[54:39] Three Loves," right, right.
[54:41] >> Can you name the four beauties?
[54:42] >> Ah.
[54:43] >> Ah.
[54:43] >> Beauty of the heart, let's see.
[54:45] >> Is there environmental beauty? Yes.
[54:48] >> Then, I once interviewed a principal of
[54:50] a poverty-stricken middle school in
[54:52] Hubei. When he first arrived at that
[54:55] school, he said the school culture was
[54:57] terrible; for instance, students
[54:59] cheated on exams, and even teachers
[55:00] helped them cheat—it was the kind of
[55:02] school nobody wanted to go to. So, what
[55:06] kind of thing did he do? He asked
[55:08] everyone to plant things in the
[55:09] restrooms. He said, "We have an art
[55:11] teacher here, how about you bring in
[55:13] some plants and flowers to make these
[55:15] restrooms look beautiful?" It started
[55:17] from the restrooms, and everyone began
[55:19] to feel, "Hey, our environment is
[55:20] changing." In every aspect of their
[55:22] school, people started to feel, "I need
[55:24] to maintain this environment." He said
[55:26] that through such small environmental
[55:28] changes, he slowly improved the school
[55:30] culture and every other aspect. Of
[55:32] course, it also took a lot of effort,
[55:34] but the appreciation of beauty can
[55:35] indeed change a person in every way. Oh
[55:38] , really.
[55:38] >> Idealism.
[55:40] >> Then tell me about realism.
[55:41] >> Right, tell me about reality.
[55:43] >> Realism is when we can't figure out our
[55:45] own taste; when we can't make a
[55:47] judgment ourselves, according to that
[55:49] perspective, it’s safer to follow
[55:50] others—whoever has the longest line
[55:52] is the best.
[55:54] >> Hmm.
[55:54] >> Many people are waiting in line. If
[55:57] there's a line, it's usually decent,
[55:59] because you wouldn't have so many
[56:00] people being fooled for so many years,
[56:02] right? Of course, you gradually—since
[56:06] you now have a modern way of waiting in
[56:08] line, which is looking it up online,
[56:10] right? When a place is crowded, you
[56:14] base your choice on a lack of
[56:15] confidence in your own judgment. You
[56:20] have another option, one I believe many
[56:22] people use now, which is looking at the
[56:24] decor, the marketing, or the hype—
[56:26] which is often just carefully crafted
[56:28] branding.
[56:30] >> Right.
[56:31] >> Isn't that true? It’s not like the
[56:34] queue; it might not actually be high
[56:35] quality, but they tell a good story.
[56:38] >> Right, so look.
[56:40] >> It's just like life; you have a few
[56:42] choices. The best way, as you mentioned
[56:45] , is taste. I can judge that, and
[56:47] that’s fine, but honestly, out of all
[56:49] the food out there, there are very few
[56:51] things I can truly judge the quality of
[56:53] . Like what?
[56:55] >> Most of it. I know about pan-fried buns
[56:58] , but if you ask me about something
[57:00] else, I'm lost. For quality pan-fried
[57:03] buns...
[57:06] >> I know which part of the meat is used,
[57:08] the type of flour, whether it’s
[57:10] high-gluten, medium, or low-gluten—I
[57:12] know all that.
[57:14] >> Mhm, quality.
[57:16] >> I understand the production process,
[57:18] and I can tell if it's good or bad. But
[57:20] for most other things, not to mention
[57:22] the study of red wine...
[57:23] >> I have no way to judge.
[57:25] >> Compared to your expertise, mhm.
[57:27] >> How could I possibly be an expert? I
[57:28] can't even tell the difference between
[57:30] a bottle that costs tens of thousands
[57:32] and one that costs a few hundred. I
[57:34] feel like a total illiterate in that
[57:36] area; I’m just hopeless. That’s
[57:39] when you need them, you need experts,
[57:41] and those experts are driven by two
[57:43] things—one I already mentioned, which
[57:45] is the "classic" status. Right? And
[57:48] they are relentless in the market. Mhm.
[57:51] >> The other thing is heavy investment in
[57:53] marketing, right? If the ads and
[57:55] stories are good, we’ll go in. Right?
[57:58] Otherwise, what else can you do? So,
[58:00] how you choose food is actually the
[58:02] same as how you choose your path in
[58:04] life.
[58:05] >> Exactly. Take what you said about
[58:08] pan-fried buns or small snacks; I think
[58:10] they really serve the people. The food
[58:13] common folks love—the quality we’ve
[58:15] been discussing—isn't necessarily
[58:17] about having money.
[58:19] >> Right, right. Are you saying this
[58:21] quality only applies to so-called
[58:23] high-end life? I don’t think so.
[58:26] >> Of course not.
[58:27] >> Exactly. Any ordinary person, even
[58:30] without much money, can have a
[58:31] high-quality life—so where does that
[58:33] show?
[58:36] >> It’s just like eating, what's called
[58:38] "suiting your taste." Everyone has
[58:41] something that suits their own palate,
[58:43] but...
[58:44] >> Back to natural attributes.
[58:47] >> Right, but honestly, in today's society
[58:49] , it's impossible for everyone to have
[58:51] the same disposable...
[58:54] >> resources.
[58:55] >> You have a certain amount of resources
[58:57] or funds,
[58:58] >> and you want to be able to eat what you
[58:59] want.
[59:00] >> Right.
[59:05] >> So, sometimes quality, or taste, is
[59:07] like the relationship between a
[59:09] numerator and a denominator. If you
[59:19] want a lot, but you can only get so
[59:21] much, the value decreases.
[59:28] >> What you just said reminds me of a joke
[59:30] : "Because of COVID, I had to improve
[59:32] my standard of living."
[59:37] >> Oh? "
[59:39] >> If I didn't, I'd go broke." What do you
[59:42] mean? Every infected person's track
[59:46] record is public—which restaurants
[59:48] they ate at,
[59:52] >> which hotels they stayed at, it's all
[59:54] traced, right?
[59:56] >> So, to make that trace look a bit
[59:58] better, they raised their standard of
[60:00] living.
[60:01] >> Oh.
[60:02] >> If it gets exposed one day, you'd be
[60:04] embarrassed—I mean, if it weren't
[60:06] exposed, then...
[60:07] >> It really affects people. If you were
[60:09] someone who ate McDonald's every day
[60:11] and then you got exposed,
[60:13] >> there are many places you used to eat
[60:14] that you wouldn't feel comfortable
[60:16] going to anymore.
[60:16] >> Exactly. And if the information gets
[60:18] leaked, well, look at me.
[60:20] >> I thought you meant a miscarriage.
[60:22] Right.
[60:23] >> It doesn't matter, though. Does eating
[60:25] at a normal shop hurt you?
[60:27] >> It's embarrassing. If it's made public
[60:29] —hey, does saving face count as a
[60:31] quality requirement? Is high-quality
[60:34] life ultimately just about saving face?
[60:38] >> That's exactly the "vibe" I'm talking
[60:40] about. Many people go to eat just for
[60:46] the vibe, for the environment. It's
[60:53] clear in many catering training courses
[60:55] . They tell you to exploit people's
[61:00] psychological vulnerabilities. For
[61:04] example, why do certain restaurants
[61:06] have so many customers? Because they're
[61:10] good for photos.
[61:13] >> Oh, right.
[61:14] >> Bringing a selfie stick to dinner is
[61:15] just perfect for them.
[61:17] >> I see "photo-friendly" listed on review
[61:19] apps now.
[61:20] >> Right.
[61:21] >> Really?
[61:24] >> The most interesting part is that you
[61:27] spend 85 yuan but get the feeling of a
[61:29] 250 yuan experience.
[61:34] >> That’s it—it gives people a very
[61:36] specific psychological suggestion. So,
[61:43] sometimes when I attend forums or
[61:44] meetings with colleagues in the
[61:46] catering industry, I feel a bit sad. It
[61:54] feels like catering and gastronomy are
[61:56] two different things. We just talked
[62:01] about improving quality. Judging
[62:05] quality is an aesthetic process.
[62:08] >> Right.
[62:08] >> Exactly. And improving quality is about
[62:11] how others see me.
[62:12] >> Hey, that’s right, you’re not wrong
[62:14] .
[62:15] >> It’s the other way around. It’s an
[62:17] inverted thing. We usually improve
[62:20] quality up to a reasonable level.
[62:22] Simply put, let's look at the level of
[62:24] McDonald's. It’s an optimal point for
[62:27] profitability.
[62:28] >> Mm.
[62:28] >> The effort I put in, the staff I hire.
[62:31] They are
[62:31] >> The time I spend
[62:32] >> calculate, they’ve calculated it
[62:34] carefully.
[62:35] >> Right. Repeatedly calculated, this is
[62:37] the most suitable, this is how I make
[62:39] money.
[62:40] >> There’s a limit.
[62:43] >> For example, if I spend 50 bucks I can
[62:45] reach this 60-point level, but if I
[62:47] spend another 50, I only get to 65.
[62:51] >> People just feel
[62:52] >> That it only reaches 65 points.
[62:55] >> Ah.
[62:55] >> It's often like this; this is the
[62:57] hardship modern society brings us.
[62:59] >> Standardization.
[63:00] >> Right. It forces your quality
[63:01] requirements to remain within a certain
[63:03] limit.
[63:03] >> It has to stay right here.
[63:05] >> So, for those with high standards of
[63:07] living, if you want a 70-point
[63:08] experience, you have to pay 200.
[63:10] >> Mm.
[63:12] >> I often find now that if I want
[63:14] something of better quality, the price
[63:16] I might have to pay is two or three
[63:17] times more, or even higher. This
[63:20] applies not just to food, but to
[63:22] clothes, cars, houses, everything. Once
[63:27] you pass that optimal line you
[63:28] mentioned, any further improvement
[63:30] requires double the effort.
[63:33] >> So you have to find things that are a
[63:35] bit better, but not several times the
[63:37] price. A friend told me, he said
[63:39] >> Thinking the same way; our
[63:41] methodologies are identical.
[63:42] >> Yes, exactly. He talked about buying
[63:44] clothes, saying, look for shops that
[63:46] just opened—you know, the ones that
[63:47] prioritize materials over cost. It made
[63:49] me think of what you said about quality
[63:50] . Everyone is particularly anxious
[63:52] about this now, why? If you link
[63:55] quality to aesthetics, beauty, and art,
[63:57] all parents get anxious, because why?
[64:03] Art is now included in middle school
[64:05] entrance exams, did you know? Oh,
[64:09] really?
[64:10] >> There wasn't before. Right, now middle
[64:11] schools test it, school admissions
[64:13] require it, so everyone is...what
[64:14] happened?
[64:14] >> You noticed this is beautiful. This
[64:18] abrupt movement, it didn't...
[64:20] >> I thought you suddenly found this cup
[64:22] beautiful.
[64:22] >> It’s just low quality.
[64:23] >> Yes, look, that’s why now at art
[64:24] museum exhibitions, wow, parents—
[64:25] regardless of whether they understand
[64:26] it or not—enroll in classes, learn it
[64:27] , take their kids to see it. Even if
[64:28] they don't get it themselves, they have
[64:29] the kids lining up to watch.
[64:31] >> Then, they try every possible way to
[64:33] improve this. And then I Because it
[64:39] counts toward their grades, right?
[64:42] >> Right. It’s not just that; everyone
[64:45] truly hopes the next generation will
[64:46] have this. Our generation's belief is
[64:49] perhaps that by teaching children to
[64:51] distinguish beauty from ugliness early
[64:53] on, they will grow up to have good
[64:55] taste.
[64:56] >> Our socio-economic development has
[64:58] reached a point where everyone hopes
[65:00] the next generation can understand
[65:01] beauty and ugliness from a young age.
[65:04] >> I’ve seen many children who can play
[65:05] the piano, but I don’t think they
[65:07] truly understand music. They can draw,
[65:10] but I don’t think they can appreciate
[65:12] art; I just feel they don't understand
[65:14] aesthetics.
[65:16] >> This is not just about the soul; it’s
[65:18] about both experience and the spirit.
[65:21] I’ve been quite moved lately watching
[65:23] a Japanese animation series that’s
[65:24] been around for years called*Design Ah*
[65:26] . It gathered Japan’s top designers
[65:30] —half of the industry’s elite, like
[65:32] Kenya Hara and Taku Satoh—who all
[65:34] contributed to the planning and design
[65:36] of the show. It’s an animated series
[65:39] with many, many episodes, each lasting
[65:41] about ten minutes, explaining how
[65:43] things are taken apart and how they are
[65:45] designed. The director’s intention
[65:49] was to cultivate the designers of 60
[65:51] years from now. Sometimes we tend to
[65:56] think that the greatest artists or the
[65:57] best minds in a field shouldn't be
[65:59] serving children. I’m saying, can
[66:03] these top artists and designers do
[66:05] things that start from the very basics,
[66:07] to help them grow and develop slowly?
[66:10] But I think you can offer advice on the
[66:12] small details. For most people’s
[66:14] lives, even young people who might be
[66:16] renting a tiny space—a place barely
[66:18] large enough to stand—how should they
[66:20] pursue quality?
